• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless your take is that literally all taxes are good always, it’s not unreasonable to question why America is the only country in the world other than Eritrea to tax foreign earned income.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because America is the top destination for the rich that isn’t a literal tax haven?

        Because US power defends the interests of the rich at great cost across the world?

        Because the US has great control over the financial systems which make the international order run and has the capacity to tax foreign income, unlike most countries, for whom it would simply be a waste of resources to try?

        And yes, I’ll say it - all taxes on the rich are good. Controversial, I know.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So why exactly is the US permitted to tax people that don’t even live in their country?

          The only thing they should be allowed to do is tax the profit made in the US, they should not have access to anything outside of their borders. Even if that is in a so called “tax heaven”.

          Overreach it is called.

          • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You can just Google it or ask AI, y’know. Number 2 really stands out, if you’re curious.

            The United States is one of the few countries that has a system of taxing its citizens and residents on their worldwide income, including income earned abroad. This practice is known as “citizenship-based taxation.” There are a few reasons why the U.S. follows this approach:

            1. Historical Reasons: The United States has had a system of citizenship-based taxation in place for a long time. It dates back to the Civil War era when it was implemented to fund the war effort.

            2. Desire to Prevent Tax Evasion: Citizenship-based taxation is intended to prevent U.S. citizens and residents from avoiding taxes by moving their assets or income abroad. Without it, individuals might seek tax havens to reduce their tax liability.

            3. Complex Tax Code: The U.S. tax code is complex, and changing to a different system, such as residence-based taxation (taxing only income earned within the country), would require a significant overhaul of tax laws.

            4. Revenue Generation: Taxing foreign income allows the U.S. government to generate revenue from its citizens and residents, regardless of where they earn their income.

            It’s worth noting that while the U.S. taxes its citizens and residents on foreign income, there are mechanisms in place, such as the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion and foreign tax credits, to mitigate double taxation and reduce the tax burden on income earned in other countries. However, compliance with U.S. tax laws related to foreign income can be complex and may require professional assistance for those living abroad.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Norway, Sweden, and Israel all have more billionaires per capita than the United States. Germany, Finland, Australia, Denmark, and Canada aren’t far off.

          I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.

          The actual threshold is $120,000, which in the context of Switzerland, the case that will potentially be relevant for me in the future, is low enough that one in four residents exceed it. Costs of living there are consequentially very high, as you’d expect. There’s something to be said about managing the fortunes of billionaires that will hide their wealth across a bunch of countries in elaborate schemes, but that’s a very different matter than taxing engineers, tech workers, and doctors.

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.

            Man, if that was true, everyone above the poverty line is rich. I was thinking more “An individual income that is literally over double the median household income where I live”

            • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not sure where you are or what that amounts to but In the US I would consider double the median income middle class or upper middle class, still far from rich.

              I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.

              I kinda like Chris Rock’s definition as well… something like: “you can lose rich if you pick up a drug habit… but if you’re wealthy, you can’t lose wealth… you can afford to do cocaine for the rest of your life if you’re wealthy”.

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                An INDIVIDUAL income that’s double the median HOUSEHOLD income is pretty damn well off. This isn’t the 1950s. Single-provider households are not the norm.

                ‘Rich’ is income in considerable excess of the average. The idea that ‘middle class’ is actually considerably above the middle shows the obsession we, as a society, have with being midde class - aped from both above and below that status.

                I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.

                So ‘rich’ is money management to you?

        • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          all taxes on the rich are good. Controversial, I know.

          I think what may be more controversial is who you are grouping in as “the rich”. Does home ownership put someone on the /rich/ side of the line?

          People with more than $10k USD worth of non-USD in the bank must report the account. I would move that line at least to $100k if the idea is to not harass & intrude on non-rich people.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A lot of the people who work in tech are the ones who left reddit and came to lemmy…

      They’re relatively liberal, until people start pointing out how they tend to make 3x the average American and are wealthy compared to everyone else.

      As soon as their tax bracket comes up, they want to pretend that they have it just as bad as the rest of America.

      A single person making over twice the median household income isn’t who we should be worrying about right now. They can pay their taxes just fine. Others are struggling to eat and afford rent.

      Edit:

      I’ve lost count of how many rich overseas workers have made 5+ replies to my comments in less than 10 minutes screaching about how they shouldn’t pay taxes

      And every single one claims to be right on the line for having to pay it… yet want it thrown out for billionaires as well…

      Apparently I can’t block replies to comment like on reddit, so I’m just blocking every “temporary poor billionaire” who wants to spend energy online arguing billionaires should pay taxes because it would mean they do too

      No one has time for the Scrouge McDuck defenders.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m happy to pay more taxes and I regularly vote for that to happen. That doesn’t mean the exit tax isn’t fucking stupid and blatantly unfair.

        If you actually gave a shit about taxing rich people you’d realize this exit tax doesn’t affect them at all, since they don’t have regular income to tax. It’s a tax on workers who don’t even live in the country.

        $120k isn’t even enough to buy a house in most high COL areas. With a family you’ll never retire on that income either. Yet some of you are acting like these are ‘rich’ people so you can conveniently ignore their opinions.

        • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with your 1st paragraph. But IIUC the exit tax is not on wage income - it’s on their global wealth. I don’t see how the rich can escape that without cheating. But the problem is that non-rich middle class workers have homes and they’re being targeted.

          It’s a tax on workers who don’t even live in the country.

          Yeah indeed that’s the shame of the US tax policy. But to be clear that tax impacts citizens living abroad, not those who renounce. Renouncing actually escapes that.