Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 4.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2013, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2013 05:20 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Libertarians Rolleyes Dodgy


Their views are so extreme, they mostly hide out on the internet. The stance doesn't seem to have any viable real world application. They claim to have THE answer to fix the worlds ills.

I worked with one once. He was unbelievably arrogant, big claims with nothing to back it up. Always happy to spin off on long rants. Fucker drove me crazy. Had to leave the job.

Everyone is born a citizen of somewhere. Get over it. Shits not gonna change by your whining on the forum.

Where the world is headed is globalisation. Citizenship is going to matter less in the future.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 05:51 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Quote:Libertarians: Their views are so extreme, they mostly hide out on the internet.

The only difference between libertarians and democrats or republicans, is that libertarians object to using force and violence to coerce people into doing things against their will, and say that if force is to be used anyway, it should be done at the local level so that people who object to it are free to move somewhere else, making it a voluntary decision to stay and be subjected to the laws. Some libertarians started as left-ist liberals (like me), others as right-wing conservatives (like Ron Paul), but the only thing we have in common is that we object to using coercion. I'm totally baffled why the concept of using peaceful, voluntary approaches, instead of force and violence, seems so extreme to Democrats and Republicans. The only time I ever object to something a Democrat or Republican proposes is if they're using force to make it happen, and every time I say “but can this be accomplished peacefully, without using force”, they always think that's SUCH a crazy extreme position. I don't get it.

The same thing is true with the topic at hand. The ONLY thing I'm objecting to in this post is that the US uses force against its citizens whose only “crime” is trying to flee the system, something that the UN commission on human rights has said is a basic, fundamental human right (and has condemned the US for not upholding). I'm not saying that US laws are too oppressive, or that the regulations are too burdensome, or the taxes too high. All I'm saying is that if someone feels they are, they should be free to leave, no strings attached, and without having to jump through impossible hoops like renouncing their citizenship and becoming stateless. Why is my position so extreme? And, remember, every other country in the world works like that, so if my position is extreme, then what you're saying is that every country in the world is also extreme—except for the US, which is the only reasonable one. So I've got the whole world on my side, as well as the UN human rights commission. Smile
Quote:The stance doesn't seem to have any viable real world application. They claim to have THE answer to fix the worlds ills.
Well the reason I became libertarian is simply because I lived in a libertarian country for 10 years, Switzerland, and I realized that their view on the world was completely the opposite of mine, but somehow it was working. I posted in another thread that I learned that Switzerland was the only country in the world where the poorest 20% made at least half the median income, thus eliminating poverty and homelessness. And they accomplished this WITHOUT any sort of government welfare program at either the state or federal level. They have no minimum wage, less than 2% unemployment, yet the janitor at McDonald's makes $50,000/year, gets over a month paid vacation plus health insurance. Economists insist the gold standard results in an unstable economy without a central bank to buffer the highs and lows, but they were the one country that kept it the entire 20th century, and they had the most stable economy. They consistently rank #1 on all sorts of measures, like global competitiveness, life expectancy, most desirable place to live, lowest crime, highest satisfaction in government, etc. Remember too this is a country with no natural resources, so the government relies solely on tax revenue, yet they have no capital gains tax, low income taxes, and refusing to pay taxes is actually NOT a crime. But tax compliance is unusually high, even without the threat of force. And after living there and studying how they did it, it was clear it was because of their libertarian policies.

So I disagree that there's no real world application. They may not have fixed all their ills, but they sure succeeding in fixing some pretty important ones that other countries haven't been able to. I simply feel that when some place does something really well, it's wise to study it, figure out how they did it, why it works, and see if it's something we could copy. As opposed to falling back on tradition and saying “we're the best, we can't learn anything from them.”
Quote:Big claims with nothing to back it up.... Always happy to spin off on long rants. Fucker drove me crazy.
IMHO opinion the reason it turns into a long rant (like this one has gone on for page after page) is because you don't just say “You failed to back up claim X, and here is evidence that it is wrong:”. Or, if you accept the facts I presented, but disagree with the opinions, then just say “I believe X is supported by the facts, so we'll have to agree to disagree.” Rather, you make broad, sweeping statements that everything I said is factually inaccurate, but without being specific so that we can pin it down and resolve it.

This is the same as the first post from @Chas. He said all my assertions were libertarian garbage, but without listing one that was actually wrong. All of them? Well I made a dozen assertions, and not one was valid? So I have to push and push to get him to be specific about an assertion he actually disagrees with, and provide substantiation. Finally he said that my assertion was wrong that US law is unique for placing obligations based on citizenship instead of residency, and he provided a link to prove that Americans could simply give up residency to be relieved of their obligations. But he didn't read the link, because it actually backed up what I said all along. And we've been going round and round for page after page, dissecting all those web sites word-by-word, and he keep resisting accepting the fact that my assertion was right after all, because he doesn't like the conclusion I reached from it.

