Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 5 of 11 (Year 2018)

1,714 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles Open for Comments – Part 5 of 11 (Year 2018)”

1. “I repeat, with NO APOLOGY, that to advocate for SCE is just as evil as to advocate for FATCA.”

   Yes I thought you would.

2. “is “same-country exemption” being used as a dog-whistle word for enforced compliance with US tax laws?”

   Apparently yes.

3. I said:

   I’m just trying to understand why FAWCO is being attacked. I understand that achieving their list of goals might not solve all existing FATCA-related problems, but would it cause new problems for anyone?

   The answer seems to be no, if FAWCO’s list of goals were achieved, that would not cause new problems for anyone.

   So are they being attacked for complying with US law?

   By USCs who want US law to be changed so that they are no longer treated as tax-resident in the US and will then be able to comply with US law and therefore keep their US citizenship?

   Or by USCs who don’t care about their US citizenship but don’t want their country of residence to treat them as tax-resident in the US?

   Or by both groups (or rather, by some in both groups)?

   Why is it FAWCO’s fault?

4. @Plaxy

   I don’t believe that anybody is suggesting that anything is FAWCO’s fault. (I assume that you are referring to the general unhappiness over FAWCO’s unwillingness to support CBT and FATCA repeal.)

   To put it simply:

   There is a sense that all of the “Americans abroad” must come together in a united way to persuade the USA to change their tax policies. If some groups specifically and publicly say that they will not advocate for an end to CBT, that somehow CBT is not the problem that it is, then it weakens the general message. From there, the inference becomes: If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

   To that I would add that, FAWCO (and a number of Homelanders abroad) either fail to recognize or ignore the fact that CBT is a big problem for resident/citizens of other countries who are simply minding their own business and do not consider themselves to be U.S. citizens (my point on the SCE exemption) stuff.

   For FAWCO to NOT support the various groups who have worked hard to change CBT is to weaken the movement which is advocating for fair tax policies for “nonresidents” of the United States.

   Put it another way: by not supporting other groups, FAWCO is in effect (like the proponents of SCE) simply saying:

   Well, if it doesn’t affect me, it really can’t be a problem.

   More “ugly Americanism” in the extreme.

   What is the cost to FAWCO to support fair tax policies?

   But, I do agree that every individual and group is free to think/do what they want.

5. “every individual and group is free to think/do what they want.”

   Good. I’m glad we agree.

6. @USCitizenAbroad
   Not only that, but it makes it sound as if CBT isn’t so bad!! Personally, I think there is even urgency required- but nobody else seems to think so. If there is no united front, and if some people say “this is OK- we only need a few tweaks” then the fact that people have been ruined by it doesn’t come across. I have heard of pensioners who could no longer afford a coffee because of currency changes, or a doctor who had to close his practise. That was before the so-called “transition tax” for businesses. Nina Olsen of the IRS Advocate Services said “Why are we torturing our expats so?” The fact that TORTURE is involved seems to be so mitigated by those who endorse it, as if “It not so bad” and worse – “well it doesn’t pertain to me, so I can shit on those it ruins”.
   Not to mention the fact that expats are US citizens who are treated so much worse than any US citizen living IN America.

7. It makes me so angry. As if we were sitting ducks just waiting to be shot down because we are so helpless.

8. “If there is no united front… then the fact that people have been ruined by it doesn’t come across.”

   Those who share common goals might unite. For instance, those who want America to make particular changes to US law, or those who want to challenge their country’s IGA.

   Those who don’t agree on the goal, aren’t likely to unite.

9. Monstering people for supporting the recommendation that the IRS should stop treating local accounts as foreign accounts, is counter-productive. It certainly won’t encourage them to change their mind about not wanting their local account to be treated as a foreign account.

10. As I understand it, FAWCO have said that they’re reluctant to support RBT because they are concerned that there could be repercussions for voting rights and laws about transmission of US citizenship. Not issues which I care a hoot about, but those who do care about them, clearly are not likely to want to support proposals which (rightly or wrongly) they fear could endanger those rights.

    I don’t care about my erstwhile US voting rights, and positive loathe citizenship “transmission”, but I do care about birthplace discrimination as it affects me. If the IRS were to stop forcing banks to treat me as criminal until proven otherwise, I’d be pleased.

11. So far, I haven’t seen any proposal for specific changes to US tax law which seem to me both (a) likely to happen and (b) likely to benefit all USCs living outside America, and cause harm to none. If/when one comes along, I’ll be happy to lend moral support.

