Us Expats And Fatca Act?

Recommended Posts

robert k
Posted
Posted

What ticks me off is that this is typical, rediculous Congressional legislation for political purposes.  All US citizens are already required to pay their legitimate taxes, whether in the US or overseas.  The stated purpose of this act is to stop those rich Americans who are hiding money overseas, which is ALREADY ILLEGAL.  What makes our Congress believe that enacting this legislation will suddenly bring these tax evaders in line?  If they are intent on illegally hiding funds overseas the FATCA will not stop them.  In the meantime the Act becomes an additional burden for a lot of tax-paying Americans overseas.

It's easy to see that the USG is desperate for income to keep the vote buying freebie train :999:  going a while longer. Where does money come from? Only from the "haves". Of course, the haves fearing confiscation of their money attempt to hide it. So far, I don't think it has gone as far as confiscation yet but the USG wants a cut of any interest that money parked outside the country may have earned if you lived in the US for more than 35 days in the year. I would also assume that they want to know where it is in case one day they decide they need your money. Money registration, something like gun registration. :thumbsup:

 

That is the problem with living in a Democracy, which believes in the great society, greatest good for the greatest number. I can't point to the exact moment in time when the US changed from a representative Republic to a Democracy but there can be no doubt that it has.

 

The number of US citizens living, working or holding more than a small amount of money outside the US is a tiny minority. Minorities, not talking ethnic here, rarely fare well under a Democracy where the majority will always opt for bread and circuses.... if someone else is paying for it.

 

There has never been a successful mass confiscation scheme that I know of that did not begin with a registration scheme because you simply can't take it if you don't know where it is and how much. :tiphat:

 

So much for the "Voluntary" income tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Support
scott h
Posted
Posted
The number of US citizens living, working or holding more than a small amount of money outside the US is a tiny minority.

 

Welp, you know the old saying, a million here and a million there, pretty soon your talking real money :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

robert k
Posted
Posted

 

The number of US citizens living, working or holding more than a small amount of money outside the US is a tiny minority.

 

Welp, you know the old saying, a million here and a million there, pretty soon your talking real money :thumbsup:

 

Actually the quote attributed to the senator was a billion here and a billion there....    The money just isn't real to those supposed to be representing us.

 

I doubt they could reach any serious amount of money because those with the serious money have probably sunk it into some shell safe from the USG.

 

It doesn't mean that the USG will not go after the money that mom and pop have outside the country even if the total of it wouldn't run the government for a day. No amount of money is too small for the grasping fingers and appetite of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

earthdome
Posted
Posted
That is the problem with living in a Democracy, which believes in the great society, greatest good for the greatest number. I can't point to the exact moment in time when the US changed from a representative Republic to a Democracy but there can be no doubt that it has.

 

I am confused. Was the US Government a Republic or a Democracy when George Washington as President led soldiers from Washington DC to Pennsylvania to put down the Whisky Rebellion over his new tax on corn whisky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

robert k
Posted
Posted

 

That is the problem with living in a Democracy, which believes in the great society, greatest good for the greatest number. I can't point to the exact moment in time when the US changed from a representative Republic to a Democracy but there can be no doubt that it has.

 

I am confused. Was the US Government a Republic or a Democracy when George Washington as President led soldiers from Washington DC to Pennsylvania to put down the Whisky Rebellion over his new tax on corn whisky?

 

Actually it was federated states. It was not until 1787 I believe that the form of government was determined. There is a story that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government are you giving us?" And Benjamin Franklin replied. "A representative republic madam, if you can keep it!"

 

I'm fond of tea myself but I'm sure the corn likker was instrumental also. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chico2663
Posted
Posted (edited)

look you file taxes at 25000. Your social security is charged at 50% so if you get 1800 a month than it comes at 21,600. The charge 50% so your taxable income would be 10,800. Because of the aca they want you to file.Myself I had a disability policy that is non-taxae but i have to include on my taxes on line g. so that My insurance goes against at30,000 but my taxable income is at 11000. hope this helps. One I get on medicare I won't have to file taxes unless I go back to work.

