What Countries to avoid paying USA taxes?

[slimm]

Only exceed $1,000,000? Good grief!
Only $1,000,000 exemption limit??!! Just hand it over....yeah right.....I don't think so!

OOOOps, I got excited and posted too early. The point is: I believe that more than 2% of the population is affected by this unjust travesty....
Granted, there should be a "ceiling", perhaps 10 million or maybe 5, but certainly not 1 mil.....

Gotta go feed horses, and find my Scotch............sigh.

 

[AlmostThere]

It isn't business's fault.
If there was a way to identify businesses that were "more generous" vs others people would not shop there because of the higher prices.
I've heard the above rational before. It sounds good on a macro level but, consumer economics is about micro economics and individual choices.

Households do not employ more services than they need. They do not pay more than the market price for their services or products so that those "more generous" payments can ultimately keep the household employed.

I'm no economist, but when U.S. CEO's are making 472 times their average employees' pay, and the CEO's of the next country on that list, Great Britain, make 52 times more, something is seriously amiss. As wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands we're either eventually looking at riots or an impoverished majority like the Philippines. I'm betting our highly armed nation isn't just going to take it. Might be 30 years, might be 50, but continued bailouts by taxpayers of the greedy will eventually break this country.

 

[dex]

I'm no economist, but when U.S. CEO's are making 472 times their average employees' pay, and the CEO's of the next country on that list, Great Britain, make 52 times more, something is seriously amiss. As wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands we're either eventually looking at riots or an impoverished majority like the Philippines. I'm betting our highly armed nation isn't just going to take it. Might be 30 years, might be 50, but continued bailouts by taxpayers of the greedy will eventually break this country.

Do you have a source for the CEO's pay? I would be interested to read it.

Concentration of wealth is within historical norms. People that who want to raise that issue start measuring from the 1970s when wealth concentration declined due to the economic issues at the time. In other words the wealthy lost more money than the average person.

CEO pay is not the cause of the disparity in wealth. It is an issue politicians raise as a class warfare issue and distract people from the true causes. If CEO pay was reduced to the average employee wage, it would not help the average employee.

Yes the bailouts and other issues will eventually break the country.

 

[Hank]

Sorry, either you are an American who is part of our country or you are not. If you want to live in another country, that's your right - just don't expect to come back or continue to suck off the place that made your move possible.

We pay taxes for the benefit of all, just not what you can get out of it. Moving to another country to avoid US taxes is absolute hypocrisy.

The 6 million American Citizens that are no longer resident in the US all are subject to US taxes on their worldwide income. And since they are subject to being taxed by the US even though they don't live in the US they certainly have a right to return anytime they like. That's how the US government prefers it. They can tax their citizens for life. If you really would like to see US citizens who leave the US not be allowed to return then you should be advocating to abolish the taxes on non-residences.

 

[Texarkandy]

I'm no economist, but when U.S. CEO's are making 472 times their average employees' pay, and the CEO's of the next country on that list, Great Britain, make 52 times more, something is seriously amiss. As wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands we're either eventually looking at riots or an impoverished majority like the Philippines. I'm betting our highly armed nation isn't just going to take it. Might be 30 years, might be 50, but continued bailouts by taxpayers of the greedy will eventually break this country.

It's really nobody's business what a CEO gets paid except the shareholders - and the taxpayers shouldn't be bailing any corporations out.

 

[Texarkandy]

Soapbox?

 

[AlmostThere]

Do you have a source for the CEO's pay? I would be interested to read it..

USAToday had an article a couple of months ago listing how many times more CEO's make than their average employee's pay in the major industrial countries. Ranged from 472 times more in the U.S. to if I remember right about 18 times more in some countries, the Netherlands I think. If you Google average CEO pay you might find it. And if you work for a major corporation, as I do, and have had your benefits stripped away and pay restricted while the top guys do extraordinarily well, you notice such things. For example, at the same time that it was announced last year that our pension plan would be terminated June 1, 2008, our CEO was telling Wall Street that he will increase our profit margin from 7% to 10%. I'm more than happy to give up a decent retirement so he can get a better stock price for his millions of shares!

 

[Hobo]

Does this also apply to the close to one-half of Americans that wither pay nothing in federal income taxes or (even better) receive the earned income credit? The more the government places the tax burden on only the successful, the less we should be surprised when they decide they've had enough.

Let me say I am a strong fiscal conservative and strong defender of capitalism. American has always been a very good place for me to make a bundle of money in my lifetime.

However, I think what you say is a myth - propagated by someone who thinks they understand capitalism but have never experienced it first hand.

It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife).

During my 40 years of working in the US, I never felt like taxes were so high that I should simply stop trying to make money. The human psyche doesn't work that way. I have lived through times when the top tax rate was 70%, and successful people were still trying to make more money. I believe the reason is simple... when you are making lots of money, you no longer work simply to make more money - you do it for the game, the competition, the pride of being rich that goes with it. The desire to climb the corporate ladder or be a more successful entrepreneur who makes a lot of money is very strong - not for the money, but for the pride in doing so. As Donald Trump said, "In business, money is only for keeping score".

Anybody who is making over $200,000 per year surely has everything he/she could possibly need to lead a comfortable life. When you start buying $100 bottles of wine, then you know money is no longer necessary for survival.

On the other hand, when you are making $40,000 per year (the median income of the US)... you must watch every penny. Maybe money is not necessary to put food in your children's mouth, but it does make the difference between driving an unreliable, old car and a car that is reliable.

The average person in the US is working for that successful man who is swimming in money. If it weren't for the people who are making lower than the 75th percentile wages, then the upper 25% would never be so successful. The worker bees make the queen bee rich!

The concept that higher taxes are a disincentive for successful people to make even more money is a myth. All successful people are driven to make more money regardless of the tax laws. Why? Because making big money is fun.

 

[beowulf]

"Wouldn't be a government worker, would you, Restonham?
Ha"

As a matter of fact, I was a career soldier and then a civil servant with DoD. And now that I am retired from both, I am a consultant back to the government. And then, one day, in the not too distant future, I will stop being a consultant and collect social security. By any standard, I guess that makes me a triple dipper. And I pay federal, state and local taxes on every penny of it. Earning less to cut my taxes doesn't make a lot of sense. And, even if I moved overseas for retirement, I would consider it my obligation to continue to pay US taxes. Whatever I am today is because of having grown up in the US and being privileged to have the advantages and opportunities that US citizens have. And no, I'm not from a wealthy family - strictly blue collar parents and grandparents - part of the first generation to graduate from college.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that most people in the US (or who used to be in the US) on this forum have done pretty well for themselves. I'm not that different than anyone else - worked hard, scrimped and saved and, until the last year or so, thought I did pretty well on my investments :-(. Maybe I'm naive, but I do believe in the Horatio Alger model that those who try harder tend to do better - at whatever they do.

As Hobo says - "The concept that higher taxes are a disincentive for successful people to make even more money is a myth. All successful people are driven to make more money regardless of the tax laws. Why? Because making big money is fun."

 

[dex]

It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife).
.

It is darn hard for anyone in the USA not to pay taxes. Taxes are in everything we buy they just are not seen - except for sales taxes.
These are some of the taxes in everything you buy and they are regressive.

Sales
Social Security
Payroll
Real Estate
Corporate
Gasoline

Get the idea?
A company is just a pass through entity.
It has gross sales, expenses and profit or a loss.

I wonder what a loaf of bread would cost if all the taxes were taken out of the process of making and selling it.

 

[dex]

As Hobo says - "The concept that higher taxes are a disincentive for successful people to make even more money is a myth. All successful people are driven to make more money regardless of the tax laws. Why? Because making big money is fun."

Why is the hobo a hobo?

If you look back in history to England before Thatcher and other highly taxed counties (Italy) you will see the affects of high income taxes - it isn't good.
Economic decline
Flight of capital out of the country
Brain drain to countries with lower taxes and better economic opportunities.
Worker apathy - USSR saying - "You pretend to pay me, I pretend to work."
Hopelessness

The hobo came about in the 30s as a result of US economic policies that made the depression worse e.g. raised import taxes. The hobo didn't understand the world economy and hasn't learned from history. There is a tipping point in taxation - especially in today's world.

The hobo might want to also read about Maslow's Hierarchy of needs - fun is not among them - maybe love.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Texas Proud]

It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife).

quote]

No support for this... but it was easy to do a search and find that it is darn easy NOT to pay taxes if you have a job... edit to add.... we are talking income taxes here... not all the others....

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow


"In addition to these non-payers, roughly 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to be required to file a tax return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up to 57.5 million income-earning people who will be paying no income taxes.
Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system. "

Of this number (57 mill), it appears that about 26% of them have full time jobs...

 

[friar1610]

It's really nobody's business what a CEO gets paid except the shareholders....

True. But in reality, if the shareholders object to the level of CEO compensation there's very little they can do about it except sell the stock and move their money elsewhere. Even though they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, Boards of Directors (and their compensation committees) haven't shown, in recent history, a helluva lot of restraint on CEO compensation.

 

[toofrugalformycat]

Do you have a source for the CEO's pay? I would be interested to read it.

Concentration of wealth is within historical norms. People that who want to raise that issue start measuring from the 1970s when wealth concentration declined due to the economic issues at the time. In other words the wealthy lost more money than the average person.

CEO pay is not the cause of the disparity in wealth. It is an issue politicians raise as a class warfare issue and distract people from the true causes. If CEO pay was reduced to the average employee wage, it would not help the average employee.

Yes the bailouts and other issues will eventually break the country.

Dex, do you have a source for stating that the concentration of wealth is within historic norms? I've heard otherwise, but the only online source I've turned up so far is
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
There is a table that goes up to 1998, and the last two years in the table (1995 and 1998) wealth in the top 1% is the highest since 1929.
I'm no economist. Maybe you or someone can point me to where to find this out.

 

[Meadbh]

Dex, do you have a source for stating that the concentration of wealth is within historic norms?

That would be the Gini Coefficient (see graph of Income Disparity since WWII)

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Texarkandy]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow[/URL]


"In addition to these non-payers, roughly 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to be required to file a tax return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up to 57.5 million income-earning people who will be paying no income taxes.
Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system. "

Of this number (57 mill), it appears that about 26% of them have full time jobs...

And it appears 57 million is almost enough to elect a president:

Obama: 65 million
McCain: 57 million

 

[newporttony]

I saw a chart recently that showed since the year 2000 thru 2007 something like $880 billion in new income was generated. Of that the top 10% of income earners got all but $44 billion. The most successful pay the most taxes because they make the most money. Many of us who work very hard for these successful folk are pushed to accept less and less so that they can do well. I'm all for people being rewarded for taking risks starting businesses but a major reason our economy has nosedived is there aren't enough decently paid people to buy all those cars, houses, etc that are going begging for buyers. If business owners, particularly the largest corporations, would be more generous with pay then more of us could buy what they're selling. Forcing them to "spread the wealth" won't work either. Simply put if business owners aren't more generous voluntarily it will lead, as it has, to a gov't hellbent on ramming it down their throats. They have only themselves to blame by being greedy and stingy.

Seems to be that one of the reasons business owners are so greedy and stingy is because consumers want to buy products at low prices. Now the employers can choose to pay people more and increase the price of their goods, but people will stop buying the goods and the employees that formerly viewed their employere as being greedy and stingy will be unemployed.

 

[dex]

Dex, do you have a source for stating that the concentration of wealth is within historic norms? I've heard otherwise, but the only online source I've turned up so far is
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I'll have to look for it.
But the chart labeled
Table 3: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-1998.

Showed what I said about when you start to do the measurement. See the 1970s
197270.9%29.1% 197680.1%19.9% 197979.5%20.5% 198175.2%24.8%

The other aspects we are missing are:
1. An objective standard to know what a good distribution is.
2. A distribution in other developed countries - Europe & Japan

 

[samclem]

The Heroes Act of 2008 has a little bump in the road for wealthy Americans planning to renounce their US citizenship in order to save some money. Upon renouncing their citizenship, all their assets over $600K will be immediately subject to cap gains taxes as if they'd been sold:


(from page 39 of the PDF linked above)
"In general, the provision imposes tax on certain U.S. citizens who relinquish their U.S. citizenship and certain long-term U.S. residents who terminate their U.S. residency. Such individuals are subject to income tax on the net unrealized gain in their property as if the property had been sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation or residency termination (“mark-to-market tax”). Gain from the deemed sale is taken into account at that time without regard to other Code provisions. Any loss from the deemed sale generally is taken into account to the extent otherwise provided in the Code, except that the wash sale rules of section 1091 do not apply. Any net gain on the deemed sale is recognized to the extent it exceeds $600,000."

..... and, from page 40, in part:
"The provision applies to any U.S. citizen who relinquishes citizenship and any long-term resident who terminates U.S. residency, if such individual (“covered expatriate”) (1) has an average annual net income tax liability for the five preceding years ending before the date of the
loss of U.S. citizenship or residency termination that exceeds $124,000 (as adjusted for inflation after 2004 – $139,000 in 200828); (2) has a net worth of $2 million or more on such date; or (3) fails to certify under penalties of perjury that he or she has complied with all U.S. Federal tax
obligations for the preceding five years or fails to submit such evidence of compliance as the Secretary may require."

I'm sure there must be ways around this, and those wanting to leave will find them. Good riddance to 'em.

 

[AlmostThere]

Seems to be that one of the reasons business owners are so greedy and stingy is because consumers want to buy products at low prices. Now the employers can choose to pay people more and increase the price of their goods, but people will stop buying the goods and the employees that formerly viewed their employere as being greedy and stingy will be unemployed.

You're assuming that companies on average are already compensating their employees the maximum they can afford to. Some very well might be, but many could afford to do better without charging customers more etc. I'm not talking about making us wealthy, or the excesses of various unions. Just pay us enough to give us some choices, have a decent life. There's more to life than being cutthroat SOB's exploiting people to get ever richer.

 

[samclem]

Just pay us enough to give us some choices, have a decent life. There's more to life than being cutthroat SOB's exploiting people to get ever richer.

Do you work for a corporation or a commune?

Who's being exploited? Don't workers freely exchanging their time, talents, and effort for payment from their employers? Any employee who believes he can get a better overall package (pay, work environment, benefits, even intangibles such as mutual loyalty) with another employer should do so, and should not wait like serf wishing his master would be more benevolent.

Workers have a duty (to themselves) to seek out the best deal they can. Employers have the same obligation. Works great.

 

[dex]

I find it interesting when people apply a different criteria to a corporation than what people general see and do around them.

A corporation should be generous with their employees - pay more than the market rate.

I've never heard a person say -
"No, I want to pay you twice the market rate:
to cut my lawn
to clean my car
to clean my house
to cut my hair
to clean my teeth.
etc. "

I've also never heard a person say:
"I want you to hire another person - even if you don't need them - to:
to cut my lawn
to clean my car
to clean my house
to cut my hair
to clean my teeth.
etc. "

 

[Hobo]

It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife).

No support for this... but it was easy to do a search and find that it is darn easy NOT to pay taxes if you have a job... edit to add.... we are talking income taxes here... not all the others....

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow


"In addition to these non-payers, roughly 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to be required to file a tax return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up to 57.5 million income-earning people who will be paying no income taxes.
Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system. "

Of this number (57 mill), it appears that about 26% of them have full time jobs...

The article you referenced is quite illuminating.. Let me just quote a few other sections of that article that explain who is not paying taxes:

"Broadly speaking, the 42.5 million zero-tax filers are: low-income, young, female-headed households, part-time workers, and beneficiaries of the $1,000 per-child tax credit or the Earned Income Credit."
​

"The 42.5 million non-payers are largely low-income. Indeed, 91 percent of them earned less than $30,000 per year and 96 percent earned less than $40,000. Fewer than 1 percent will earn more than $75,000 per year – a group comprised largely of business owners whose tax liabilities will be erased due to business losses, carry-overs from prior year AMT payments, or foreign tax credits."

​

I guess it boils down to one's outlook on life, but I have known and talked to people who are in the lowest income bracket. They are the janitors and taxi drivers who do the grunt work in the US. These are the lower 20% of the bell curve - people who either lack the intelligence or never had the opportunity to 'climb the ladder of success' in the US.

It is easy to say these are the lazy or unmotivated segment of the population that are a drain on the rest of the hard working people in the US. I used to think that was true. But over the years I have learned that life simply deals some people a bad hand. And they suffer for it. They can't buy a house, a new car, or help pay for their child's college education - and most times it is through no fault of their own.

I have no desire to place a heavier tax burden (or any tax burden) on a person or family that is struggling simply to survive. Taxes should be paid by those most able to afford them. I spent many years living my life as one of those fortunate ones who lived a very good life in America, never short on money. Yes, I paid my income taxes - and of course I complained bitterly at the time.

But looking back now I think it is only fair that those of us who could pay, did pay. And the others who made slightly more than minimum wage (some of whom were my employees) could spend all of their income simply putting food on the table. That's only fair.

 

[haha]

"Wouldn't be a government worker, would you, Restonham?
Ha"

As a matter of fact, I was a career soldier and then a civil servant with DoD. And now that I am retired from both, I am a consultant back to the government. And then, one day, in the not too distant future, I will stop being a consultant and collect social security. By any standard, I guess that makes me a triple dipper.

Well you are a good sport; and I am a good profiler.

Ha

 

[AlmostThere]

Do you work for a corporation or a commune?

Who's being exploited? Don't workers freely exchanging their time, talents, and effort for payment from their employers? Any employee who believes he can get a better overall package (pay, work environment, benefits, even intangibles such as mutual loyalty) with another employer should do so, and should not wait like serf wishing his master would be more benevolent.

Workers have a duty (to themselves) to seek out the best deal they can. Employers have the same obligation. Works great.

But the problem is that in today's service economy finding a better paying job is tough. Yes there are good jobs out there for people with the right skills, but not enough of them. And companies who are always seeking to improve their stock price are seeing their employees as a source of profit enhancement. Thus the constant reduction of benefits, the slowing of wage growth while annually increasing healthcare costs, etc. I put in the majority of my working life into a major corporation that promised if I stuck with them I'd receive good pay and a good retirement. They are highly profitable and aren't under pressure to put jobs offshore. I'm a courier and pkgs can't be delivered here by someone in Mexico. The emphasis is always on our stock price. I'm 47, have no desire to switch into something else at this point. Easy to make those remarks but if you've put 21 years of your life into something and it goes bad you may feel different about it.