VAT is extremely regressive and harms most people. UBI will be inflationary, and it's not clear that stimulus will counteract that, especially with a VAT draining profit from every step of every purchase like a supercharged sales tax.
A 10% Value-Added Tax *on its own* is regressive. But, combined with a $1,000/month UBI for every adult, is very progressive. It represents an increase in buying power for roughly 87% of Americans. Those people who are getting more than $12,000/year from mutually exclusive benefits (like SNAP and TANF) already (which is a very small percentage) would be protected by having their programs compensate for the VAT.
When it comes to inflation, I’m not an economist, but according to the Quantity Theory of Money (QToM), no, because there is no more money in the system, it is simply moved around.
This is the first I've heard of the bolded.
The problem with Yangs idea is that because it is a sales tax, it must be set to be a rate such that the mean purchaser of VAT eligable goods pays the mean tax contribution and receives no net effect from the program. Someone who buys less than the mean amount of goods will receive a credit, someone who buys more will pay a tax, but that tax will be based on the amount of GOODS they purchase, not their income or wealth. It is trivially easy for the richest to avoid, considering they buy far fewer goods in the US than their income would 'predict', and have far more options to purchase, use, and store goods overseas.
UBI should be paid for by a wealth tax or an income tax. Otherwise it will always end up being a targeted transfer between those in the 60th-80th percentiles of wealth to those below them. You MIGHT be able to jerry rig some nonsense to make a VAT progressive, but it will NEVER be as progressive as an income tax would have been if it funded the same program.
Going overseas is an extremely effective way to avoid a wealth tax.
Umm, not really.
US citizens still need to file taxes every year, even if you're overseas. If you make enough money, you still need to pay taxes, on both your US income and any foreign earned income as well.
The only way the rich can fully avoid the tax man at all is by going overseas and renouncing their citizenship.
Don't even get me started. Promising to do something about that would pique my interest in virtually any of the candidates. Right now between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit the whole thing means that a lot of people do a lot of paperwork in order to not pay anything to the IRS. Even just letting people sign a single page document that says that they lived overseas for 330 days in the past year and made less that some dollar value so they're in the clear would be a huge improvement on the situation.
We should do like every other nation on the planet and have the IRS do our taxes.
+29
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
VAT is extremely regressive and harms most people. UBI will be inflationary, and it's not clear that stimulus will counteract that, especially with a VAT draining profit from every step of every purchase like a supercharged sales tax.
A 10% Value-Added Tax *on its own* is regressive. But, combined with a $1,000/month UBI for every adult, is very progressive. It represents an increase in buying power for roughly 87% of Americans. Those people who are getting more than $12,000/year from mutually exclusive benefits (like SNAP and TANF) already (which is a very small percentage) would be protected by having their programs compensate for the VAT.
When it comes to inflation, I’m not an economist, but according to the Quantity Theory of Money (QToM), no, because there is no more money in the system, it is simply moved around.
This is the first I've heard of the bolded.
The problem with Yangs idea is that because it is a sales tax, it must be set to be a rate such that the mean purchaser of VAT eligable goods pays the mean tax contribution and receives no net effect from the program. Someone who buys less than the mean amount of goods will receive a credit, someone who buys more will pay a tax, but that tax will be based on the amount of GOODS they purchase, not their income or wealth. It is trivially easy for the richest to avoid, considering they buy far fewer goods in the US than their income would 'predict', and have far more options to purchase, use, and store goods overseas.
UBI should be paid for by a wealth tax or an income tax. Otherwise it will always end up being a targeted transfer between those in the 60th-80th percentiles of wealth to those below them. You MIGHT be able to jerry rig some nonsense to make a VAT progressive, but it will NEVER be as progressive as an income tax would have been if it funded the same program.
Going overseas is an extremely effective way to avoid a wealth tax.
Umm, not really.
US citizens still need to file taxes every year, even if you're overseas. If you make enough money, you still need to pay taxes, on both your US income and any foreign earned income as well.
The only way the rich can fully avoid the tax man at all is by going overseas and renouncing their citizenship.
Don't even get me started. Promising to do something about that would pique my interest in virtually any of the candidates. Right now between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit the whole thing means that a lot of people do a lot of paperwork in order to not pay anything to the IRS. Even just letting people sign a single page document that says that they lived overseas for 330 days in the past year and made less that some dollar value so they're in the clear would be a huge improvement on the situation.
