Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 9:37 AM:
US Hikes Fee to Renounce Citizenship by 422 Percent to $2,350
Sunday, 31 Aug 2014 08:10 PM
By Newsmax Wires
The United States plans to hike the fees it charges American citizens to give up their passports as the nation also tries to stem the tide of U.S. businesses moving headquarters overseas.
The State Department has boosted the fee for renunciation of U.S. citizenship by 422 percent to $2,350 from $450.
The State Department claims the new fee is the actual cost of processing an application to lose citizenship.
"Demand for the service has increased dramatically, consuming far more consular officer time and resources," Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy wrote, according to Global News.
"Documenting a U.S. citizen's renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases," he wrote. "The department believes there is no public benefit or other reason for setting this fee below cost."
The wait time for an expatriation interview has increased to as much as six months in some areas, while it is as short as two to four weeks in others, a State Department spokesman told The Wall Street Journal. He added that three-quarters of all renunciations are processed by consular offices in Canada, the U.K. and Switzerland.
In recent years, the United States has seen a 221 percent surge in Americans renouncing their citizenship, according to Forbes. "It isn't exactly Ellis Island in reverse, but it's more than a dribble. With global tax reporting and FATCA, the list of the individuals who renounced is up," Forbes reported.
Meanwhile, the Canada Free Press reported that both U.S. citizens and American business want to free the home of the brave because of the double-pronged whammy of "high taxes and burdensome tax compliance" in foreign jurisdictions.
"Instead of facing the problems directly, the Obama Administration has resorted to punitive measures. The shame and blame tactic of calling out businesses who wish to relocate as "unpatriotic" was undignified. Perhaps realizing that using the same strategy with individuals would be even less well received, they went the more quiet, direct route," the CFP's Alan Joel wrote.
The new amount is "more than 20 times the average level in other high-income countries," according to the Isaac Brock Society, which describes itself as a group of "individuals who are concerned about the treatment by the United States government of US persons who live in Canada and abroad."
The United States has been battling a rising tide of tax inversion, commonly defined as the relocation of a corporation's headquarters to a lower-tax nation, or corporate haven, usually while keeping key operations in its higher-tax country of origin.
International Business Times reported that Burger King Worldwide Inc.'s plans to buy 51 percent of the Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons Inc. for $11.4 billion may have been about saving on taxes by moving to Canada.
Replies (20)
221% surge in U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship. I wonder why?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 9:40 AM
You can still vote with your feet, but you are going to pay if you do. It used to be a free country.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 9:43 AM
If people want to renounce their citizenship, why should I give a crap what they charge. Adios
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 11:12 AM
And of course quite a number of US companies are renouncing their US base and moving their "home" to foreign countries.
Burger King is one of the latest to take action to merge with Tony Horton's and become a company headquartered in Canada. For the massive tax savings.
Liberals are killing this country with their massive regulation, high taxes and wasteful spending.
Anheuser-Busch is now a Belgian company whose takeover was possible due to the reduced corporate taxes in Belgium.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 1:33 PM
There is neither a legal nor a moral obligation to pay more taxes than the law requires, and any man (or corporation) may take such steps as are legally permissible to reduce their level of taxation.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 8:20 PM
On the flip , there is a moral obligation for everyone to pay their fair share of taxes and not search for loop holes so they don't have to pay their fair share .
-- Posted by ✴Rick on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 2:36 AM
I, along with a lot of other people agree with paying our fair share, but let's level the playing field. Why should the majority of taxes be paid by just a few? Why is it we expect businesses to pay even more? People need to wake up and realize what our high corporate tax rates are actually costing us. It's not just businesses that relocate, but all the jobs that go with it and the reinvesting and spending we lose. Everyone should pay there fair share. The Fair Tax proposal plan would be a great start. Businesses nor people would have a reason to avoid taxes. Since it is a sale tax you only pay a tax if you puchase something. As with any proposal, it will need tweaking, but overall a great idea.
-- Posted by semofan23 on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 8:03 AM
"On the flip , there is a moral obligation for everyone to pay their fair share of taxes and not search for loop holes so they don't have to pay their fair share."
Not so. "Loopholes" are items written into the tax code that permit the lessening of taxes. They are entirely legal and morally permissible.
For example: the mortgage interest deduction is a "loophole". Obviously, the rich man buys a bigger house and thus deducts more mortgage interest. He might be able to pay off his mortgage sooner, but by keeping the mortgage longer, he continues to lower his taxes. Now, I'll grant you it is unlikely that he saves more in taxes than he pays in interest, but those who figure such things, taking into account such things as interest, tax deductions, and return on those monies otherwise invested, may decide that retaining the mortgage is more profitable than paying it off, the reduction in taxes being a part of that calculation.
The writers of tax legislation believe the mortgage interest deduction to be of more value to the nation than the income derived from taxing the monies, so they permit it to stand.
Is it immoral to retain a mortgage even when you can afford to pay it off?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 8:30 AM
"Those are American jobs and American livelihoods being taken to other countries to avoid paying their own fair share ."
Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the profits for their shareholders. That includes minimizing the share of those profits that are lost to taxation.
Of what value is it to investors to maximize their profits only to see them confiscated by the government in taxes? Obviously, they invested for the money, not out of a desire to enrich the Treasury.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 8:33 AM
"To run and hide is not an honorable thing...."
The Bible tells that Joseph took Mary and the baby Jesus to Egypt to avoid having the child killed by Herod. The "flight to Egypt" is celebrated as a necessary and honourable effort on Joseph's part to ensure that Jesus lived.
Ergo, running and hiding can, in fact, be honourable, no?
