Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 179 posts

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#131

Post by X-Istence »

sliverstorm wrote: post #112
waqf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean to imply that being double-taxed after your first $100k is fair and reasonable?

If you own two houses, just because you aren't living at House A right now doesn't mean you don't need to pay upkeep, and doesn't mean you aren't deriving benefit from it. Thought of differently- expats expect to be able to vote, right? Is it fair and reasonable for someone who is categorically excluded from paying taxes, to be allowed to vote?

I am a tax payer in the United States, yet I am not eligible to vote ... Green Card holder!

Why should someone living outside the united states, with no houses in the united states, still pay US taxes, just because they have US citizenship?

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#132

Post by cujo »

mikeash wrote: post #64
cujo wrote: post #19

This is going to sound snarky, but I'm not sure how else to ask it: why should I (or anyone not an expat) care? It seems to me that the complaint is from people who don't live in the US and have very little attachment to it other than convenience.

Isn't your last bit the whole point? These people have very little attachment to the US but are still undergoing hardship due to US government policy due to what is basically a technicality of legal status. For a more personal point of view, how sure are you that you will never, ever decide to retire to, say, Costa Rica?

First of all, I should have mentioned that I'm naive on the topic. From that point of view this seems like a very odd thing to be upset about, hence my question.

Second, for having little attachment, they seem more than happy to house a respectable chunk of money resting abroad. I find it odd that their new home is so lovely except they don't want their money there.

And to answer your question about say, Costa Rica, I guess I always assumed that if I were going to retire else somewhere it would be in such a way that I would commit to that location. I don't understand the idea of moving to another country and leaving all my shit back at the motherland. Again, I'm naive of this whole process, so that may be the silliest thing you read today. Sorry if it is.

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#133

Post by cujo »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #38
cujo wrote: post #19

This is going to sound snarky, but I'm not sure how else to ask it: why should I (or anyone not an expat) care? It seems to me that the complaint is from people who don't live in the US and have very little attachment to it other than convenience.

If you are an American living in the states you should care because bad tax policy is like a cold sore that never heals, and indication of a much deeper systemic problem. Because it is systemic, it will likely come around and affect you directly. In many ways the tax code is the scab over the festering and oozing mass that is the budget that most represents the problems in the government that are going unsolved. If y…

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but this statement tells me nothing other than bad tax code is bad. Why is this new law bad?

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#134

Post by vorg »

opendais wrote: post #95
DamnYuppie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can it not be both? Congress only passes the Tax Code, the IRS on the other hand has a liberal mandate into how they go about doing their job. They are quite tyrannical when it comes to fees and penalties. They also don't need a court order to garnish your wages or confiscate your property.

Because focusing on the IRS ignores the fact Congress can alter the IRS's mandate at-will to remove any of the policies of the IRS that is considered "bad". The President and his appointees can alter things within the mandate. Get angry at the people that make policy, not the people that enforce it. Sure, the IRS could be nicer. However, as someone who had to handle a policy enforcement role from time to time...I kno…

> "Get angry at the people that make policy, not the people that enforce it."

Ever heard of "Good cop, bad cop" ?

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#135

Post by beeworker »

opendais wrote: post #95
DamnYuppie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can it not be both? Congress only passes the Tax Code, the IRS on the other hand has a liberal mandate into how they go about doing their job. They are quite tyrannical when it comes to fees and penalties. They also don't need a court order to garnish your wages or confiscate your property.

Because focusing on the IRS ignores the fact Congress can alter the IRS's mandate at-will to remove any of the policies of the IRS that is considered "bad". The President and his appointees can alter things within the mandate. Get angry at the people that make policy, not the people that enforce it. Sure, the IRS could be nicer. However, as someone who had to handle a policy enforcement role from time to time...I kno…

Getting enforcers to quit or be fired is the general idea of focusing in on them -- if there are no enforcers then nothing is enforced regardless what the policy makers say. It's another solution to solving the problem of bad policy besides the one of changing the policy. One could argue its results. The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much. But this just suggests an alteration: focus on individuals of the loathed organizations, which has had success in the form of social justice warriors being quite successful at getting individuals, even "powerful", higher-up-the-ladder individuals, fired for things they've said or done.

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#136

Post by cujo »

digikata wrote: post #71
cujo wrote: post #19

This is going to sound snarky, but I'm not sure how else to ask it: why should I (or anyone not an expat) care? It seems to me that the complaint is from people who don't live in the US and have very little attachment to it other than convenience.

For one, Americans living abroad and establishing business relationships seems like it would be a component in increasing exports from America, reducing the trade deficit.

Perhaps. But I'm not convinced this new law would have any effect on the scenario you describe. Money is getting pretty good at crossing borders, and the people this mostly effects are not those in the position to put a dent in the trade deficit.

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#137

Post by walshemj »

nagi2k4 wrote: post #30

Something worth noting is that FATCA essentially makes it impossible for an institution to remain "FATCA compliant" if they have any financial relationship with a non-compliant entity. Sure, they can have such relationships, but the U.S. Treasury department can then impose a 30% penalty on any transaction that passes through a U.S. bank. Given that the vast majority of international payments are made in USD, that 30%…

And it imposes a large cost on non us citizens who have to pay for our uk institutions ro meet the cost of US regs out of our fees the Daly telegraph estimated that the cost of FACTA to uk investors with absolutely no connection with the USA was 1/2 a billion pounds.

So when do I get my vote for president :-)

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#138

Post by walshemj »

_nedR wrote: post #76

Is it just me that finds the situation rather ironic considering the fact that unfair taxes levied on emigrant citizens was the main reason for Americans to seek independence from the British in the first place?

And now is costing us Brits as our UK banks have to pay for US IRS rules

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#139

Post by cruisername »

GFischer wrote: post #52
ggambetta wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a fellow Uruguayan, I want to add that citizenship comes without too many obligations; no military service or anything like that. The only one I can think of is that voting is compulsory. On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend living in Uruguay; I had very good reasons to leave and I don't see myself returning anytime soon. And I'd argue any European passport is better than an Uruguay one - you can freely live an…

Totally agreed on the European passports being overall superior (although some do come with obligations like military service for an Austrian passport for example), but they're much harder to obtain (I've been denied German citizenship). I've read about your reasons for leaving (security), and sadly, I have to agree that they're still an issue (and I'd love living in Switzerland). I think the risk can be minimized th…

being denied german citizenship sucks for you, but with that last-name it's remarkably ironic.

Re: Americans abroad are giving up their citizenship as banks shut down accounts

#140

Post by mariuolo »

anigbrowl wrote: post #108
rodgerd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you had dual citizenship (e.g. Canadian + US), do you even need to tell a bank about your US citizenship when opening an account? If they bank (or its parent) wants to be able to do business in the US, yes. This is part of the same overreach as insisting data resident in an Irish data centre, belonging to an Irish entity, is subject to the US courts in violation of Irish and EU law.

That's not a good analogy. Microsoft is not really an Irish entity just because it owns an Irish subsidiary. Microsoft has a valid argument, but omitting the fact of the parent entity being American is disingenuous.

Actually it is. Or has the internet done away with the concept of law of the land?
Post reply on HN