We should do like every other nation on the planet and have the IRS do our taxes.
We should do like every other nation on the planet (except one) and not tax the expatriated citizens.
There's a lot of folks out here in Democrats Abroad land that are super duper unhappy because Warren wants to keep FACTA (FATCA?) around. (that's the 'tell us how much is in your foreign bank accounts so the IRS can tax you" laws).
I'm ok with is because I'm not a wealthy person. But a lot of folks are unhappy with her stance on it. They don't mind paying taxes on their income (well, we do), but also paying on spousal income is another thing entirely.
VAT is extremely regressive and harms most people. UBI will be inflationary, and it's not clear that stimulus will counteract that, especially with a VAT draining profit from every step of every purchase like a supercharged sales tax.
A 10% Value-Added Tax *on its own* is regressive. But, combined with a $1,000/month UBI for every adult, is very progressive. It represents an increase in buying power for roughly 87% of Americans. Those people who are getting more than $12,000/year from mutually exclusive benefits (like SNAP and TANF) already (which is a very small percentage) would be protected by having their programs compensate for the VAT.
When it comes to inflation, I’m not an economist, but according to the Quantity Theory of Money (QToM), no, because there is no more money in the system, it is simply moved around.
This is the first I've heard of the bolded.
The problem with Yangs idea is that because it is a sales tax, it must be set to be a rate such that the mean purchaser of VAT eligable goods pays the mean tax contribution and receives no net effect from the program. Someone who buys less than the mean amount of goods will receive a credit, someone who buys more will pay a tax, but that tax will be based on the amount of GOODS they purchase, not their income or wealth. It is trivially easy for the richest to avoid, considering they buy far fewer goods in the US than their income would 'predict', and have far more options to purchase, use, and store goods overseas.
UBI should be paid for by a wealth tax or an income tax. Otherwise it will always end up being a targeted transfer between those in the 60th-80th percentiles of wealth to those below them. You MIGHT be able to jerry rig some nonsense to make a VAT progressive, but it will NEVER be as progressive as an income tax would have been if it funded the same program.
Going overseas is an extremely effective way to avoid a wealth tax.
Umm, not really.
US citizens still need to file taxes every year, even if you're overseas. If you make enough money, you still need to pay taxes, on both your US income and any foreign earned income as well.
The only way the rich can fully avoid the tax man at all is by going overseas and renouncing their citizenship.
Don't even get me started. Promising to do something about that would pique my interest in virtually any of the candidates. Right now between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit the whole thing means that a lot of people do a lot of paperwork in order to not pay anything to the IRS. Even just letting people sign a single page document that says that they lived overseas for 330 days in the past year and made less that some dollar value so they're in the clear would be a huge improvement on the situation.
We should do like every other nation on the planet and have the IRS do our taxes.
Why does the IRS do every other nations' taxes? That seems unusually nice of them.
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
VAT is extremely regressive and harms most people. UBI will be inflationary, and it's not clear that stimulus will counteract that, especially with a VAT draining profit from every step of every purchase like a supercharged sales tax.
A 10% Value-Added Tax *on its own* is regressive. But, combined with a $1,000/month UBI for every adult, is very progressive. It represents an increase in buying power for roughly 87% of Americans. Those people who are getting more than $12,000/year from mutually exclusive benefits (like SNAP and TANF) already (which is a very small percentage) would be protected by having their programs compensate for the VAT.
When it comes to inflation, I’m not an economist, but according to the Quantity Theory of Money (QToM), no, because there is no more money in the system, it is simply moved around.
This is the first I've heard of the bolded.
The problem with Yangs idea is that because it is a sales tax, it must be set to be a rate such that the mean purchaser of VAT eligable goods pays the mean tax contribution and receives no net effect from the program. Someone who buys less than the mean amount of goods will receive a credit, someone who buys more will pay a tax, but that tax will be based on the amount of GOODS they purchase, not their income or wealth. It is trivially easy for the richest to avoid, considering they buy far fewer goods in the US than their income would 'predict', and have far more options to purchase, use, and store goods overseas.
UBI should be paid for by a wealth tax or an income tax. Otherwise it will always end up being a targeted transfer between those in the 60th-80th percentiles of wealth to those below them. You MIGHT be able to jerry rig some nonsense to make a VAT progressive, but it will NEVER be as progressive as an income tax would have been if it funded the same program.
Going overseas is an extremely effective way to avoid a wealth tax.
Umm, not really.
US citizens still need to file taxes every year, even if you're overseas. If you make enough money, you still need to pay taxes, on both your US income and any foreign earned income as well.
The only way the rich can fully avoid the tax man at all is by going overseas and renouncing their citizenship.
Don't even get me started. Promising to do something about that would pique my interest in virtually any of the candidates. Right now between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit the whole thing means that a lot of people do a lot of paperwork in order to not pay anything to the IRS. Even just letting people sign a single page document that says that they lived overseas for 330 days in the past year and made less that some dollar value so they're in the clear would be a huge improvement on the situation.
We should do like every other nation on the planet and have the IRS do our taxes.
We should do like every other nation on the planet (except one) and not tax the expatriated citizens.
There's a lot of folks out here in Democrats Abroad land that are super duper unhappy because Warren wants to keep FACTA (FATCA?) around. (that's the 'tell us how much is in your foreign bank accounts so the IRS can tax you" laws).
I'm ok with is because I'm not a wealthy person. But a lot of folks are unhappy with her stance on it. They don't mind paying taxes on their income (well, we do), but also paying on spousal income is another thing entirely.
FACTA is a part of it, but it's a constant theme from friends who have worked abroad that Americans are notable by their absence in most international firms. There are plenty of Americans working abroad, of course, but the general experience is that average Americans just do not have the same desire (or most likely access) to join the international job market as citizens from other developed and developing nations.
VAT is extremely regressive and harms most people. UBI will be inflationary, and it's not clear that stimulus will counteract that, especially with a VAT draining profit from every step of every purchase like a supercharged sales tax.
A 10% Value-Added Tax *on its own* is regressive. But, combined with a $1,000/month UBI for every adult, is very progressive. It represents an increase in buying power for roughly 87% of Americans. Those people who are getting more than $12,000/year from mutually exclusive benefits (like SNAP and TANF) already (which is a very small percentage) would be protected by having their programs compensate for the VAT.
When it comes to inflation, I’m not an economist, but according to the Quantity Theory of Money (QToM), no, because there is no more money in the system, it is simply moved around.
This is the first I've heard of the bolded.
The problem with Yangs idea is that because it is a sales tax, it must be set to be a rate such that the mean purchaser of VAT eligable goods pays the mean tax contribution and receives no net effect from the program. Someone who buys less than the mean amount of goods will receive a credit, someone who buys more will pay a tax, but that tax will be based on the amount of GOODS they purchase, not their income or wealth. It is trivially easy for the richest to avoid, considering they buy far fewer goods in the US than their income would 'predict', and have far more options to purchase, use, and store goods overseas.
UBI should be paid for by a wealth tax or an income tax. Otherwise it will always end up being a targeted transfer between those in the 60th-80th percentiles of wealth to those below them. You MIGHT be able to jerry rig some nonsense to make a VAT progressive, but it will NEVER be as progressive as an income tax would have been if it funded the same program.
Going overseas is an extremely effective way to avoid a wealth tax.
Umm, not really.
US citizens still need to file taxes every year, even if you're overseas. If you make enough money, you still need to pay taxes, on both your US income and any foreign earned income as well.
The only way the rich can fully avoid the tax man at all is by going overseas and renouncing their citizenship.
Don't even get me started. Promising to do something about that would pique my interest in virtually any of the candidates. Right now between the foreign earned income exclusion and the foreign tax credit the whole thing means that a lot of people do a lot of paperwork in order to not pay anything to the IRS. Even just letting people sign a single page document that says that they lived overseas for 330 days in the past year and made less that some dollar value so they're in the clear would be a huge improvement on the situation.
We should do like every other nation on the planet and have the IRS do our taxes.
We should do like every other nation on the planet (except one) and not tax the expatriated citizens.
There's a lot of folks out here in Democrats Abroad land that are super duper unhappy because Warren wants to keep FACTA (FATCA?) around. (that's the 'tell us how much is in your foreign bank accounts so the IRS can tax you" laws).
I'm ok with is because I'm not a wealthy person. But a lot of folks are unhappy with her stance on it. They don't mind paying taxes on their income (well, we do), but also paying on spousal income is another thing entirely.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
US citizens still need to file taxes every year, even if you're overseas. If you make enough money, you still need to pay taxes, on both your US income and any foreign earned income as well.
