271
submitted 10 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 124 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's there for a reason tho...

If it wasn't, the wealthy would take their wealth and fuck off to somewhere it was worth more.

They're fine to do that, but the US is still going to want it's cut, you're still paying federal taxes every year because you're a US Citizen.

Rich people hate paying taxes. So they just renounced citizenship on the way out and took all their wealth with them.

But like you said, it's based on how much wealth you own so for normal people, it's not a big deal.

It's weird seeing people against it.

Edit:

Also, you have to be pretty wealthy to even have to pay it. The vast majority of Americans would pay $0 to renounce.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expatriation-tax

Next day edit:

Edit:

I’ve lost count of how many rich overseas workers have made 5+ replies to my comments in less than 10 minutes screaching about how they shouldn’t pay taxes

And every single one claims to be right on the line for having to pay it… yet want it thrown out for billionaires as well…

Apparently I can’t turn off replies to comment like on reddit, so I’m just blocking every “temporary poor billionaire” who wants to spend energy online arguing billionaires should pay taxes because it would mean they do too

No one has time for the Scrouge McDuck defenders.

[-] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 65 points 10 months ago

To be entirely fair, I think its insane that the US would charge income tax on citizens who live abroad in the first place.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well, yeah, but again it's only for the wealthy

If you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien of the United States and you live abroad, you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, you may qualify to exclude your foreign earnings from income up to an amount that is adjusted annually for inflation ($107,600 for 2020, $108,700 for 2021, $112,000 for 2022, and $120,000 for 2023). In addition, you can exclude or deduct certain foreign housing amounts.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion

Those parts are never mentioned when people complain about this stuff. Because the only ones paying it are the wealthy ones, and they always bitch about taxes.

They pay, because at any moment they can come back as a citizen. If the wealthy do t want to pay for that option, then they can renounce citizenship and pay a one time tax to remove their wealth.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm aware there's no real way to say anything here without sounding like a pretentious snob, but those income limits aren't exactly spectacularly high.

I work in tech in NYC and my income is around those limits. My boyfriend is from Switzerland and there's a non-trivial chance that we'll wind up there long-term. If I was from literally any other country in the world beyond Eritrea, I would file Swiss taxes and that would be that. Instead, I'll have a direct financial incentive to give up my native citizenship because I'm from one of two countries that makes a claim to any income earned anywhere in the world, even if I don't step foot in the country that year. This is particularly rough in Switzerland because average salaries there are quite high, and thus so are costs of living, and so surpassing those limits isn't a particularly uncommon thing. (Edit: About one in four Swiss residents make more than $120,000 annually).

I know this won't garner any sympathy at all, but a bad policy only affecting the relatively wealthy doesn't change the fact that it's a bad policy. It could even backfire from a financial perspective, since having renounced American citizenship, I'd be less inclined to spend time in the US and contribute to taxes while visiting, and I'd never move back long-term, cutting off a chance of the government getting full income taxes from me ever again, whereas a change of circumstances might have otherwise prompted me to eventually return to the US.

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 16 points 10 months ago

Making $120k a year is by no means on the wealthy scale.

[-] droans@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It would put you in the top 15% of households. And that's individual income.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

It's still not wealthy. It's squarely middle class.

[-] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 10 months ago

No it wouldn't. Upper middle class is the 60th to 80th percentile.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I pay no tax to the US, but I bitch about it. I've lived abroad since I was 3y.o and realized when I turned 18 that I have to declare to the IRS every year. Let me tell you, it is an absolute pain in the ass when you have to do it yourself, without a US bank account or phone number. Takes me a full working day to declare 0 tax to the IRS when they already know that I owe zero tax because they force any bank I have accounts at to report to them. Half the banks in Sweden simply refuse to have me as a customer because of this, in addition to certain types of income technically being subject to double taxation because of US law.

I can't even get rid of my US citizenship without paying an absurd exit tax

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

I can’t even get rid of my US citizenship without paying an absurd exit tax

If that's true in your case, it means you have over 2 million in assets or made more than 170k averaged over the last five years...

If you're below both this, you don't have to pay the exit tax

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/expatriation-tax

So either you don't know the basics of what you're complaining about, or you're pretending you don't make an obscene amount of money

[-] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

...or I don't have a 5yr record of reporting taxes to the IRS. There's also the 2'500USD "Administration fee"

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s not just about money. It’s a labor burden and a privacy intrusion. And even if iceblade02 could renounce for free, they then must carry the renounciation cert for the rest of their life and show it to every bank they deal with and hope that no data entry errors trigger data oversharing anyway.

They must renounce to get their human rights back. Because without renouncing, they lose their human right to non-discriminatory treatment on the basis of national origin (article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

But back to money, that annual tax filing accidental Americans must file costs them $300+/year -- accountants do not work for free. It’s effectively a tax on the poor.

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

$120k is "wealthy" now? 120k isn't even enough to buy a fucking house in most cities in the US. Actual wealthy people aren't affected by this law because they don't have regular income.

[-] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

120K lands you at 86th percentile [1]. So... relatively, you are sorta well off.

Sure, you can't buy a house with that income in a big city. But that merely shows how fucked up the real estate bubble is. Just think, the top 86th percentile earning person is no where near enough to even buy a home. Houses are about 1m in my neighborhood. So you need to earn about 250k/yr to realistically afford a home. That lands you at 97th percentile. So just top 3% of the people can actually afford a home on a single person's salary. That's how fucked we are.

The median income for a non-family household (i.e. single) is 45k, and family household is 95k (possibly dual income) according to 2023 census [2]. So, you're doing relatively quite well in comparison.

Who is "wealthy" is a subjective term. So a median person might see someone making 120k as wealthy. But the person earning 120k might see themselves as poor since they can't even own a home. Historically, the single income middle class could afford homes.

[-] rexxit@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I've seen this on Reddit before: Six figures means you're rich, because that was true in the 80s, right? Obviously people don't have a clue that 40 years of inflation has made that middle class.

Also: income is not wealth, and the willful lack of understanding on that point blows my mind. A person who is wealthy can live an upper middle class lifestyle or better without ever having to work again. A person who has respectable income may have minimal wealth, or even mountains of debt (student loans, mortgage, etc). A person who makes 100k could be a few months unemployment away from losing their house or lease, while a person with "wealth" may not have to work at all.

People don't become filthy rich working full time for six figures. The wealthy (~$20-50m net worth and up IMO) are people who made their money with something other than labor - through investments and things that the government doesn't really classify as normal income.

Edit: It's like the saying goes: nobody makes a billion dollars. They take a billion dollars. If you tax the wealthy on income, you collect very little tax, because it's not classified as income. Meanwhile you're going to tax an engineer or physician who probably have hefty student loans and work their asses off full time, at the highest marginal rates because we don't or can't tax wealth.

Edit2: we've got minimum wage internet trolls who think an employee software engineer is basically a cigar chomping capitalist because they make over the median wage. The middle class has shrunk and maybe you're not in it. Get a clue, dumbasses.

[-] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Six figures means you’re rich, because that was true in the 80s, right?

No, this was not any more true in the 80s than it is now.

[-] rexxit@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I certainly agree based on my previous statement that income is not wealth, but I was trying to make two points and mixed the messages.

One is that amounts of money that were once considered an unbelievable amount for income or wealth - say $100k and $1m - have now been eroded by inflation to fairly modest money. In the 70s or 80s, having a million meant never working again. Earning 100k a year when a house cost $50k was huge money, and might lead to wealth quickly, if one bought several houses with it.

Another point I'd like to sneak in is that there's almost no modern equivalent to that kind of employed income. On paper, inflation puts it at 400k - so maybe today's equivalent of a surgeon - but the 50k house now costs $500k-1m. Notional inflation being 4x, while the critically important things have gone up 10-20x means that something harder to quantify is broken, and upward mobility isn't working the way we expect. The same opportunities don't exist. We are less likely to turn income into wealth over time than at points in the past, and so the tendency of people to erroneously think high income = wealth may have a reasonable basis in history that has never been less true today.

Edit: and it's not just houses, it's the stock market. The advent of the internet and e-commerce resulting in tech stock growth 1995-today is a phenomenon not likely to be replicated in any other area. We may be running out of growth to be had. The ability to get 10-20x your money over 30-40 years of investments is probably gone, and with it the prospect of comfortable retirement for even relatively high earners.

[-] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago

They pay, because at any moment they can come back as a citizen.

But that's true of pretty much every other country in the world as well. So it still doesn't explain why the US is the only one that charges tax on foreign-earned income.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

So it still doesn’t explain why the US is the only one that charges tax on foreign-earned income.

On the wealthy...

You keep omitting that point, and it's starting to get old.

But the reason is idealistic.

America was supposed to be the land of immigrants where anyone can immigrate, work hard, and earn wealth.

That system doesn't work if once you amass your wealth, you fuck off somewhere else and take it all with you. The reasoning is you were able to amass that wealth through America's social ladder.

If the wealthy (the only ones that pay foreign income tax or exit taxes) don't want to pay that, they know that being honest will never result in change.

If how I'm saying it doesn't make sense, use the IRS website I've provided numerous times.

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You keep calling these people "wealthy" but the income levels you shared don't even come close to matching that. Also lol at the idea of America being an idealistic place so that's why people should pay this tax. My fucking ass. America is and always has been rigged for rich people, which should immediately tell you why this law still exists.

How about we actually tax real wealthy people, like millionaires loaning money to themselves, instead of forcing the middle class to pick up the slack yet again?

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 0 points 10 months ago

If how I’m saying it doesn’t make sense, use the IRS website I’ve provided numerous times.

You cannot expect people to use the irs.gov website. That’s not open to the public. It’s exclusive. Try going there over tor - you will get a 403. Indeed it’s shitty that access to legal information is restricted. It should be open to all.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 34 points 10 months ago

Correct. It's only the US and Eritrea (the North Korea of Africa) who do this. It's insane.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

It's like the Inheritance tax. It's basically meaningless to the poor, but it sounds bad so the GOP uses it to scare their base. However the targets of the tax are primarily the handful of rich capitalist bastards who have a harder time ~~bribing~~ lobbying their way out of it.

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The exit tax starts at $120k. That's "I can rent but not buy an apartment in San Francisco" class, not the "rich capitalist bastard lobbying Congress" class. And of course it's also an income tax so it does jack shit to tax actual wealthy people.

Actual rich people already worked around the tax issue by putting their assets in stocks and loans. They aren't paying this tax at all in the first place. They don't need to lobby anyone.

It's fucking ridiculous how some of you try to frame this income level. Doctors and lawyers are not the wealthy capitalists phoning up Congress and getting what they want from them. It's actually fucking crazy that you're acting like they do. People raising a family at that income level will never retire just like any other worker, but now they're rich capitalist bastards?

[-] rexxit@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Totally agree. Income isn't wealth and people are clinging onto 1970s implications of "millionaire" when in 2023 having a million net worth doesn't even allow you to retire and might just mean you own a house and have little other savings. Similarly "six figures" income meant a lot 30-40 years ago, but inflation eroded that to middle class in the 21st century.

load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
271 points (95.0% liked)

News

22526 readers
4635 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS