He's a little old to be an anchor baby too. With these "brilliant" policies it is a small step to making claim to his children next.

You don't own your country. You own your house. If you live in a free country then you don't have a right to tell other people whether they can come to your country or not, which means you not free - a slave.

Goodness sake, do you mean to tell everyone here you don't understand the idiom: "my country"?
You have to twist things that far?
Slavery = you can't cross borders freely is your argument and it's garbage.
Goodness sake - I have no interest in talking to loons.
Good day.

You own your city? You own your country? Don't conflate the concept of ownership with group think.

So you are a slave unless I let you into my house freely? My city? My country?

Has nothing to do with your "right to travel". You have none that trumps my right to property.

And comparing this guy, unwilling to fill in the proper documentation to renounce his citizenship with SLAVERY? That's beyond rhetoric. It's just weird. You don't seem aware of just how heavy handed your rhetoric is, like calling capital punishment "Mass murder", or taxation "grand theft". There are reasons and purposes to the documentation of citizenship and he has every freedom to travel. He just can't misrepresent his citizenship and travel and THAT is the right of the airlines who are private.
They don't owe him a ride. He could have just as easily chartered a private flight and not dealt with the issue. No one is restricting his freedom.

Instead, you're suggesting that a private airline has to follow YOUR rules or they are enslaving you.

I leave you to that argument - there is no point to discussing it if you can't see just how far off in left field such an idea is.

Yes, and every USA embassy is there for the citizens to utilize and is their right to do so.

It's that simple.
Choose one.
Having the benefits without the cost is anathema to what Ayn Rand taught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internation...

The USA and two more, that's it, and not as much as the USA.

The USA is the only one that actively defends their citizens abroad with military protection.

With most other countries, you are at the whim of the host.

I think it is perfectly just for someone to give up the protection of the USA military and they can, by filing the right papers and saying, "I am not a USA citizen".

It is a choice.
This man wanted to have that choice without documenting it and blamed the people who were not authorized to accept it on his verbal word because they could be sued.

He wanted the benefits, and as he said at the beginning, the "option", without the cost.

That's a choice.
My response is that he should choose, not demand both.

You seem to have a problem with definitions. You either own yourself or you do not. If you own yourself, then you are allowed to travel freely.

Logic???

OK. That is fair. I think the US is the only country that taxes its citizens who are living on foreign soil. Do the other countries still extend their protection to their citizens living abroad? (I think the UK does not, but I do not know about other countries.) If you lived in Switzerland, would you not be willing to exchange the un-needed US protection for not paying taxes to an infrastructure that is not supporting you? (If you come back to the US, then you start paying taxes again, of course.)

This is not breaking new ground - I just do not know how it works for countries that already do not tax their citizens living on foreign soil.

Jan

It's called logic. If you do not own yourself you are a slave. If you own yourself then you own the product of your labor. Income taxes do not recognize that you have any right to the product of your labor.

You make a great slave because you beg for your bondage.

You are confusing what is right for what is - logic?

But if they cannot do anything to collect the liabilities - it is just so much smoke and mirrors. And if you have changed your citizenship to another country, then you will have a passport from that country...

I am just wondering if this has teeth, sometimes has teeth, or is just gumming us.

Jan

Other countries deal with this without taxing people on their worldwide income. Being a US citizen also makes you a target, can people charge the government for that risk?

Your silly exaggerating doesn't make it fact.
Kindly don't expect us to believe such bizarre exaggerations.
That you don't understand the purpose of borders and taxation, or even a fundamental definition of freedom and slavery is not my baggage - it's yours.

Slavery is equal to taxes?

That's bizarrely silly.
Please use the dictionary and look up slavery.
Damn Jews? For not getting into ovens? You're revealing more about yourself every post.

Might quit while you're ahead.

Nonsense in return. Find me one nation in the WORLD that has that as a fundamental natural right.
There are none. There are no free borders.
You can make up rights every day, but pretending that protecting our borders is slavery is an exaggeration that is utterly silly and bizarre.
Thanks for showing why logic and reason needs to be taught in schools again.

Then they get no protection from the USA while overseas.
Much of our standard of living comes from the fact that we not only give our citizens the right to do business around the world, but that we protect them.

What you suggest is that we end that practice.
Or protect them thought they do nothing to contribute to that protection.

The former is economically damaging to all of us and the latter? That's unjust.

I think that the they will not allow you to renounce your citizenship, so they will calculate your liabilities as increasing. In addition, they will keep you from traveling to the US or in the extreme case revoke your passport - see Snowden.

I have a question: If someone who qualifies for the exit tax does just travel overseas on 'vacation' - and then stays there and ends their American citizenship from the foreign local...What recourse does the US and the IRS have? Cannot the expat just thumb their nose at the IRS then? Do they get extradited to the US from the foreign country?

Jan
(Thinking about this since I read this thread.)

I think these rules are 'subsumed under the rubric' of 'bad rules'. I have no problem disagreeing with bad rules. I think that he should take the steps necessary to officially end his dual citizenship.

But I think that the US should not work this way. And I think that the US does not have the philosophical right to tax its citizens who live overseas.

Jan