The only way the rich can fully avoid the tax man at all is by going overseas and renouncing their citizenship.
Also, most people don't want to live overseas. Complain as much as they want, a wealth tax wouldn't actually affect the super rich in any way they'd notice. Certainly not compared to uprooting their whole lives to go live somewhere else.
It's one thing to leave your life behind because you actually want to live somewhere else. Quite another because you want your net worth to be 1.4 billion instead of 1.3 billion.
To clarify, I meant hiding one's assets out of the country is a great way to avoid a wealth tax. I did not mean traveling or moving out of the country. Sorry for the ambiguity.
PayNSprayBandit on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Phillishere on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I'd love for somebody to tell me just what benefit being an American citizen is. Cause I'm really not sure that I get that. French citizens get benefits from being French, but their citizens working abroad don't have to pay taxes to France as well as where they're working. They pay the taxes where they live.
I mean, I get to vote in US elections. and I still get called for jury duty.
again, it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on. it doesn't effect me and i'm fine paying US taxes so that my family and friends can have healthcare and good schools. But just because I'm ok with it doesn't mean that this isn't a big deal for the thousands of other people that live and work overseas.
VAT is regressive and has no place in a Democratic primary.
Making the benefits an either/or proposition gives the game away. Once people are on Yang’s UBI they will dismantle welfare across the board and give the wealthy a big break from entitlement spending.
Yang is incredibly disingenuous about what he wants to do and why he is doing it.
A VAT in isolation is regressive, but in used in conjunction with a progressive income tax and generous transfer payments and social services can be a perfectly useful part of progressive policy. The EU by law requires that all its member countries have a VAT of at least 15%.
The core problem with Yang's proposal isn't the funding, it's that he's forcing people to choose between the UBI payment and their current benefits.
I would agree that there's nothing "wrong" with a VAT as a source of funding. However, if your goal is to reduce inequality, poverty, etc., then *both* the funding source and the choose-your-poison nature of the plan hurt the goals. Yang's plan has multiple really dumb things about it, all making it less effective at what it wants to do without reducing the political effort required to do it.
I don't see anything that looks like "choose-your-poison". There's staying where you are or trying a new thing that might be better. And you don't have to do it right away. You can wait and see how it goes. Andrew Yang has even said there could be a trial period for people who aren't sure and want to test it. His goal is to make things better for everyone, without making them worse for anyone. He has talked lots of times about protecting people for whom the switch isn't an unambiguous improvement. It is also important to remember that for the vast majority of people who have to choose, the UBI is indisputably better. And it's only possible because of the nature of the Freedom Dividend.
The thing I most object to is the notion that the structure of Yang's Dividend didn't "reduc[e] the political effort required to do it". Any other combination of taxes that could fund a UBI this big would be *impossible* to get through congress. It's not even close.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No they don't. Because that idea is fucking insane.
It's like if you moved from NY to Florida and NY still demanded you pay NY taxes.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No one else taxes their citizens abroad. It's only a "tax break" if you think Americans are the Platonic Ideal and all other nations are giving their citizens a special treat.
Just checked some recent polling numbers on 538 - key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida show Trump doing considerably better vs Warren / Sanders (leading in some polls and within margin of error on others) than Biden. It's not that surprising the party is fishing around for more moderate candidates given these type of numbers and the fact that Joe is coming off the rails (both in fundraising and mentally). In terms of Warren / Bernie winning these states, is the view that younger voter and minority turnout will surge higher to offset the philosophical issues some of these states are going to have with a more liberal candidate? I just really really want to see Trump out of office - I am not sure what the path is if the Democratic candidate is someone that suburban / moderate / independent voters either wont vote for or worse hold their noses and vote for Trump.
I'd love for somebody to tell me just what benefit being an American citizen is. Cause I'm really not sure that I get that. French citizens get benefits from being French, but their citizens working abroad don't have to pay taxes to France as well as where they're working. They pay the taxes where they live.
I mean, I get to vote in US elections. and I still get called for jury duty.
again, it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on. it doesn't effect me and i'm fine paying US taxes so that my family and friends can have healthcare and good schools. But just because I'm ok with it doesn't mean that this isn't a big deal for the thousands of other people that live and work overseas.
Social Security, access to embassies and the work they do on behalf of citizens, etc. I'm sure there's more I can't think of off the top of my head.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No one else taxes their citizens abroad. It's only a "tax break" if you think Americans are the Platonic Ideal and all other nations are giving their citizens a special treat.
Some do.
Libya, North Korea, Papua New Guinea are a few that do
The only major nation that taxes its citizens (and green card holders) regardless of where they live is the United States. So long as you hold a U.S. passport or green card, the Internal Revenue Service wants its cut of your profits and capital gains.
Some lists of countries that tax citizens and legal residents on their worldwide income include Libya, North Korea, Eritrea and the Philippines. The tax systems of these countries are not well developed and data is limited.
The United States taxes all U.S. persons on their worldwide income. A U.S. person is a citizen, green card holder (who is a legal resident but not necessarily present in the United States), and residents. A resident is anyone who spends more than 183 days a year in the United States.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No one else taxes their citizens abroad. It's only a "tax break" if you think Americans are the Platonic Ideal and all other nations are giving their citizens a special treat.
This is actually pretty true
Eritrea taxes citizens at a reduced rate. Hungary taxes nonresident citizens unless they hold another nationality. Myanmar taxes at a reduced rate. Many countries tax expatriate citizens for a few years, generally until establishing nonresidency
Currently the only country in the world that taxes nonresident citizens (and nonresident permanent residents for good measure) unconditionally, in perpetuity, at full rate, is the US
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No one else taxes their citizens abroad. It's only a "tax break" if you think Americans are the Platonic Ideal and all other nations are giving their citizens a special treat.
This is actually pretty true
Eritrea taxes citizens at a reduced rate. Hungary taxes nonresident citizens unless they hold another nationality. Myanmar taxes at a reduced rate. Many countries tax expatriate citizens for a few years, generally until establishing nonresidency
Currently the only country in the world that taxes nonresident citizens (and nonresident permanent residents for good measure) unconditionally, in perpetuity, at full rate, is the US
It's never been a major political issue, but it should be. It's pretty clear to anyone who works in an international setting that, for all the tax money American citizens pay to maintain U.S. global hegemony, our government actually does far less than most to ensure its citizens have access to the global job market. Corporations do, of course, get a lot of benefits from it.
I'd love for somebody to tell me just what benefit being an American citizen is. Cause I'm really not sure that I get that. French citizens get benefits from being French, but their citizens working abroad don't have to pay taxes to France as well as where they're working. They pay the taxes where they live.
I mean, I get to vote in US elections. and I still get called for jury duty.
again, it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on. it doesn't effect me and i'm fine paying US taxes so that my family and friends can have healthcare and good schools. But just because I'm ok with it doesn't mean that this isn't a big deal for the thousands of other people that live and work overseas.
Social Security, access to embassies and the work they do on behalf of citizens, etc. I'm sure there's more I can't think of off the top of my head.
Social Security is a benefit of having worked and paid SS taxes in the US. I am technically eligible for a small benefit, having only worked there one year and having technically not even ever held a US visa. I am also a good chunk of the way towards medicare eligibility too IIRC
Access to embassies is generally considered to be included in whatever fees are charged to issue a passport everywhere else. You're charged the taxes whether or not you even hold a US passport though. If you live and travel under another citizenship you don't even get that "benefit"
Welcome back to Massachusetts, Ambassador SenScottBrown and Gail! I know it will be good for New England Law Boston to have a dynamic leader.
Now, as a Southerner, this sounds sort of cutting. Two reasons: First, Scott Brown ran to New Hampshire after losing to Warren, attempted a run there, lost there, and sucked it up for years until getting an ambassadorship to New Zealand from Trump, as honorary Large Adult Son of the Trump Dynasty. He couldn't manage not fucking that up, so he's back to Massachusetts after having claimed he'd stay in New Hampshire for the rest of his life. So a "welcome back!" in this context is akin to "look what the cat dragged in", to my ears. Second, "Dynamic leader" is another way of saying "can't stop failing out of different appointments".
Warren is from Oklahoma, so she's only sort of Southern. I dunno how much of this is that and how much of this is class solidarity. Text erases a lot of useful tone, but I cannot imagine why Warren would actually be nice to or even notice the guy publicly unless it was to needle him or in some other way served a political purpose.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
The USA and Eritrea are the only nations that tax citizens living and making money abroad. Every single other country only taxes the income made in their country and/or income made by residents in the country and in others. (Simplifying a bit since several nations tax income in some circumstances, but the US and Eritrea are the only ones that tax all income in principle with no exceptions.)
This is because it is very difficult to argue that people earning a salary in another country are benefiting from the infrastructure provided by the government or benefiting from the society and economy in general.
You're thinking about the FBAR. FATCA is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act
FATCA was reportedly enacted for the purpose of detecting the non-U.S. financial accounts of U.S. resident taxpayers rather than to identify non-resident U.S. citizens and enforce collections[/quote[
I'd love for somebody to tell me just what benefit being an American citizen is. Cause I'm really not sure that I get that. French citizens get benefits from being French, but their citizens working abroad don't have to pay taxes to France as well as where they're working. They pay the taxes where they live.
I mean, I get to vote in US elections. and I still get called for jury duty.
again, it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on. it doesn't effect me and i'm fine paying US taxes so that my family and friends can have healthcare and good schools. But just because I'm ok with it doesn't mean that this isn't a big deal for the thousands of other people that live and work overseas.
I think it's one of those cases of because some people suck you can't have nice things. Too many people abused foreign offshore banks to hide assets for taxation but the fix for that hits people who were innocent as well as the guilty.
Just checked some recent polling numbers on 538 - key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida show Trump doing considerably better vs Warren / Sanders (leading in some polls and within margin of error on others) than Biden. It's not that surprising the party is fishing around for more moderate candidates given these type of numbers and the fact that Joe is coming off the rails (both in fundraising and mentally). In terms of Warren / Bernie winning these states, is the view that younger voter and minority turnout will surge higher to offset the philosophical issues some of these states are going to have with a more liberal candidate? I just really really want to see Trump out of office - I am not sure what the path is if the Democratic candidate is someone that suburban / moderate / independent voters either wont vote for or worse hold their noses and vote for Trump.
It's worth noting that Sanders won the 2016 primary in Wisconsin and Michigan (it was razor thin in MI to be fair). Biden and Clinton are not perceived the same way among voters, so maybe that primary plays out differently with another moderate candidate against Sanders in 2016. But, as has been brought up previously in this thread, head-to-head polls against Trump are difficult to glean much from at this point. Winning a primary drastically changes a campaign, and polls may shift wildly once the winning candidate is actually campaigning directly against Trump.
BY THE HOARY FUCKING HOSTS!
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I'd love for somebody to tell me just what benefit being an American citizen is. Cause I'm really not sure that I get that. French citizens get benefits from being French, but their citizens working abroad don't have to pay taxes to France as well as where they're working. They pay the taxes where they live.
I mean, I get to vote in US elections. and I still get called for jury duty.
again, it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on. it doesn't effect me and i'm fine paying US taxes so that my family and friends can have healthcare and good schools. But just because I'm ok with it doesn't mean that this isn't a big deal for the thousands of other people that live and work overseas.
I think it's one of those cases of because some people suck you can't have nice things. Too many people abused foreign offshore banks to hide assets for taxation but the fix for that hits people who were innocent as well as the guilty.
Yeah, I'm ok with it. I don't make enough money to be on the IRS's radar.
But there are others out here that do, and they're hoping for a candidate to do something about FATCA.
I think they're being kinda blinded by it, as of course Warren and Sanders aren't going to do anything about it. they need it to get to some of the money the billionaires hide.
But a lot of folks are grumbling in Democrats Abroad about how now they can't support certain candidates due to their positions on FATCA.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No one else taxes their citizens abroad. It's only a "tax break" if you think Americans are the Platonic Ideal and all other nations are giving their citizens a special treat.
Some do.
Libya, North Korea, Papua New Guinea are a few that do
The only major nation that taxes its citizens (and green card holders) regardless of where they live is the United States. So long as you hold a U.S. passport or green card, the Internal Revenue Service wants its cut of your profits and capital gains.
Some lists of countries that tax citizens and legal residents on their worldwide income include Libya, North Korea, Eritrea and the Philippines. The tax systems of these countries are not well developed and data is limited.
The United States taxes all U.S. persons on their worldwide income. A U.S. person is a citizen, green card holder (who is a legal resident but not necessarily present in the United States), and residents. A resident is anyone who spends more than 183 days a year in the United States.
The Philippines abolished that tax 20 years ago and afaik Libya also just taxes on a territorial basis now. Several countries also levy taxes on citizens for a couple of years after immigration. Eritrea and Myanmar tax global income at a reduced rate.
The US is the only nation that principally taxes citizens living abroad the same as residents.
Oh no, the on-topic to off-topic post ratio has hit critical mass. Shields failing! Thread closing!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The primary thread has been plagued by off topic tangents, hostility, and general douchitude for some time. It can take an indeterminate bit of hiatus.
It will be reopened when the mods have forgotten what a chore it is to maintain. Requests to have it reopened will just prolong the downtime by making said forgetting more difficult.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
We should do like every other nation on the planet and have the IRS do our taxes.
that does not change anything for me
Well, one is praise. The other is being nice. I don’t care if she shakes his hand either.
We should do like every other nation on the planet (except one) and not tax the expatriated citizens.
There's a lot of folks out here in Democrats Abroad land that are super duper unhappy because Warren wants to keep FACTA (FATCA?) around. (that's the 'tell us how much is in your foreign bank accounts so the IRS can tax you" laws).
I'm ok with is because I'm not a wealthy person. But a lot of folks are unhappy with her stance on it. They don't mind paying taxes on their income (well, we do), but also paying on spousal income is another thing entirely.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Why does the IRS do every other nations' taxes? That seems unusually nice of them.
FACTA is a part of it, but it's a constant theme from friends who have worked abroad that Americans are notable by their absence in most international firms. There are plenty of Americans working abroad, of course, but the general experience is that average Americans just do not have the same desire (or most likely access) to join the international job market as citizens from other developed and developing nations.
I dunno, I think taxing American citizen's foreign bank accounts is a good thing.
To clarify, I meant hiding one's assets out of the country is a great way to avoid a wealth tax. I did not mean traveling or moving out of the country. Sorry for the ambiguity.
on money that was made in a different market, a different currency?
Sure, I still have money in my US accounts, and I still have an American investment portfolio that gets taxed in the US. But why should the income that I make here in NZ, that is already being taxed by the NZ government also be open to the US to tax? And why should the income of my husband, who is not a US citizen, doesn't have a green card, or anything of that sort, why should his income be taxed by the US government?
Let me reiterate, I don't mind filing my US taxes (it's a pain in the giant ass) and I still have money in the US that I file for as well. But my husband's income should not be a part of that. I also don't make enough money in NZ to have to pay US taxes on it. so I'm filing paperwork that I then pay nothing on.
But, none of the candidates have said anything that I'm aware of about reforming FACTA, so it's all a bit of a moot point.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Because you still benefit from being an American citizen. And your husband could potentially benefit from you being an American citizen.
And a Japanese, British, French, or German citizen doesn't benefit from their citizenship?
I mean, I get to vote in US elections. and I still get called for jury duty.
again, it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on. it doesn't effect me and i'm fine paying US taxes so that my family and friends can have healthcare and good schools. But just because I'm ok with it doesn't mean that this isn't a big deal for the thousands of other people that live and work overseas.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I don't see anything that looks like "choose-your-poison". There's staying where you are or trying a new thing that might be better. And you don't have to do it right away. You can wait and see how it goes. Andrew Yang has even said there could be a trial period for people who aren't sure and want to test it. His goal is to make things better for everyone, without making them worse for anyone. He has talked lots of times about protecting people for whom the switch isn't an unambiguous improvement. It is also important to remember that for the vast majority of people who have to choose, the UBI is indisputably better. And it's only possible because of the nature of the Freedom Dividend.
The thing I most object to is the notion that the structure of Yang's Dividend didn't "reduc[e] the political effort required to do it". Any other combination of taxes that could fund a UBI this big would be *impossible* to get through congress. It's not even close.
Do they not tax their citizens abroad or something? If they want to give a tax break to people living abroad, that's up to those countries.
No they don't. Because that idea is fucking insane.
It's like if you moved from NY to Florida and NY still demanded you pay NY taxes.
No one else taxes their citizens abroad. It's only a "tax break" if you think Americans are the Platonic Ideal and all other nations are giving their citizens a special treat.
Social Security, access to embassies and the work they do on behalf of citizens, etc. I'm sure there's more I can't think of off the top of my head.
Some do.
Libya, North Korea, Papua New Guinea are a few that do
Source
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
This is actually pretty true
Eritrea taxes citizens at a reduced rate. Hungary taxes nonresident citizens unless they hold another nationality. Myanmar taxes at a reduced rate. Many countries tax expatriate citizens for a few years, generally until establishing nonresidency
Currently the only country in the world that taxes nonresident citizens (and nonresident permanent residents for good measure) unconditionally, in perpetuity, at full rate, is the US
It's never been a major political issue, but it should be. It's pretty clear to anyone who works in an international setting that, for all the tax money American citizens pay to maintain U.S. global hegemony, our government actually does far less than most to ensure its citizens have access to the global job market. Corporations do, of course, get a lot of benefits from it.
Social Security is a benefit of having worked and paid SS taxes in the US. I am technically eligible for a small benefit, having only worked there one year and having technically not even ever held a US visa. I am also a good chunk of the way towards medicare eligibility too IIRC
Access to embassies is generally considered to be included in whatever fees are charged to issue a passport everywhere else. You're charged the taxes whether or not you even hold a US passport though. If you live and travel under another citizenship you don't even get that "benefit"
Now, as a Southerner, this sounds sort of cutting. Two reasons: First, Scott Brown ran to New Hampshire after losing to Warren, attempted a run there, lost there, and sucked it up for years until getting an ambassadorship to New Zealand from Trump, as honorary Large Adult Son of the Trump Dynasty. He couldn't manage not fucking that up, so he's back to Massachusetts after having claimed he'd stay in New Hampshire for the rest of his life. So a "welcome back!" in this context is akin to "look what the cat dragged in", to my ears. Second, "Dynamic leader" is another way of saying "can't stop failing out of different appointments".
Warren is from Oklahoma, so she's only sort of Southern. I dunno how much of this is that and how much of this is class solidarity. Text erases a lot of useful tone, but I cannot imagine why Warren would actually be nice to or even notice the guy publicly unless it was to needle him or in some other way served a political purpose.
The USA and Eritrea are the only nations that tax citizens living and making money abroad. Every single other country only taxes the income made in their country and/or income made by residents in the country and in others. (Simplifying a bit since several nations tax income in some circumstances, but the US and Eritrea are the only ones that tax all income in principle with no exceptions.)
This is because it is very difficult to argue that people earning a salary in another country are benefiting from the infrastructure provided by the government or benefiting from the society and economy in general.
I think it's one of those cases of because some people suck you can't have nice things. Too many people abused foreign offshore banks to hide assets for taxation but the fix for that hits people who were innocent as well as the guilty.
It's worth noting that Sanders won the 2016 primary in Wisconsin and Michigan (it was razor thin in MI to be fair). Biden and Clinton are not perceived the same way among voters, so maybe that primary plays out differently with another moderate candidate against Sanders in 2016. But, as has been brought up previously in this thread, head-to-head polls against Trump are difficult to glean much from at this point. Winning a primary drastically changes a campaign, and polls may shift wildly once the winning candidate is actually campaigning directly against Trump.
Yeah, I'm ok with it. I don't make enough money to be on the IRS's radar.
But there are others out here that do, and they're hoping for a candidate to do something about FATCA.
I think they're being kinda blinded by it, as of course Warren and Sanders aren't going to do anything about it. they need it to get to some of the money the billionaires hide.
But a lot of folks are grumbling in Democrats Abroad about how now they can't support certain candidates due to their positions on FATCA.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The Philippines abolished that tax 20 years ago and afaik Libya also just taxes on a territorial basis now. Several countries also levy taxes on citizens for a couple of years after immigration. Eritrea and Myanmar tax global income at a reduced rate.
The US is the only nation that principally taxes citizens living abroad the same as residents.
Well that's pants shitting. Like full on NOOOOOOOO
pleasepaypreacher.net
It makes sense though.
He's a young, christian, white, midwestern, veteran.
Like, trying to not get overly general (with respect to I think Marathon), Pete is exactly the kind of candidate that I'd expect to do well in Iowa.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The primary thread has been plagued by off topic tangents, hostility, and general douchitude for some time. It can take an indeterminate bit of hiatus.
It will be reopened when the mods have forgotten what a chore it is to maintain. Requests to have it reopened will just prolong the downtime by making said forgetting more difficult.