Would you give up your citizenship if....

[punisher73]

Just thought I would throw this out here for discussion. One of my previous jobs had alot of workers that were here on work visas. While comparing paychecks other workers noticed that those who were not citizens did not pay any FICA or federal tax.

So here is the question...

Would you give up your US citizenship and right to vote to not have to pay federal taxes, FICA etc. ?

I'll put the caveat on there that you could not be deported due to that decision either.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think you may be getting some bad information somehow.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/visa-green-card-holder-pay-taxes-29639.html

If You Have a Nonimmigrant Visa

Though holders of nonimmigrant visas are, by definition, not permanent residents of the United States, they may become tax residents simply by spending a certain amount of time in America each year. If you have been present in the United States for at least 183 days of the current year, you are considered a tax resident for that year.

You are also considered a tax resident if you have been in the United States for a "weighted" total of at least 183 days during the previous three years -- unless you spend fewer than 30 days in the United States in the current year. To determine the weighted total number of days, each day in the current year counts as one, each day in the previous year counts as only 1/3 of a day, and each day in the year before that counts as only 1/6 of a day. This latter rule does not apply to certain foreign government employees, teachers, students, and professional athletes.

If you spend fewer than 183 days of the current year in the United States and have a tax home in another country, you will avoid being classified as a tax resident. If you have no other tax home, however, the IRS might decide that your tax home is the United States and that you are attempting to hide that fact by living there fewer than 183 days per year.

There are other exceptions to these tax rules based on tax treaties between the U.S. and your home country. If you are unsure of your situation, consult a tax accountant or lawyer. Also see IRS Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, available at www.irs.gov.

If you are a tax resident, you must file U.S. tax return Form 1040 each year by April 15th, and pay tax on all income earned in the United States. (Unlike green card holders, you don't pay tax on your worldwide income.)

FICA is a different matter; it's Social Security. People who cannot collect Social Security do not have to pay into it. But if you're a 'tax resident' of the USA, even if on a work visa, then I believe you have to pay taxes.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

In answer to your question, no, I would not give up my citizenship. For one thing, in order to qualify as not being being a 'tax resident', I would then have to leave before 183 days was up. I have nowhere to go, and certainly no place I'd rather be. Second, I have paid into Social Security since 1973. I'd like to get something back from that eventually. People who don't pay into FICA don't get Social Security checks.

 

[Steve]

Unless you're illegal or working under the table.

 

[Tez3]

Often they are paying taxes in there countries of origin, here for example they would still have to pay their National Insurance and Council tax if working abroad. Many jobs you do pax tax on, my daughter looked into getting a winter job in Florida in the horse racing industry, an idea that was scuppered by Katrina as the New York race trainers didn't send their horses down to over winter that year. She would have been on a working visa and would have paid American income tax on her earnings. Her partner who had spent six months in Kentucky at a racing yard afew years earlier also paid tax.
Btw they weren't paid anymore than they were here, my daughter was doing it to have a warm winter and they both did it for experience. They ended up spending a year in Dubai instead earning loads more and working far less... three hours a day!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Unless you're illegal or working under the table.

Yes...and no.

Many who work illegally in the USA use fake or stolen Social Security numbers to get 'legitimate' employment. Those who do have taxes withheld, just as any citizen would. Interestingly, they cannot file income tax returns without being discovered by the IRS to be using stolen/fake numbers, so they pay into a system they cannot get anything out of. Not suggesting that they should, just pointing out that they may, in fact, be paying taxes in a sense.

As to those who work for cash or barter, yes.

Of course, that's why I have favored a national sales tax to replace the income tax completely. It captures revenue on ALL legal purchases, no matter what the origin. Someone works under the table for $50? Well, he's going to buy groceries at some point, and bang, he's taxed. Drug dealer? Taxed. Illegal alien? Taxed. Everybody spends money. Tax them at that point. National sales tax, baby.

 

[punisher73]

They could have been under the 183 day rule. It was a hypothetical question though to see how much people value being a citizen vs. extra money in their pocket vs. would they give up the ability to try and change things etc.

