 
|
As we approach the July 4th holiday that inspires our most patriotic thoughts, it’s hard to imagine that any American would voluntarily give up his or her citizenship. But perhaps the politicians are starting to understand that the taxpaying public is growing wary of being fleeced, either through increased taxes or the stealth tax of inflation, as a way to repay all the debt that Washington has incurred. And in preparation for the possibility that Americans might rebel at the debt and taxes incurred by their government, they’ve just passed a new law that will stop your capital — or at least a good portion of it — at the border, should you decide to leave. You probably didn’t notice this little provision inserted into the Heroes Act of 2008, passed by Congress on June 17. The headlines in the press release about the law were about the increased benefits for veterans and families of deceased military.
But Richard Kohan of Price WaterhouseCoopers drew my attention to one section of the act — the portion that states anyone voluntarily giving up his or her citizenship will be taxed on ALL of his assets as if he or she had sold them — paying capital gains on assets that have increased in value, even though they have not been sold! That’s right. While everyone in the media is focused on keeping aliens out of America, Congress has voted to lock its citizens — or at least a good portion of their assets — into — America! Maybe they’re thinking that patriotism won’t be enough to keep the smart money from recognizing the coming increases in the tax burden.
Don’t you just love the way they slip these laws right past your nose. I mean, who would argue with something called the Heroes Act?
#19 – Wrong. My mother was a bank exec long ago. $10,000 was the reporting limit for ANY withdrawal, whether it was international or not didn’t enter the equation. She told me about this back in the 70′s. Bush had n/g to do with it.
#21 – Paddy-O
>>$10,000 was the reporting limit for ANY
>>withdrawal, whether it was international or
>>not didn’t enter the equation. She told me
>>about this back in the 70’s. Bush had n/g to
>>do with it.
No, it was Ronald RayGun, who oversaw the passage of the Money Laundering Act of 1986, when they implemented the Currency Transaction Report (CTR). Before that, the only way the gummint knew about suspicious transactions was if the bank called the cops.
Funny, how each chip away at our personal privacy comes under a Republican administration.
Mustard –
Clinton did sign in the DMCA.
Liberals were calling for just such a tax at the end of the Clinton years. Now you are against it? At least you’re improving on taxes.
#22 “No, it was Ronald RayGun, who oversaw the passage of the Money Laundering Act of 1986, ”
The banks were reporting WAY before ’86. I saw the forms (in the bank)in ’79.
Know your customer legislation passed under W, after being proposed under Clinton. That time they dropped it after a big campaign by WorldNetDaily.
#2 “Next step, needing gov’t permission to leave the country.”
What next step? If you’re on the do-not-fly list then the only way to leave is through Canada or Mexico.
“…who would argue with something called the Heroes Act?”
Or the USA PATRIOT Act? (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Or the Protect America Act? (controversial amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
There must be a professional PR firm in charge of spinning all these Act names so election-bound legislators will vote for them without reading the fine print. Pretty sneaky, but it works.
#16 – Jägermeister “…like to switch to an Austrian prison?”
Man, that’s some swank prison facility — all the inmates there must be in training as professional window washers. BTW, what’s with the smiley face emoticons painted on the ceiling in photo #3? That’s beyond odd…
Does it seem right that I live in the Czech republic now 360 days out of the year and get paid in Czech Krona but still pay taxes to the US on a good portion of my income? For What? To still have a right to Vote in the sham elections in the US where there is no candidate with my same beliefs? Bad enough when I lived in the US. I lived in New Hampshire and worked in Mass. I paid Mass taxes on my Income but had no rights to vote in Mass elections… Taxation without representation…..Where have I heard that before. Face it the land of the free is dead and buried the land of big business and greed had replaced it.
I know a doctor who works 5 days a week in the USA making several million dollars a year. He flies to Israel every weekend. He’s an Israeli citizen though born, raised and educated in the USA. He’s married to an Israeli woman and his children are born in Israel and live there. So I guess this law is aimed at folk like him?? He doesn’t accept payments from any insurance company and sues even the poorest of patients for every penny he can get out of them. He has no problem taking a poor person’s car or other meager assets away from them because they own him money. I see nothing wrong with taxing someone like him or taking his assets away. You ruin someone’s life, the same should come back to you. Karma.
#25 – Paddy-O
>>The banks were reporting WAY before ‘86.
>>I saw the forms (in the bank)in ‘79.
They had forms, but they only used them if they felt like it. It wasn’t until Ronald RayGun signed the money laundering act that they were required to report transactions >$9,999.99
#23 – Mota
>>Clinton did sign in the DMCA.
Yes, and he was an asshole for doing that. Although it was passed by unanimous vote in the Senate, so even if he vetoed it, it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Actually, the correct law is H.R. 6081. Plus, I found this comment on another newsite: “According to this bill, as long as the ex-citizen has been filing his tax returns for the last five years, he is exempt from the expatriation tax if (A) the average annual net income tax (as defined in section 38(c)(1)) of such individual for the period of 5 taxable years ending before the date of the loss of United States citizenship is greater than $124,000, (B) the net worth of the individual as of such date is $2,000,000 or more, or (C) such individual fails to certify under penalty of perjury that he has met the requirements of this title for the 5 preceding taxable years or fails to submit such evidence of such compliance as the Secretary may require.”
This is to close a loophole whereas the rich could AVOID paying taxes. To be twisted out of shape by the right wing nuts as somehow an infringement, confiscation, or totalitarianism measure are fools.
Sheep that believe anything they are told. Geeze.
#32 “They had forms, but they only used them if they felt like it. ”
Sorry, IRS required that they file on all. It was an IRS imposed requirement. Bank had no choice.
So McCullough’s a right-winger?
#36. Yes JCD and myself, both right wing nuts….couldn’t you tell?
Soooo…lemmee see..from the posts made here, I can assume that I can get paid to move my corp. off-shore but, I can’t take my money ?!?
Wtf ?
Bush has experimented with how far a president can go breaking federal laws and destroying the constitution. Now that the bar has been set, expect future presidents to go where no presidents have dared to go in the past.
Its gonna be a bumpy ride. We of course should blame the liberals for it all, the tricked conservatives into destroying the constitution with all that liberal whining.