The worldwide tax law sucks even more for an individual. And it makes absolutely no sense when you’re not even a citizen!
But if you are a non-citizen who is a resident for tax purposes, then yeah you are out of luck.
^ Not meant as sarcasm, just noting the possible reason the spellchecker gets confused.
My mention of misspelling was there only to prevent another person from pointing it out, but alas, I still failed it seems.
jumping through literal hooves would be hilarious.. lol
This thread was about US citizens living abroad, which is a whole different issue.
No they're not. You're confusing the already commonly-confused concept of legal personhood with citizenship.
> but they can contribute unlimited campaign contributions
Citizens United ruled that actual human beings had the right to make unlimited campaign contributions and that the right to do so could not be rescinded just because those flesh-and-blood individuals decided to pool their money into a corporation. People have the right to organize for political action and congress cannot take that away.
If I have pooled my 'right of personhoop' contributions into a corporate asset base and thus absolved myself of liability laws regarding the disposition of this asset base -- what basis do I have to have to claim 'my' personhood rights over how this asset base is distributed to political campaigns?
If what you say is _actually_ true then it should be illegal for corporations to disperse campaign funds in anything other than an amount that _exactly_ reflects the relative ownership amount of every single stockholder in that corporation -- otherwise an individual shareholder's claim on the percentage of personhood ownership of the corporation has been rescinded.
A corporation still cannot make unlimited campaign donations. They can however spend their money however they choose. As long as they are not coordinating with any compaign.
If a candidate is running and promises to raise income tax to 99%, then I can form a political action committee or corporation and spend as much money as we want trashing the candidate that is pushing that idea. We cannot, however, donate unlimited funds to his opponent or work directly with any campaign, pay their expenses, etc.
It is a perfectly reasonable freedom that just happens to have negative consequences.
No, it didn't. Campaign contributions are still limited.
Citizens United built on the established precedent that people unaffiliated with campaigns are free to spend their own money how they wish, as long as they don't coordinate with campaigns.
Citizens United ruled that this right applies to people who pool their money together.