At the same time, standing and fighting the soldiers of Herod would have been honourable. Not all men live by the same code of honour. It was, after all, Jesus who taught us that turning the other cheek was an honourable response to a slap in the face.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 8:37 AM
" It's not just businesses that relocate, but all the jobs that go with it and the reinvesting and spending we lose."
Not really. I rather doubt that Burger King will shutter its stores and relocate them to Canada. At the same time, I rather suspect the merger will bring more Tim Horton Coffee Houses to the United States, financed in part by those tax savings. Nor will they ship Canadians down to serve the coffee and burgers.
A handful of accountants may be displaced, but probably not a lot of other Burger King employees.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 8:40 AM
"These equally paid taxes could help fix the deteriorating infrastructure which is getting worse by the day while trying to figure out who is gonna pay it."
Actually, while they cite "crumbling infrastructure" as justification for more taxes, the majority of taxes raised will be consumed by entitlements. And that is only going to get worse in the years ahead, unless there is serious entitlement reform, about which few politicians want to get serious.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:07 AM
"Not much talent is needed to empty the fries cooker ."
Not everyone at Burger King empties the fryer. There are managers at every restaurant, and various corporate entities within every region. That is unlikely to change.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:09 AM
True, but even starter jobs are jobs, and many a young worker has benefitted from having had fast food restaurants such as Burger King available to get a foothold in the workforce.
If nothing else, they learn what they don't want to do for the rest of their lives. Perhaps that is the motivator they need to get serious about a career.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:25 AM
By the time the liberals get finished with demanding a "living wage" there will be fewer fast food restaurants and the youth unemployment rate will continue to set records as adults try to take those jobs.
It's a mess and it's bigger than this issue. And there's no stopping them. Obama was demagoguing yesterday in Wisconsin blaming republicans for not raising the minimum wage. 12 states have already done so on their own.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:32 AM
What is going to happen is more robotics in fast food joints which will turn out better consistency with a lot less grief and aggravation than with a bunch of high school kids who would rather be elsewhere anyway.
Happened down on the farm.... kids like me, hoeing the cockle burrs out of the corn rows were replaced with tractor mounted sprayers which dispensed 2-4-D and other chemicals into the corn rows to get rid of the nuisances.
It will happen down at the corner Mickey D's also.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:42 AM
"12 states have already done so on their own."
And those states ought to be free to do so, or not do so as they see fit. The federal government ought not.
It's kind of hard for fast food businesses to leave the state and move elsewhere if their customer base stays behind. Thus, if New York can afford to pay $15 to burger flippers, then fine. If not, the burger joints close and they lose their monies. However, burger flippers in Alabama ought not to lose their jobs just because New Yorkers and Washingtonians think their burger flippers ought to be paid more.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:42 AM
And those states ought to be free to do so, or not do so as they see fit. The federal government ought not.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:42 AM
Exactly. That is why tons of people from Illinois drive to Missouri to buy gas for their cars, etc. If a state wants to do that, have at it. And consumers will pick where they want to spend their money.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:44 AM
I have a sister who lives in Belleville and has never drove a car in her life. -- Posted by ✴Rick on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 11:30 AM
I bet she has saved a few thousand bucks over the years!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 11:45 AM
I'm not saying the few should pay the majority and don't believe it's true , the major middle class pays more then anyone else . Sorry if you took it to mean otherwise .
-- Posted by ✴Rick on Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 9:00 AM
From CNN Money
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.
Menu
US Hikes Fee to Renounce Citizenship by 422 Percent to $2,350
Sunday, 31 Aug 2014 08:10 PM
By Newsmax Wires
The United States plans to hike the fees it charges American citizens to give up their passports as the nation also tries to stem the tide of U.S. businesses moving headquarters overseas.
The State Department has boosted the fee for renunciation of U.S. citizenship by 422 percent to $2,350 from $450.
The State Department claims the new fee is the actual cost of processing an application to lose citizenship.
"Demand for the service has increased dramatically, consuming far more consular officer time and resources," Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy wrote, according to Global News.
"Documenting a U.S. citizen's renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases," he wrote. "The department believes there is no public benefit or other reason for setting this fee below cost."
The wait time for an expatriation interview has increased to as much as six months in some areas, while it is as short as two to four weeks in others, a State Department spokesman told The Wall Street Journal. He added that three-quarters of all renunciations are processed by consular offices in Canada, the U.K. and Switzerland.
In recent years, the United States has seen a 221 percent surge in Americans renouncing their citizenship, according to Forbes. "It isn't exactly Ellis Island in reverse, but it's more than a dribble. With global tax reporting and FATCA, the list of the individuals who renounced is up," Forbes reported.
Meanwhile, the Canada Free Press reported that both U.S. citizens and American business want to free the home of the brave because of the double-pronged whammy of "high taxes and burdensome tax compliance" in foreign jurisdictions.
"Instead of facing the problems directly, the Obama Administration has resorted to punitive measures. The shame and blame tactic of calling out businesses who wish to relocate as "unpatriotic" was undignified. Perhaps realizing that using the same strategy with individuals would be even less well received, they went the more quiet, direct route," the CFP's Alan Joel wrote.
The new amount is "more than 20 times the average level in other high-income countries," according to the Isaac Brock Society, which describes itself as a group of "individuals who are concerned about the treatment by the United States government of US persons who live in Canada and abroad."
The United States has been battling a rising tide of tax inversion, commonly defined as the relocation of a corporation's headquarters to a lower-tax nation, or corporate haven, usually while keeping key operations in its higher-tax country of origin.
International Business Times reported that Burger King Worldwide Inc.'s plans to buy 51 percent of the Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons Inc. for $11.4 billion may have been about saving on taxes by moving to Canada.
Replies (20)