Speak Out: Renouncing citizenship

Replies (10)

• Oh totally agree, it is to dodge taxes

  -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Apr 27, 2010, at 1:22 PM

• There are ex-patriots scattered around the world. I'm sure they have a variety of reasons for leaving but, it seems to me, they seem to increase in numbers anytime there is a war. I have no data to back that up, just my own observance. I seem to recall reading about a sizable number of them settling in Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War, and settling in Europe after World War II.

  As Jimmy Buffet sings in "Banana Republics":

  "Down to the Banana Republics,

  down to the tropical sun,

  Go the expatriated Americans,

  hopin' to find some fun.

  Some of them go for the sailing,

  caught by the lure of the sea,

  Tryin' to find what is ailing,

  livin' in the land of the free.

  Some of them are running from lovers,

  leaving no foreward address,

  Some of them are running tons of ganja,

  Some are running from the I.R.S."

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 27, 2010, at 3:15 PM

• Oh, you can make like Rush Limbaugh and move to Costa Rica if health care passed. Wait, he didn't actually do that did he? Guess he's not a man of his word.

  -- Posted by almighty on Tue, Apr 27, 2010, at 3:51 PM

• I am not wealthy, or in tax trouble, but this is something that I have casually entertained. And now that Rush isn't moving to Costa Rica - that country is back on my list.

  -- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 5:16 AM

• It is possible to fix things through the two-party system. The Republican Party was changed when Ronaldus Maximus brought out a conservative movement and altered the direction of the party. The problem is, the people get over their anger and things revert back to the way they were.

  The TEA Party is about voter anger. Republicans, currently out of power, have sensed that mood and begun to seek their support. Nothing wrong with that. Again, however, if the people don't stay angry, there'll be no long-term change. The people elected will employ 'seasoned veterans' of the political circus to fill their staff, and those 'seasoned veterans' will continue to do business the old way, and there will be little change.

  The people, however, feel that their work is done when they've 'thrown the bums out' and sent in a new group of bums. They then settle back to their lives and their jobs and 'leave it to the professionals' to take care of the day to day business of governing. They get angry every now and then, over the big things, but they are willing to let big government's 'little victories' pass mostly unnoticed, particularly if they, themselves, benefit from those victories (i.e., new entitlements, etc.).

  If we are to truly have a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people', the people have to remain involved in good times and in bad. The advocates of bg government do not rest in their labours, but seek every opportunity to advance their cause.

  They constantly seek 'compromise', but that is a misnomer. There is no compromise to be reached with someone who brings nothing to the table. They want your freedom, but they are willing to 'compromise' by taking only a bit of your freedom in exchange for a delay before they come after the rest of it. Some compromise. Yet, we fall for it almost every time.

  Those advocates of big government are not some secret cabal, hidden in dark caves or smoke-filled rooms high up in the penthouse suites of Madison Avenue. They are your friends and neighbors. They demand that everybody 'give their fair share' so they don't have to. They don't like sacrificing their lifestyle for the sake of their health, so they advocate a national health plan 'in the name of compassion'. They demand more taxes for Social Security. They demand longer unemployment payments. They call success 'greed', and profit as 'evil'. They are eaten up with envy and greed, though the mask it as compassion for those 'less fortunate'.

  In the words of that great philospher, Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:47 AM

• As usual, a very good, thoughtful, and intelligent post, Shapley.

  I've always agreed with that Pogo line, too ... in many ways.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 4:29 PM

• Question: What is a "fair share" and who determines it at whose expense?

  Second question: What is an "evil?" In making a "compromise with an evil," who always wins?

  Your answers, please.

  -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 4:39 PM

• Voyager wrote:

  "Question: What is a "fair share" and who determines it at whose expense?"

  I have no idea what a 'fair share' is. I've always said, if we have to have an income tax, it should be a flat rate. Thus, a person that makes 10x as much money as you pays 10x the tax. I've been willing to accept the notion that we could waive that tax for persons making less than some minimum, although that really undoes the 'fairness' concept.

  "Second question: What is an "evil?" In making a "compromise with an evil," who always wins?"

  I don't believe a made the 'compromise with an evil' statement. Exactly what constitutes an 'evil' varies from person to person. I often here talk of 'evil oil companies' or 'evil health insurers'. Most people consider Hitler to have been 'evil', as they do Pol Pot, but the jury is out on others such as Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega. President Bush was 'evil' to some, whereas Mr. Obams is 'evil' to others. I believe the percentage that consider them both to be 'evil' is pretty small, although there is talk of the 'lesser of two evils' in every election.

  Liberals seem to be believe certain companies are 'evil' when they make 'obscene profits', but 'obscene' is usually as vaguely defined as is 'evil'.

  I generally refrain from referring to people as 'evil', although I do consider some systems and some policies to be so. In such cases, I define 'evil' to be something that proves detrimental to society at large.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 9:42 PM

• We should look to Arizona and Texas

  -- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 7:03 AM

• "Fair share" is the difference between what you actually paid versus what those wanting you to pay your fair share perceive that you paid.

  -- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 10:13 AM