Media and Blog Articles – Part 1 of 11 (to 26 May 2015)

3,971 thoughts on “Media and Blog Articles – Part 1 of 11 (to 26 May 2015)”

1. @ Charl,
   Thanks for the link to the Republican survey. I put the link on the Surveys page under Take Action! in the sidebar.

2. Why Uncle Sam Wants These Citizenship Programs Shut Down http://www.nestmann.com/why-uncle-sam-wants-these-citizenship-programs-shut-down?inf_contact_key=e789dfbe555ddb930b1ca273a87725b90fe503be64b14ae9a4dc68e666817bc1#.VKwWariEjFo

   My ears perked up upon reading that they issue passports with no place of birth, but hopes were dashed when it states they are now recalling those ones and reissuing new ones with POB because of international pressure from places like the US and Canada. Why is it so important for people to know where one was born, I’d like to know?

3. @Pacificia
   The RNC’s actual survey has nothing that pertains to us but it is a opportunity to post a comment regarding what you would like to see as 2016 platform issues.

4. @Polly I don’t think most Americans know much about CBT. While there are some pretty nasty bits of legislation, there is little evidence that the public called for much of it. For example, the public do not seem to have been worried about Americans married to foreigners in the 1980s. Many of the fiddly bits of tax law in the 1980s seem to have been inserted, quite possibly by the Joint Committee on Taxation, at the conference stage. This is the stage after versions have been passed by the House and Senate where the differences can be reconciled in theory. In practice, anything can happen at that stage as long as the conference committee agrees on it. So they plunk some really nasty technical stuff into a bill that can’t be altered without killing it and, la voila, it gets passed.

   @Charl
   The 7% is a problem. Personally, I don’t think that expats are slackers, but there are some key problems. First of all, the 7.6 million includes underaged children who can’t vote and above-aged children who are U.S. citizens, but whose parents resided in states that do not give the children voting rights. The average U.S.-born resident of Mexico is under the U.S. voting age. The 7% figure is definitely not the same as the voting age population of U.S. citizens abroad, let alone voting eligible population. Then there are the accidental citizens/border babies, many of whom don’t even know they are citizens. Then there are the people who don’t know the U.S. still counts them as citizens because their citizenship was retroactivly reinstated. Then there are the people abroad who last lived in states like California who may not want to vote because they would have to file state income tax returns. That’s why I think that U.S. citizens abroad who can vote need to vote in midterm primaries.

5. @ Charl,

   That’s okay. Prof. Klekowski von Koppenfels’ survey for current and former US citizens abroad gets top billing on the currently-open-survey page, but we have a few general survey links on it too (besides the Republicans, also the Democrats in the US; and the NDP in Canada) — as you mention, this latter type survey, although general, is an opportunity to bring up the issue of FATCA.

   Thanks again.

6. @Polly

   I don’t so much think that Americans want CBT more than they want us to pay some kind of tribute. We need to prove our allegiance by either paying professionals lots of money to prove we don’t owe tax, or, cut ourselves out from making healthy investments where we would – all in order to prove that in spite of abandoning the US, we still care enough to suffer as they do under the IRS.

7. @Bubblebustin
   I once heard that a democracy is at its end when the constituents find out that they can vote themselves benefits. I see that happening in America today. But what I think everybody agrees upon is getting their hands on “other people`s money”. CBT is a law which legally allows for usurping other people`s money- taking it and calling it “my own”. Who would want to get rid of such a lucrative law? Honestly? I don`t think it has anything to do with paying a “fair share” at all. It is really quite obvious that an expat gets nothing for his/her so-called “taxes”. But stop the cash flow? They wont ever do that- just as little as the Brits will give up the Falkland Islands. I would have thought the republicans overseas were just as upset as we are – but it looks like they have changed horses. I just dont get why, really.

8. @Polly

   Yet many people we talk to dismiss CBT as OK, because tax credits cover any tax owed anyway, so it’s not a hardship to comply! I don’t think its the revenue that these people are interested in. It’s important to convey to these people that making the switch to RBT is not going to exempt us from taxation, but only the way in which we are taxed, that is, as non-resident aliens are. CBT when it was introduced during the Civil War didn’t require non-residents to pay tax on their worldwide earnings – just on those made in the US.

