Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2013, 02:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 03:24 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Quote:Same nonsense. In order to renounce your citizenship you have to first obtain second citizenship. Countries like Panama used to have an open door policy, welcoming Americans and giving them citizenship so they could renounce their US citizenship. But the US threatened them and forced Panama to stop. Then remember Eduardo Saverin. He was born and raised in Brazil with Brazilian citizenship. Fortunately for him, Brazil, unlike the US, imposes no barriers to emigration, so his family came to the US with no further obligations to Brazil. After a while in the US, he decided he wanted to leave. Since he already had Brazilian citizenship, he was allowed to renounce his US citizenship once he paid taxes on everything he had earned so far, including unrealized gains (ie liquidating his Facebook stock and paying taxes on the value at the time he left). First, no other country would have required this. You don't need to give up your citizenship, nor pay an exit tax. But with this system, Eduardo in no way used or took advantage of the US. He paid US taxes on all his activity up until his renunciation. BUT, American liberals figured that's not enough, and they called it a 'loophole' that he was able to leave, and they've been pushing for the ex-patriot act to block people who have another citizenship from being able to renounce their US citizenship. So, one the one hand you American liberals say 'if you don't like it renounce your citizenship', but on the other hand you're fighting to make it impossible to do so! Also, the “Presto, you're done” statements shows you know nothing about the process. You have to file IRS Form 8854, which lists all your assets and income, and then you have to wait for them to decide if they will allow you to expatriate, and if so, if you're doing so for tax reasons. In 1996, they passed a law that if you are doing it for tax reasons, then you have a 10 YEAR waiting period where you have to keep paying US taxes before you're free.

Uh, no you don't

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/...p_776.html

Read the requirements carefully, please, before you respond.

"Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Nonetheless, renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status."

Note there is no requirement that you have dual citizenship or any citizenship with another soverign country before you renounce your US citizenship. It may make things difficult, but you are free to renounce your citizenship anytime.

As to taxes you owe, well, you can remain stateless while that is sorted out. If you owe taxes, you will pay them or face penalty, same as any citizen in any other country in the world.

So again, if you don't like the current system you can leave. What remains are a few details to be sorted out between you and the IRS.

Quote:Bobby Fischer, the chess champion. He was fed up with the US and left, never to return. In every country in the world he would have have no further obligations to his homeland. But, because he was born in the US, he was still subject to US law, and was charged with a crime for going to Yugoslavia. Also, the US insisted he had to surrender the proceeds from his championship. He went to Japan, married a Japanese woman, and was working towards Japanese citizenship, which would have allowed him to renounce his US citizenship. But, before he got it, the US indicted him and pressured the Japanese to arrest him and extradite him. It created a global firestorm since the rest of the world was shocked that Americans weren't allowed to leave, since in all other countries, governments provide their citizens services, and the citizens pay for those services in the form of taxes and obeying laws, and if you don't like it you leave. The idea that after you've left and no longer use any government services, you STILL have to pay for them is absurd to all but American liberals. So, several countries intervened, and Iceland held an emergency parliamentary session and voted to grant him Icelandic citizenship, so that they too could request him from Japan. And because Japan was just as disgusted with the US's behavior, they extradited him to Iceland, and not the US. But, the fact is he was not a criminal, his only crime was “leaving the US system”, and he was held in prison at the order of US authorities.

What utter drivel.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:50 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 02:58 PM by black_squirrel.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 02:08 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 01:19 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Name one case where someone, who isn't already a criminal or suspect in a criminal investigation, is being held in the US against their will?

Bobby Fischer, the chess champion. He was fed up with the US and left, never to return. In every country in the world he would have have no further obligations to his homeland. But, because he was born in the US, he was still subject to US law, and was charged with a crime for going to Yugoslavia. Also, the US insisted he had to surrender the proceeds from his championship. He went to Japan, married a Japanese woman, and was working towards Japanese citizenship, which would have allowed him to renounce his US citizenship. But, before he got it, the US indicted him and pressured the Japanese to arrest him and extradite him. It created a global firestorm since the rest of the world was shocked that Americans weren't allowed to leave, since in all other countries, governments provide their citizens services, and the citizens pay for those services in the form of taxes and obeying laws, and if you don't like it you leave. The idea that after you've left and no longer use any government services, you STILL have to pay for them is absurd to all but American liberals. So, several countries intervened, and Iceland held an emergency parliamentary session and voted to grant him Icelandic citizenship, so that they too could request him from Japan. And because Japan was just as disgusted with the US's behavior, they extradited him to Iceland, and not the US. But, the fact is he was not a criminal, his only crime was “leaving the US system”, and he was held in prison at the order of US authorities.
Bobby Fisher could have renounced his US citizenship before breaking US laws,
ignoring the embargo against Yugoslavia. His American passport allows him some rights (being able to travel to various countries) and also some obligations
(being subject the US law).


