See, the issue is what the IRS considers living somewhere. You need to live in PR for 11 months a year to not pay Federal Income tax. Meaning - 330+ days in PR or it doesn't count. You very well may be able to pull it off! If, however, you are caught don't expect the IRS to go lightly as having a mail drop and claiming to be a resident when not meeting the requirements of residency will mean all kinds of nasty penalties and taxes.
A better approach may be to create an offshore corporation - not an LLC - that exists in a low-tax domicile. LLCs have the "pleasure" of profits flowing through to the owners from a tax standpoint, meaning you are personally liable for income tax of your LLC. But a corporation (C corp) has no such flow through. The profits can be retained overseas, and you are liable only for the profits you choose to withdraw yourself. The rest stays inside the corporation, and probably pays a little corporate income tax wherever it is located. This can range from low (HK and Singapore are around 17%; Ireland is at 12.5%) to zero (British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, etc).
Dominica is one of my favorites. In addition to a 25% corporate tax rate on Dominca-sourced income only (meaning income sourced outside of Dominica is tax exempt), they also offer a "buy a citizenship" for $175,000. You can have a legal second passport, recognized in all other countries (Dominica is a member of the UN), and can get it in a second name if so desired (after becoming a citizen, you can legally change your name in Dominica, resulting in a legal passport in a different name). So a great shelter, a great and easy way to get a second passport, and a great way to make that second "identity" basically untraceable.
My second favorite is Hong Kong. Whilst its tax rate is nominally 17%, that is only for income earned in the territory of Hong Kong; income earned outside of Hong Kong is untaxed. Hong Kong is also the de-facto financial hub of Asia, a fabulous country, stable laws, English law based, English language based, and easy to commute to and from. Wonderful international banking, strong legal protections, low to zero effective tax rate, and never thought of as a "tax shelter" (unlike some of the other places listed). Singapore would be a close third. However, if the attraction of a second passport is not that high for you, then I would move HK to number one, SG to number 2, and Dominica to number 3 (it being less tarnished as "tax haven/drug lord driven" like Bermudas, BVI, Isle of Man, Jersey, Seychelles, and many others).
Did you READ the articles I linked? China has banned Bitcoin exchanges and use of Bitcoin within its borders. Good luck trying to spend Bitcoin in China, and if you're caught trading it inside China? I hope you like Chinese prison...
Then last week, several major Chinese bitcoin exchanges including BTC China announced they would end trading by the end of the month amid reports Chinese regulators planned to shut down the exchanges.
Now we know why you are an AC, so you don't show your ignorance. BTC is ending trading and the exchanges are closing in China.
Typically you need to spend 11 months (well, 330+ days) in a foreign land/territory to be considered "overseas" from a tax standpoint. Then you just get an exemption on paying income taxes on the first $100K you make; you pay full US income taxes from that point on, even if you also pay taxes in the foreign nation. AND time spent in/over international waters does not count. So if you're willing to live outside the US for 330+ days a year, and make less than $100K, then you're OK. Otherwise - you pay income tax (and the rate starts at the $100K point, so right off you're going to see a $20,000 tax bill).
PS: you attribute two statements to me; I claim the second (banned in China), but please show me where I stated the first. Failure to do so simply proves your trolling!
But you also have to own an iOS device, right? So if you're like the vast majority of people, you'd have to get a new phone and ecosystem to use that Watch. And from the bitching seen here at/. and other places, OS updates to older phones tends to turn them into worthless, slow bricks, so...
What is the "fair share" for the rich? Define "rich", and define "fair share" - otherwise you're just repeating a useless mantra...
PS: you do know that the US has claim to tax on EVERY PENNY you earn everywhere in the world, right? That it is the only industrialized nation to do so; if you are a German, you do not pay German income taxes on earnings in China. If you are French, you do not pay French income taxes on earnings in Brazil. But if you're an American, you pay US income taxes on every penny you earned, no matter what the jurisdiction.
1. Conservative households tend to make about 6% less than Liberal households, yet give 30% more to charity.
2. There are more "big donors" (those who give over $1000) among Conservatives than Liberals
3. In the 2012 Presidential election, the top 15 charitable States all voted for the GOP; the bottom 15 overwhelmingly (13 of 15) voted for the Democrats.
