Because America is the top destination for the rich that isn’t a literal tax haven?
Because US power defends the interests of the rich at great cost across the world?
Because the US has great control over the financial systems which make the international order run and has the capacity to tax foreign income, unlike most countries, for whom it would simply be a waste of resources to try?
And yes, I’ll say it - all taxes on the rich are good. Controversial, I know.
Norway, Sweden, and Israel all have more billionaires per capita than the United States. Germany, Finland, Australia, Denmark, and Canada aren’t far off.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.
The actual threshold is $120,000, which in the context of Switzerland, the case that will potentially be relevant for me in the future, is low enough that one in four residents exceed it. Costs of living there are consequentially very high, as you’d expect. There’s something to be said about managing the fortunes of billionaires that will hide their wealth across a bunch of countries in elaborate schemes, but that’s a very different matter than taxing engineers, tech workers, and doctors.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.
Man, if that was true, everyone above the poverty line is rich. I was thinking more “An individual income that is literally over double the median household income where I live”
Not sure where you are or what that amounts to but In the US I would consider double the median income middle class or upper middle class, still far from rich.
I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.
I kinda like Chris Rock’s definition as well… something like: “you can lose rich if you pick up a drug habit… but if you’re wealthy, you can’t lose wealth… you can afford to do cocaine for the rest of your life if you’re wealthy”.
An INDIVIDUAL income that’s double the median HOUSEHOLD income is pretty damn well off. This isn’t the 1950s. Single-provider households are not the norm.
‘Rich’ is income in considerable excess of the average. The idea that ‘middle class’ is actually considerably above the middle shows the obsession we, as a society, have with being midde class - aped from both above and below that status.
I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.
all taxes on the rich are good. Controversial, I know.
I think what may be more controversial is who you are grouping in as “the rich”. Does home ownership put someone on the /rich/ side of the line?
People with more than $10k USD worth of non-USD in the bank must report the account. I would move that line at least to $100k if the idea is to not harass & intrude on non-rich people.
So why exactly is the US permitted to tax people that don’t even live in their country?
The only thing they should be allowed to do is tax the profit made in the US, they should not have access to anything outside of their borders. Even if that is in a so called “tax heaven”.
You can just Google it or ask AI, y’know. Number 2 really stands out, if you’re curious.
The United States is one of the few countries that has a system of taxing its citizens and residents on their worldwide income, including income earned abroad. This practice is known as “citizenship-based taxation.” There are a few reasons why the U.S. follows this approach:
Historical Reasons: The United States has had a system of citizenship-based taxation in place for a long time. It dates back to the Civil War era when it was implemented to fund the war effort.
Desire to Prevent Tax Evasion: Citizenship-based taxation is intended to prevent U.S. citizens and residents from avoiding taxes by moving their assets or income abroad. Without it, individuals might seek tax havens to reduce their tax liability.
Complex Tax Code: The U.S. tax code is complex, and changing to a different system, such as residence-based taxation (taxing only income earned within the country), would require a significant overhaul of tax laws.
Revenue Generation: Taxing foreign income allows the U.S. government to generate revenue from its citizens and residents, regardless of where they earn their income.
It’s worth noting that while the U.S. taxes its citizens and residents on foreign income, there are mechanisms in place, such as the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion and foreign tax credits, to mitigate double taxation and reduce the tax burden on income earned in other countries. However, compliance with U.S. tax laws related to foreign income can be complex and may require professional assistance for those living abroad.
Because America is the top destination for the rich that isn’t a literal tax haven?
Because US power defends the interests of the rich at great cost across the world?
Because the US has great control over the financial systems which make the international order run and has the capacity to tax foreign income, unlike most countries, for whom it would simply be a waste of resources to try?
And yes, I’ll say it - all taxes on the rich are good. Controversial, I know.
Norway, Sweden, and Israel all have more billionaires per capita than the United States. Germany, Finland, Australia, Denmark, and Canada aren’t far off.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.
The actual threshold is $120,000, which in the context of Switzerland, the case that will potentially be relevant for me in the future, is low enough that one in four residents exceed it. Costs of living there are consequentially very high, as you’d expect. There’s something to be said about managing the fortunes of billionaires that will hide their wealth across a bunch of countries in elaborate schemes, but that’s a very different matter than taxing engineers, tech workers, and doctors.
Man, if that was true, everyone above the poverty line is rich. I was thinking more “An individual income that is literally over double the median household income where I live”
Not sure where you are or what that amounts to but In the US I would consider double the median income middle class or upper middle class, still far from rich.
I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.
I kinda like Chris Rock’s definition as well… something like: “you can lose rich if you pick up a drug habit… but if you’re wealthy, you can’t lose wealth… you can afford to do cocaine for the rest of your life if you’re wealthy”.
An INDIVIDUAL income that’s double the median HOUSEHOLD income is pretty damn well off. This isn’t the 1950s. Single-provider households are not the norm.
‘Rich’ is income in considerable excess of the average. The idea that ‘middle class’ is actually considerably above the middle shows the obsession we, as a society, have with being midde class - aped from both above and below that status.
So ‘rich’ is money management to you?
I think what may be more controversial is who you are grouping in as “the rich”. Does home ownership put someone on the /rich/ side of the line?
People with more than $10k USD worth of non-USD in the bank must report the account. I would move that line at least to $100k if the idea is to not harass & intrude on non-rich people.
I don’t see the problem with reporting the account.
So why exactly is the US permitted to tax people that don’t even live in their country?
The only thing they should be allowed to do is tax the profit made in the US, they should not have access to anything outside of their borders. Even if that is in a so called “tax heaven”.
Overreach it is called.
You can just Google it or ask AI, y’know. Number 2 really stands out, if you’re curious.
The United States is one of the few countries that has a system of taxing its citizens and residents on their worldwide income, including income earned abroad. This practice is known as “citizenship-based taxation.” There are a few reasons why the U.S. follows this approach:
Historical Reasons: The United States has had a system of citizenship-based taxation in place for a long time. It dates back to the Civil War era when it was implemented to fund the war effort.
Desire to Prevent Tax Evasion: Citizenship-based taxation is intended to prevent U.S. citizens and residents from avoiding taxes by moving their assets or income abroad. Without it, individuals might seek tax havens to reduce their tax liability.
Complex Tax Code: The U.S. tax code is complex, and changing to a different system, such as residence-based taxation (taxing only income earned within the country), would require a significant overhaul of tax laws.
Revenue Generation: Taxing foreign income allows the U.S. government to generate revenue from its citizens and residents, regardless of where they earn their income.
It’s worth noting that while the U.S. taxes its citizens and residents on foreign income, there are mechanisms in place, such as the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion and foreign tax credits, to mitigate double taxation and reduce the tax burden on income earned in other countries. However, compliance with U.S. tax laws related to foreign income can be complex and may require professional assistance for those living abroad.