Talk-Polywell.org

In total, more than 670 U.S. passport holders gave up their citizenship -- and with it, their U.S. tax bills -- in the first three months of this year. That is the most in any quarter since the I.R.S. began publishing figures in 1998. And it is nearly three-quarters of the total number for all of 2012, a year in which the wealthy songwriter-socialite Denise Rich (christened "Lady Gatsby" by Yachting magazine) and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin joined more than 932 other Americans in tossing their passports.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/ ... =obnetwork

paperburn1 wrote:In total, more than 670 U.S. passport holders gave up their citizenship -- and with it, their U.S. tax bills -- in the first three months of this year. That is the most in any quarter since the I.R.S. began publishing figures in 1998. And it is nearly three-quarters of the total number for all of 2012, a year in which the wealthy songwriter-socialite Denise Rich (christened "Lady Gatsby" by Yachting magazine) and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin joined more than 932 other Americans in tossing their passports.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/ ... =obnetwork

I guess "progressivism" means to progress the wealth right out of the country. Seems they refused to learn from their Swedish brethren.

If someone values their money more than their country, frick 'em.

Stubby wrote:If someone values their money more than their country, frick 'em.

If someone values their country more than their freedom, frick them.

I can understand someone dropping their citizenship due to say the current NSA/surveillance issues, however; I believe these people are doing so to avoid taxes. Taxes are an agreed upon cost of maintaining a government whether big or small through elected means. So, yeah frick them if they choose tax breaks over country, but not so much if its a freedom/privacy issue.

ScottL wrote:I can understand someone dropping their citizenship due to say the current NSA/surveillance issues, however; I believe these people are doing so to avoid taxes. Taxes are an agreed upon cost of maintaining a government whether big or small through elected means. So, yeah frick them if they choose tax breaks over country, but not so much if its a freedom/privacy issue.

So you don't consider the freedom to keep what you earn a valid concern?

That would depend on how it was earned.

"Agreed upon" is a tenuous allegation given the degree of political division, with taxes taken predominately from one segment of society to benefit another. "Democracy" does not make for right if the majority are in the wrong.

If wealth was gained dishonestly, punish the means. Punishing people as a group because they have high income or wealth is unjust.

I think keeping what you earned as a freedom is a bogus argument. On one extreme, if you keep 100% of what you earn, noting no government, you sacrifice vital services. On the other hand, pay extreme amounts leads to businesses not willing to deal with such environments. In general, I think a balanced approach to taxes for services is reasonable and if you wish to have said services, you will comply with what is voted/elected/the system. We don't live in an extremist government or nation (unless of course you talk about privacy, I have....strong concerns there) with regard to taxes. We actually pay significantly less than most developed nations and provide a lesser quality of life. That's fine, it's what we as a nation have chosen since we rarely get a consensus. What I disagree with are fair-weather citizens who flee during the down times and claim to be patriots during the high times.

hanelyp wrote:"Agreed upon" is a tenuous allegation given the degree of political division, with taxes taken predominately from one segment of society to benefit another. "Democracy" does not make for right if the majority are in the wrong.

If wealth was gained dishonestly, punish the means. Punishing people as a group because they have high income or wealth is unjust.

I don't think the argument is simply to take from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots" and believe that would be a very shallow analysis. I believe that those who are "rich" tend to stay rich and put into place mechanisms such that it is difficult for "non-rich" to attain that status. This has been done through political reform which sometimes tries to label specific groups (often with negative connotation) or not engage groups in meaningful ways. Personally, and I know many will disagree, but I believe the surest way forward is through education and a stronger valuing of education in our society. I would love to see legitimate campaigns akin to the Truth.org campaign that really pushes that message. We as a nation, like all things, are only as strong as our weakest link.