4. Religious people (usually more on the Conservative side of things) tend to overwhelmingly give to charities as compared to non-religious
5. Married people (who tend to be more conservative on average) give much more than unmarried people
6. The US by far and away is the most charitable nation on Earth
The current exchange rate of the day. HSBC doesn't discount. If the exchange rate on that day is 9.187 HKD to 1 EUR, then that is the rate of the transaction. You pay $100 HKD for the wire transfer. That's it. Unlimited money amount.
As far as transaction time, I call bullshit. Blockchain itself says they average about 900 minutes, which would be about 15 hours. So a business day. Of course, when HSBC sends the confirmation to my client (or vendor) that I just wired $XXXXX to them, they typically take it as "credit" because the BANK told them the money is coming - not me. That's as good as a letter of credit. Likewise, so do I. When I receive confirmation of the wire transfer started, I consider the transaction "done" and start the process. And that happens within a few minutes of the wire transfer being started. So - quite a bit faster than Blockchain - per Blockchain.
And good luck using that decentralized currency in China, or soon-to-be several major economies who are choosing to ban Bitcoin and other "crypto" currencies. If you cannot send it at all, then how is it better? At least from HK, or the USA, I can send USD or HKD to any country anywhere, any time - without any restriction.
And yet you have failed to post a single, peer reviewed reference. Who's the zealot, who's fishing to support their ideology? HINT: probably not the guy posting actual, you know, science and research papers and data.
Wait, so because I pointed out that the original poster was, in fact, wrong about the loss of ice - I am now a denier and blind to facts? Really? Does making sure we're talking about facts make one blind to them? Boy, you can always tell the zealot, eh?
Wait, so gaining more than you're losing is NOT a sign that you have, in fact, a net gain? That is what the the Antarctica article is about. And the one about Greenland is basically the same. We're adding more ice than losing. Or do you believe those articles say otherwise?
Combined, Antarctica (~90%) and Greenland (10%) contain ~99% of all freshwater on Earth. Antarctica is increasing its total ice mass. And surprisingly to many, Greenland is as well. Now, the other 1% of freshwater - all those glaciers - may be losing, but they are offset by what is happening on the two main ice sheets. Overall, the world seems to be accumulating ice in spite of localized losses, meaning the global climate is towards ice accumulation whilst local weather may be towards ice loss.
Please plot the number of storms and cyclones since, say, 2000. Then do a linear fit (since AGW proponents love linear fits). You'll find the trendline is negative. Using this data, then plotting the number of tropical cyclones, I get a linear fit of -0.2436X+19.203 - that is a negative slope. Doing so for the number of tropical storms, and hurricanes results in slopes that are also negative (-0.0918x+16.039 and -0.08846x+8.1373, respectively). That would indicate a declining number of events since 2000, correct?
And how many IPCC climate models puts water vapor as its main driver? Hint: the answer is less than 1.
And if it's not about wealth redistribution, then why are trillions of dollars committed to countries like China, India, and others - from countries in the EU, the US, etc - in an effort to reduce CO2 (which is, now we've agreed, not a driver in any climate change)?
I pay ~$14 ($100 HKD) to wire any amount of money, anywhere, and it is guaranteed/confirmed within 1 business day. That's not frictionless? Log in on my phone, enter the amount, enter the recipient's account, and push a button. Done.
The trend over the last 20 to 25 years is definitely down. Not just for those that land (which tend to also follow the, for lack of a better word, trend), but for all, even those which dissipate over the ocean.
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
Slashdot Mirror
What about Beats for $3.2 billion? Makes a $400 million acquisition seem pretty small...
See, the issue is what the IRS considers living somewhere. You need to live in PR for 11 months a year to not pay Federal Income tax. Meaning - 330+ days in PR or it doesn't count. You very well may be able to pull it off! If, however, you are caught don't expect the IRS to go lightly as having a mail drop and claiming to be a resident when not meeting the requirements of residency will mean all kinds of nasty penalties and taxes.
A better approach may be to create an offshore corporation - not an LLC - that exists in a low-tax domicile. LLCs have the "pleasure" of profits flowing through to the owners from a tax standpoint, meaning you are personally liable for income tax of your LLC. But a corporation (C corp) has no such flow through. The profits can be retained overseas, and you are liable only for the profits you choose to withdraw yourself. The rest stays inside the corporation, and probably pays a little corporate income tax wherever it is located. This can range from low (HK and Singapore are around 17%; Ireland is at 12.5%) to zero (British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, etc).
Dominica is one of my favorites. In addition to a 25% corporate tax rate on Dominca-sourced income only (meaning income sourced outside of Dominica is tax exempt), they also offer a "buy a citizenship" for $175,000. You can have a legal second passport, recognized in all other countries (Dominica is a member of the UN), and can get it in a second name if so desired (after becoming a citizen, you can legally change your name in Dominica, resulting in a legal passport in a different name). So a great shelter, a great and easy way to get a second passport, and a great way to make that second "identity" basically untraceable.
My second favorite is Hong Kong. Whilst its tax rate is nominally 17%, that is only for income earned in the territory of Hong Kong; income earned outside of Hong Kong is untaxed. Hong Kong is also the de-facto financial hub of Asia, a fabulous country, stable laws, English law based, English language based, and easy to commute to and from. Wonderful international banking, strong legal protections, low to zero effective tax rate, and never thought of as a "tax shelter" (unlike some of the other places listed). Singapore would be a close third. However, if the attraction of a second passport is not that high for you, then I would move HK to number one, SG to number 2, and Dominica to number 3 (it being less tarnished as "tax haven/drug lord driven" like Bermudas, BVI, Isle of Man, Jersey, Seychelles, and many others).
Did you READ the articles I linked? China has banned Bitcoin exchanges and use of Bitcoin within its borders. Good luck trying to spend Bitcoin in China, and if you're caught trading it inside China? I hope you like Chinese prison...
Then last week, several major Chinese bitcoin exchanges including BTC China announced they would end trading by the end of the month amid reports Chinese regulators planned to shut down the exchanges.
Now we know why you are an AC, so you don't show your ignorance. BTC is ending trading and the exchanges are closing in China.
Typically you need to spend 11 months (well, 330+ days) in a foreign land/territory to be considered "overseas" from a tax standpoint. Then you just get an exemption on paying income taxes on the first $100K you make; you pay full US income taxes from that point on, even if you also pay taxes in the foreign nation. AND time spent in/over international waters does not count. So if you're willing to live outside the US for 330+ days a year, and make less than $100K, then you're OK. Otherwise - you pay income tax (and the rate starts at the $100K point, so right off you're going to see a $20,000 tax bill).
Statistically downward trend since 1950 exists in hurricane landfalls. Again, how much more data do you need to disabuse yourself of your religious fervor?
Excuse me? I guess you didn't know that Beijing banned BTC. It's probably permanent. But hey, pump your modern day tulip bulbs and pets.com equivalent!
PS: you attribute two statements to me; I claim the second (banned in China), but please show me where I stated the first. Failure to do so simply proves your trolling!
But you also have to own an iOS device, right? So if you're like the vast majority of people, you'd have to get a new phone and ecosystem to use that Watch. And from the bitching seen here at /. and other places, OS updates to older phones tends to turn them into worthless, slow bricks, so...
It's like saying 60% of the time it works every time.
What is the "fair share" for the rich? Define "rich", and define "fair share" - otherwise you're just repeating a useless mantra...
PS: you do know that the US has claim to tax on EVERY PENNY you earn everywhere in the world, right? That it is the only industrialized nation to do so; if you are a German, you do not pay German income taxes on earnings in China. If you are French, you do not pay French income taxes on earnings in Brazil. But if you're an American, you pay US income taxes on every penny you earned, no matter what the jurisdiction.
Here you go. A few interesting takeaways:
1. Conservative households tend to make about 6% less than Liberal households, yet give 30% more to charity.
2. There are more "big donors" (those who give over $1000) among Conservatives than Liberals
3. In the 2012 Presidential election, the top 15 charitable States all voted for the GOP; the bottom 15 overwhelmingly (13 of 15) voted for the Democrats.
4. Religious people (usually more on the Conservative side of things) tend to overwhelmingly give to charities as compared to non-religious
5. Married people (who tend to be more conservative on average) give much more than unmarried people
6. The US by far and away is the most charitable nation on Earth
The current exchange rate of the day. HSBC doesn't discount. If the exchange rate on that day is 9.187 HKD to 1 EUR, then that is the rate of the transaction. You pay $100 HKD for the wire transfer. That's it. Unlimited money amount.
As far as transaction time, I call bullshit. Blockchain itself says they average about 900 minutes, which would be about 15 hours. So a business day. Of course, when HSBC sends the confirmation to my client (or vendor) that I just wired $XXXXX to them, they typically take it as "credit" because the BANK told them the money is coming - not me. That's as good as a letter of credit. Likewise, so do I. When I receive confirmation of the wire transfer started, I consider the transaction "done" and start the process. And that happens within a few minutes of the wire transfer being started. So - quite a bit faster than Blockchain - per Blockchain.
And good luck using that decentralized currency in China, or soon-to-be several major economies who are choosing to ban Bitcoin and other "crypto" currencies. If you cannot send it at all, then how is it better? At least from HK, or the USA, I can send USD or HKD to any country anywhere, any time - without any restriction.
Doing all your scripting in Brainfuck. Yes, you're a genius if you can do it - but it is rather complex to maintain...
This is Web 2.0! Uber doesn't have to abide by the law, why should AirBnB? This is Web 2.0!
And yet you have failed to post a single, peer reviewed reference. Who's the zealot, who's fishing to support their ideology? HINT: probably not the guy posting actual, you know, science and research papers and data.
Wait, so because I pointed out that the original poster was, in fact, wrong about the loss of ice - I am now a denier and blind to facts? Really? Does making sure we're talking about facts make one blind to them? Boy, you can always tell the zealot, eh?
OK, so what valid range should there be? How far back do you want to go, and why do you choose that date?
Wait, so gaining more than you're losing is NOT a sign that you have, in fact, a net gain? That is what the the Antarctica article is about. And the one about Greenland is basically the same. We're adding more ice than losing. Or do you believe those articles say otherwise?
Combined, Antarctica (~90%) and Greenland (10%) contain ~99% of all freshwater on Earth. Antarctica is increasing its total ice mass. And surprisingly to many, Greenland is as well. Now, the other 1% of freshwater - all those glaciers - may be losing, but they are offset by what is happening on the two main ice sheets. Overall, the world seems to be accumulating ice in spite of localized losses, meaning the global climate is towards ice accumulation whilst local weather may be towards ice loss.
Please plot the number of storms and cyclones since, say, 2000. Then do a linear fit (since AGW proponents love linear fits). You'll find the trendline is negative. Using this data, then plotting the number of tropical cyclones, I get a linear fit of -0.2436X+19.203 - that is a negative slope. Doing so for the number of tropical storms, and hurricanes results in slopes that are also negative (-0.0918x+16.039 and -0.08846x+8.1373, respectively). That would indicate a declining number of events since 2000, correct?
And how many IPCC climate models puts water vapor as its main driver? Hint: the answer is less than 1.
And if it's not about wealth redistribution, then why are trillions of dollars committed to countries like China, India, and others - from countries in the EU, the US, etc - in an effort to reduce CO2 (which is, now we've agreed, not a driver in any climate change)?
Convenience?
I pay ~$14 ($100 HKD) to wire any amount of money, anywhere, and it is guaranteed/confirmed within 1 business day. That's not frictionless? Log in on my phone, enter the amount, enter the recipient's account, and push a button. Done.
The trend over the last 20 to 25 years is definitely down. Not just for those that land (which tend to also follow the, for lack of a better word, trend), but for all, even those which dissipate over the ocean.
As far as Antarctica, what study shows the mass of snow and ice is not accumulating? it's gaining - not losing. In every single study you'll find that covers the entire continent (not just cherry-picked little areas).
Looking at the data over the last 20 years the trends for storms and hurricanes is down.