Farewell America | Hacker News Reader

Farewell America

zerohedge.com

41 pointsFlemlord62 comments

Most of you miss the point. I grew up in Switzerland and have a U.S. passport because my father is american. I know countless other people who have U.S. passports but haven't been in the U.S. for years. They will never be in need of medicare nor do they care what the americans do, never the less they have to pay US taxes to pay for politics that they don't neccessarily support in a country they have never lived in.

This has been accepted by the other nations and they have tried to comply with these rules as much as possible. Switzerland has stricter privacy laws which allows people to evade taxes easily. The problem is, the swiss still pay their taxes even though they aren't forced to – and there are numerous studies suggesting that not forcing people to do something actually works better. I can completely understand nations who want the swiss to close this loophole.

Recent events, this was confirmed a friend managing relations with the U.S. at a big swiss bank, made a lot of people rethink whether they still want to keep their U.S. passports and are getting rid of them. These people are have been living in Switzerland for years made their fortune in Switzerland and plan to retire here. Is there really any reason why they should pay taxes, just because they were born in the US?

However you should read the second part, in which they start talking about estate tax. In this example he talks about non-US citizens, people who have invested their money in the U.S. Obama now wants to make a law that will tax estate in the U.S even if the owner is not in possession of a U.S. passport or a greencard. Doing an MBA in the states is reason enough to being taxed. This means that a wealthy individual who owns US property or stocks & bonds and spent some time in the US now has to pay up to 45% of estate tax in the U.S. on his U.S. property. Just because you own German stocks, should Germany get access to all your financial accounts and be able to freeze the assets when you pass away to determine if you should be taxed in Germany? This is absolutely ridiculous and as they mentioned in the letter, the additional tax revenue will not create enough tax revenue to solve the problems of the U.S. That's why they are suggesting that their clients should withdraw from investing in the US, because that 2 month vacation in California suddenly means, that they'll take 45% of your Apple shares when you pass away.

As near as I can tell, this article says "The U.S. won't turn a blind eye to private banking tax evasion schemes anymore, so we're out of here".

So long and please don't come back. As long as there exist large loopholes for high-net-worth folks to evade taxation, we will never get to bottom of "what is fair and reasonable taxation".

To be fair, they're also saying that people shouldn't pay taxes to the U.S. because Bush was evil.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Especially when you consider Swiss banking history and their willingness to hide money for just about anyone.

Obama is in a tight spot. Tax revenues are _way_ down. The U.S. not only needs to pay for ongoing costs, but for bad debts in our economy. Offshore private banking should have been stopped long ago, before it started. Would Obama be going after them so hard if the U.S. was not in such a tight spot? Its hard to say as its always a hard call to go after this level of wealth. At this point, I think he has little choice.

I hope that you don't agree the idea that people don't have to pay taxes because they disliked Bush. It's insane.

I don't understand this statement in connection to your first one.

I think its fine for people to take a stand for political reasons but not necessarily insane. That is not what has happened here. If they did not like Bush, they had 8 years to pull out of the U.S. when Bush was in office. They did not. They pulled out when Obama's attorney general started going after clearly illegal tax evasion.

I am not happy with the fact that I will be paying for the rest of my life for the costs of Bush's spending. You do understand how much the national debt and credit exposure rose during his terms, don't you? You do understand that "no new taxes" generally gets interpreted as "we'll silently create new debt"? I am highly conservative when it comes to money. I pay as a I go, and encourage others to do the same.

It seemed to me that a large part of their argument was that foreigners were required to pay inheritance tax on the value of all US assets, even though they weren't us citizens. That doesn't really seem fair to me.

Why? The US Government taxes activity within its borders. It's not different than foreigners paying sales tax on stuff bought in the US.

Now, I know next to nothing about international inheritance and estate tax policy, but I'd have to assume many, many other nations have identical policies, no?

No, the problem is that the US government taxes activity by its citizens (and even ex-pats) outside of its borders, and is fairly unique in doing so.

It seems clear to me that someone who isn't deriving any benefit from the "protections" of the US government shouldn't be required to pay for those protections. Otherwise, it really is just a protection racket.

As a U.S. citizens living in China for many years, I still consider the U.S. my home long term. I receive a reasonable tax deduction for living out of the country the majority of each year, and that is a fair tradeoff. The U.S., my home, still needs to survive and invest in its future. Taxes are the critical element for this.

So when you say "protections". Well, if I'm not living in the U.S. "right now" I'm not right now receiving protections, right? Not really. I am. I can go home anytime I want if things get too tough for me in China. I have the safety of knowing their are local police and fire departments in my home town protecting my house, for example, the things that non-citizens don't want to pay taxes to help support.

Even if I were living in the U.S. right now, I wouldn't be pulling money from Social Security or other forms of aid. But the "protections" are their whether I'm currently using them or not.

"I have the safety of knowing their are local police and fire departments in my home town protecting my house, for example, the things that non-citizens don't want to pay taxes to help support."

I don't get it. Why would non-citizens not want to pay for police and fire-trucks? Don't you pay for those essential services in China, or if you do, do you consider those an unnecessary burden there?

If you own a home, even as an investment as a foreigner, you want to make sure it doesn't get burned down or broken into. This costs, and taxes are used to pay those costs. What will happen to the value of your home if the local water, sewage, roads, schools are not maintained? Even if your child odes not go to school in that district, a high quality school adds significant value to your home price.

In China, I pay taxes on my home, and the gov is expected to use some of this money to protect my home there. I'm not being double taxed, I have two homes and pay for each in their respective countries.

I think you're overlooking the key part of my point.

I'm saying that the person has no home in the USA, no nothing. But the USA still taxes income made overseas. Heck, even if this hypothetical person renounces his citizenship, they continue to take the taxes for another ten years!

The reason they are expected to pay is because they made a choice to come to the U.S. and become a part of that society. If you don't want those implications, don't make that choice.

The reason people make the choice is because they want the benefits they may get from coming to the U.S. I realize it is too hard for many that come to the U.S. to become citizens; we need to fix that problem. Our immigration strategies are not clear and makes immigrants pay on both ends of the deal.

But really, if you want to come to the U.S., suck out some wealth, and then say "so long", well, you'll get what's coming to you.

Not to mention you have access to the US embassy in China, which is also supported by your taxes (and mine!).

yep, but citizen's services have declined over the years. Used to, I could walk into the main consul and see someone. Now, I have to go to the appropriate office after making an appointment perhaps weeks ahead.

To be sure, much of the reason we have consul services in other countries is not just for benefit of visiting U.S. citizens. We also pay fees when we use such services. Consuls/Embassies exist for business development and foreign policy management as well. A U.S. citizen that has never left the U.S. benefits from those services indirectly.

But the things they mentioned, US Treasuries, stock in US companies ARE benefiting from the US gov't protection. Its not like they are taxing Swiss citizens on Swiss stocks traded on Swiss stock exchanges.

They may be fairly unique in doing so, but the US is a fairly unique country in terms of percentage of the global economy. Other countries may have no tax in order to entice more investment, the US does not have to do that. If you don't want to pay the taxes, don't invest in the US economy.

That may be what the OP mentioned, but it's only part of the picture. If I'm an ex-pat, and make my money as (say) a laborer in another country, my income on that labor will be taxed by the US government. What right do they have to it?

the things they mentioned, US Treasuries, stock in US companies ARE benefiting from the US gov't protection

The companies that our hypothetical expat owns the stock in already paid corporate income taxes for their own protection. Why should he pay again for it?

Really, the questions here are

* Should the US government be able to dictate the laws of foreign lands, in order to satisfy its own choice of tax regime?

* Should the US government be able to dictate that foreign corporations provide data to the US, forcing those foreign corporations to bear the costs for enforcing the American tax regime?

* Should the US government be able to dictate the laws of foreign lands, in order to satisfy its own choice of tax regime?

No they should not. But this is not what's happening here. The transactions originated in the U.S. by and through U.S. entities.

* Should the US government be able to dictate that foreign corporations provide data to the US, forcing those foreign corporations to bear the costs for enforcing the American tax regime?

Again, that's not what's happening here. When UBS or any other foreign bank operates in the U.S., it is incorporated as a U.S. entity and must follow U.S. laws. UBS and such have chose to say "oh, those customers we acquired in the U.S., well, that data is back in Switzerland, and we have strict privacy laws there, so no can do". Sorry, but the transactions originated in the U.S. through the U.S. operating entity, Swiss laws have no say here.

These banks have gotten off incredibly light. The U.S. has plenty of existing laws on the books to allow them to seize the assets of the entire bank for their illegal behavior. The only reason they did not is because seizing Swiss banks would have unknowable repercussions from global elite.

Even if their argument was _only_ that one tax issue, its still a legitimate U.S. tax. Allowing non-U.S. citizens to participate in transaction without taxation of U.S. property, yes, private property, amounts to forcing U.S. citizens to carry a larger part of the tax burden.