9. @Bubblebustin
   It wouldnt be such a problem if the tax credits covered the tax owed. The problem is that we know it doesn’t work that way- as Boris Johnson rudely found out. And just add the draconian penalties to that.
   I think the opposite: I think America wouldn’t be interested in CBT if it didn’t bring in revenue. It will be interesting to see what happens 10 years down the road, when everybody is compliant and the real “harvest” is counted, sans back-taxes and penalties. Will it still be enough to justify CBT?
   But yeah- it would be good to argue for RBT and then tax as with resident aliens ( whatever that means). When/why was the original law changed to be so ruinous for expats?

10. @Polly

    The only reason why Boris and I owe tax on the sale of our respective homes is that we were unaware of our tax filing obligations when we sold them, period. I suspect it’s the same for anyone who owes taxes to the US now that they are aware. In the end, the penalties I will incur are for late filing, not failure to file or nor FBAR penalties. Boris on the other hand if he continues to resist will expose himself to the wide array of penalties you might expect for those who wilfully evade their tax filing obligations. I’m not say what he’s doing is right or wrong – each of us has to decide what course of action is best for us.

    In the long run, people are just going to renounce or avoid those investment’s that incur US tax. CBT will not be a revenue generator, in fact I feel pretty confident that it will be a revenue drain for the IRS to process all those ‘nil’ returns. Had I been filing US taxes when I had dependents, the IRS might have even owed me refunds!

    Here’s the history of CBT, according to Dollarvigilante:

    https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/1/14/citizen-based-taxation-thank-war-for-it.html

11. What’s Wrong With the U.S. Now

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-06/whats-wrong-with-the-us-now

12. @Bubblebustin
    The article says “Citizenship-based taxation is simply too lucrative for a government to give up”
    or something along those lines. Thats what I have been saying too. Seems it has been modified every few years – but never given up completely since 1861. Maybe this is what people are realising: it will never be given up. Japan did it and I think the Philippines too ( one of which was the last country beside Eritrea to do so) but they did it seemingly because they realised it was bad for their own economy. Or maybe it was more of a question of not being able to collect back then? But what a mess the world would be if every country took the right to tax its citizens as America does.
    Are we arguing here? Why are we arguing? I thought we were on the same side?

13. @Polly

    Not arguing, just stating why I don’t think CBT is lucrative and why it must go. And yes, we are in the same side 🙂

14. More of the same shenanigans — all in plans behind closed doors…

    Global Research, January 5, 2015: ‘Incomprehensible’ Secrecy: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Demands Release of Corporate-Friendly Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Text

    Proponents of the pact, which would encompass 12 nations that represent 40 percent of the global economy, are pushing for a fast-track process that would hand over negotiating authority to President Barack Obama, who supports the deal. Critics claim the TPP poses threats to civil liberties, workers rights, public health, food safety, and global financial stability.
    …
    “Please also explain why you think it is appropriate that the representatives of the largest financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, media conglomerates and other major corporate interests not only have access to some of these documents, but are also playing a major role in developing many of the key provisions in it,” Sanders added. “Meanwhile, the people who will suffer the consequences of this treaty have been shut out of this process.”

15. From the WSJ:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/01/05/ask-an-expert-tips-for-u-s-expats-using-529-college-savings-plans/

    It’s easy to leave a comment– I did:

    2:20 am January 7, 2015
    BC_Doc wrote:

    I was born in the United States but have lived in Canada since 1993. My four children were born in Canada.

    I don’t know what a 529 plan is but here in Canada I contribute to a Registered Education Savings Plan. For every $2500 per child per year I contribute, the Canadian government kicks in $500. The money then compounds tax free until it is withdrawn.

    One thing I do know is that the US government wants me to file a tax return on my childrens’ RESPs. For that matter, they want my kids to file a return too. Then they want to charge tax on any gains as well as the grant money given to my children by the Canadian government (funded by Canadian citizens).

    Does this make sense to you? I haven’t lived in the U.S. in over two decades. My kids weren’t even born there. They go to school in Canada, not the US. No other government requires its ex-pats to file tax returns after they’ve expatriated. Why does the U.S. government stalk its expats? When will it end citizenship based taxation (CBT) and follow residence based taxation (RBT) which is the global norm?

16. Wood is asking for a bit of humour on FATCA –

    Should the IRS try to emulate the Brits, spicing up American tax law and compliance with a bit of fun? It couldn’t hurt. One way of starting might be a humorous version of FATCA, America’s global offshore account law. Let’s see, any suggestions for making that law a barrel of laughs?

    Taxman Is Funny In UK, Why Not IRS?
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/01/07/taxman-is-funny-in-uk-why-not-irs/

17. Appears to me to be a negative news story – renounciation to avoid US tax.

    ‘Bitcoin Jesus’ Renounced His American Citizenship — So Now The US Isn’t Letting Him In

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/bitcoin-jesus-visa-application-denied-2015-1

18. An article from a few months ago, but interesting mention of the IRS hunting down Buddhist monks in the mountains

    http://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/10/15/no-escaping-the-irs/?utm_campaign=Nomad+Capitalist&utm_content=%5B%5Brssitem_title%5D%5D&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getresponse&utm_term=Daily+Newsletter

19. Apparently China has had CBT on the books for many years but it was largely ignored by Chinese working abroad. Maybe no more thanks to the FATCA idea. I cannot see a place to comment on this article though.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/business/international/china-starts-enforcing-tax-law-for-citizens-working-abroad.html

20. Well, kermitzii, that news could be a game changer for many. Thanks for the link.

21. America, in league with communist China and despotic Eritirea. Can’t wait until the US condemns them as they do Eritrea for same.

22. @ Bubblebustin
    I got a different perspective on Eritrea by listening to this podcast. A globe-trotting journalist, Andre Vltchek, speaks about this NE African country in light of his recent visit there.
    http://noliesradio.org/archives/92624

23. BLATANT NEW YORK TIMES FACT CHECKING FAILURE. This appears to be yet another reporter who does not understand the distinction between “taxation of residents’ worldwide income” and “taxation of worldwide citizens’ income regardless of residence” because he does not understand the difference between “citizens” and “residents”.

    You are only subject to Chinese tax laws if you are domiciled in China or spending lots of time there. Same as Canada or the UK, only the non-residence procedures are more of a PITA because all bureaucracy in China is more of a PITA and stuff involving household registration is particularly a nightmare to deal with from overseas.

    This is not even hard to find. It is not buried thirty-something paragraphs down in the seven-thousand-and-somethingth section like in the US “Internal” Revenue Code; it is Article 1 of the China Individual Taxation Law:
    http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/n810341/n810755/c1222237/content.html

    在中国境内有住所，或者无住所而在境内居住满一年的个人，从中国境内和境外取得的所得，依照本法规定缴纳个人所得税。

    Individuals who have a domestic domicile in China, or who have resided domestically for one year, shall pay individual income taxes on Chinese domestic income and non-domestic income in accordance with the provisions of this law.

    在中国境内无住所又不居住或者无住所而在境内居住不满一年的个人，从中国境内取得的所得，依照本法规定缴纳个人所得税。

    Individuals who do not have a domestic domicile in China, or who have not resided domestically for at least one year, shall pay individual income taxes on Chinese domestic income in accordance with the provisions of this law.

    Article 2 of Extraterritorial Individual Income Tax Collection and Management Regulations (I assume this is what the NYT article is discussing, even if they can’t be bothered to mention it by name) has the same basis:
    http://www.people.com.cn/zixun/flfgk/item/dwjjf/falv/4/4-1-54.html

    本办法适用于在中国境内有住所，并有来源于中国境外所得 的个人纳税人(以下简称纳税人)。

    These regulations apply to individual taxpayers who have a domestic domicile in China, and have income from sources outside of China (below referred to for short as “taxpayers”).

    The commonly-quoted definitino of “has a domestic domicile in China” (I am trying to find the legal source of this quote) is:

    在中国境内有住所的个人，是指因户籍、家庭、经济利益关系而在中国境内习惯性居住的个人。

    “An individual having a domestic domicile in China” refers to an individual who by reasons of household registration, family, or economic interest has a habitual domestic residence in China

    Debating whether to clean up my rant and make this a front page post. Apologies for the awkward translations because I’m too annoyed & rushed about this to do a better job. Note in particular that “has a domestic domicile” is my (bad) translation of “Zhongguo jingnei you zhusuo” which excludes HK & Macau.

24. @embee thanks for the link. I couldn’t get the audio working so looked up a written summary of his visit to Eritrea. Here’s a link to that.

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/eritreas-struggle-for-independence/

    It goes to show you have to be careful of assessments made by the powerful about Africa, S. America etc.

    This is thought provoking.

25. Thanks, Eric. A post from you would be good to stop misinformation in its tracks.

    Here’s what comes up with a click on the author’s name: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher/index.html?action=click&contentCollection=International%20Business&module=Byline&region=Header&pgtype=article, with a link to send email to Keith Bradsher (author).

Comments are closed.