To quote Peter Schiff on this "Tax avoidance isn't the problem. It's a solution to the problem. The problem is taxes!"
U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
141–150 of 164 posts
Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
American Imperialism at its finest. "Since we're the best country in the world, you couldn't have possibly become rich without us, and therefore you must pay to leave us!"
Greatness aside, you probably couldn't have become rich without roads, national defense, clean water...
For that the person has already paid his taxes and he has paid for nonsensical wars elsewhere too.
Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#143Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect, it has a perfectly precise legal meaning. Discretionary spending is government spending allocated through an appropriations bill. It's useful to distinguish between entitlement programs and non-entitlement programs. Where did you get the idea it was simply "political newspeak"? Perhaps you should reassess the value of your contributions to these types of discussions in light of your demonstrated ignorance…
It's political newspeak because the large majority of the federal budget is social programs and so is the overwhelming majority of "non-discretionary spending." Excluding it diverts focus away from the primary source of government expenditures. It's language designed to make a particular thought unthinkable, which is the defining characteristic of newspeak.
You said: "Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary."
That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill are considered discretionary because the level of funding they receive is up to the discretion of Congress. Things that are funded by a mandate are not considered discretionary because their funding is not up to the discretion of congress from year to year. The opinions of liberals or conservatives do not factor into which is considered which. There is a precise legal meaning here. It is not simply "a term the left made up".
In addition to there being a legal distinction, there is also an accounting distinction. Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that?
Your income taxes are not funding social security. Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing.
So, although I get that you do not like the nomenclature, I don't get how it makes some particular thought unthinkable. They are two different things. They should have two different names. It seems far more Orwellian to pretend like there isn't a legal difference between the two, simply because it would make achieving political goals you happen to find favorable easier.
You seem to be under the impression we could take the money from social security or medicare and spend it on stuff you like better. Legally, that isn't true. So yes, in the sense that it would be totally freaking illegal, it is "unthinkable" to cut social security in order to lower income taxes.
You might as well refer to calling animals "lions" and "tigers" as newspeak, because they make the thought that they are actually the same species of animal unthinkable. Well, they aren't the same species of animal. So it ain't newspeak, it's just nomenclature that you don't like.
It is perfectly accurate to describe spending appropriated from the general fund as discretionary and social security as non-discretionary whether or not you like the terminology. They're two different things, one of which is up to the discretion of congress, one of which is not.
Come up with a new term if you'd like. But you've strongly implied you think the two types of spending aren't different. That's not Orwellian -- that's you simply not understanding freshman high school civics. You also claimed that "discretionary spending" is a term the left made up. Are you going to post a citation for that, or admit you were wrong?
Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
>you still have to pay US income taxes for ten years after you renounce your citizenship Do you have a source for this? I've never heard about it. All I know is they make sure your last N years of taxes are in order, charge you expatriation tax (if required), and ensure you have no unpaid federal student loans.
It's in the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax#United_States "Under the new law, any individual who had a net worth of $2 million or an average income tax liability of $139,000 for the five previous years[10] who renounces his or her citizenship is automatically assumed to have done so for tax avoidance reasons and is subject to additional taxes. Furthermore, with certain exceptions covered expatria…
Ah, so it only applies if you go back to the US. Good to know. Thanks.
Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax#United_States "Under the new law, any individual who had a net worth of $2 million or an average income tax liability of $139,000 for the five previous years[10] who renounces his or her citizenship is automatically assumed to have done so for tax avoidance reasons and is subject to additional taxes. Furthermore, with certain exceptions covered expatria…
Ah, so it only applies if you go back to the US. Good to know. Thanks.
Read it again. It applies if you spend time in the US or you paid above a certain amount in tax before you expatriated.
Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#147This is happening because unlike almost every other developed nation the US has a worldwide tax system. Almost every other nation has a territorial tax system. The rest of the world with their territorial system taxes income earned within that country, the US rather taxes income worldwide, regardless of where it is earned. For example, if a British company earns income in Germany, its pays German taxes on its German…
Also, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If you can go to Ireland and pay something close to 10%, its a no brainier. The tax rates are pretty crazy in the US if you think about it. A single person small business just getting started still has to pay 33% of their profit even if their profit is $1,000 for the entire year.
> A single person small business just getting started still has to pay 33% of their profit even if their profit is $1,000 for the entire year.
That's simply not true; somebody is lying to you.
A sole proprietorship's profit is passed as regular income to the proprietor.
Re: U.S. Moves to Thwart Use of Foreign Acquisitions to Dodge Taxes
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's political newspeak because the large majority of the federal budget is social programs and so is the overwhelming majority of "non-discretionary spending." Excluding it diverts focus away from the primary source of government expenditures. It's language designed to make a particular thought unthinkable, which is the defining characteristic of newspeak.
You said: "Things they want are non-discretionary, other things are discretionary." That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill are considered discretionary because the level of funding they receive is up to the discretion of Congress. Things that are funded by a mandate are not considered discretionary because their funding is not up to the discretion of congress from year to year. The o…
> Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget.
Actually, they kind of are. Considering that SS invests (solely?) in treasury bonds, which are then used to pay for programs. Much of the national debt is owed to Social Security.