However, this is just their stated issue. The real reasons are much larger than this one taxable interest.

If Swiss citizens (or any other doing biz with this "neutral" country) don't want to pay U.S. taxes, they can buy and sell property in Switzerland or some other country that doesn't mind its citizens carrying the tax burden for non-citizens.

How about temporary workers (e.g. 2 year work stint in a bank, etc.) in the US having to pay social security and medicare taxes during that time; a tax for a future benefit that they will never see. I always thought that was super unfair.

That one does seem unfair. To get to the bottom of your issue, you have to figure out how to deal with the case of what if you later choose to become a permanent resident/citizen? Would we need to collect a large sum of back taxes on you?

Are you certain you get no benefits as a temporary worker? I am looking into getting my wife non-permanent-residency in the U.S. One part of this is me proving, through prior tax filings, that I live well above the poverty level for a family of 3. The reason for this is once she is here, she can file for welfare and such. So apparently, a new resident, even non-permanent does have some social benefits: welfare, emergency health care, etc.

The tax structure is complex, uneven, and government spending is not well controlled. I feel that if we fix issues like we are trying to do with offshore banking, we can get to the next part, which is determining more fair taxation. So long as there are ways out for some, there is not enough force to fix tax fairness issues.

Many countries have agreements where if you pay into a national pension in one, it will count as having contributed to the other should you ever return. For example in Japan where I pay into the national pension plan, most of that could be counted for Social Security if I moved back to the States (or, I could opt for a single payment immediately).

Social Security and Medicare are not pensions -- they are welfare programs. The IRS is not even allowed to tell other agencies how much you've paid.

I don't know. Tax authority will try to get maximum benefit in both ways. For H-1 B holders and Green Card holders. When they leave U.S., they lost their right to claim Social Security benefit and Medicaid they paid to U.S. in future. Is that fair? I know it depends on which side you are standing.

Its a tough call as to whether to treat H1-B and Green Card residents in this way. My personal feeling is that people that come here under such programs should be looking to make the U.S. their home and therefore start paying into the system. It clearly is a problem that we make it so difficult for them to complete the process.

So should we:

A - not collect those social taxes until you complete the process and then ask for years of back taxes once you become a citizen?

B - not collect at all and treat them as temporary workers that we can throw out at will with no intention if letting them become citizens?

C - collect the taxes and let them have it back if you leave and don't finish the process of becoming a citizen?

There are other choices, but that should show their are problems with any way we choose.

Maybe B. is the current choice. Meanwhile if those H-1Bs had joined 401k plans and had U.S. securities/properties. When they go home to India or China and found a successful business. U.S. IRS can wait for 30 years when they died and request frozen assets for unpaid estate tax for their U.S. and India/China assets.

I guess when that happens, china/india will go to war against U.S. for sovereign power over taxation.

I think by that time, China and India will be well embroiled in trying to overtax as well. Do not assume the U.S. position is unique in that somehow the water here makes our brains fuzzy. It is simply a case of position relative to others.

US Tax code is the most unfair set of laws I've ever seen to be honest. Most countries wouldn't even dream of demanding the levels of indentured servitude that the IRS feels is their right to collect.

In fact, I'd say the only state that is worse at screwing foreigners is - surprise - Switzerland.

I'll take the downside. The ability to move capital outside of nations is, in my opinion, critical to freer government and society.

It is useful (I won't agree with critical) in some respects for overall wealth creation. For example, leveraging outside wealth into our stock markets. It does amount to U.S. citizens paying tax on the same transactions that non-citizens avoid.

You can still move capital out of the US. If you do not wish to pay taxes on your capital gains, you can move yourself outside and take up the citizenship of another country, while renouncing that of the US.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing preventing you moving (say) a million dollars of your personal, post-tax income to Switzerland and just parking it there if for some reason you feel it's not secure here. You have to declare the fact but it's not like there are capital controls in place that prevent you from doing so - I'm quite willing to be corrected on this if you know otherwise.

No, when you are dead. Since you were once U.S. citizen in tax sense by owning U.S. properties and securities. (including you as permanent residents, or H1-B visa holders) The U.S. tax authority now has right to go to Swiss banks to request freezing of assets.

The worse part is when calculating your tax, the U.S. tax authority will treat you as a non citizen so they can tax assets more than 60k, instead of usually 1 million in 2009.

This just happens to one of the Taiwanese Billionaire, Wang Yung-ching. He owned U.S. properties and his company Formosa Plastics Corporation now is trying to estimate the amount of the tax they owe to U.S. tax authority, even the company is not a U.S. company and he has no U.S. citizenship and permanent resident status. But because both entities owns U.S. properties. The U.S. tax authority has their bites to all the company assets in Taiwan, too.