 

[WC_lun]

I am not entirely happy as o how my tax dollars are spent, but I would not give up my citizenship in order to get out of paying federal taxes. Taxes are part of life in any country.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

They could have been under the 183 day rule. It was a hypothetical question though to see how much people value being a citizen vs. extra money in their pocket vs. would they give up the ability to try and change things etc.

Gotcha. Well, in my case, no. I value being an American citizenship. Would not give it up for money. I also don't think there is anywhere else in the world I would ever consider living. I looked at Canada once. Then I realized that I could not bring my guns. So, uh, no. Love to Canadians and all, but no.

 

[Steve]

Yes...and no.

Many who work illegally in the USA use fake or stolen Social Security numbers to get 'legitimate' employment. Those who do have taxes withheld, just as any citizen would. Interestingly, they cannot file income tax returns without being discovered by the IRS to be using stolen/fake numbers, so they pay into a system they cannot get anything out of. Not suggesting that they should, just pointing out that they may, in fact, be paying taxes in a sense.

These scrambled earnings get worked out. Good point, though. While the person who "owns" the SSN doesn't get credit for the FICA, they are also excused from the onus of FITW on those earnings.

You're absolutely right, though. The employers KNOWINGLY hire illegals. If we truly want to stop undocumented workers, we just need to hold the employers accountable for hiring them.

As to those who work for cash or barter, yes.

Of course, that's why I have favored a national sales tax to replace the income tax completely. It captures revenue on ALL legal purchases, no matter what the origin. Someone works under the table for $50? Well, he's going to buy groceries at some point, and bang, he's taxed. Drug dealer? Taxed. Illegal alien? Taxed. Everybody spends money. Tax them at that point. National sales tax, baby.

That's the one big advantage of a consumption tax. Overall, I see the point, but I'm still in favor of taxing income. It's more stable and predictable and less dependent upon consumer spending. Many states, like Washington, have no income tax but a very high sales tax. We're experiencing pretty severe shortfalls of income because people just don't have money to spend. Less spending means less tax dollars.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're absolutely right, though. The employers KNOWINGLY hire illegals. If we truly want to stop undocumented workers, we just need to hold the employers accountable for hiring them.That's the one big advantage of a consumption tax. Overall, I see the point, but I'm still in favor of taxing income. It's more stable and predictable and less dependent upon consumer spending. Many states, like Washington, have no income tax but a very high sales tax. We're experiencing pretty severe shortfalls of income because people just don't have money to spend. Less spending means less tax dollars.

To me, income and spending are linked. You cut discretionary spending when times are bad; which generally means you have less income. The only time that income and spending are not linked is when saving rates go up or down, and then don't tend to move drastically in either direction.

In fact, it's a trailing indicator of income; when income dips, savings are depleted first as people continue to spend. Spending does not really dip until a) savings reach zero and / or b) consumer credit dries up.

A national sales tax is also easier for people to adjust their own rate of taxation to the extent that they choose to control their own discretionary spending. It is true that government revenue will dip when people stop buying squid and start buying fish sticks; but can anyone argue that it's bad for the consumer to be able to cut their tax bill on the fly instead of at the end of the year when they tally up their income for the year?

And the guy who buys the $50,000 SUV instead of a $500 eBay clunker pays for it; revenue that is captured based on 'fairness' more than current income taxes, although admittedly, the very rich could choose to live like paupers and keep their tax bills low - but how many would?

 

[Carol]

I think it is very difficult to be without country. I know a couple from the UK that came to the US on a temporary business visa. They invested a good bit of money in to an inn up in the North Country, first buying it then renovating it. The innkeepers described their scenario as "goal posts that keep moving." They say when they first entered the country, their business goals had to be "X" after 3 years in order to get an extension of their time here. When it came time for their attorney to file for their extension, their goal had to be "Y". Their reported numbers were greater than X, but less than Y.

As a result, they are landlocked. They can continue to live here, run their business, pay their taxes, etc. but they cannot leave the country, including going home to the UK. If they do, they cannot return. They are incredibly frustrated. They love America and Americans, they love their inn up in the northern stretches of New England, and they run a fine business. But they can't go back for a wedding, graduation or pay a final visit with an ailing parent. They can't vote or otherwise express their disappointment in the system in a formal way.

