Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tax Me Once, Shame on You . . .
Washington Post ^ | 6/28/06 | Daniel J. Mitchell

Posted on 06/28/2006 3:27:23 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom

Globalization is sending tax rates tumbling across the world, as jobs and capital migrate across borders in search of lower and more equitable taxation regimes. That makes it all the more imperative not only to roll back the recent tax increases on U.S. expatriates, but to eliminate double-taxation of overseas Americans altogether. Thankfully, there's a new bill in front of the U.S. Congress to do just that.

The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries that insists on applying an onerous system of "world-wide taxation." Since U.S. citizens living overseas are already, in most cases, paying local taxes in the countries where they work, that means they end up being taxed twice -- thus violating one of the most important principles of good tax policy. Most other countries, by contrast, have the good sense only to apply "territorial taxation," confining their taxation systems to income earned inside their national borders.

America's policy makers have tried to mitigate the adverse impact of world-wide taxation by exempting Americans living overseas from paying U.S. taxation on up to $82,400 annually. This is the "foreign-earned income exclusion" in Section 911 of the U.S. tax code. Thanks to a last-minute amendment inserted into a recent comprehensive tax bill, the foreign income exclusion will be slightly raised, but other benefits, such as housing exclusions, will be cut -- resulting in a huge spike in tax payments for many American expatriates.

While the foreign-income exclusion is better than nothing, it still leaves any overseas Americans earning more than this at a substantial competitive disadvantage, along with the U.S.-based multinationals that employ them. Such companies commonly foot the bill for ensuring that their American expatriate employees pay no more taxation than they would at home.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doubletaxation; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
Another problem the Fair Tax would eliminate
1 posted on 06/28/2006 3:27:25 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
"Globalization is sending tax rates tumbling across the world, as jobs and capital migrate across borders in search of lower and more equitable taxation regimes. That makes it all the more imperative not only to roll back the recent tax increases on U.S. expatriates, but to eliminate double-taxation of overseas Americans altogether."

Given that jobs and capital are migrating across the borders, one might want to look at tax rates for those that remain in this country. Perhaps the US needs to quit creating an environment where the mix of exorbitant taxes and unwieldy regulations have forced companies to seek safer haven in other countries.

2 posted on 06/28/2006 3:58:33 AM PDT by meyer (A vote for amnesty is a vote against America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom; ancient_geezer; Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; PhilWill; kevkrom; ..

The Fair Tax eliminating business to business taxes(VATS) will encourage businesses to return to the states. Fair Tax ping!


3 posted on 06/28/2006 4:12:07 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

Wonder when all the whining over obesity is going to result in a reduction in Uncle Sugar's waistline... Rather than being depicted as the lean, bearded old gent of days gone by, perhaps it would be more appropriate (and certainly more realistic!) to show him as Jabba the Hut.


4 posted on 06/28/2006 4:19:08 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Exactly. A NRST would begin a chain reaction of business, residence, job and manufacturing migration to the US. We would become, in effect, a nation of investors. A no brainer!


5 posted on 06/28/2006 4:21:50 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Exactly. A NRST would begin a chain reaction of business, residence, job and manufacturing migration to the US. We would become, in effect, a nation of investors. A no brainer!

That and a few hundred other things makes one wonder why the FairTax isn't already the law of the land instead of the communist inspired income tax that we currently suffer.

http://www.fairtax.org

6 posted on 06/28/2006 4:38:53 AM PDT by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
That and a few hundred other things makes one wonder why the FairTax isn't already the law of the land instead of the communist inspired income tax that we currently suffer.

The oppressive, socialist tax code has been ingrained in American's heads for 93 years. Many don't realize there is another way. That's why we need to spread the word about the Fair Tax!
7 posted on 06/28/2006 4:44:24 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Multiple taxation is almost as heinous as the general invasion of personal privacy an income tax (progressive, flat, or otherwise) entails.


8 posted on 06/28/2006 4:51:34 AM PDT by kevkrom (Posting snarky comments so you don't have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom; Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; ...
A Taxreform ping for you all.

Wages-of-Sin: An employer pays a tax on wages for the sin of hiring you, You pay a tax on wages for the sin of working, and yet anofher tax on your wages so some another guy can go fishing, drink, and sin some more.

If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all federal income, SS/Medicare payroll, and gift/estate taxes outright replacing them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.

H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:


9 posted on 06/28/2006 6:44:42 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Given that jobs and capital are migrating across the borders...  ... the US needs to quit creating an environment where the mix of exorbitant taxes and unwieldy regulations have forced companies to seek safer haven in other countries.

Capital and jobs are not fleeing out of the US, they're flooding to the US.   The huge flow of capital into the US is one of the big reasons Pat Buchanan and Co. are convinced that America is doomed ("foreigners are buying up America").  Unemployment is now at an historic low (Unemployment Rate: History4.6% in May 2006).

10 posted on 06/28/2006 8:30:42 AM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
I liked what I just read in the linked article but I must say that it really only presented the author's conclusions about what the DeMint legislation will achieve without doing very much to inform readers about what the underlying particulars of the law and current practice are and how DeMint's proposal will change them. I'm convinced the author has it right in what he presents, but I think that someone not familiar with a part of the tax code that is obscure to most Americans will not really understand what is involved here.

And I just can't help but escape the feeling that if this article were railing against the rich getting an "unfair break" in current income tax rates that the Washington Post would have made sure to present a more fully-developed case.
11 posted on 06/28/2006 10:20:09 AM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama

Do you have any source of real information (facts and figures) that shows your point - or only Pat Buchanan's rhetoric??


12 posted on 06/28/2006 10:24:07 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
you have any source of real information (facts and figures) that shows your point - or only Pat Buchanan's rhetoric??

LOL!   Some people accept Buchanan's rants as being more reliable than gov't stats, and some don't.  

Capital is flooding into the US.  If you don't believe P. B., maybe you'll accept the BEA (latest PR mentioning all capital flows "Foreign-owned assets in the United States increased $491.6 billion in the first quarter" and direct investment "2005, outlays by foreign direct investors to acquire or establish U.S. businesses were $86.8 billion"),  I got more sources if you want but if you don't like either Saint Patrick (/sarc) or federal stats then you got to tell me just what the heck it is you do accept.

13 posted on 06/28/2006 11:00:04 AM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
I don't think those figures show what you think they might. The one link you gave was from data in 1997 and direct investment link shows lowered investments routinely after about 200-2001. Also, (knowing the BEA) it's really ought to know just how any of their figures were derived and what they really contain. They have been known to resort to statistical chicanery at times. Even so, I suppose that one of the few sources we have - but I think it relates to industrial capital rather than private capital and I think that in private capital the direction is quite the opposite. Even with industrial capital I'm not sure what they show is a net figure. In view of our continued and growing trade imbalances, in fact, I doubt that it is.

Here's an interesting link to private capital flight.

14 posted on 06/28/2006 11:23:21 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pigdog; Toddsterpatriot
...but I think it relates to industrial capital rather than private capital and I think that in private capital the direction is quite the opposite.

You've decided to think that capital is leaving and there's nothing that you'd be willing to look at that could convince you otherwise.  Talk about mind over matter --just don't pull that with the IRS because they will mind and it will matter. 

Just the same, I do thank you for the link.  FWIW, the only stat about capital flight was that in 2003, 370,000 Americans left --and his mind also conjures up a private reality system:

Granted, not all of those 370,000 expatriates were rich. But, think about it. How many do you really think were poor?... How many do you think were even middle class? Personally, I think that it would be very conservative to expect that 80 to 90 percent were, at least, somewhat wealthy. But, don't use my estimates. Use your own.

OK, my own numbers say that in 2003 the US population increased by 2,685,000, and the total private wealth increased by $5.6 trillion .   Maybe that 370,000 leaving didn't make as big a hole in America's private capital as it did in John Gaver's head.

15 posted on 06/28/2006 1:29:12 PM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
I'm willing to look at whatever facts you might have but as I said those you presented in your earlier post don't do the job.

In addition, I think that 10% of the increase in population leaving the country is an alarming number when you stop to realize that most of those leaving are probably taking their capital with them and not intending to return. That's capital that we could benefit from here.

I also don't find the "increase in wealth" figures too helpful as a good bit of it has to stem from the real estate/debt bubble and is not real wealth at all. But you're welcome to consider it wealth if you think that's a great way to do it. I merely do not.
16 posted on 06/28/2006 1:59:24 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
I also don't find the "increase in wealth" figures too helpful as a good bit of it has to stem from the real estate/debt bubble and is not real wealth at all. But you're welcome to consider it wealth if you think that's a great way to do it. I merely do not.

You've won me over and I agree with you completely.    All that bad old real estate, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and currency aren't any way at all to measure true wealth.  Let's throw ours all away.   You first --I'll even help you haul away the trash because that's just the kind of guy I am.

17 posted on 06/28/2006 2:28:16 PM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
I also don't find the "increase in wealth" figures too helpful as a good bit of it has to stem from the real estate/debt bubble and is not real wealth at all.

LOL!

18 posted on 06/28/2006 3:03:03 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
You seem to be one of those who thinks his home is "wealth". Quite a few others do so as well and that's fine. I don't since I learned that a home was a place to live and not an investment providing wealth.

If you sell it as a propitious time you can gain a good bit of money on it. If not, you can also lose a bundle. It's really more a speculation than "wealth", but I said nothing about those other assets you mentioned so why bring them up?
19 posted on 06/28/2006 3:40:38 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Apparently you also believe your home to be "wealth". That's fine, too. Perhaps you haven't lived long enough to find out that things go down as well as up (despite government or Federal Reseerve efforts).

That's fine, too. I suspect you'll eventually learn that as well.


20 posted on 06/28/2006 3:43:31 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson