I was just listening to the debate and again President Obama has repeated his rejection of Simpson/Bowles position that America move to a territorial taxation system for U.S. corporations. I guess that the whole Simpson/Bowles commission was a waste of time since neither the President nor the Vice President are behind one of the major tax reform proposals that this commission made.
The president is wed to a taxation system that forces companies to pay taxes twice on the same income. When you see just the kind of brick wall that U.S. politicians have put up with regards to taxation it is obvious that rationality and morality will never meet each other in the U.S.’s government.
*Obama also stated that since he came into office US exports to China have doubled. He was hoping, and as it turned out correctly so, that Romney would not be familiar with the numbers. Exports to China have increased 40% during this time period. That is far short of doubling. But what Obama chose not to mention was that imports from China have increased more than US exports to China. US exports to China have increased by $484 billion while imports from China have increased by $648 billion.
In summary while there have been jobs created by increasing exports to China, more jobs have been destroyed than created as is evidenced by the official US Census Department merchandise trade statistics.
*If I have time and get around to it, I’ll translate this article:
2. Oktober 2012
Baker&McKenzie-Anwalt gibt seinen US-Pass ab
This is a top US tax lawyer in Switzerland who is renouncing US citzenship. I’ll translate some of the important sentences here:
What does it tell you when leading US tax lawyers, such as Marnin Michaels, renounce US citizenship?
It would have been a great opportunity for Romney to attack Obama on FATCA and expose this abomination to the high number of viewers. I emailed his campaign at least 3 times to mention it and give them ammunition. He probably was just too scared that this would backfire against him because of his Swiss account. But I think this would have given him the edge. I watched most of the debate, and he seemed inferior to Obama on foreign policy. Just my opinion. He might have lost the election tonight.
And today, in response to my correspondance where FATCA was clearly the main point, I got a form letter about… immigration, since I mentioned that it impacts immigrants as well… It would be laughable if the subject wasn’t so serious. I understand that they can’t make a personalized answer to everyone, but when it misses the point like that, it would be better not to answer at all.
*Christophe, indeed. This would have been the first election where I was willing to vote for a democrat or republican and I would have voted republican if Romney addressed issues concerning Americans abroad. Here is another great article from today on the topic:
@Swiss Pinoy
Do you think Michaels will encounter any extra difficulties since he is connected to the whole Swiss banking debacle?
*Check out this presentation he did back in August.
http://www.bakermckenzie.com/news/BakerMcKenzieClientsTaxationBasedCitizenship/
Highlights:
Michaels then pointed out in the presentation that while it is highly unlikely
that this concept will move anywhere at the moment, it is equally likely that
this notion will not go away. As such, Mr. Michaels made some suggestions that
Europeans or those in other places that currently do not tax based on
citizenship might wish to consider in view of the fact that there may be
countries that seek to implement global taxation.
While Mr. Michaels did acknowledge that tax based on citizenship is a real risk
given the global economic environment and the need for countries to generate a
tax revenue, he also acknowledged the likelihood that the proposal discussed
during the French elections would be blocked. Among other reasons, it would
require the complete rewriting of all tax treaties that France has with every
country around the world. (I would like to see a position come out of the Canadian government that we would not support such re-writing under any circumstances.
SwissPinoy – Thanks for the pointer to the Marnin Michaels story. A powerful testimony to oppressive realities. One of the few non-English articles so far to make the grade for annotation over at USxCanada InfoShop.
@Tim, Marnin Michaels appears to base his argument solely on the recent news that Nicolas Sarkozy proposed citizenship-based taxation. He, like many other writers, mentions very imprecisely that the US is the only major developed country with such rule. (I can’t stand the term major country. What does that mean?) He may be a renowned financial manager, but it seems to me that he didn’t do a thorough research on this subject and is merely stating his opinion. I, on the other hand, did an exhaustive research and found that the US is not just the only developed country with citizenship-based taxation, it is one of only two countries, developed or not (as we know, the other country is Eritrea). I also found that other countries have actually abolished this kind of taxation: Mexico (1980), Soviet Union (1991), Philippines (1997), Vietnam (2007), Myanmar (2011). Now the world wants to stop Eritrea’s diaspora tax, and Canada was successful in prohibiting it there. If anything, citizenship-based taxation is on the decline, and I’m confident that the US will eventually abolish this anachronism too, probably during its next tax reform. It’s just that historically the US takes very long to change anything (slavery, immigration quotas, civil rights, visa waiver, electoral college).
@swisspinoy: It looks like Marnin Michaels won’t be travelling to the US for a long, long time. I also found it interesting that his renouncement isn’t until January 2013, meaning that they still have a lag time of more than a few months in Bern.
I found the last part of the announcement interesting:
Sleazy lawyer gets customers into predicament by setting up offshore trusts. When the “wind changes” he advises them to turn themselves in and represents them before the IRS. I’ll bet there are some customers who are really pissed off at him and I’ll also bet that he is afraid of the DOJ and the IRS.
Trendsetting: good signs
Two large banks in Asia and Europe said they won’t register with U.S. regulators to trade complex derivatives with U.S.-based financial companies, amid controversy over a proposed rule tied to the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.
Non-U.S. banks have been complaining for months about regulations that would force banks to register with U.S. regulators if they trade a set amount of swaps, a type of privately negotiated derivative, with U.S. banks or for U.S. clients.
Singapore’s DBS Group Holdings Ltd. and Sweden’s Nordea Bank AB are apparently the first major banks to declare that they won’t register.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203400604578072221988442386.html
Singapore bank to Uncle Sam: ‘Stick it where the sun don’t shine
http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/singapore-bank-to-uncle-sam-stick-it-where-the-sun-dont-shine-9028/
@Recalcitrant
My thoughts on the debates:
http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/prediction-obama-loses-november-6-election-making-romney-next-president/