Meanwhile, his heirs in Taiwan still need to pay the inheritance taxes for their own shares of the inheritance.

Hmm, that sounds interesting but it seems much more complex than you suggest. Mr Wang died in new Jersey and left no will; so far it seems there has not even been a decision over whether his estate should be divided by up by a NJ or a Taiwan court, which would result in different outcomes since some of his unmarried lovers would have inheritance rights under Taiwanese law.

http://www.probatelawyerblog.com/2009/08/new-jersey-hosts-es...

I also found information about estate taxes being paid in Taiwan, but not in the US: http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xitem=54144&ctnode=419&...

Incidentally, HN readers might be using one of Mr Wang's chipsets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Yung-ching

Thanks for amending it. I thought it will not be that popular for U.S. audience for his story so I simplified it. What I want to said is he is not a U.S. citizen and permanent resident. But he owns properties in U.S.

I wonder what will be the case for Morris Chang? He retired from Texas Instrument after he was sure his pension and stock was vested. Then he left U.S. to Taiwan to found TSMC.

http://benefitslink.com/articles/guests/washbull080630.html

Summary (if you meet any of 3 tests, example net worth of $2 million) if you relinquish your US citizenship any unrealized capital gains must be "marked to market" and you have to pay taxes on that amount.

Is this actually possible for regular people? If someone, for example, was fed up with the US, where could they go?

You hear the idea of getting out if you don't like it often. But, I think it's BS.

Does anyone have facts that dispute my assertion?

It isn't quite that simple if you're a US citizen. Clinton closed that loophole. You are still liable for worldwide tax for I believe 10 years if the IRS decides you renounced your citizenship for tax purposes.

The US is also the only major country that taxes it's citizens regardless of residence. Yes there is a large deduction, but you still have to file and pay anything over that deduction.

The big thing preventing you from moving your money to say Switzerland is that most international banks including those in Switzerland don't dare to touch US clients for the same reasons as described in the document.

I've thought about your comment some more since I first read it. Can you back this up? I mean real numbers? Especially since you are going down a path of comparing an education bubble with a property bubble. I'm not criticizing your article, I thought it was well written and deserves to be fleshed out more. I expect some real numbers to show how moving capital around so liberally betters all society.

I have watched the effects of China free trade. There is certainly some value created. But lots of negatives, In the last ten years (since WTO membership), the clean ground water in China has gone from over 50% to less than 5%. Imagine that, 50++ years of "Communism" didn't kill all the ground water, but less than 10 years of "Capitalism" did. I see the wealth gap in China growing to a point where what has been a growing "democracy" of sorts is getting clamped done due to the "middle class" waking up and saying, "hey, where's my share?".

I want to see real numbers instead of hand waving econo-speak. Can you provide any of that? I've been listening to the "don't worry, this derivative stuff is good for you" bullshit for 20 years (I was lead architect for several very large software systems for them in the 90s). I have yet to hear some smart person be able to back this up.

> "So long and please don't come back."

I'd like to know where they intend to go. No western, industrial country wants their profiteering behinds amongst its citizenry, and certainly Canada and all of industrialized Europe would frown on their shenanigans.

Their only options are tin-pot tropical banana republics or the former Soviet bloc.

Would you consider Netherlands, Luxembourg (or Switzerland for that matter) tin-pot tropical banana republics?

I do consider that in some cases they have no problems abusing laws of other nations. The countries you mention are very small. They could not accumulate the wealth they have in a vacuum. One thing small "banking" countries have subsided on for ages is helping people/companies in other countries hide their money. If these small and noble nations are indeed noble, they will find a way to survive without doing this. They already have a head start. If we cut them off now, will they be able to survive as they have without continuing to engage in illegal banking? Or how long will it take them to devolve into banana republics?

Did you read the part about foreign non-resident aliens being subject to US inheritance tax law, simply because they own shares of US companies?

It's nice to have different countries with different laws and customs. I don't want to be subject to US law just because at one time I had an interaction with some US entity. This opens the door to all kinds of over-reaching.

Good.

A person who personally profits from owning shares of a US corporation should pay taxes on those profits.

Um, that's not the best policy to pursue.

Usually, you pay tax in the jurisdiction whose services provided by the tax you will use. I'm Canadian, and pay Canadian taxes, because I use Canadian services.

If I own a small piece of say, Disney, I can usually apply for an exemption to some or all of the income tax because the US recognizes that I live and work in Canada, and pay taxes there. This encourages me to buy more Disney shares.

Guess what happens when the IRS decides that I have to pay them, while at the same time getting taxed by the Canadian government? Exactly. I sell Disney.

You right, it is screwed up. You should write to your Canadian representative to let them know you are being unfairly taxes by Canada for a service they do not provide.

Why should Canada profit from your stock transaction for a U.S. entity? Canada doesn't pay for the costs of allowing Disney to keep Mickey under intellectual property protection indefinitely. Canada doesn't pay for the costs of running the SEC. The U.S. does. I think a stock appreciation tax (capital gains) should be paid to the country the stock is listed in, i.e., where you made your investment. Same with property, which this thread started with. Pay your taxes where the value was created.

Canada taxes my income. The US waives the taxes on the stock because of this. Thankfully we've got pretty good tax treaties, and Canada is a little better versed in dealing with partial residents, as is Europe.

Canada doesn't pay for the costs of running the SEC.

That's an interesting point and I don't necessarily disagree. Of course if they followed that line, they wouldn't be killing American expatriates now would they?

I agree that taxes, just about everywhere, are uneven, unfair, and horribly misspent. I have an interest in fixing this. I think step one is to get everyone to feel the pain. Then we can have honest debate about what is fair and continue to adjust. At the moment, there are too many ways that some people simply don't pay. As long as this happens, there is not enough force to fix the problems. When I say there is not enough force, imagine if only 10%, in a certain tax situation, can afford to dodge the tax. It is most likely this 10% has more strength/wealth than the other 90% that do pay. In aggregate, they will use some of the gains they have made to apply a force to not change the structure which allows them to dodge the taxes. This is a problem of uneven strength. And it will continue as long as we allow the loopholes to exist.

I would agree with your loophole assessment. The easiest way to close such a loophole is to simply shift from income taxes to consumption taxes. (i.e. VAT and the like)

Then, you get two (perhaps three) desired effects:

1. Loopholes don't exist. (or exist for everybody)

2. Adding more value is not punished, consumption is.

3. The last effect is that it may slow growth, which may or may not be desirable.

The U.S. would never allow this to happen because then U.S. citizens would be able to invest in equities in someplace like Hong Kong and pay much lower taxes. It would be very nice if this happened.

Most people savvy enough to make international investments have setup structures that ensure they don't pay any tax at all. Forcing the issue and making everyone pay where the value is generated would be a win for each country. The U.S. has lost massive potential tax revenue by not collecting on foreign investment gains in U.S. entities. China does not need to make such a move as they already have in place a much larger protection deal going: your gains in China for the most part, get locked up in RMB and can't easily be moved out of China. So although your foreign invested capital gains are not taxed directly, your gains mostly have to get reinvested in other China interests. Now that is a sweet racket!! Its t least on par with the petrodollar scheme.

Can you provide references? Are you saying that the U.S. transactions (includes equities) may be subject to U.S. taxes? If so, that seems fine. I don't see any claims to non-U.S. property.

Be aware: reading Zero Hedge may be hazardous to your health.

I have to agree. It does have some good tidbits every now and then, but mostly spits out some derogatory non-sense. Does more harm than good.

It's somehow considered very professional and underground, but from what I've read by real pros in the field, the guy mostly doesn't seem to have any clue what he's writing about.

Best guess on the street is that it's actually a collective of about 40 people.

The gold fringers posting in the comments don't seem to help the site any.

Can anyone out there recommend good econ blogs/sites? I'm an econ novice. Thanks!

- I run an advisory over at investingwithoptions.com, but it's more short term and not econ.

- Zero Hedge is good if you take it with a grain of salt

- Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture

- paul kedrosky's blog

couple others, but they interlink with each other

Your recent post on the education bubble is well written. I look forward to future installments. Since I assume you make financial decisions with hard numbers, I'm hoping to see some as this thesis continues.

So the "article" consists of one sentence which links to another article and says I should read the other article. This is such blatant hit farming that even Slashdot would be ashamed of it. I am sure the other article is a fine and important one, but I am just not going to click on it out of principle.

I wish I could mod stories down. How much karma does one need for that?

I'm guessing you need admin access to the database to mod things down. Flagging is all there is so far as published info.

"...over the last 60 years has unquestionably been one of the most aggressive nations in the world .... With breathtaking moral duplicity, the USA maintains enormous offshore havens ..."

Thanks to Noam Chomsky ... and almost noone else ... I already knew all that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com