If you pay 40% of your income every year? My instinctive response is to say that paying 40% per annum represents a loss of 40% of one’s income, but tax codes are convoluted, and thus I could easily be wrong.

If the craven choose to exploit the American economy for gain and then reject their duties and birthright, it seems to me that taxation on them should be more than something that might be viewed by the greedy as unreasonable.

Well, answer a couple questions. First, by “exploit the American economy for gain”, do you mean “conduct business”? Secondly, by “reject their duties and birthright” do you mean “acquire citizenship in another country”?

If so, can you explain why having run a business profitably means that an individual should be penalized for deciding to renounce American citizenship?

But if you want to say to them “you toil and work and earn bread, and we’ll take it and have the benefit of it here, because you were born here and are therefore permanently obligated” then that must be right….right?

No? What deal did you sign up for?

If the craven choose to exploit the American economy for gain and then reject their duties and birthright, it seems to me that taxation on them should be more than something that might be viewed by the greedy as unreasonable.

By all means possible a punitive tax should be imposed.

It’s the country’s fault when someone would reject American citizenship for monetary gain? It astounds me that anyone does not see such an action as plainly un-American and just as plainly undeserving of compassion or consideration.

As to the top 1% paying 40% – that represents what portion of their wealth?

However I did not realize you were a fellow escapee from the CA taxation prison.

My own meaning was unclear when I said CA might have prevailed in federal court if they had worded their law differently. My intention was not to argue their intent was OK. I only meant we don’t know how another wording might have fared.

So we agree. Sorry for any poor wording.

just to clarify, what i meant to convey by “move” was “sell your house and move”. obviously, if you still owned it, they would be quite justified in taxing you (so long as one accepts that property tax is reasonable, which i mostly do).

california will also try to keep income taxing you if you leave. they were astoundingly difficult to get free of when i moved my permanent residence to the nevada side of lake tahoe because i still keep an apartment in san francisco. (though rent it)

however, just because they DO it does not make it reasonable, just, or fair. we can always find numerous examples of poor and unjust behavior. they do not justify other such behavior. arguing that such policies are OK because California does it is logically the equivalent of arguing that it’s alright to cheat on social security because your neighbor does.

Yes, there is. Non-resident aliens don’t pay US taxes on many kinds of US-source income. The US is the world’s largest tax haven if you’re a non-resident alien.

Ambiguous. If you still own the property after you move then of course you will keep being taxed. And you can be taxed on the profit from selling selling it.

But that is quibbling about your meaning. California did continue taxing people who had left.

A few years back California was taxing the pensions of people who had moved away if they had previously earned pensions while living in CA.

CA eventually lost in federal court. IMO correctly. I believe they might have prevailed if they had worded the law differently. But who knows?

The fact that a Republican Congress and President passed the restriction in 2004 just illustrates how Washington works. Politicians seldom read what they vote upon, so a few members of a committee usually decide what becomes law.

people do contribute while they get wealthy. they pay taxes all the way up. the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of taxes. that’s quite a share, no? how do you figure that is “not contributing”?

how do you emigrate before 18? who would take you? where would you get permission? what about your parents? are most ready to make a choice like that at that age?

also, most americans are over 18 and to emigrate, you need assets and income. other countries don’t take you without them (at least not the ones you’d want to live in). what are those of us over 18 to do? though, in reality, these rules are targeted at a small group. your first $2 million in assets are free and clear, but after that, it gets nasty. why are the rich being subjected to different treatment? because they are cash cows. they need to be kept. they pay virtually all the bills.

i agree that it’s reasonable to tax people for the benefits of citizenship, but what if the rules change? if, in response to changes in law or tax policy i want to leave, why should i have to pay? the bargain can be changed without my consent and the cost/benefit of tax vs opportunity can be altered dramatically.

based on current proposed taxes, my effective tax rate will more than double. that’s not a typo. double. (look into the changes in carried interest taxation).

that is not the deal i signed up for, and it will have large retroactive effects on me. because only a small group are affected, we are unable to defend ourselves democratically. the only defense i had was to leave, and now the price of that is very high. i can’t even move my business, as global income is taxed here.

by what rationale is it OK for a government to demand a massive fee for me to leave? if your employer reduced your salary and you decided it wasn’t worth it, you’d get a new job. you would not expect to pay for that privilege.

if your town or state raised property taxes to a level you didn’t want to pay, you’d move. if they demanded continuing tax afterward, wouldn’t you see that as unreasonable?

are we to be simple tax producing oxen yoked to the nation? no other country does this. it is pure and simple a ring fence to prevent the prized tax base from leaving in response to the disincentives of new policy. they want to be free of the consequences of their actions.

adding to the stupidity, such a policy encourages me to take all my assets with me when i go. how is that a good idea?

i like living in the US, but the simple fact is that if current proposals will hurt me too much, i’ll leave. i am currently looking at options. lots of countries are anxious to get someone who comes with their own successful business and will treat me better. it may be worth just paying up and doing it.

would you rather work somewhere that will incentivize you to come or that millks you and punishes you if you try to leave?