12. 1. I don’t understand why RBT should affect US voting rights, it doesn’t in many other countries who practice it. The UK allows their citizens who live abroad 15 years in which to vote after leaving the UK. If anyone is gone for that long why would voting be important to them, they do not live there and the politics should not affect them.
    2. Why should citizenship transmission laws change because of RBT? Transmission of citizenship in most countries is primarily Jus sanguinis, so children born to US citizens abroad would still be able to inherit citizenship through their parents, it has nothing to do with taxation.
    SCE is a patch up which if passed will take any momentum away from true RBT .
    Citizenship taxation is WRONG that is why it failed and was abandoned in all the other oppressive governments who practiced it.

13. Heidi – I gather that in the past, USCs living outside the US didn’t have voting rights and the citizenship transmission laws were different. You may well be correct in thinking that if RBT happened it wouldn’t endanger those rights. Perhaps Holding will make that clear if/when his proposal is unveiled, and then perhaps FAWCO would feel reassured and able to support the proposal.

14. I dont see why taxation and voting rights even have to be connected.

15. Heidi: US politics affects the world. As a US citizen abroad I want voting rights because who Congress is and who POTUS is directly influences me. I also want RBT. I see no contradiction whatsoever. France allows citizens abroad to vote, it even has dedicated MPs for them. And it has RBT. As a French citizen abroad I’ve been both free and welcome to vote. As a US citizen I’m welcome to vote in federal elections but not to live abroad freely.

16. “I dont see why taxation and voting rights even have to be connected.“

    I agree. But I don’t see why taxation and the use of a passport, or taxation and entry to the country of origin, or taxation and the need for a bank account, have to be connected.

    It’s American politicians that do this shit. If people are concerned about particular rights, such as voting rights, it’s certainly understandable that they might be worried about exactly what American politicians have in mind. Though they might not put it that way.

17. Like Facebook? Or Twitter? Be careful.

    https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1H6124

18. @Fred
    Many countries do give their citizens abroad voting rights, my question was “why should this right be threatened by RBT?”
    My personal choice would be to be allowed to vote in Federal elections but local elections would have little bearing on me if living abroad.
    Certainly the recent Brexit referendum was important to UK citizens living abroad, many of whom were not allowed to vote.
    Is FAWCO aware how the rest of the world works with many countries granting voting rights to their citizens abroad? Why should this rigjt be threatened by RBT?

19. “s FAWCO aware how the rest of the world works with many countries granting voting rights to their citizens abroad? Why should this rigjt be threatened by RBT?”

    I don’t know what FAWCO think. I know what I think. I think American politicians use US expats’ inability to influence US politics as a tool to control them. Just as they use expats’ need for a bank account to obtain the information needed to strip them of their retirement. Etc.

20. “The UK allows their citizens who live abroad 15 years in which to vote after leaving the UK. If anyone is gone for that long why would voting be important to them, they do not live there and the politics should not affect them.”

    I can think of many reasons why voting may be important to them. They may still spend time in the country, have business and property in the country, family in the country and may soon intend to return to the country.

    Heck, responsibility to the UK tax man for past issues can remain for 20 years.

    I would suggest that the issue of people possibly voting in a country in which they have no real connection or no interest is largely self-policing. They won’t bother voting, it makes no difference to them.

    Putting a time limit on voting rights is political posturing for the masses, those few that have been long gone with no real link returning a handful of votes make no real difference but I’m sure it makes UK citizens happy to know that those who abandoned the nation have been stripped of something, punished in some way.

    Ring any bells?

21. @Mike
    Abandoned the Nation?
    How does working or retiring abroad mean abandoning ones Nation?
    That’s the sort of tribalistic remark that fuels the ugly Nationalism that is dividing the UK.

22. @ Mike
    Does one say “My one vote does not count among the many, so I won’t bother voting’?
    Whatever the result of the referendum and however few, those UK citizens living abroad should have had the right to vote in a referendum that effected them directly, if fact it was considered to override the 15yr rule but rejected because of the time constraints.
    I know you and I disagree over Brexit, so perhaps we should stick to Brock business and call truce.

23. “Abandoned the Nation?

    How does working or retiring abroad mean abandoning ones Nation?”

    You tell me why people feel this way, but they clearly DO. Surely that is one thing that has been made abundantly clear .

    I’m merely answering your question which was –

    “If anyone is gone for that long why would voting be important to them, they do not live there and the politics should not affect them.”

    So I explained why there are many reasons.

    I have zero idea why you bring up Brexit.

24. Well I think we do agree that switching to RBT should not affect voting rights for citizens abroad. Interesting to note that the US for a while both had CBT and lack of voting rights abroad. Interesting that this persists in a way in some cases where US citizens abroad without a previous US address cannot easily register to vote: CBT without voting rights.
    But of course if taxation without representation is a nice slogan, some will say that with RBT we’d be getting representation without taxation.

25. I suspect, Fred, that most that will be happy to see the back of CBT will be perfectly happy to forego any voting rights, often because they never voted anyway.

Comments are closed.