[80881] in Cypherpunks
Re: How much you lose under Social Security --
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (frissell@panix.com)
Fri May 30 20:39:37 1997
From: frissell@panix.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 19:47:45 -0400
To: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>, Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Cc: cypherpunks@algebra.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970530154726.11689B-100000@beast.brainlink.c
om>
Reply-To: frissell@panix.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 03:55 PM 5/30/97 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:
>What's the
>justification behind this other than exit rape?
Same justification as any tax. "We want the dough." Note they haven't=20
managed to pass a full exit tax yet, however:
http://207.87.27.10/forbes/111896/5812044a.htm
Forbes - 18 November 1996
"And don't come back"
By Robert Lenzner=20
In August 1996 the Republicans pasted some anti-taxpatriate language into=
the=20
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act. This law now subjects=20
expatriates with a net worth of over $500,000 to taxation on their income=20
earned in the U.S. for ten years from the time they renounce their=20
citizenship, no matter where they live or whose flag they salute. But this=
is=20
a law without teeth. Any clever entrepreneur can live by borrowing against=
=20
assets rather than paying himself an income. Any good international tax=
lawyer=20
can move ownership of U.S. assets into a foreign corporation or trust, thus=
=20
making most taxpatriates' U.S.-sourced income vanish.
The latest effort to keep intrepid taxpatriates on the reservation was=
passed=20
with no fanfare in early October. A little-noticed provision of the Illegal=
=20
Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 says, in essence,=
=20
that Americans can still renounce their citizenship and flee to tax havens=
=20
like the Bahamas, Ireland and Switzerland. But if they do, they can't=20
necessarily come back to the U.S., not even to visit the grandkids or attend=
=20
their college reunions.
Under the new law, the taxpatriate=97any expatriate for that matter=97must=
apply=20
for a visa for every visit. The law states that the U.S. Attorney General=
may=20
prohibit the issuance of a visa to a former U.S. citizen if there are solid=
=20
grounds to believe that citizenship was renounced in order to avoid taxes.
In short, taxpatriates will now be treated as exiles without any visiting=20
rights, just like the illegal immigrants the U.S. wants to cut off.
***************
Utterly meaningless in both cases since, as mentioned, you can move your=20
wealth overseas and in the case of the visa requirement, first they have to=
=20
flag you as an expatriate and even if they do that, you can enter the U.S.=
via=20
Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean which are all inside the "US Passport=20
Control Area."
>I suppose one way is to take loads of trips and loads of AmEx traveler's
>checks, then gamble on things with 50% chance of winning, take the
>winnings and dump'em in accounts outside. Repeat until nothing's left,
>then exit with very little.
I find that a SWIFT wire transfer is faster, safer, and easier.
>So let's sue the system. Might fail, but maybe we can get it the fuck out
>of our income taxes. One less tax to bother with. Since it no longer
>does what it is supposed to, might as well get rid of it. One way is to
>calculate how much you've put in it, and what is expected you'll receive
>on retirement. Compare the two, then sue the bastards. (I donno what
>I've been smoking, but I should get more of it, that's for sure. heheheh)
If you can find a judge who doesn't have "a financial interest in the=
outcome=20
of the proceedings" I suppose you could try but victory seems unlikely in=20
either case.
Rather than litigation or detonation why not just try to ignore them.
DCF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0 beta
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM49nIIVO4r4sgSPhAQEYsQP/Wci/WaWwb533khhDPWxo+x1OGChODmh6
xpm/WbyFBR+gUwi29FvgO/4hR4AaNW1T5koh309wT8MqU3LGNT/zWWxOCDR03neN
EXvZPFqNGLcU5aHimZpXfE8jaOtlYnNSL4kDRk9NbeCiryOhjgJrvpipZx1qki2X
OQJiA9dWnkw=3D
=3DpvEx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
