The US is unusually fussy about renouncing citizenship compared to most other countries. They assume anyone who does so is doing so for tax reasons, which would make sense given the US has a lot of rich people and it taxes its citizens even while they're abroad.
The US does tax people while they are abroad but it also extends it services to Americans who are abroad. You are in some ways insured by the US. If you get kidnapped you might just be rescued by the US gov't directly or indirectly. Also having a US passport allows you to travel more freely than some other nationalities.
If you get into trouble though, the UK will say "well, it's your own silly fault, then", while the US is more likely to chest-beat and cry "No citizen left behind!". Not guaranteed, of course, but far more likely to do something.
I once travelled with a trinational lawyer. She self-identified as Dutch, sounded English, but chose to travel on her third passport, the US one, specifically for the above reason.
American living in Vienna, Austria.
An insider secret for many of us who work for international organizations such as the UN, OSCE etc and are US Citizens, is to go to the British Embassy first! The US Embassy and Consular services are so pathetic (awesome people work there, just their hands are tied by the utterly pathetic broken system imposed above them).
The British system is 1st class worldwide. The US State Department is worthless everywhere.
With the U.S. State Department, EVERY CITIZEN IS LEFT BEHIND.
What about the american revolution? You used to tax us abroad until we had a war. Now our own government is doing the same thing. Taxation without representation.
That's a post hoc justification. By that logic, Americans traveling overseas should pay extra taxes for that bit of "insurance" coverage. There are about 30 million overseas tourists per year (see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778210.html ); according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_Stat... there are about 5 million US citizens living overseas. (I've excluded Canada and Mexico from both of those populations.)
Assuming overseas tourists travel for only a week, this suggests they should pay an extra 2% in taxes, because they are about 10% of the overall cost. (I suspect it's higher, since tourists often need rush jobs, like an emergency passport replacement, or information about local hospitals, that residents don't need.)
I notice, though, that this isn't the case, which tells me that the underlying logic is at best incomplete.
In addition, taxation is a pure headache when combined with jus sanguinis. The Forbes article pointed out the backlog in Canada. This is because a lot of US citizens moved to Canada and had children there. By US law, these children are also US citizens, even if they've never entered the US nor consider themselves such; nor even ever plan to leave Canada.
They are still supposed to file taxes to the US, report information about their bank account holdings, etc. In addition, 'foreign financial institutions banks, brokers, pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, mutual funds, trusts' etc. are required 'to report to the IRS holdings of their clients who are U.S. persons.' These can be a large headache, and may even limit some financial options as certain foreign financial institutions now refuse to accept US citizens.
Hence, the US has put obligations and restrictions on them that they don't want, and must pay money to actively remove.
People leave their citizenship because of things like FACTA make compliance hard. So, the response (rather than making it easier), is to make it harder? I don't get it.
Why would anyone want to leave the US? The US is the best country in the world. Why do you think you'll be better off as a non-American? Is it because you're stealing things from us? Are you one of those overseas tax cheaters (who has the audacity to do it personally, instead of through a large multinational country)? Are you stealing money from us? Just to be safe, we'll make doubly sure to get your money. Because cheaters never win.
Planet Sarcasm. It's one orbit in from planet Weltschmerz.
(I thought the reference to corporate taxes and that line revealed the sarcasm. The down votes suggest otherwise. The sarcasm, by the way, reflects my best explanation for the anger I've read when this topic comes up.)
16 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadI once travelled with a trinational lawyer. She self-identified as Dutch, sounded English, but chose to travel on her third passport, the US one, specifically for the above reason.
The British system is 1st class worldwide. The US State Department is worthless everywhere.
With the U.S. State Department, EVERY CITIZEN IS LEFT BEHIND.
Is this based on facts, or a historic record?
As a non US citizen, I am genuinely curious.
Assuming overseas tourists travel for only a week, this suggests they should pay an extra 2% in taxes, because they are about 10% of the overall cost. (I suspect it's higher, since tourists often need rush jobs, like an emergency passport replacement, or information about local hospitals, that residents don't need.)
I notice, though, that this isn't the case, which tells me that the underlying logic is at best incomplete.
In addition, taxation is a pure headache when combined with jus sanguinis. The Forbes article pointed out the backlog in Canada. This is because a lot of US citizens moved to Canada and had children there. By US law, these children are also US citizens, even if they've never entered the US nor consider themselves such; nor even ever plan to leave Canada.
They are still supposed to file taxes to the US, report information about their bank account holdings, etc. In addition, 'foreign financial institutions banks, brokers, pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, mutual funds, trusts' etc. are required 'to report to the IRS holdings of their clients who are U.S. persons.' These can be a large headache, and may even limit some financial options as certain foreign financial institutions now refuse to accept US citizens.
Hence, the US has put obligations and restrictions on them that they don't want, and must pay money to actively remove.
People leave their citizenship because of things like FACTA make compliance hard. So, the response (rather than making it easier), is to make it harder? I don't get it.
ha not sure in what planet you live in
(I thought the reference to corporate taxes and that line revealed the sarcasm. The down votes suggest otherwise. The sarcasm, by the way, reflects my best explanation for the anger I've read when this topic comes up.)
(Comments from the public are "Due Oct 21 2014, at 11:59 PM ET")