Re: How much you lose under Social Security -- socialsecurity.org

[frissell@panix.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:55 PM 5/30/97 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:

>What's the
>justification behind this other than exit rape?

Same justification as any tax.  "We want the dough."  Note they haven't 
managed to pass a full exit tax yet, however:

http://207.87.27.10/forbes/111896/5812044a.htm

Forbes - 18 November 1996

"And don't come back"

By Robert Lenzner 

In August 1996 the Republicans pasted some anti-taxpatriate language into the 
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act. This law now subjects 
expatriates with a net worth of over $500,000 to taxation on their income 
earned in the U.S. for ten years from the time they renounce their 
citizenship, no matter where they live or whose flag they salute. But this is 
a law without teeth. Any clever entrepreneur can live by borrowing against 
assets rather than paying himself an income. Any good international tax lawyer 

can move ownership of U.S. assets into a foreign corporation or trust, thus 
making most taxpatriates' U.S.-sourced income vanish.

The latest effort to keep intrepid taxpatriates on the reservation was passed 
with no fanfare in early October. A little-noticed provision of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 says, in essence, 
that Americans can still renounce their citizenship and flee to tax havens 
like the Bahamas, Ireland and Switzerland. But if they do, they can't 
necessarily come back to the U.S., not even to visit the grandkids or attend 
their college reunions.

Under the new law, the taxpatriate�any expatriate for that matter�must apply 
for a visa for every visit. The law states that the U.S. Attorney General may 
prohibit the issuance of a visa to a former U.S. citizen if there are solid 
grounds to believe that citizenship was renounced in order to avoid taxes.

In short, taxpatriates will now be treated as exiles without any visiting 
rights, just like the illegal immigrants the U.S. wants to cut off.

***************

Utterly meaningless in both cases since, as mentioned, you can move your 
wealth overseas and in the case of the visa requirement, first they have to 
flag you as an expatriate and even if they do that, you can enter the U.S. via 

Canada, Mexico, or the   Caribbean which are all inside the "US Passport 
Control Area."

>I suppose one way is to take loads of trips and loads of AmEx traveler's
>checks, then gamble on things with 50% chance of winning, take the
>winnings and dump'em in accounts outside.  Repeat until nothing's left,
>then exit with very little.

I find that a SWIFT wire transfer is faster, safer, and easier.

>So let's sue the system.  Might fail, but maybe we can get it the fuck out
>of our income taxes.  One less tax to bother with.  Since it no longer
>does what it is supposed to, might as well get rid of it.  One way is to
>calculate how much you've put in it, and what is expected you'll receive
>on retirement.  Compare the two, then sue the bastards.   (I donno what
>I've been smoking, but I should get more of it, that's for sure. heheheh)

If you can find a judge who doesn't have "a financial interest in the outcome 
of the proceedings" I suppose you could try but victory seems unlikely in 
either case.

Rather than litigation or detonation why not just try to ignore them.

DCF


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0 beta
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM49nIIVO4r4sgSPhAQEYsQP/Wci/WaWwb533khhDPWxo+x1OGChODmh6
xpm/WbyFBR+gUwi29FvgO/4hR4AaNW1T5koh309wT8MqU3LGNT/zWWxOCDR03neN
EXvZPFqNGLcU5aHimZpXfE8jaOtlYnNSL4kDRk9NbeCiryOhjgJrvpipZx1qki2X
OQJiA9dWnkw=
=pvEx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----