Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 06:40 PM, Greg Vassie wrote: >> years after you leave the U.S." tax scheme. (Yes, any U.S. citizen who >> moves anywhere in the world must, technically, file U.S. tax returns >> for >> 10 years after leaving. And pay various kinds of taxes, though the >> amount may be different from what he would have paid had he remained in >> the U.S.) > > Where did you find the 10 year limit information? AFAIK, US > expatriates are subject to US taxes on their worldwide income as long > as they remain US citizens, tax treaties and other exemptions > notwithstanding. You are incorrect. Renouncing citizenship does not relieve most people who need relief from the burden. http://www.hcfa.gov/medicare/mip/full-kk.htm "Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996" Google is your friend. --Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 06:30 PM, Anonymous wrote: > On 9 Jul 2002 at 14:02, Tim May wrote: >> Unless one's stay is a short one (see below), income or other >> money earned while in the U.S. (and maybe earned outside the >> U.S. if the IRS can make a nexus case) is taxable. > > The question really is: Suppose one becomes a US citizen, and > then resides outside the US. Then is money on earned on assets > outside the US taxable by US authorities. Yes, but under expat tax rates. Cf. the IRS site, tax regs, etc. for details. Something like the first $70K per year of income is not subject to taxes. Companies routinely protect their overseas employees by tax-protecting their offshore earnings. (And the tax protection is protected, so the companies protect _that_, etc. Fortunately, simple formulas for infinite sequence limits are available.) As this is not a tax forum, and I'm not going to do research for others, consult the Web. Google is your friend. --Tim May "As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself." -- David Friedman
cypherpunks@lne.com
On reflection, I did not make my situation clear. I made a fair bit of money in my home country, despite a corrupt kleptocratic government that that does its best to prevent people from earning an honest living. I came to the US, became a green card holder and made a fair bit more money, and now would like to return to my home, where the cost of living is way lower, the food is much better, the skies are bluer, the ocean is warmer, the girls are prettier, and there is now no way whatever to earn an honest living. Fortunately I can afford to retire young. I am considering becoming a US citizen immediately before I leave. My concern is that if I become a US citizen, the IRS might want to tax me wherever I go.
Re: "to outlaw general purpose computers"
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 03:17:52PM -0400, Sunder wrote: > > Sure, you can revive old hardware with Linux, but you'll find it runs KDE > 3.0 or GNOME slower than windows 95 did on the same hardware. So unless > you're willing to also go to older software (or at least less demanding > software) you've still got a useless machine. What? Your brand of crack must be particularly poor these days. A 200mhz cyrix cpu runs linux w/gnome fast enough for most anything. Slower than w95??? Come again? I've run 1ghz boxes and they really don't surf the net much faster, so what's your point? > > OTOH, if it does work well enough, and you don't care for swapping memos > in Micro$loth Word V283.23 with cow-orkers or don't care about watching > the latest 3d movie on XVD disks, then by all means, if you don't mind the > huge power consumption, use that old iron. power consumption?? my 200mhz box? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen
On Wed, Jul 10, at 03:20AM, Nomen Nescio wrote: | Are you saying that if someone is legally resident in the US for a | while, the US IRS will attempt to get his assets all over the | world forever? I find this hard to believe. For a specific time period, this is absolutely true. Hard to believe, sure, real anyway? Yes. But there is an income cap somewhere, it may vary, but I suspect it to be like the $80k you get tax exempt.
Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen
On 9 Jul 2002 at 14:02, Tim May wrote: > Unless one's stay is a short one (see below), income or other > money earned while in the U.S. (and maybe earned outside the > U.S. if the IRS can make a nexus case) is taxable. The question really is: Suppose one becomes a US citizen, and then resides outside the US. Then is money on earned on assets outside the US taxable by US authorities. If, on the other hand, after being a resident for a while, and paying taxes on money earned while in the US, one leaves the US and resides somewhere else, retaining some US assets, is the money earned on non US assets taxable? Is income of a non US resident, on non US assets, earning non US income taxable? Would it be taxable if that person had been so careless as to become a US citizen during his stay in the US? > Becoming a U.S. citizen exposes a person to not only the > _current year_ tax scheme but also the "for ten years after you > leave the U.S." tax scheme. (Yes, any U.S. citizen who moves > anywhere in the world must, technically, file U.S. tax returns > for 10 years after leaving. And pay various kinds of taxes, > though the amount may be different from what he would have paid > had he remained in the U.S.) So do I get eligible for imperial taxes anywhere in the world merely by staying in the US a while, having a green card and paying US taxes, or do I only get eligible for imperial taxes anywhere in the world by taking US citizenship?
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
> years after you leave the U.S." tax scheme. (Yes, any U.S. citizen who > moves anywhere in the world must, technically, file U.S. tax returns for > 10 years after leaving. And pay various kinds of taxes, though the > amount may be different from what he would have paid had he remained in > the U.S.) Where did you find the 10 year limit information? AFAIK, US expatriates are subject to US taxes on their worldwide income as long as they remain US citizens, tax treaties and other exemptions notwithstanding. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] // RSA Key: 0x1606F91D // DSS Key: 0x83BB5BE4 "When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered." -- Dorothy Thompson
Re: CDR: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
Basically, none. A US resident is taxed just like a citizen. In fact, even if you are not a green card holder, but have a "substantial presence" in the US, you are still taxed like a citizen. Marc de Piolenc An Metet wrote: > > What are the tax implications of a US resident green card holder, with substantial >assets both in his original nation and in the US, of becoming a US citizen? -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 03:40 PM, Gabriel Rocha wrote: > The US is one of the few countries that I know of (or about) that do not > allow people ona student permit to work. Mexico does not allow _any_ noncitizen to work! Except for folks of either a) substantial resources, b) connected with a U.S. employer. But try visiting a Mexican city and applying for a job at a restaurant, bookstore, whatever. This was a plot element in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," more than 50 years ago, and it remains true today. It is also difficult for non-citizens to work in many European nations. It's always hilarious for me to watch Mexicans screaming "Dat be racist! " (whoops, wrong language, but same idea) about how the tens of millions of illegal Mexicans who were given permanent residency under Simpson-Mozzoli were not enough, that the _new_ flood of Mexicans and Salvadorans and Guatemalans and. should be given "amnesty." Meanwhile, like I said, see how long you live as an illegal alien in Mexico or Nicaragua, and see if they will issue a work permit. The U.S. is fucked up, to be sure, but talking about other countries making it easier for foreigners to work is mostly nonsense. --Tim May --Tim May "The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton
Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen
On Tue, Jul 09, at 02:02PM, Tim May wrote: > > Also, a person having extensive offshore (outside the U.S.) > > assets may well find his assets are now taxable in the U.S. > > And for those with capital assets not taxed in their home > > countries (e.g., Germany, Japan), this may be quite a shock. On 9 Jul 2002 at 18:40, Gabriel Rocha wrote: > This applies wether he is a US citizen or not, green card holder > or not, Sealand citizen or not. Once the IRS sinkstheir claws > into you, you're screwed. Are you saying that if someone is legally resident in the US for a while, the US IRS will attempt to get his assets all over the world forever? I find this hard to believe.
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Tim May wrote: > Why do you think a person without a green card is exempt from IRS > jurisdiction? I assumed that he meant a US non-resident. Obvi > > Unless one's stay is a short one (see below), income or other money > earned while in the U.S. (and maybe earned outside the U.S. if the IRS > can make a nexus case) is taxable. Illegal aliens are supposed to file > tax returns...and they certainly don't have green cards! > > Here's what Uncle Sam says: > > "You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the > substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you > must be physically present in the United States on at least: > > 1.31 days during the current year, and > 2.183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year > and the 2 years immediately before that, counting: > * All the days you were present in the current year, and > * 1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the > current year, and > * 1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the > current year. > > --end IRS quote-- > > There are some exemptions, for student visa persons and athletes > competing in games, but basically the idea is that you owe tax on money > earned in the U.S., regardless of citizenship, green card, or other > status. > > > or > > get a US citizenship since you're already in their jurisdiction anyway. > > > > I think this is terrible advice. Becoming a U.S. citizen exposes a > person to not only the _current year_ tax scheme but also the "for ten > years after you leave the U.S." tax scheme. (Yes, any U.S. citizen who > moves anywhere in the world must, technically, file U.S. tax returns for > 10 years after leaving. And pay various kinds of taxes, though the > amount may be different from what he would have paid had he remained in > the U.S.) > > Also, a person having extensive offshore (outside the U.S.) assets may > well find his assets are now taxable in the U.S. And for those with > capital assets not taxed in their home countries (e.g., Germany, Japan), > this may be quite a shock. > > A U.S. passport buys almost no protection. The U.S. will not defend its > citizens, only its imperialist interests. > > > > --Tim May > "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 01:19 PM, Gabriel Rocha wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, at 11:52AM, An Metet wrote: > | What are the tax implications of a US resident green card holder, > with substantial assets both in his original nation and in the US, of > becoming a US citizen? > > Well, think positive because you're already screwed. If you have a > greencard, you're tax implications are the same (or have been for me > thus far) as a US citizen. if you have a green card, you can either give > it up (for the loss of legal tax juridsdiction of the IRS over you) Why do you think a person without a green card is exempt from IRS jurisdiction? Unless one's stay is a short one (see below), income or other money earned while in the U.S. (and maybe earned outside the U.S. if the IRS can make a nexus case) is taxable. Illegal aliens are supposed to file tax returns...and they certainly don't have green cards! Here's what Uncle Sam says: "You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least: 1. 31 days during the current year, and 2. 183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting: * All the days you were present in the current year, and * 1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and * 1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. --end IRS quote-- There are some exemptions, for student visa persons and athletes competing in games, but basically the idea is that you owe tax on money earned in the U.S., regardless of citizenship, green card, or other status. > or > get a US citizenship since you're already in their jurisdiction anyway. > I think this is terrible advice. Becoming a U.S. citizen exposes a person to not only the _current year_ tax scheme but also the "for ten years after you leave the U.S." tax scheme. (Yes, any U.S. citizen who moves anywhere in the world must, technically, file U.S. tax returns for 10 years after leaving. And pay various kinds of taxes, though the amount may be different from what he would have paid had he remained in the U.S.) Also, a person having extensive offshore (outside the U.S.) assets may well find his assets are now taxable in the U.S. And for those with capital assets not taxed in their home countries (e.g., Germany, Japan), this may be quite a shock. A U.S. passport buys almost no protection. The U.S. will not defend its citizens, only its imperialist interests. --Tim May "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau
Re: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
On Tue, Jul 09, at 11:52AM, An Metet wrote: | What are the tax implications of a US resident green card holder, with substantial |assets both in his original nation and in the US, of becoming a US citizen? Well, think positive because you're already screwed. If you have a greencard, you're tax implications are the same (or have been for me thus far) as a US citizen. if you have a green card, you can either give it up (for the loss of legal tax juridsdiction of the IRS over you) or get a US citizenship since you're already in their jurisdiction anyway.
Re: Which universe are we in?
Time postulates: > No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded, everything > we know about science (evidence, archaeology, measurements, ...) points > to a _single_ past. The laws of physics, including the laws of quantum mechanics, are symmetric with respect to the arrow of time, with occasional and rare exceptions that are only apparent at high magnification. if quantum mechanical ambiguity exists about the future, then it also exists about the past. > For example, a single past world line for me, for you, for Hal, for > Chaucer, for Einstein. > Now we may not know what this world line is very accurately, but as we > look at more closely, e.g., by examining the photographs someone may > have taken, or their diaries, or whatever, the more we home in on what > that world line was. We never look closely and see two or three or N > different histories, we just see a higher fidelity view of what we must > assume is the One True Past. As you measure the past by examining the record of it, you of course collapse wavefunctions, and produce eigenstates of what you are measuring. It is not necessary to assume the One True Past existed prior to those measurments being made, simply because no measurements contradict. > I don't doubt that Hal gets the sense that many potential Hals could > have resulted in the current Hal...an interesting notion. But everything > does in fact point to a One True Past which various measurements get > closer and closer to, and which no measurements contradict. This, of course, is the "hidden variable theory," in which we have a One True Past, (and One True Future) as well, which evolves deterministically, based in part on degrees of freedom which are by definition unobservable by any experiment. If this is true, we have no free will, and Stephen Wolfram's suspicion that the universe contains only pseudorandomness produced by complex deterministic mechanisms at a small scale holds true. Still, Nature abhors overcomplexification, and plain old quantum mechanics works just fine for predicting the results of experiments. > This is what I meant by "convergence." Homing in, getting closer, > sharpening the image, filling in the details. > As for "tacitly assuming some kind of communication between observers," > I am _explicitly_ saying that observers get together and compare > notes...and they find no contradictions, if they are honest observers. Nowhere does this imply that what was observed always existed in its observed state prior to the measurement being made. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: CP meet at H2K2?
I heard back from several people interested in this. Someone on the ground in NYC please pick a time & place (or we can meet at the conference site and adjourn someplace suitable). The full H2K2 schedule is available, http://h2k2.net In addition to JYA and I, CP speaker presence will include Peter Wayner and Declan. ** Someone else please pick a time and gathering ** location. A good gathering location will be the info desk/vendor area on the 2nd floor. There will be some sort of bulletin board, so a paper message mentioning the "CP Meet" could go up there. My suggestion would be Saturday night late, after Robert Steele's presentation (starts 10:00 pm, will probably go until midnight). If that's too late for CP kids, I'm not sure what to suggest since sessions run 10a-12a daily. See you then! -- Greg On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:32:18AM -0500, netkita wrote: > > I would be interested in a hookup on Saturday or Friday night.I > will arrive on Wenseday if anyone wants to get together. > > - Original Message - > From: "Bill Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Greg Newby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 6:29 PM > Subject: Re: CP meet at H2K2? > > > > > > Several people said yes... > > You're hereby designated as the > > "Official San Francisco Bay Area Cpunks-Meeting-in-Exile" :-) > > > > At 07:07 PM 06/20/2002 -0400, Greg Newby wrote: > > >H2K2, 2600's conference, is at Hotel Penn in New York > > >July 12-14. http://www.h2k2.net > > > > > >CP contributors who are scheduled include > > >John Young and yours truly. Maybe others I > > >didn't recognize or see yet. I heard of a few other > > >tentatives. > > > > > >The full conference schedule should be online within > > >the next couple of days. I'm thinking of a CP > > >meet Saturday night July 12. Anyone else gonna be there? > > > -- Greg
Re: Which universe are we in?
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Tim May wrote: > No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded, > everything we know about science (evidence, archaeology, > measurements, ...) points to a _single_ past. > > Sorry about this misdirection to the CP list. It was meant to go to another list. --Tim May
Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
What are the tax implications of a US resident green card holder, with substantial assets both in his original nation and in the US, of becoming a US citizen?
Re: Which universe are we in?
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 07:43 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Tim, > > Are you tacitly assuming some kind of communication between > observers > when you make the claim of a "convergence"? Adsent said communications, > could we show that the convergence would still obtain? Have you ever > seen > any discussion of the notion of cyclic or periodic gossiping in Comp > Sci? > > No, I was arguing that while the future may be multi-worlded, everything we know about science (evidence, archaeology, measurements, ...) points to a _single_ past. For example, a single past world line for me, for you, for Hal, for Chaucer, for Einstein. Now we may not know what this world line is very accurately, but as we look at more closely, e.g., by examining the photographs someone may have taken, or their diaries, or whatever, the more we home in on what that world line was. We never look closely and see two or three or N different histories, we just see a higher fidelity view of what we must assume is the One True Past. I don't doubt that Hal gets the sense that many potential Hals could have resulted in the current Hal...an interesting notion. But everything does in fact point to a One True Past which various measurements get closer and closer to, and which no measurements contradict. This is what I meant by "convergence." Homing in, getting closer, sharpening the image, filling in the details. As for "tacitly assuming some kind of communication between observers," I am _explicitly_ saying that observers get together and compare notes...and they find no contradictions, if they are honest observers. Hal may have meant something different, perhaps. --Tim May --Tim May (.sig for Everything list background) Corralitos, CA. Born in 1951. Retired from Intel in 1986. Current main interest: category and topos theory, math, quantum reality, cosmology. Background: physics, Intel, crypto, Cypherpunks
Re: DRM will not be legislated
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Voluntary DRM can never stop piracy. With voluntary DRM, people > can break once on one machine, then run the latest Napster > replacement on the every machine on the internet in non DRM mode, > and copy that file that was ripped on one machine, to every > machine. Obviously. But if the "content" is on a private net hooked into private boxes, putting the data onto the public web becomes a touch more difficult. > Voluntary DRM is only useful to the content industry as a stepping > stone to compulsory DRM Only in some executive's wet dream. And they've got enough problems dealing with their accounting division right now :-) > Voluntary DRM is only useful to the industry to reach the point > where they can say "Only copyright pirates, terrorists, drug > trafficers, child pornographers, tax evaders, and money launderers > need to run their machines in non DRM mode." And if they can't deliver enough product to make DRM worth while, they never get that far do they. If the economics works, they don't need laws, and if the economics don't work, they won't get laws. When the big boys figure out how to deliver their stuff with better quality and more "coolness" than P2P, they'll make plenty of money. Shit, we might even convince them it's worth while running fiber to every home on the planet. If they don't, they're toast anyway. Teenagers can wait all day and night for a few songs, but the rest of us don't have time to waste on it. With enough bandwidth, DRM becomes irrelevant. The recorded past isn't where the cash is, the instantaneous *now* is where the money gets collected. Someday they'll figure it out, but I suspect it'll be a teenager that hits 'em over the head with the 2x4. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: noise under linux speak freely (fwd)
Anyone using USB headsets with speakfreely under Linux? I'm having trouble getting it to work. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:27:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ivan Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Chris Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: noise under linux speak freely On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Chris Jensen wrote: > Hm! You don't describe which Linux distro and if you have compiled yourself > and with which flags? > I have had similar problems , knowing HW was OK , and not yet worked it out > . Actually I am at the state where I ask: can SF really work under Linux! Of > cause , but sometimes more tricky than others ;) SpeakFreely works "itself" very good. It is its interaction with the drivers that is far from perfect. Unfortunately John is apparently busy with other things and has no time for improving the program. Neither me (who complained regularly and who read the source) have enough time to contribute to SF. Speak Freely for Unix needs a rewrite of logic when it outputs sound. Your problems may be caused by very different matters, but anyway if you feel motivated - figure out from the source what is supposed to happen and then you may find why it breaks for you. The current sound output design is old and made in different circumstances than Linux computers are now. Hope somebody will redo it. Native ALSA support may help in case OSS does not provide the necessary hooks... Best regards, -- Ivan * * * To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send E-mail containing the word "unsubscribe" in the message body (*not* as the Subject) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