They are committed to making the most of it, but I wouldn't want to be in their situation.

 

[jks9199]

These scrambled earnings get worked out. Good point, though. While the person who "owns" the SSN doesn't get credit for the FICA, they are also excused from the onus of FITW on those earnings.

It's slightly off topic, and if discussion grows on this issue, we'll get another thread started -- but the scrambled earnings often DON'T get sorted out until someone gets a bill from the IRS for earnings on the other side of the country or somewhere they've never lived.

And I don't think we've even begun to see the cases where infant's SSNs were stolen... That may not pop up until they grow up and get work themselves.

You're absolutely right, though. The employers KNOWINGLY hire illegals. If we truly want to stop undocumented workers, we just need to hold the employers accountable for hiring them.That's the one big advantage of a consumption tax. Overall, I see the point, but I'm still in favor of taxing income. It's more stable and predictable and less dependent upon consumer spending. Many states, like Washington, have no income tax but a very high sales tax. We're experiencing pretty severe shortfalls of income because people just don't have money to spend. Less spending means less tax dollars.

I'm definitely in favor of targeting more employers for enforcement actions. It's gotten to where contractors in my area that don't use illegals are often outbid by the companies that will... It's not a quality issue, it's that the difference in what they pay the workers makes it hard for legitimate companies to compete.

Our tax system is broken, because it's so complex that they IRS can't even keep it straight. I can pretty much guarantee that in the next several months, you'll see a story on your local news about how they called the IRS with a tax question, and either the IRS got it wrong, or gave different answers or otherwise screwed up. I think a combination of a low, flat income tax with a national sales tax is probably the best way to go.

 

[oftheherd1]

I would not trade my US citizenship for anything I can think of right now.

 

[Steve]

It's slightly off topic, and if discussion grows on this issue, we'll get another thread started -- but the scrambled earnings often DON'T get sorted out until someone gets a bill from the IRS for earnings on the other side of the country or somewhere they've never lived.

And I don't think we've even begun to see the cases where infant's SSNs were stolen... That may not pop up until they grow up and get work themselves.

Slightly off topic, but I agree that it's interesting. Social Security sent out statements every year to all workers around their birthday. This simple document was an unqualified success. It included a summary of annual earnings reported for that individual, as well as estimates and explanations of all of the potential benefits the person and his or her dependents could qualify for. While it's still available upon request, automatic mailings have ceased due to budget cuts. A shame, too. A lot of the scrambled earnings you mention were being detected almost right away as people scanned their earnings histories and said, "What? I didn't earn XYZ dollars last year. These guys are high!"

It's a good example of how tax dollars and budget cuts result in less transparent and less efficient government function. We create our own realities. It's a fine line between running lean and becoming anemic.

 

[David43515]

Interesting question in the OP. No, I wouldn`t give up my rights or my vote for money, no matter the amount. Far too many people all over the world would love to have the rights we enjoy for us to take them for granted, let alone sell them off.

 

[Flying Crane]

sometimes simply reading the nonsense written here in the forums by my fellow American citizens makes me consider giving up my citizenship and moving somewhere else.

 

[Josh Oakley]

For a sum equivalent to 50 million dollars, or approximating it, I would give up my citizenship. I am a patriot, but I would take that offer, and be on the first plane to an island paradise.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Any takers? Anyone? Buelher?

 

[David43515]

For a sum equivalent to 50 million dollars, or approximating it, I would give up my citizenship. I am a patriot, but I would take that offer, and be on the first plane to an island paradise.

Nice thought, but it wouldn`t work. The US is one of only two countries in the world that taxes their citizens on income they earn while living overseas, and the US policy on giving up your citizenship assumes that the only reason most people would consider it is to get out of paying taxes. So, when you give up your US citizenship, they still tax you for (I think) about 6 years.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

It's a good example of how tax dollars and budget cuts result in less transparent and less efficient government function. We create our own realities. It's a fine line between running lean and becoming anemic.

Saving money in bloated agencies isn't bad. Having a less transparent government scares me.