Which is more "patriotic" -- to loyally refrain from criticizing your government's foreign policies, no matter how brutal or peremptory they may be (including those that result in quasi-legal, immoral military adventurism that kills thousands of innocent civilians), or to loyally pony up when your government asks you to make a relatively minor economic sacrifice?
Two specific examples. Who were the more "patriotic" citizens -- those anti-war protesters, both young and old, who marched in the streets during the tumultuous Vietnam era of the 1960s and 1970s, or those mega-wealthy citizens of 2012 who have renounced their U.S. citizenship and re-located to foreign countries in order to avoid paying higher taxes? Call me a starry-eyed idealist, but I like to think it's the former.
On June 25, the New York Post reported that twice as many ultra-rich Americans as in the previous year are expected to renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to avoid higher taxes. Granted, the New York Post doesn't have the institutional whiskers of, say, The New York Times, but the Post does provide the requisite statistics and attribution to make its story credible.
The Post reported that, in 2012, approximately 8,000 Americans are projected to renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to seek refuge in more tax-friendly countries (Costa Rica, Singapore, Cayman Islands, Antigua, et al). They compare this figure to the 3,805 Americans who did so in 2011.
The article quotes Jim Duggan, a lawyer at the law firm of Duggan Bertsch: "High net-worth individuals are making decisions that having a U.S. passport just isn't worth the cost anymore," he said. "They're able to do what they do from any place in the world, and they're choosing to do it from places with much lower tax rates." He fails to mention that federal income tax rates are lower than they've been in several decades.
So, whether these fat cats live in stately mansions within gated communities in the U.S., or in stately mansions within gated communities in Costa Rica, it's not going to make any difference to them because they don't "belong" to either community and never will. In truth, the very concept of belonging to a "community" (in the sense that most of us regard that term) is meaningless to them.
Duggan's observation that wealthy people can now "do what they do from any place in the world" is actually quite chilling. Drones can kill people anywhere, satellites can spy on people anywhere, computer viruses can be sent from anywhere, and vast fortunes can be made from anywhere. Not to be morbid, but it's worth noting that those philosophers who predicted that "abstraction" would eventually result in the disintegration of our here-and-now world, and lead to widespread alienation, may have been right.
When I mentioned this story to a Republican friend of mine, and went on a prolonged rant about the alarming greed and selfishness of these unpatriotic bastards, he instantly seized upon what he believed to be a brilliant counter-argument. He smugly asked if my scorn was reserved only for "very successful Americans" (his words) or if I were also willing to label "unpatriotic" those Mexicans who fled their home country to seek economic gain in the U.S.
Weak argument. People escaping grinding poverty by crossing national borders is one thing, but people who, literally, have more money than they know what to do with -- who already have their yachts and cars and art and luxury homes, but who would rather relinquish their national identity than share a small fraction more of their wealth with their own government -- is a whole other deal. Good riddance to them.
David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and author ("It's Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor"), was a former labor union rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net.
I also find very telling that people that complain about Savarin moving to Singapore, did not have any problem when he moved from Brazil to Florida with his great wealth depriving Brazil from tax revenue.
There are many mega rich Latin Americans choosing to deposit their wealth in US banks and/or becoming US residents and again I hear no complains.
I was born in the US as well as my parents, in fact more than half of my ancestry goes back to the 1630's. It's a shame the US government is in fact forcing me to relinquish my citizenship because I wanted to see the world, married a foreigner, and have foreign born children. The US government is threatening my foreign earned income, my foreign wife's assets, bullies foreign countries to report on the meager foreign earned savings of non-resident US citizens, denies me FULL voting rights corresponding to FULL representation and does nothing to counter the jingoist attitudes apparent in the above article. With that, how can one talk about the meaning of "patriotism"?
Beyond the many reasons well stated in this blog, the US government is threatening to confiscate savings and profits from mutual accounts in which a foreign spouse may have contributed and even if a US spouse has contributed nothing and is a signatory. Another method of extracting foreign wealth.
If they exist in significantly large portions, which crime are they committing? Please respond either with a law that is rooted in the Constitution of either the USA or of Cuba. Certainly one of the two must state that a citizen cannot leave the country, especially if they are rich.
I know people who have renounced. I know people who are preparing themselves for this wrenching decision. None; really none are rich. They want to keep their homes and checking accounts.
Please, if you want stories, we're ready to help you, but the Democrats will not like this story. They have put 6 million innocents in harm's way and convicted a mere 17 tax evaders.
To villainize the victims who had to give up their birth rights to save their homes and keep a bank account.
When does "patriotism" become "nationalism"?
But lets explore that "rich" accusation. The poster boy for traitorous renunciants is Eduardo Saverin, the Facebook co-founder who did the dirty a couple of years ago. Despite being branded as a tax cheat, he paid hundreds of millions in exit taxes to get rid of the US citizen anchor around his neck. His advisers told him that because of US insanity like FATCA, he will find that no one in the global financial community will want to do business with him as long as he's an American. Too much unwarranted IRS exposure.
Next time you write about this David, do your homework. It will do wonders for your credibility.
It has become so bad for middle class Americans that mass renunciations are taking place. See the following article in the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail, which I believe has less of a sensationalistic focus than the NY Post. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americans-in-canada-driven-to-divorce-from-their-country/article4179937/
Americans abroad are facing some serious problems. The true story that needs to be told is of the disenfranchisement of 6-7 million Americans overseas which may be pushing up the renunciation numbers.
I could go on and on with more issues, but these are probably the main ones. I’ve got better things to do than to write more down non-stop for the next month or two!
Being a US citizen could mean that I might be able to retire to America. Yet, I can also retire to Europe, Asia, or maybe even central or South America, Africa, Australia or some other place. I’ve been all over the US and seen it all, but the world is huge and fascinating with much to offer.
Overall, if I were to retire to America, then such would simply mean that I’d bring money to America. If America doesn’t want for me to retire to America, then that’s fine because then I’ll simply take my retirement savings to another nation which will appreciate the small additional tax income. All in all, the situation is stupid. Too many people make too big of a deal out of nothing for all the wrong reasons. I’m just one of the many little irrelevant individual who works hard and attempts to make the best out of the given situation, with or without US citizenship...
Another reason for renouncing is that I need financial flexibility. In February, I have to refinance my mortgage and I need the flexibility of being able to choose the best offer. Yet, such was not possible as a US citizen. I was advised that I should not close any of my current accounts and that I would be unable to open up a new account. I’ve also reached a point where I’d like to invest and diversify, but many banks around the world are rejecting US persons, limiting that ability.
Furthermore, I wrote to my US representation, but they did not respond. They showed no interest, didn’t take the matter seriously and took no action. Nobody was able to give me a good justification for continuing to be a US citizen, and there were plenty of reasons not to be. Being a US citizen is a security risk due to terrorism. A financial risk due to FATCA and a paperwork burden due to citizenship-based taxation....