Speakeasy forum

General discussion


by James Denison / January 13, 2013 4:13 AM PST

is same thing as...?

USA Ex-Pat Tax Act (not passed, yet)

As a temporary "Measure Against Capital Flight and Tax Evasion", individuals who were citizens of the Weimar Republic as of 31 March 1929 and had moved or would move their residence abroad before 31 December 1932, the Reichsfluchtsteuer
would be assessed, provided the emigrant had taxable assets in excess
of 200,000 RM or an annual income over 20,000 RM. The tax rate was set
at 25% of total assets or income and was also applied retroactively.[4]
Taxable persons who attempted to evade this penalty could be punished
with no less than three months imprisonment and an unlimited fine. The
names of those abroad who evaded this penalty were listed in a "Tax wanted poster" published in the Deutscher Reichsanzeiger,
and were to be arrested in the event of a visit to Germany. Any assets
in Germany belonging to tax evaders who had moved overseas were seized.

Now for Ex-Pat Act

The long title of the Ex-PATRIOT Act as given in its Section 1 is:[5]
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that
persons renouncing citizenship for a substantial tax avoidance purpose
shall be subject to tax and withholding on capital gains, to provide
that such persons shall not be admissible to the United States, and for
other purposes.
It was sponsored by Chuck Schumer (D-New York) with initial co-sponsors Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pennsylvania), Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). It was introduced on May 17, 2012 and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, of which Schumer is a member (on the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, among other subcommittees). Schumer's fellow Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) joined as an additional co-sponsor on May 23.[5]
The introduction of the Ex-PATRIOT Act was motivated by the news that Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin had renounced his U.S. citizenship.[6] Saverin, a native of Brazil, lived in the U.S. from 1992 to 2009 before moving to Singapore.[7]
While living in Singapore, he continued to pay U.S. taxes, as the U.S.
is one of the only countries which imposes tax on non-resident citizens.[7][8] In January 2011, he began the procedure to renounce U.S. citizenship in favor of retaining his existing Brazilian citizenship

A "specified expatriate" is defined in clause (i) as any "covered
expatriate" who lost citizenship or permanent residence within the
ten-year period before the bill's date of enactment, as well as future
"covered expatriates". Clause (ii) exempts those who prove that their
loss of citizenship "did not result in a substantial reduction in
taxes". The new subparagraph A provides for the imposition of capital
gains tax on "specified expatriates" at the same 30% rate as
non-resident aliens who are present in the United States for more than
183 days in a tax year. Subparagraph B provides that the tax basis of a "specified expatriate" in U.S. property shall be the value of that property on the day preceding loss of citizenship.

Every year now starts to feel more and more like a step back in time.
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Reichsfluchtsteuer
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Reichsfluchtsteuer
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
While I can't say I'm in favor of such laws
by Roger NC / January 13, 2013 4:18 AM PST
In reply to: Reichsfluchtsteuer

I don't think it's particularly fair for someone to make a fortune in the US and leave and exect to pay nothing.

Do advocate everyone that makes a windfall move out?

Collapse -
I guess it depends on
by James Denison / January 13, 2013 6:44 AM PST

what one considers freedom, and also most wealth had tax paid on it already. This is more like a VAT (value added tax) as I see it. I do believe if a citizen is living and working in another country, if he's willing to pay taxes there instead, he shouldn't be held responsible for taxes here, even if the tax rate is less in the other country.

The main problem seems to be the effect this will have on Americans wanting to invest or partner with foreign firms. Foreign companies will not be willing to jump to American laws just because one owner who is American holds 10% or more. That means they just won't allow American involvement, or if they don't have a market in America, they will properly thumb their nose at the demands of our govt.

Collapse -
If you've earned that money
by TONI H / January 13, 2013 8:44 PM PST

by working or investing, why SHOULDN'T you be allowed to keep it?

Collapse -
How about that you got it by
by Diana Forum moderator / January 13, 2013 9:00 PM PST

working your workers to death for low wages and undercutting the competition by doing shoddy work to make your money? How about making your money by lying to your investors and recommending stocks because you are getting a kickback? How about making home loans to people that can't afford it at a high interest rate and selling the mortgages before they go bad? How about people that donate to politicians that will give them tax breaks as attachments to other bills?

Did you know that there were so much pork in the cliff bill that it negates the increase in taxes?


Collapse -
wouldn't that be good riddance then?
by James Denison / January 13, 2013 9:27 PM PST

And if it was a crime, why wasn't something done BEFORE then? I see the means of acquiring the wealth as a separate matter.

Collapse -
You seem to forget
by TONI H / January 14, 2013 3:05 AM PST


1. Nobody forced those workers to take the jobs in the first place

2. Nobody forced anyone to buy shoddy-made products

3. People have gone to jail for investment fraud

4. The Federal Government actually forced banks to make those home mortgage loans

5. Donating to politicians for favors has been done on both sides

None of which has anything to do with earned money being owed to the government to do with as they wish.

As for the pork in the fiscal cliff. According to one Senator (where the bill originated), they were given three minutes to read it before taking the vote (could YOU read a 56 page document in that amount of time?) and didn't know about the pork buried in it until after the House had already received it. Why do you think the House refused to vote on it immediately? Because THEY had the chance to see it and wanted to amend it......which would have pushed it even further into the 'over the cliff' area. Blame Biden......the whole time he was negotiating with McConnell, the staff was preparing the final bill and were given the word to include what they did. The only part that McConnell had a hand in was the actual negotiations regarding the tax rate hike and the supposedly $15B tax cuts with a promise to cut more right afterwards during the debt ceiling talks. Once the bill was okayed by the Senate, and the House passed it as is, BO immediately came out and laid down the gauntlet about the debt ceiling debate coming up.

Boehner caught all kinds of hell for passing the Senate bill and vowed to never negotiate one on one with BO again because BO lies every time he opens his mouth........and caught it a second time when he refused to pass the Sandy Hook bill for exactly the same reason........all the pork that the democrats threw into it.

It just recently came out that during the 'big deal' talks two years ago, when Boehner thought he had a deal worked out with BO, and then walked away because BO upped the ante by insisting more than $400B more in tax revenue at the last second, it turns out that the person who insisted on that extra tax revenue was actually Jack Lew.......our new Treasurer if BO has his way.

Collapse -
RE: The Federal Government actually forced banks
by JP Bill / January 14, 2013 5:45 AM PST
In reply to: You seem to forget
Collapse -
(NT) Now thats a link I find very informative and compelling. R
by Ziks511 / January 14, 2013 8:11 AM PST
Collapse -
Another Hackler hysterical outburst. Hysterically funny.
by Ziks511 / January 14, 2013 8:08 AM PST
In reply to: You seem to forget

1. Hunger, Living accomodation, Support for yourself and your kids, and the hope for improvement.

2. Not having the money to buy better goods.

3. So?? Is there a point to that point?

4. Hunh?? The Federal Government under the Glorious reign of George W. Bush forced the banks to loan money? Just think about that for a minute. Is it possible for the Federal Government to force banks to lend money on sub-prime mortgages? Is there a Federal Bureau of Forcible Banking with a legal staff which goes around auditing banks and then penalizing them for not lending? Would such legislation even be Constitutional. Are you nuts?
The Feds may have encouraged banks to lend, but forced? not a chance. And if it were so, wouldn't George W. Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and all his other appointees in the Banking system be responsible for that behaviour. (Because they were.) There wasn't a problem when Bill Clinton left office.
So much for your grasp of facts.

5. So what. If you can't distinguish the difference between the supporters of the Democratic Party whose contributions are generally much smaller than the Sheldon Adelsons of the world and his $100 Million to the Republicans, or the Coke brothers, or all the other big business big spenders, then I'd suggest having your vision and your hearing checked, and perhaps a Cognitive evaluation done, to make sure your brain is working properly.


Collapse -
Housing timeline
by TONI H / January 14, 2013 10:13 PM PST
Collapse -
(NT) Oh, and before I forget. Evidence??????? I thought not. Rob
by Ziks511 / January 14, 2013 8:16 AM PST
In reply to: You seem to forget
Collapse -
Then you have absolutely nothing bad to say about China
by JP Bill / January 13, 2013 9:36 PM PST

selling in America.

THEY worked, THEY invested, THEY are entitled to it.

Collapse -
When you have something
by TONI H / January 14, 2013 3:06 AM PST

that makes sense to say, please feel free to do so.

Collapse -
(NT) His statements are at least backed with evidence. Yours??? R
by Ziks511 / January 14, 2013 8:18 AM PST
Collapse -
(NT) Thanks, but it doesn't bother me in the least. Rob
by Ziks511 / January 14, 2013 8:14 AM PST
In reply to: Reichsfluchtsteuer
Collapse -
Your grasp of German Weimar pre-Nazi economics surprises me.
by Ziks511 / January 14, 2013 8:28 AM PST
In reply to: Reichsfluchtsteuer

But shouldn't the stuff that isn't your own work be in quotation marks, with a citation? I mean you wouldn't want anyone thinking you were plagiarizing Wikipedia, or the Tax code or someone's discussion of it, now, would you.

From what I can tell, your contribution to the above is "is same thing as...?" and "Every year now starts to feel more and more like a step back in time." Deep thinking, I'm impressed. :-^. That's a period, not a mole.


Collapse -
by James Denison / January 14, 2013 11:38 AM PST

The links are there for anyone to read and realize it's from the links. Mine is separated by a line between them. I format what I post more than anyone else in these forums, so if I miss doing it once every great while, the real question is why you try to imply something that is obviously and patently false?

As for your feelings in regard to the comparison, I'm not surprised. It's showing that America is following some of the same steps pre-war Germany did to stripping wealth off emigrating Jews. America is wanting to target the same to it's departing citizens now too.

Freedom. A word that increasingly changes it's meaning to something less in today's America.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Big screens for the big game

Still looking for the best TV deals ahead of Sunday's game? Here are our top three big screen picks.