Here he is, in Yuguslavia, playing under a US flag. Shouldn't complain
about being subject to US law, then.
[Image: Fisher1992REX_468x299.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 02:30 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Uh, no you don't

Note there is no requirement that you have dual citizenship or any citizenship with another soverign country before you renounce your US citizenship. It may make things difficult, but you are free to renounce your citizenship anytime.

Wrong. First, lookup the case of Ken O'Keefe who "has tried officially to renounce his citizenship twice without success, first in Vancouver and then in the Netherlands... After his second attempt, he waited seven months with no response before he tried a more sensational approach. He went back to the consulate at The Hague, retrieved his passport, walked outside, and lit it on fire. Seventeen days later, he received a letter from the State Department informing him that he was still an American, because he had not obtained the right to reside elsewhere. "

You see that last part. The State Department often won't let you renounce your citizenship until you have residency in another country, knowing that you can't get residency if you're stateless. As Time Magazine put it: "Uncle Sam makes the process both difficult – and pricey." Additionally the waiting list to renounce your citizenship at the London embassy is 1 year long now, plus it takes another year to get the actual release letter, AND, if have more than a certain amount of assets, the 1996 HIPAA law mandated a 10 year wait. It is SOOO hypocritical for you to say 'if you don't like it, just leave' and then, as Time puts it, you put barriers to make the process very difficult.

(05-11-2013 02:30 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  As to taxes you owe, well, you can remain stateless while that is sorted out. If you owe taxes, you will pay them or face penalty, same as any citizen in any other country in the world.

No. Name one country besides N. Korea, Cuba and the US that tie taxation to citizenship. Just one. France? Japan? Mexico? China? Vietnam? Nope. In every other country, your duties and obligations are ONLY to the country in which you live, because that is the country that is providing you services, and because, by means of a voluntary social contract, that is the country you have agreed to subject yourself to. Only N Korea, Cuba and the US do it differently. I dare you to name one other country that does this.

(05-11-2013 02:30 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  What utter drivel.

It's obviously factually accurate, or else you would have pointed out my errors. So it's drivel only because you don't like it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 02:50 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Bobby Fisher could have renounced his US citizenship before breaking US laws,
ignoring the embargo against Yugoslavia. His American passport allows him some rights (being able to travel to various countries) and also some obligations
(being subject the US law).

How? See my previous post where the State Department refused to allow O'Keefe to renounce because he didn't already have legal residence elsewhere. Not to mention the 10 year waiting period. You're just ignoring the facts.

(05-11-2013 02:50 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Here he is, in Yuguslavia, playing under a US flag. Shouldn't complain
about being subject to US law, then.

If this is reasonable, then why is it that the only other countries that impose these rules are North Korea and Cuba? Really? You say with pride that the US copied the North Korean system? In every other country he would have been free to leave, no strings attached.

Also, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights says that it is a basic, fundamental human right to be able to leave your country to take up residency elsewhere with no strings attached and return anytime you like. The UN Commission on Human Rights has even condemned the US for refusing to uphold these basic human rights, like China, Russia and everybody else.

So, just remember that when Americans say "this is a fair system", the ONLY other countries that agree with you are North Korea and Cuba.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 12:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I find it so insane when you liberals ...

That's strike three. We're done.

You count it as a "strike" every time I make an accurate statement? To me, that's a "hit". There's no disputing my statement is accurate because (a) if it weren't you'd have jumped at the opportunity to prove me wrong, and (b) because in this forum alone it's happened several times that I've complained about the system guys say "Don't let the door bang you in the ass on the way out" (this was from one hour ago), and then when I explain that I _HAVE_ been trying to leave, they defend the barriers put up to block my exit.

I've discussed this subject hundreds of times, with hundreds of self-identified liberals, and, generally, non-Americans are in disbelief and could not imagine that ANY developed country would deny such a basic human right, but, I've yet to fine one American who says "You're right. That's not fair. The government is supposed to exist to serve the people--not the other around. The people pay taxes and subject themselves to laws in exchange for those services, but if they're not using the services, they shouldn't pay for them."

You're a bit of an anomaly because you're Canadian, and Canada doesn't impose any restrictions on its people leaving--no need to renounce your citizenship or anything like that. Just move across the border, and that's it. And if you did an opinion poll asking Canadians if that's fair, I really doubt that there would be many Canadians who say "No, we need the American system to block Canadians from escaping." I imagine that back when you lived in Canada you probably would have thought the same way, but having been in the US now for a while, it seems the American liberal mentality has rubbed off and you're now defending it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 04:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's strike three. We're done.

You count it as a "strike" every time I make an accurate statement? To me, that's a "hit". There's no disputing my statement is accurate because (a) if it weren't you'd have jumped at the opportunity to prove me wrong, and (b) because in this forum alone it's happened several times that I've complained about the system guys say "Don't let the door bang you in the ass on the way out" (this was from one hour ago), and then when I explain that I _HAVE_ been trying to leave, they defend the barriers put up to block my exit.

I've discussed this subject hundreds of times, with hundreds of self-identified liberals, and, generally, non-Americans are in disbelief and could not imagine that ANY developed country would deny such a basic human right, but, I've yet to fine one American who says "You're right. That's not fair. The government is supposed to exist to serve the people--not the other around. The people pay taxes and subject themselves to laws in exchange for those services, but if they're not using the services, they shouldn't pay for them."

You're a bit of an anomaly because you're Canadian, and Canada doesn't impose any restrictions on its people leaving--no need to renounce your citizenship or anything like that. Just move across the border, and that's it. And if you did an opinion poll asking Canadians if that's fair, I really doubt that there would be many Canadians who say "No, we need the American system to block Canadians from escaping." I imagine that back when you lived in Canada you probably would have thought the same way, but having been in the US now for a while, it seems the American liberal mentality has rubbed off and you're now defending it.

You missed the point. I have asked you not to ascribe positions, opinions, or statements to me.

You did it again. I am no longer interested in discussing anything with you. You are annoying.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
05-11-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Quote:Wrong. First, lookup the case of Ken O'Keefe who "has tried officially to renounce his citizenship twice without success, first in Vancouver and then in the Netherlands... After his second attempt, he waited seven months with no response before he tried a more sensational approach. He went back to the consulate at The Hague, retrieved his passport, walked outside, and lit it on fire. Seventeen days later, he received a letter from the State Department informing him that he was still an American, because he had not obtained the right to reside elsewhere. "

Here is the law on renunciation of US citizenship. Show me one section in that law which requires that you obtain citizenship with another soverign nation before you renounce you US citizenship.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

Anybody that tells you otherwise is lying to you. So these libertarian activists or Time magazine don't know what they are talking about. The process can be delayed or lengthy. A consulate may advise against it (and for good reason), but you're free to tell them 'to hell with it, I want out'. Also if there is evidence of of criminal misconduct eg tax evasion, arrest warrants, etc, they are going to process those first.

But again, if you want out, you can get out.

Quote: It is SOOO hypocritical for you to say 'if you don't like it, just leave' and then, as Time puts it, you put barriers to make the process very difficult.

It's not hypocritical at all. It is, however, hypocritical of you to try to leave the country and renounce your citizenship for tax evasion reasons, they cry foul when you get punished for breaking the law plus claiming Uncle Sam is bullying you.

Quote:No. Name one country besides N. Korea, Cuba and the US that tie taxation to citizenship. Just one. France? Japan? Mexico? China? Vietnam? Nope. In every other country, your duties and obligations are ONLY to the country in which you live, because that is the country that is providing you services, and because, by means of a voluntary social contract, that is the country you have agreed to subject yourself to. Only N Korea, Cuba and the US do it differently. I dare you to name one other country that does this.

Agreed. I don't think it's fair to levy an income tax on someone for work performed abroad. Sounds like you need to challenge the IRS or write your senator to have this law changed.

Quote:It's obviously factually accurate, or else you would have pointed out my errors. So it's drivel only because you don't like it.

Bobby Fisher was arrested by the Japanese for using a fake passport to travel to the Phillippines. Again with the drama queen routine, crying foul when people breaks the law and get caught.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:29 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  You missed the point. I have asked you not to ascribe positions, opinions, or statements to me.

You did it again. I am no longer interested in discussing anything with you. You are annoying.

@Chas, you get so upset that I "assume" your position, yet every time I ask your position, you run. That's not fair. If you refuse to disclose your position, then it has to be inferred. So please answer just this simple yes/no question:

If, in Canada, a law was proposed that said all Canadian citizens had to pay taxes, had to pay into the Canadian health system, etc., would you support it, knowing that means that you, as a Canadian living in the US, would have to send big fat checks to Canada every month for "services" you cannot use anyway?

If the answer is 'no you wouldn't support it', then why are you defending subjecting Americans to a law that you are unwilling to subject yourself to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:47 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 04:36 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Bobby Fisher was arrested by the Japanese for using a fake passport to travel to the Phillippines. Again with the drama queen routine, crying foul when people breaks the law and get caught.

Bull shit. It was NOT a fake passport. The US wanted him returned back so they invalidated his passport and told the Japanese to arrest him. Just like they did with Snowden. You understand that by claiming this is "breaking the law" you are defending the East Germans, the North Koreans, and every country that imprisons their people, and you are claiming that their actions did not make them 'unfree'? So, let's assume North Korea did the same thing and issued everybody passports and said "You're all free to leave". And then as soon as the people started running for the border, the government said "Oh, we just invalidated your passports, you're committing a crime by trying to travel with an invalid passport, the penalty is death", then you're fine with that. Because, like you said of Bobby Fischer, if, unbeknownst to you the government has invalidated your passport, it is a crime to try to travel, and so he deserved to be locked up.

Do you realize that outside the US only a handful of horrible tyrants have ever defended such a system.

(05-11-2013 04:36 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Here is the law on renunciation of US citizenship. Show me one section in that law which requires that you obtain citizenship with another soverign nation before you renounce you US citizenship.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

It says "making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State". That means the Secretary of State has discretion. And as you can see from the O'Keefe case, they can deny your attempt to expatriate for any number of reasons, including that you don't have a place where you can legally live as a stateless person.

(05-11-2013 04:36 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  It's not hypocritical at all. It is, however, hypocritical of you to try to leave the country and renounce your citizenship for tax evasion reasons, they cry foul when you get punished for breaking the law plus claiming Uncle Sam is bullying you.

Huh??? I am hypocritical??? The only way that makes any sense is if I let people into my home and then locked them in and said you can't leave again. I've never done that. I firmly believe in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, that it's a fundamental human right to leave your country at any time if you find your country too burdensome--no strings attached and no barriers in your way. I would never in a million years defend a system that was forcing people to stay in it against their will. Never, ever. So how have I been hypocritical?

Lastly you accuse me of 'breaking the law'. The only 'crime' we're talking about was trying to leave. That's it. So, again, when East German guards shot people who tried to climb the Berlin Wall and left their bodies to rot on the barbed wire as an example to the rest, in your opinion, they got what they deserved for 'breaking the law' that prohibits their escape?

You understand that originally, the word 'liberal' came from the latin 'liber' meaning "free", and the hallmark of liberals was defending individual liberties and letting people exercise free will. Based on your recent defense of the current US system, it is stunning how today the word is used to mean the exact opposite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Quote:It says "making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State". That means the Secretary of State has discretion. And as you can see from the O'Keefe case, they can deny your attempt to expatriate for any number of reasons, including that you don't have a place where you can legally live as a stateless person.

This is a sad, pathetic display of pride on your part. The law says that the Secretary of State may define the formal renunciation process, not that they have the option to deny a request made. It is possible that they can delay for various reasons.

And typical of your dodging, you never answered the my original question: Where in the law does it state you must have citizenship in another sovereign country prior to renouncing your US citizenship?

Quote:Huh??? I am hypocritical??? The only way that makes any sense is if I let people into my home and then locked them in and said you can't leave again. I've never done that. I firmly believe in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, that it's a fundamental human right to leave your country at any time if you find your country too burdensome--no strings attached and no barriers in your way. I would never in a million years defend a system that was forcing people to stay in it against their will. Never, ever. So how have I been hypocritical?

Lastly you accuse me of 'breaking the law'. The only 'crime' we're talking about was trying to leave. That's it. So, again, when East German guards shot people who tried to climb the Berlin Wall and left their bodies to rot on the barbed wire as an example to the rest, in your opinion, they got what they deserved for 'breaking the law' that prohibits their escape?

You understand that originally, the word 'liberal' came from the latin 'liber' meaning "free", and the hallmark of liberals was defending individual liberties and letting people exercise free will. Based on your recent defense of the current US system, it is stunning how today the word is used to mean the exact opposite.

You need medication if you can think that being arrested for tax evasion while trying to expatriate to avoid paying them is tantamount to wrongful imprisonment or living in a totalitarian regime. Godwin's Law (or the Communist equivalent) is a poor cover for your stupidity and hyperbole.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: