Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 4.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Quote:Read the IRS publication referenced. Once you are a "covered expatriate" you are no longer subject to U.S. taxes.

No This is almost comical. Read again what "covered expatriate" means. Expatriation in the US definition _IS_ the act of renouncing your citizenship. It says so right at the top of the page! The whole page is about what happens when you renounce your citizenship. "Covered expatriate" refers to someone who renounces his citizenship and has more than a certain amount of money. If you don't have much money when you renounce your citizenship, you are not a "covered expatriate". If you do, then you are subject to all sorts of additional penalties because the government doesn't care as much if a poor person leaves, but they want to make sure a rich person cannot escape.

Copy and paste, please, whatever you read on that page that led you to believe Americans can simply give up US residency, without renouncing their citizenship, and no longer be subject to U.S. taxes.

You're not reading what you're posting, and you're totally confused. Everything on that page just proves exactly what I said all along, that there are significant barriers to exiting the US system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 08:56 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Quote:Travel-related transactions must be licensed. That is not a ban. It's pretty plain English.

Read the whole thing. It says travel-related transactions must be licensed AND then it says: "Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable". In other words, if go there as a tourist, rather than on a sanctioned government trip (like Beyonce did), you cannot get a license. And it then explains that if you go without a license you will be subject to criminal prosecution on your return.

I agree it's pretty plain English. If you want to visit Cuba, you need a license, and the license will never be granted except for sanctioned government trips, and if you go anyway, you'll be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned.

Again, let's say I told you this as a person. I said @cjlr, if you want to go to McDonald's, you need a license from me. And I will not grant you the license unless you are going to McDonald's on a mission that I sanction (like getting me a hamburger). And if you go to McDonald's without a license, I will haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell. Are you seriously going to say that does not fit the definition of a "ban"??? Is that a joke?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 08:59 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(05-09-2013 08:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Read the IRS publication referenced. Once you are a "covered expatriate" you are no longer subject to U.S. taxes.

No This is almost comical. Read again what "covered expatriate" means. Expatriation in the US definition _IS_ the act of renouncing your citizenship. It says so right at the top of the page! The whole page is about what happens when you renounce your citizenship. "Covered expatriate" refers to someone who renounces his citizenship and has more than a certain amount of money. If you don't have much money when you renounce your citizenship, you are not a "covered expatriate". If you do, then you are subject to all sorts of additional penalties because the government doesn't care as much if a poor person leaves, but they want to make sure a rich person cannot escape.

Copy and paste, please, whatever you read on that page that led you to believe Americans can simply give up US residency, without renouncing their citizenship, and no longer be subject to U.S. taxes.

You're not reading what you're posting, and you're totally confused. Everything on that page just proves exactly what I said all along, that there are significant barriers to exiting the US system.

I mistyped that. It should have been "Unless you are a 'covered expatriate'..."

If you don't have the defined wealth, then you don't pay. The document covers the rules under which there are taxes for expatriating wealth, not persons.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(05-09-2013 08:56 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Travel-related transactions must be licensed. That is not a ban. It's pretty plain English.

Read the whole thing. It says travel-related transactions must be licensed AND then it says: "Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable". In other words, if go there as a tourist, rather than on a sanctioned government trip (like Beyonce did), you cannot get a license. And it then explains that if you go without a license you will be subject to criminal prosecution on your return.

I agree it's pretty plain English. If you want to visit Cuba, you need a license, and the license will never be granted except for sanctioned government trips, and if you go anyway, you'll be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned.

Again, let's say I told you this as a person. I said @cjlr, if you want to go to McDonald's, you need a license from me. And I will not grant you the license unless you are going to McDonald's on a mission that I sanction (like getting me a hamburger). And if you go to McDonald's without a license, I will haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell. Are you seriously going to say that does not fit the definition of a "ban"??? Is that a joke?

But we're talking about leaving for good, not as a tourist. There is no return.

The U.S. attitude toward Cuba is not a sane one; the tantrum they threw over Castro in the 60's has been perpetuated far too long.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(05-09-2013 08:56 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Read the whole thing. It says travel-related transactions must be licensed AND then it says: "Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable". In other words, if go there as a tourist, rather than on a sanctioned government trip (like Beyonce did), you cannot get a license. And it then explains that if you go without a license you will be subject to criminal prosecution on your return.

Yes.

It's not a ban.

(05-09-2013 08:56 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I agree it's pretty plain English. If you want to visit Cuba, you need a license, and the license will never be granted except for sanctioned government trips, and if you go anyway, you'll be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned.

Again, let's say I told you this as a person. I said @cjlr, if you want to go to McDonald's, you need a license from me. And I will not grant you the license unless you are going to McDonald's on a mission that I sanction (like getting me a hamburger). And if you go to McDonald's without a license, I will haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell. Are you seriously going to say that does not fit the definition of a "ban"??? Is that a joke?

"Allowing some people to go" does not fit the definition of ban, no.

Also, all the consequences are pursuant to one returning.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(05-09-2013 09:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  The U.S. attitude toward Cuba is not a sane one; the tantrum they threw over Castro in the 60's has been perpetuated far too long.

When I was in Cuba I brought back cigars. I forgot to take them out of my travel bag before I next visited the United States.

I am an international drug smuggler.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Right..... The US doesn't ban Americans from going to Cuba, they just make it illegal. Totally different from a ban.

Fucking please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2013 10:13 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Quote:I mistyped that. It should have been "Unless you are a 'covered expatriate'..."
If you don't have the defined wealth, then you don't pay. The document covers the rules under which there are taxes for expatriating wealth, not persons.

The document has nothing to do with expatriating wealth (ie sending your money overseas, but not changing your citizenship status). This page ONLY deals with expatriating persons. Right at the top it says: "The expatriation tax provisions ... apply to US citizens who have renounced their citizenship." Wealth does not have a citizenship to renounce. Only persons have a citizenship to renounce. The document talks a lot about wealth and taxes because it's explaining what are the penalties if a PERSON renounces his citizenship.

I don't know how we're not communicating. Do you understand that in US law 'expatriate' means 'to renounce one's citizenship', which means to be stateless if one does not have other citizenship at the time of expatriation? Perhaps the confusion is because to a Canadian, expatriate just means to take up residency outside Canada, because Canada doesn't care if you leave.

Further, this is not giving people below a certain income the ability to live abroad and not continue to file tax returns. Whether you're rich or not, if you're American and live outside the US, you MUST continue to support the US system and report all your activity, UNLESS the government accepts your application to expatriate (ie renounce your citizenship) and you accept the penalties that come with it.

You keep suggesting that the document somehow provides Americans who want to exit the US system have an alternative to renouncing their citizenship. That document says nothing of the sort. All it's saying is what the penalties are for renouncing your citizenship. If you're rich, and you renounce your citizenship, there are substantial penalties. If you're poor, and you don't have anything to give, the US is less concerned. But either way, the rules only deal with people who renounce their citizenship.

I'll ask yet again, please copy/paste from that page whatever you're reading that leads you to believe that if an American no longer wants to support the US system, he is allowed to exit the system by doing anything other than renouncing his citizenship and dealing with all the penalties that come with it. I've spoken to international attorneys at this at length for years, and they are all in complete agreement that the law is crystal clear: Americans cannot exit the US system by doing anything other than renouncing their citizenship, and, if they don't have other citizenship already, that's nearly impossible. The US is different than the rest of the world. If you don't like the system and want to live abroad, you are still required to report all your activities and surrender your income and assets to the US for life. I've said this a dozen times now, and you keep pushing back saying I'm wrong, but all you do is post links to articles that state exactly what I told you.

Quote:"Allowing some people to go" does not fit the definition of ban, no.

Come on. That's just playing games. If only SOME people are allowed to go, by definition that means others are NOT allowed to go, and it is, therefore, a ban. The site is clear that if you're going there just to visit, you can NOT get a license, you will NOT be the "some" that is allowed to go, you ARE banned from traveling in Cuba. I don't know how you can cling to the position that it's not. Everybody calls it a ban. Just google "cuba travel ban" and you'll find links all over the place on every media outlet that refers to it as a "BAN".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/cuba-travel-ban
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 07:01 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(05-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I don't know how we're not communicating. Do you understand that in US law 'expatriate' means 'to renounce one's citizenship', which means to be stateless if one does not have other citizenship at the time of expatriation?

Allowing one to renounce citizenship independent of any other citizenship status is in fact a greater degree of freedom than most countries offer.

If one chooses to become stateless that is hardly the fault of the US government for letting one do so.

(05-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Perhaps the confusion is because to a Canadian, expatriate just means to take up residency outside Canada, because Canada doesn't care if you leave.

Well; actually...

(05-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Further, this is not giving people below a certain income the ability to live abroad and not continue to file tax returns. Whether you're rich or not, if you're American and live outside the US, you MUST continue to support the US system and report all your activity, UNLESS the government accepts your application to expatriate (ie renounce your citizenship) and you accept the penalties that come with it.

The regulations explicitly specify that they apply equally to [those citizens] who have ended their US resident status for federal tax purposes, with the following exceptions.

(05-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You keep suggesting that the document somehow provides Americans who want to exit the US system have an alternative to renouncing their citizenship. That document says nothing of the sort. All it's saying is what the penalties are for renouncing your citizenship. If you're rich, and you renounce your citizenship, there are substantial penalties. If you're poor, and you don't have anything to give, the US is less concerned. But either way, the rules only deal with people who renounce their citizenship.

See above.


(05-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Come on. That's just playing games. If only SOME people are allowed to go, by definition that means others are NOT allowed to go, and it is, therefore, a ban. The site is clear that if you're going there just to visit, you can NOT get a license, you will NOT be the "some" that is allowed to go, you ARE banned from traveling in Cuba. I don't know how you can cling to the position that it's not. Everybody calls it a ban. Just google "cuba travel ban" and you'll find links all over the place on every media outlet that refers to it as a "BAN".

Well, fine Tongue.

We shall be more semantically precise. I construed the initial use of ban to imply total ban. This is self-evidently not the case. But let's be thorough; SOME people are allowed to do a thing, and others are NOT allowed - this constitutes a ban? Are alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms then banned, since not everyone may own them? This is a difference in degree only, not in kind; therefore to so define 'ban' one must quantify the degree to which restriction constitutes a ban.

If you do so, sure. But that is why such use ('ban' to include a situation where "some people under some circumstances" are permitted/denied) is rather ambiguous.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
@cjlr, this is getting pointless. You're doing the same as @chas and giving links that are in plain English and do nothing but substantiate my position, yet claiming it's a 'gotcha'.

I wrote: "Perhaps the confusion is because to a Canadian, expatriate just means to take up residency outside Canada, because Canada doesn't care if you leave."

You replied with a link to a Canadian government website which explains expatriation from Canada. And what does it mention about renouncing your citizenship? None of those words nor concepts appear on that page. Canada defines expatriation as "Severing residential ties", and "becoming a non-resident." And it says that are you officially relieved of all duties to the Canadian government "the date you leave Canada".

In other words, if Canadians don't like, if they don't like the health care system, if they think taxes are too high, if they think the laws are too restrictive, if the disapprove of the government, or even if they just don't like the weather, they are free to leave, no strings attached. No conditions. The concept of renouncing Canadian citizenship and becoming stateless doesn't exist because Canadian citizenship carries with it no burdens or obligations. Only RESIDENCY carries obligations. Citizenship is just a matter of where you were born.

This concept of people having to renounce their citizenship and become stateless is uniquely American, because the US is the only country that places obligations on citizenship (ie where you were born, not where you live).

Then it gets downright goofy when you make this claim:

Quote:[The US] Allowing one to renounce citizenship independent of any other citizenship status is in fact a greater degree of freedom than most countries offer.

You don't dispute that renouncing your citizenship and being a stateless refugee, unable to travel or work anywhere, is a big burden. Like, say, cutting off your leg is a big burden. So, your logic then becomes this:

All the countries in the world let you leave if you're not happy. The US only lets you leave if you let them cut off your leg. The other countries, however, think this is absurd and will not cut off your leg. Therefore, you conclude, the US provides its citizens a greater degree of freedom because it generously allows its citizens to choose to have their leg cut off. Right? That's your logic. Just substitute 'cut off your leg' with 'renounce your citizenship', and that is exactly the point you are arguing.

Technically, it's accurate. Other countries don't want to let their citizens renounce their citizenship and become stateless refugees. But they also don't force their citizens who want to leave to renounce their citizenship. If they don't it, they need only hop on a plane and leave--no strings attached--and they will be welcomed back any time they want to return. The US is the only country that requires you to renounce your citizenship, never return to US soil, and become stateless, if you want to leave. Therefore, you are arguing the US is a freer country.

Wow! It's amazing the leaps of faith people make to defend their political views. I wish the pragmatism you extend to religion extended to politics.

Quote: I construed the initial use of ban to imply total ban. This is self-evidently not the case. But let's be thorough; SOME people are allowed to do a thing, and others are NOT allowed - this constitutes a ban? Are alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms then banned, since not everyone may own them?

Yes, let's be thorough. The Cuban embargo is a ban on everyone who travels to Cuba without a license, and a license is only given for official government trips, and everyone who wants to go just to visit cannot get a license and thus is banned.

Therefore, you are arguing it is NOT actually a ban, because some people (those on official government trips) are allowed to go. So, apply your same logic to marijuana. Marijuana is then not banned either, because the government does issue licenses to grow to marijuana to a handful of research institutions.

That's your logic, right?

No, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. are not banned because rather than the law saying their use is prohibited unless the government gives you permission, the law says their use is allowed unless you are under age. Everybody over 18 or 21 can get alcohol and cigarettes. Saying 'everybody can do something except for a few exceptions' is NOT the same as saying 'everybody is prohibited from doing something except for a few exceptions'.

Now, let's look at the dictionary definition of "ban": "the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction."

The fact is US citizens are prohibited by law from travelling to Cuba, except on official government-sanctioned trips. In my opinion, refusing to call it a 'ban' is just playing games.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: