Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (22144)	1/25/2005 2:07:01 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

The initial law, which taxed Americans for 19 years who renounced their citizenship, was enacted a couple of years after John Templeton left for the Bahamas in 1968. This happened during the Nixon Administration. One of the motivations for Templeton was he wanted to sell most of his long-held portfolio of stocks and was able to do so free of tax. Warren Buffett achieved a similar result by purchasing insurance companies. From what you say, it would appear the tax law for Americans renouncing their citizenship was tightened further in 1996. The original law certainly did little to stem the flow, as witnessed by the list of those who renounced their citizenship since the law was passed. Personally I think the tax-free status afforded U.K. expatriates is more reflective of the continuing class system in England than a rational tax policy. The only place I can obtain citizenship more or less automatically is Switzerland, which is hardly a tax-haven. You also need to be in agreement with the Swiss need to "do things the right way" - which is easier when you are older than younger. Also the military tax, in lieu of service, cuts off at age 58, if memory serves. .

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (22144)	1/26/2005 4:06:47 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

Jim, "A tax law was passed in 1996 that said anyone who gives up their citizenship and is worth $500,000 or more, must be doing it to dodge taxes." This sounds inaccurate to me. It would be rather arrogant to assume people move out of the USA and give up their citizenship only for this reason, as if the underlying assumption is everything about the USA is perfect. Greenspan is reckless and weak with easy money and deficits. They probably look at the country a person goes to - if it's Belize they probably are correct in scrutinizing the person. But if it's a different country that charges taxes, they probably don't bother because when you don't live in the USA the IRS only charges you tax above and beyond what you are aleady paying to the foreign country. But it would be most unusual for them to charge a person 10 years worth of taxes while you pay taxes in a foreign country and use the services of the foreign country rather than the USA - sounds like they are trying to double dip. They fix one problem but created a bizarre and unjust tax code on the other hand. I hear half of the homes bought in SD are thru interest only loans. Meanwhile, Greenie doesn't do a thing about it. So are taxpayers going to bail out the banking system again? Whose holding these mortgages that will default when people walk away from their interest-only homes. I'm not paying for that - no way. Greenspan can take a hike. Don't you agree? Regards, Amy J