[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from any tax obligations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again.
Source.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what?
Here's what I read there: "United States citizens living abroad
are required to file annual U.S. income tax returns and report their worldwide income if they meet the minimum income filing requirements for their filing status and age."
[/ QUOTE ]
You must have "accidentally" missed the second next sentence. It was even in the same paragraph you're incompletely quoting. Crazy how those little "accidents" happen, eh?
"For the United States income tax return, you will have several options available to you regarding claiming a foreign tax credit or excluding some or all of your foreign earned income."
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh huh. "You might be able to exclude some of your income" = "released from tax obligations".
Wow.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're misremembering what we're talking about. Let me refresh your memory. You said:
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present,
leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from <u>any</u> tax obligations
[/ QUOTE ]
So once again, you are wrong. Please man up and say so. (I should save this to a word doc so I can copy/paste it.) As always, I won't hold my breath.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, rules nit. Except, not nitty enough.
Go back one more level, to what you said, which I was responding to:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must also leave the territory of the US.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Implying, obviously, that moving out of the US would exempt you from *all* obligations. So yes, I used a wrong word. But you still haven't backed your claim.
[/ QUOTE ]
I implied nothing of the sort. Moving out of the territory of the US relieves you of a large portion, but not all, of your tax burden just as it removes a large number, but not all, of your benefits. (For example on the reduced benefits side, while traveling abroad, you may or may not be entitled to an attorney if you're accused of breaking the law, but if you are, it won't be a benefit of being a US citizen; it will be a function of the laws of the place in which you're traveling. However, you do retain some benefits: you can consult with US embassies and consuls under many conditions, not to mention having the priviledge of returning to the US when you decide that France (or wherever) sucks. On the reduced cost side, while abroad you do not pay US sales taxes, local taxes, State taxes, or most federal taxes.)
If you want to relieve yourself of ALL obligations, you must relieve yourself of ALL benefits. In the present state of things, this means that in addition to leaving the country, you would need to renounce your citizenship as well, thereby giving up all benefits of the (US) State.
[ QUOTE ]
As you might say, "me being technically incorrect =/= you being right."
[/ QUOTE ]
True but not relevant in this case, since you read something into my assertion that was not there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't describe a "government" in any common usage of the word. It's a business.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, it describes every single local and State government in the United States. Welcome to the nation.
The reason I, like most libertarians, prefer decentralized government is to enable citizens the maximum opportunity to vote with their feet.
[ QUOTE ]
So, let me get this straight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why start now?
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be able to opt-in, pay taxes, get subsidies, etc, then, at any time, and with no further obligation, stop paying in, stop getting the subsidies, and just walk away? Any time I want to? This is an interesting business model. I welcome such entreprenurial experiments.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. Sounds like you enjoy community government, anyway. As people find "exploits" on a federal level, various systems would have to adapt, EG the college student who says, "gosh, I'm in!!!1", accepts 4-5 years of subsidies whilst not working (or working minimally), then bails promptly out. (Of course, the simplest solution in this instance would be decoupling colleges/universities from state funding, possibly excepting research grants.)
[/ QUOTE ]
But this isn't like local governments. I just called my local government and told them "I'm out" and they said they didn't care, they were still going to send me a tax bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your local government is available at 10:00 on a Sunday morning, you shouldn't just pay your taxes, you should send them a tip as well.
PS - "vote with your feet" doesn't mean "vote with your phone". "Let your fingers do the walking" is only an advertising slogan.
[/ QUOTE ]
Platitudes are cute, but they don't bolster your position.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually platitudes usually aren't cute. Fortunately I didn't offer one here.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new morally-acceptable opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?
[/ QUOTE ]
This question contains enough erronious assumptions that I'll not answer as asked. Fix it, ask again, and I'll respond.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Dodge the question, blame the question asker. I'm just going to use that for every question you ask from now on. If you're going to claim the question is flawed, you should be able to explain why it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
And of course I can, and in this one case I will, if only to rebuff your implication that my reply was a "dodge". But for future reference, I'd just as soon you try to get the question right in the first place. Here are its flaws:
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new
[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't new.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, it's here now? Where?
[/ QUOTE ]
You said "your new...", as if I had developed a new position. It isn't new to me.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
morally-acceptable
[/ QUOTE ]
To whom? Government in its present form is morally acceptable as well, as I've noted repeatedly, notwithstanding your presumption that your moral code is somehow "the" moral code.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, rules nit, where are ye? We're not talking about present government. Whether present government is "morally acceptable" (to you) or not doesn't matter, because we're talking about your proposed "government". Bait-and-switch?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I understood "your new" as a modifier for "morally acceptable position", as though you were saying my preferred, more libertarian government were moral whereas the present form was not.
[ QUOTE ]
Your present government is NOT universally morally acceptable, obviously. And this new one, if it is truly voluntary, would be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Talking about government in terms of morality is your playground, not mine. To the extent I view morality as entering into the equation at all, I approach the question as a utilitarian. There are (I assume) true-believing communists out there someplace, and they'd argue that free markets aren't "moral"; but do you care? I'm personally an agnostic on both questions; I simply want to live under systems of government and economics that are as effective as possible at maximizing gain and minimizing harm to their citizens in particular and humanity in general.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm
[/ QUOTE ]
Government =/= an insurance agency.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nit. You can call it whatever you want to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Question: "How many legs has a calf got, if you call his tail a leg?"
Answer: "Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
-attributed to Abraham Lincoln
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets
[/ QUOTE ]
They aren't ill-gotten, since the actions of the previous government are moral, as noted above and elsewhere.
[/ QUOTE ]
You may have asserted it "elsewhere" but it has never been actually demonstrated. Not by you, not by anyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
You make the allegation that of a crime, you bear the burden of proof.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your morality =/= "the" morality, as noted above.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to be "the" morality. As has been noted "elsewhere".
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're a moral relativist, why bother talking about morality at all?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your proposal depends on granting amnesty for past transgressions,
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I disavow your claim that government in its current form is a transgression.
[/ QUOTE ]
Noted. I disavow your claim that the earth orbits the sun. But it still does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, and scientists can prove it. Do me a favor and give me a comparable proof of the injustices you're claiming.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"moving on" with the status quo defined as legitimate.
[/ QUOTE ]
The status quo is legitimate already. "Sub-optimal" does not (necessarily) mean illegitimate.
[/ QUOTE ]
More bait-and-switch. I said nothing about "optimal" qualities. And more unbacked assertion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you mean by "'moving on'" with the status quo defined as legitimate"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't have any authority to grant that amnesty on my behalf.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is meaningless, as no amnesty is required.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, because you've failed to prove your allegation that government is illegitimate. You have a moral code that says it is, I have a moral code that says it isn't. Now what?