No, I'm bemoaning the influence of money in American politics in general; methinks thou art reading more into my comment than what was actually stated.
Your context is the candidacy of a man who named his child after Ayn Rand. It's like bemoaning the influence of white men in the election while discussing a National Socialist candidate.
You do file and pay taxes on income you earn abroad, even through you dont reside in the US.
I was responding to "no citizen living outside the US should pay any US income tax." My point was that the income itself is often coming from the US, even if the person in question doesn't live in the US. Simply having your paycheck forwarded to an address in the Caymans shouldn't let you escape all taxes on that income.
My mistake, but getting a green card would not be problem at, if you are willing to invest half a million in the US. Any source I read refers to problems getting a citizenship, and nothing about any immigrant or non-immigrant visas.
Renouncing citizenship is irrevocable. Persons ineligible for US citizenship are a priori ineligible for immigrant visas.
I was supposing that one gets an emplyment offer in a first world country that pays in millions. He(/she) moves there and in a few years become a citizen. Why would he want to pay taxes to both the US and the country he resides in, for the income he make in that country. I dont think any one would want to, and every person in this situation will renounce American citizenship.
As OP noted, the US has among the lowest tax burdens in the developed world. If one is eligible for such a high-paying job in (e. g.) Canada, then one can likely get a similar job in the US with more take-home pay.
My point was that your hypothetical isn't realistic.
That doesnt make it ok. American citizens, who live in another country, should not owe any tax at all, irrespective of if they make millions or thousands.
Then there would be no rational reason not to renounce one's US citizenship... unless a substantial part of your income still comes from the US, regardless of your mailing address.
The US taxes income earned "outside" the US because, at those levels, most of their income is still from the US, as is the case with this story.
will not be possible to return to live
I have seen people travel
"Travel" =/= "reside." Lacking a US passport means having to ask permission to enter. You'll need to obtain a visa, your rights to buy and own property will be limited, and the only work you'll find is in the parking lot of a Home Depot.
Say you make somewhere in millions, and for some reason you have to be in Canada to keep making this money.
And let us further suppose that all those loonies are delivered to you on the wings of faeries. Meanwhile, Neil Young (OC) will sneak across the border illegally to make his money and buy his California home.
By just about any measure, the US market is about ten times the size as Canada's. Meanwhile, states like Arizona and Florida are awash in Canadian retirees looking to avoid Canadian taxes.
I hear the Virginia has been considering annexing Singapore since this story broke (taxes on $3.84 billion ain't chump change... and VA needs it for something or other).
The dominant party in Richmond, the Republican Party of Virginia, is more likely to give him a medal.
It's amazing how many pilots/captains have completely lost the ability to navigate their vessels without electronics
Being (at most) 40 km from the DMZ means that any slight error in navigation results in instant flaming death, and that's only if you're lucky. I'd be anxious about navigation under those conditions as well.
that's what you get when you allow gov't to regulate the businesses
That might mean something if big business was actually buying regulation rather than deregulation. It was the repeal of New Deal-era banking regulations that got us into our current financial straits to begin with.
As to corporations being people - people incorporate to run business with limited liability provided by the gov't
And even if liability weren't limited, how would it be enforced were it not also for "the government" that you so fear?
Besides, it's the investors who have their liability limited (i.e. only the money invested is in jeopardy, not any of the investors' other properties), not the board members or executives.
The latency through an undersea cable connecting the Bahamas to North America is probably still less than the latency of a ship-to-shore link via satellite.
Meanwhile, physical travel time to and from this ship is only negligible if you can afford a helicopter.
You can get better education, free or nearly free, in most of Europe
As can be seen in most of the highly-moderated comments around here, the American voter tends to dislike government spending in any way, shape or form (with the possible exception of the military).
and yet the US youth just sits there, saddling itself with gazillions in student loan debt
So long as the debt is off the government's books, the voters are happy.
The Blueseed vessel will fly the flag of a country that follows English/American common law and that has reputable judicial systems, such as The Bahamas (English common law) or Marshall Islands (based on American Law).
The national law of whose flag they fly is the one that applies. Instead of going through the effort to work on a ship of Bahamian registry, why not move to the Bahamas?
Of course, a major reason why ships choose these flags of convenience is that, while information wants to be free, workers want to be paid. It's less about escaping the NSA and more about escaping OSHA.
Slashdot Mirror
When an Anti-gay marriage amendment was voted on, Congressman Paul voted "no".
For exactly the same reasons: he feels that discrimination should be dealt with at the state level at worst, and preferably by "the market."
Um no. The Supreme Court already ruled that segregation is a violation of the equality amendment.
Ron Paul disagrees with this ruling ("activist court," etc.) and would push for a constitutional amendment undoing that ruling.
No, I'm bemoaning the influence of money in American politics in general; methinks thou art reading more into my comment than what was actually stated.
Your context is the candidacy of a man who named his child after Ayn Rand. It's like bemoaning the influence of white men in the election while discussing a National Socialist candidate.
And this is why Ron Paul says we need public campaign funding. Oh, wait...
You're seriously bemoaning the influence of money in the GOP primary, and with respect to the Paul candidacy at that?
If you don't firmly believe that money should not only be an influence in politics but the only influence, you're in the wrong damned place.
You do file and pay taxes on income you earn abroad, even through you dont reside in the US.
I was responding to "no citizen living outside the US should pay any US income tax." My point was that the income itself is often coming from the US, even if the person in question doesn't live in the US. Simply having your paycheck forwarded to an address in the Caymans shouldn't let you escape all taxes on that income.
My mistake, but getting a green card would not be problem at, if you are willing to invest half a million in the US. Any source I read refers to problems getting a citizenship, and nothing about any immigrant or non-immigrant visas.
Renouncing citizenship is irrevocable. Persons ineligible for US citizenship are a priori ineligible for immigrant visas.
I was supposing that one gets an emplyment offer in a first world country that pays in millions. He(/she) moves there and in a few years become a citizen. Why would he want to pay taxes to both the US and the country he resides in, for the income he make in that country. I dont think any one would want to, and every person in this situation will renounce American citizenship.
As OP noted, the US has among the lowest tax burdens in the developed world. If one is eligible for such a high-paying job in (e. g.) Canada, then one can likely get a similar job in the US with more take-home pay.
My point was that your hypothetical isn't realistic.
That doesnt make it ok. American citizens, who live in another country, should not owe any tax at all, irrespective of if they make millions or thousands.
Then there would be no rational reason not to renounce one's US citizenship... unless a substantial part of your income still comes from the US, regardless of your mailing address.
The US taxes income earned "outside" the US because, at those levels, most of their income is still from the US, as is the case with this story.
will not be possible to return to live
I have seen people travel
"Travel" =/= "reside." Lacking a US passport means having to ask permission to enter. You'll need to obtain a visa, your rights to buy and own property will be limited, and the only work you'll find is in the parking lot of a Home Depot.
Say you make somewhere in millions, and for some reason you have to be in Canada to keep making this money.
And let us further suppose that all those loonies are delivered to you on the wings of faeries. Meanwhile, Neil Young (OC) will sneak across the border illegally to make his money and buy his California home.
By just about any measure, the US market is about ten times the size as Canada's. Meanwhile, states like Arizona and Florida are awash in Canadian retirees looking to avoid Canadian taxes.
He could spend $10 million a year for 300 years.
Or he could blow it all in bad investments in less than a year. Or less than a week, if the IPO tanks.
It didn't take him 300 years to make that much money, after all.
I hear the Virginia has been considering annexing Singapore since this story broke (taxes on $3.84 billion ain't chump change... and VA needs it for something or other).
The dominant party in Richmond, the Republican Party of Virginia, is more likely to give him a medal.
We're talking about the home of Eric Cantor here.
(income tax increased to 77% during WWI)
And who was in that top bracket if not the people who owned the defense industries?
The war certainly didn't harm Howard Hughes' bank account.
a person will do just fine without United States citizenship if he has 3 billion dollars.
He has $3 billion today. He will probably have $3 billion tomorrow (provided he isn't JPMorgan Chase). What about next week? Next month? Next year?
Odds are he'll still be alive in 2052. Will he still be worth a lot then?
http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/16493
Why should it take more time to lose $3 billion than it took to make it?
I'd rather be classier than he's being.
half a million in the US (which is pennies for this guy).
For now.
He's young. He has an awfully long time ahead of him to make mistakes.
I hope he doesn't live to regret his decision, as it's a hell of a lot easier to drop US citizenship than it is to get it back.
Length is irrelevant to a TLD getting ignored. When was the last time you visited a .us domain other than the likes of "delicio.us?"
And that's before getting to all the state-specific subdomains (al.us, ak.us, ar.us, etc.) that aren't even used by the state governments in question.
If Apple automatically disabled the latest versions of Flash Player as well, I'd actually buy one.
It's amazing how many pilots/captains have completely lost the ability to navigate their vessels without electronics
Being (at most) 40 km from the DMZ means that any slight error in navigation results in instant flaming death, and that's only if you're lucky. I'd be anxious about navigation under those conditions as well.
that's what you get when you allow gov't to regulate the businesses
That might mean something if big business was actually buying regulation rather than deregulation. It was the repeal of New Deal-era banking regulations that got us into our current financial straits to begin with.
As to corporations being people - people incorporate to run business with limited liability provided by the gov't
And even if liability weren't limited, how would it be enforced were it not also for "the government" that you so fear?
Besides, it's the investors who have their liability limited (i.e. only the money invested is in jeopardy, not any of the investors' other properties), not the board members or executives.
The latency through an undersea cable connecting the Bahamas to North America is probably still less than the latency of a ship-to-shore link via satellite.
Meanwhile, physical travel time to and from this ship is only negligible if you can afford a helicopter.
That right there is where the problem stems from.
So? Employers are free to require whatever they choose, are they not?
yet refuse to pay what a degree holding employee should be paid
What are you going to do, collectively bargain more realistic rates?
that's a nonsense statement, it has nothing to do with how banks operate. They operate within the limits created by the system,
And the banks are wholly separate from "the system" and have absolutely no influence in the writing of the rules?
"Corporations are people too, my friend."
You can get better education, free or nearly free, in most of Europe
As can be seen in most of the highly-moderated comments around here, the American voter tends to dislike government spending in any way, shape or form (with the possible exception of the military).
and yet the US youth just sits there, saddling itself with gazillions in student loan debt
So long as the debt is off the government's books, the voters are happy.
Quoth the FAQ:
The national law of whose flag they fly is the one that applies. Instead of going through the effort to work on a ship of Bahamian registry, why not move to the Bahamas?
Of course, a major reason why ships choose these flags of convenience is that, while information wants to be free, workers want to be paid. It's less about escaping the NSA and more about escaping OSHA.
I am looking at you Pakistan.
Not a NATO member. To date, there are no NATO members outside of Europe and North America.