Edited by chico2663
Link to comment
Share on other sites

chico2663
Posted
Posted

Also i can take 13,000 out of my 401k and not be taxed. at least that is what my accountant says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

earthdome
Posted
Posted

 

 

That is the problem with living in a Democracy, which believes in the great society, greatest good for the greatest number. I can't point to the exact moment in time when the US changed from a representative Republic to a Democracy but there can be no doubt that it has.

 

I am confused. Was the US Government a Republic or a Democracy when George Washington as President led soldiers from Washington DC to Pennsylvania to put down the Whisky Rebellion over his new tax on corn whisky?

 

Actually it was federated states. It was not until 1787 I believe that the form of government was determined. There is a story that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government are you giving us?" And Benjamin Franklin replied. "A representative republic madam, if you can keep it!"

 

I'm fond of tea myself but I'm sure the corn likker was instrumental also. :thumbsup:

 

 

Right. Of course the Whisky Rebellion was in 1791 which is 3 years after the Constitution was ratified.

 

When it comes to the US form of government and the constitution I agree with Lysander Spooner:

 

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

robert k
Posted
Posted

 

 

 

That is the problem with living in a Democracy, which believes in the great society, greatest good for the greatest number. I can't point to the exact moment in time when the US changed from a representative Republic to a Democracy but there can be no doubt that it has.

 

I am confused. Was the US Government a Republic or a Democracy when George Washington as President led soldiers from Washington DC to Pennsylvania to put down the Whisky Rebellion over his new tax on corn whisky?

 

Actually it was federated states. It was not until 1787 I believe that the form of government was determined. There is a story that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government are you giving us?" And Benjamin Franklin replied. "A representative republic madam, if you can keep it!"

 

I'm fond of tea myself but I'm sure the corn likker was instrumental also. :thumbsup:

 

 

Right. Of course the Whisky Rebellion was in 1791 which is 3 years after the Constitution was ratified.

 

When it comes to the US form of government and the constitution I agree with Lysander Spooner:

 

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

 

I can see your point but I can't agree with you. I have never seen a powerful piece of paper, although I did get a nasty  paper cut once. I do not believe that the fault lies with the US Constitution but with the men charged with seeing it's provisions carried out, and with all citizens who allowed them to shirk their duty. I will take my share of that blame, although I did vote. Of course by the time I reached voting age (I turn 50 this month), I don't think it mattered a great deal who one voted for as they were two sides of the same coin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

earthdome
Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

That is the problem with living in a Democracy, which believes in the great society, greatest good for the greatest number. I can't point to the exact moment in time when the US changed from a representative Republic to a Democracy but there can be no doubt that it has.

 

I am confused. Was the US Government a Republic or a Democracy when George Washington as President led soldiers from Washington DC to Pennsylvania to put down the Whisky Rebellion over his new tax on corn whisky?

 

Actually it was federated states. It was not until 1787 I believe that the form of government was determined. There is a story that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government are you giving us?" And Benjamin Franklin replied. "A representative republic madam, if you can keep it!"

 

I'm fond of tea myself but I'm sure the corn likker was instrumental also. :thumbsup:

 

 

Right. Of course the Whisky Rebellion was in 1791 which is 3 years after the Constitution was ratified.

 

When it comes to the US form of government and the constitution I agree with Lysander Spooner:

 

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

 

I can see your point but I can't agree with you. I have never seen a powerful piece of paper, although I did get a nasty  paper cut once. I do not believe that the fault lies with the US Constitution but with the men charged with seeing it's provisions carried out, and with all citizens who allowed them to shirk their duty. I will take my share of that blame, although I did vote. Of course by the time I reached voting age (I turn 50 this month), I don't think it mattered a great deal who one voted for as they were two sides of the same coin.

 

 

Those in a position of power started violating the US Constitution almost before the ink dried. Those in power started treating veterans bad during the revolutionary war. Research Shays Rebellion where Massachusetts took the land of revolutionary era soldiers when they got home from the war because while they were gone they were unaware of and unable to pay all the new property taxes. Followed not long after by the Whiskey Rebellion. Then there was John Adam's Alien and Sedition Act.

 

All the revolutionary war did was change which rich bastards were running the show. From those across the Atlantic to those on the Eastern seaboard of North America.

 

This is getting way off topic so RK you may have the closing statement. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...