I don't feel it's arrogant that I'm stating what I know about US law as it pertains to citizenship vs. residency. I've studied it at length, I've consulted with attorneys about it, I've read all the laws, I know all the forms. I don't feel it makes me superior that I know so much about this one particular obscure aspect of US law. Anymore than it makes you superior, if for example, you know a lot about divorce law, which I know nothing of. I'm sure there's a million things @chas knows way more than I do. I see posts all the time that go over my head, or that cover subjects I know nothing about, and I just pass over with commenting. I only commented on this subject because I know it very well. To me it's more arrogant that @chas said I was full of shit when the reality is he didn't even know what the facts were in the matter.

Now you're doing the same thing. You're making a broad, sweeping claim that I'm full of it and haven't backed up anything I said, when I'll bet that you actually don't even know what the law is on the subject, you haven't read the links I've provided to substantiate the claims, and you actually would be surprised to learn that it's not what you think. To me, that's arrogant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 08:20 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(06-09-2013 03:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:No, if I move back to Canada, I have no U.S. tax obligation thereafter. I surrender my green card and we're done except for my last partial year of U.S. residency.

Sorry, @Chas, but you need to get a better attorney. That link you've provided explains how it works. If you want to go back to Canada you cannot just "surrender your green card". Even if you hand over your green card, you will STILL be bound to pay US taxes for life.

In order to get out from the obligation, you have file IRS form 8854. Here's the form: link. See it says that the form is

"Expatriation tax provisions apply to ... long-term residents who have ended their residency (expatriated)".

So if you are a long-term resident (ie green card holder) and you want to end your residency, it IS considered expatriation, and you have to file that form. Here is the form: form. See there Part 4. You MUST list all your assets, income, etc., and they will determine what the penalties and conditions are in order to let you out of the system.

There are lots of penalties and conditions that will apply depending on how much money you have, when you give up residency, etc. The restrictions on exiting were originally passed in 1996, buried in the back of a health-care bill (HIPAA), in response to a large number of people leaving the US because of the tax increase. Then it was amended (the Reed Amendment) to add more penalties for people trying to leave, including a ban on every re-entering the US once you left. But there were problems enforcing it since the Attorney General, who has to enforce it, isn't allowed to get the data from the IRS. It also had inconsistent language, like stating things apply to aliens who give up citizenship: aliens don't have citizenship, so was the law supposed to mean aliens who give up residency, or citizens who give up citizenship? One of the extra restrictions I recall was that if you leave and go back to Canada, you will be required to continue paying US taxes for 10 years after you leave, however that was later modified to have an exit tax. It's been updated several times, including last year, to tighten up the restrictions further. For example, one of the updates was that, if at any point in the 10 years that follows your return to Canada you come to the US for more than 30 days, you will be again be subject to US tax on all your worldwide income. The EX-Patriot act was adding further restrictions, after Eduardo Saverin defected, including a ban on re-entry if you left for tax avoidance, and you were automatically guilty of tax avoidance if you made more than $155k/year or had more than $2m in assets at the time of your departure. There are also penalties and exit taxes, depending on how much you have. Further, ALL your assets count, even assets you had in Canada long before you came to the US. Let's say you inherited a house in Canada, then years later moved to the US. As soon as you come to the US, the US lays claim to that house you have in Canada, and before you'll be allowed to give up your residency and return to Canada, you'll be forced to report it and pay an expatriation tax. And if you fail to do so, figuring it's in Canada and you had it before you came here, remember the US has pressured all countries, including Canada, to report to the US all the assets of US citizens and residents, and if they find it, even 30 years after you return to Canada, your form 8854 is invalid and you'll have to retroactively pay those 30 years of taxes. And, you probably won't be allowed to deduct your Canadian taxes based on the double-taxation treaty, meaning you'll have to pay US taxes on all the income you made during those 30 years you live in Canada.

I imagine this means you didn't consult an international tax attorney before deciding to come to the US, and you just assumed that when you wanted to go back to Canada you would be free to just hand in your green card and that was the end of it. A lot of people assume that, since that's the way it works for every other country in the world. But, I'm sorry to say, that's not the way it works in the US. If you don't make or have a lot money, the penalties for returning to Canada won't be much (if anything). But, you're mistaken when you think you can just surrender your green card and be done with it.

Only true if income or net worth is high enough, otherwise you're done.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-09-2013, 08:26 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(06-09-2013 05:51 PM)frankksj Wrote:  [This is the same as the first post from @Chas. He said all my assertions were libertarian garbage, ...

I did not say that.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-09-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
I claimed your original post “said all my assertions were libertarian garbage”. You respond: “I did not say that.” Well, your exact words were: “you carried on with other bullshit assertions... Your assumptions and misconceptions are typical 'libertarian' garbage.” I stand by the paraphrase from memory in my prior post, since it is almost verbatim what you actually did write.

Regarding your prior claim that you can just surrender your green card and your obligations are gone, I explained it in great detail in my earlier post, with specific links and quotes to all the laws. I acknowledged that “If you don't make or have a lot money, the penalties for returning to Canada won't be much (if anything).”, which I believe is what you meant when you just said “Only true if income or net worth is high enough, otherwise you're done” although you ignore all the other issues, like having to pay US taxes on any Canadian assets you had even before you came to the US (over a certain amount), like your inability to return to the US during the subsequent 10 years for more than 30 days without being subject to taxation again, etc. And you don't seem to dispute anymore that the US is unique and that no other country in the world imposes any obligations or barriers or exit taxes on foreigners who want to return to their home country—regardless of their net worth.

I get the sense we're finally in agreement on the facts and you're not disputing that my assertions about your obligations as a Canadian permanent resident were factually accurate. Right? If that's not right, please copy/paste exactly what I said that you still think is factually wrong. However, you understand that this whole talk about the status of foreigners who come to live in the US is entirely besides the point and nothing to do with my original post which had to do with how US imposes it's obligations based on citizenship and not residency, and that it's nearly impossible for someone born in the US who doesn't have second citizenship to escape his obligations to the US (since it means being stateless), and that the US is unique in this regard and not even regimes like China impose any barriers on their citizens who want to leave. It seems you're no longer disputing those assertions I made in my original post, right? We're in agreement now?

That doesn't mean you have to agree with my original conclusion that being free to leave with no barriers is the very essence of being free, and thus the US is 'not free'. Although I gave analogies and thought experiments to substantiate my conclusion, like how prisoners are treated, and how we would respond if a company did the same thing, I admit that the conclusion I reached was merely my opinion. And we're all entitled to our opinions. However, at first you didn't seem to dispute my conclusion about what it means to be free, but rather disputed the factual matter of US law jurisdiction. And that's simply a black & white matter of record, so there's no reason we shouldn't be able to agree on such basic facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 09:19 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(04-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  but one thing that annoys me about my countrymen is the hypocrisy of accusing China of not being a free country, and claiming the US is the land of the free.

I have noticed this hypocrisy specially from two forum members in this thread, whose IDs start with E and C, with one of them actually not being American. So, this hypocrisy is not in your countrymen only, it is a worldwide pandemic.

I have two jokes to share on this topic:

There is a jesting saying on China’s forums discussing international political issues, “a dominating scoundrel who does not practice double standards is not a professional scoundrel .” A dominating scoundrel here means a UN Security Council permanent member, particularly the US.

In 1979 when US President Carter visited China, he told Vice-Premier DENG Xiaoping, that China should improve her human rights status and let her citizens leave the country freely. Mr. Deng replied, “the Chinese can of course emigrate to the US. Is 10 million enough?” And you can easily guess out how President Carter’s responded.

(04-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  However, he later decided he didn't want anything to do with the US and took up residency in Singapore. Because of his US citizenship, however, he was forced to continue paying US taxes, even though he wasn't receiving any US services--something no other country requires.

Alas ... praise the al-mighty omnipresent IRS.

(04-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Just a little something for you when Americans attack China for not being free.

Thank you. Yet I think I will still need depleted uranium AP shells to penetrate this hypocrisy.

The forum member E once had a thread saying that China is so not free that her government “house-arrested” and imprisoned her Nobel Peace Prize winner. I told forum member E and C in the thread that this guy is found guilty in a trial. I said that if E and C should ever have truly cared, then show me some evidence of petition, financial support or legal support for that prisoner. You can easily guess out what I eventually got.

They will attack no matter what. And I am not their father to teach them not to be that shallow. So I simply put them on Ignore. Problem solved.

Still, thank you again. Smile

(04-09-2013 10:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So the US does the same thing as China, and it's purely arbitrary to say where the line in the sand is drawn.

Sure. But anyway, a dominating scoundrel who does not practice double standards is not a professional scoundrel, isn’t it?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 09:22 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(06-09-2013 09:19 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  The forum member E once had a thread saying that China is so not free that her government “house-arrested” and imprisoned her Nobel Peace Prize winner. I told forum member E and C in the thread that this guy is found guilty in a trial. I said that if E and C should ever have truly cared, then show me some evidence of petition, financial support or legal support for that prisoner. You can easily guess out what I eventually got.

That is pathetically asinine.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 09:44 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(05-09-2013 09:02 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 08:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  You lost me at "China is a free country, the US is not."

Then you carried on with other bullshit assertions.

I'm sure @HU.Junyuan, despite being a non-native English speaker, was able to understand what I wrote and did not get "lost" like you did. He may or may not agree, but I'll bet he wasn't "lost".

I am not "lost" but I do think your arguement is a little too sophisticated for some people with the "tl/dr" disability.

I am glad you met with forum member C.

(05-09-2013 09:02 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Just waving a flag, burying your head in the sand and saying "We're the best!", despite all the facts to the contrary, does not, imho, make one a patriot.

Interestingly, China once behaved just like this. It was in the early 19th century when the emperors and high officials immersed themselves in the delusion of a "Heavenly Empire". And then, the Opium Wars.

(05-09-2013 09:02 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Remember, this is the _THINKING_ atheist. So use logic and facts--not emotion and faith.

Yet, anyway, US Secretary of State Kerry assured him his right of remaining stupid.

So just let him enjoy his freedom.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
@cjlr, I don't think it's asinine at all. Can you answer 3 basic yes/no questions?

1. On March 12, 2013 did James Clapper, Obama's head of the NSA, respond, under oath, to the question “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" with a "No, sir." ?

2. When Edward Snowden released documents proving that statement was false, did James Clapper concede "My response was clearly erroneous”, thus confessing to perjury, a felony under US federal law?

3. Is it true that Federal law, in particular the Whistleblower Protection Act, protects "any disclosure... that a covered employee [such as Snowden] reasonably believes evidences any violation of any law [such as Clapper's perjury], rule, or regulation"?

I believe the answer to all 3 questions are unquestionably 'yes', which means that when the US indicted Snowden after he revealed Clapper's criminal action and ordered his return to the US to be imprisoned, the US was, in fact, abandoning the rule of law and illegally locking up the person who reported a crime, while the person who perpetrated the crime received not even a slap on the wrist, and is still head of the NSA.

Liu Xiaobo, like Edward Snowden, also revealed state secrets. And China treated him exactly the same way the US treated Snowden. The fact that Xiaobo won a Nobel prize elicits an emotion response, but it is irrelevant.

I condemn China's arrest of Xiaobo the same as I condemn the US's pursuit of Snowden. But I whole-heartedly agree with @HU.Junyuan that it is the epitome of hypocrisy that when China does it, the US condemns them for violating basic human rights, but when the US does the same thing, we still say we're the land of the free. And it's not just this, nearly everything I've seen the US condemn China for, the US does as well. In fact, if you read my original post, the UN Commission on Human Rights has condemned the US for refusing to honor basic human rights and being one of the only countries in the world that doesn't allow its people to sue for the basic human rights guaranteed in the various declarations of human rights. The whole point of my post was that one of the most basic human rights in that declaration, the right of movement, the right to leave your country anytime you're not happy with it, and return at any time with no strings attached and no barriers in your way, is a right that China honors, and only N. Korea, Cuba and the US deny their people this right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 10:46 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(06-09-2013 09:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr, I don't think it's asinine at all.

... okay.

(06-09-2013 09:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can you answer 3 basic yes/no questions?

1. On March 12, 2013 did James Clapper, Obama's head of the NSA, respond, under oath, to the question “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" with a "No, sir." ?

2. When Edward Snowden released documents proving that statement was false, did James Clapper concede "My response was clearly erroneous”, thus confessing to perjury, a felony under US federal law?

3. Is it true that Federal law, in particular the Whistleblower Protection Act, protects "any disclosure... that a covered employee [such as Snowden] reasonably believes evidences any violation of any law [such as Clapper's perjury], rule, or regulation"?

I believe the answer to all 3 questions are unquestionably 'yes', which means that when the US indicted Snowden after he revealed Clapper's criminal action and ordered his return to the US to be imprisoned, the US was, in fact, abandoning the rule of law and illegally locking up the person who reported a crime, while the person who perpetrated the crime received not even a slap on the wrist, and is still head of the NSA.

That's nice. It's also apropos of nothing at all.

Here, I'll add emphasis to the salient line.

(06-09-2013 09:19 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  The forum member E once had a thread saying that China is so not free that her government “house-arrested” and imprisoned her Nobel Peace Prize winner. I told forum member E and C in the thread that this guy is found guilty in a trial. I said that if E and C should ever have truly cared, then show me some evidence of petition, financial support or legal support for that prisoner. You can easily guess out what I eventually got.

That's a moronic attitude. It is convenient, though; one need only revise it to "if they ever truly cared, then they'd've done more", and sit behind it for eternity. It has only infinitesimally more merit than another old favourite, the "action X is not bad, because action Y happened elsewhere and is worse" canard.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: