PDA

View Full Version : EX-Patroit Act bill , U can't leave U.S. with your own money..



revelarts
06-01-2012, 02:07 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gs34y99bFT0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Gov't basically saying "you can't leave the u.s. with our money."



by Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com)

The characteristic mark of a tyrannical regime is that it eventually finds it necessary to erect walls to keep people from leaving. This is why we should be troubled by the “Ex-PATRIOT Act,” an egregiously offensive bill recently introduced in the Senate. Following a long line of recent legislation and regulations attempting to expropriate more and more wealth from hard-working Americans, this new bill spits in the face of overburdened taxpayers and tramples on the Constitution.

Current law already dictates that Americans with a net worth of over $2 million who expatriate must be assumed to have sold all their assets and must pay a corresponding punitive exit tax on those assumed sales. The Ex-PATRIOT Act goes even further than current law by assessing a 30% capital gains tax on all future earnings of expatriates. Not content just with this additional tax, the bill also grants the IRS the sole authority to determine whether individuals have expatriated for tax purposes and allows the IRS to bar those individuals from ever re-entering the United States. Finally, the bill blatantly violates the ex post facto provisions of the U.S. Constitution by extending all of these provisions to anyone who has given up their U.S. citizenship within the past decade.

This bill, and other similar legislation, casts a chilling effect on saving, investment, and entrepreneurial activity. The bill was introduced in response to news reports about one of the founders of Facebook who might save millions of dollars of taxes by renouncing his U.S. citizenship. But in their blind envy towards successful entrepreneurs, the bill’s sponsors ignore the fact that they will ensnare many ordinary middle-class Americans who work hard, save and invest wisely, and benefit from rising home values. These Americans may easily find themselves pushing past the $2 million mark by the time they retire, especially as inflation (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve/) continues to seriously accelerate. If they wish to escape the Federal Reserve (http://www.ronpaul.com/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-fed-hr-459-s202/)’s inflation by emigrating to lower-cost countries so their dollars will go farther, as many Baby Boomers are starting to do, the federal government will penalize them, and continue to penalize them for the rest of their lives as long as they hold any money in the United States.

Unfortunately, the mere consideration of such legislation, even before it has passed, has made American banking customers a potential future headache for banks around the world. They don’t want to deal with the IRS any more than Americans do, and if American account holders become a Trojan horse for the IRS to insinuate themselves into their affairs, there may be more cost than benefit to extending banking services to Americans.
We live under a federal government that has eviscerated our Fourth Amendment rights, that can detain U.S. citizens indefinitely based solely on the President’s word, that assaults toddlers and grandmothers at airports in the name of security, and regulates virtually every aspect of our economic lives. No wonder increasing numbers of Americans feel this government is engage

DragonStryk72
06-01-2012, 02:17 PM
Okay, so what this bill is saying is basically: "Even if you are no longer a citizen of the US, we can still tax you, cause we say so, and since you aren't a citizen any longer, you have no representation in our government." Ah yes, taxation without representation, truly what our founders fought and died for.

jimnyc
06-01-2012, 02:21 PM
They could have solved this whole problem with a much easier tax code change. This was brought on because of the Facebook character who renounced his citizenship when he found out about the billions he was about to make, and was about to have to share some with the tax man. Rather than strong arm everyone, simply make a change pointing this case out, and if you sole reason for leaving is to avoid the tax, and yet still come and go and run a business here, you pay for it.

fj1200
06-01-2012, 02:24 PM
They could have solved this whole problem with a much easier tax code change.

Oh come on Jim, that is NEVER a solution. There HAS to be direct retaliation taken through the form of MORE complication to the tax code.































:poke:

jimnyc
06-01-2012, 02:34 PM
Oh come on Jim, that is NEVER a solution. There HAS to be direct retaliation taken through the form of MORE complication to the tax code.

:poke:

If you think about it too, while they are circumventing the rules to avoid paying taxes, they ARE also giving up their constitutional protections from being a citizen, no? Or do they renounce, and then come back illegally and get more protections than you and I? :lol:

Thunderknuckles
06-01-2012, 02:52 PM
My analysis on Paul's concerns:

1. 30% capital gains tax on all future earnings: It must be pointed out that this applies only to earnings made in the U.S. The IRS already does this with other taxable items so I'm not really fired up over this one.

2. Granting IRS authority in determining why someone expatriates: All expatriates will be assumed to have left for tax purposes and they must demonstrate to the IRS why they did not. Ron Paul has it right on this one. This is bad news.

3. Ex Post Facto violation: The 10 year retroactive nature of the Act applies only to the section regarding re-entry into the US. NOT tax liability. Paul is technically correct about Ex Post Facto but our Supreme Court has already set precedent here by ruling that the Ex Post Facto prohibition only applies to criminal law not civil.

Overall, I say this is a bad act and it should be dumped.
It's nothing more than an overreaction to he actions of Eduardo Saverin.

revelarts
06-01-2012, 02:54 PM
If it's made to "GET" someone whose already done it, it's unconstitutional anyway.
It's an ex post facto law, making up a law to punish someone who, when they did it the deed, it was legal. making up a law after the fact. It's BS.
Schumer (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/) is ripe piece of crap for proposing this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/


Looks like they are just going down the constitution line by line now breaking it.

".....
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR) shall not be suspended, (CROSS THAT OFF THE LIST)
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER) (CROSS THAT OFF THE LIST TOO, DONE AND DONE)
or ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law shall be passed.
......

Thunderknuckles
06-01-2012, 02:59 PM
If it's made to "GET" someone whose already done it, it's unconstitutional anyway.
It's an ex post facto law, making up a law to punish someone who, when they did it the deed, it was legal. making up a law after the fact. It's BS.
Schumer (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/) is ripe piece of crap for proposing this.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/


Looks like they are just going down the constitution line by line now breaking it.

".....
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR) shall not be suspended, (CROSS THAT OFF THE LIST)
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER) (CROSS THAT OFF THE LIST TOO, DONE AND DONE)
or ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law shall be passed.
......
I agree with you on the Ex Post Facto prohibition Rev.
I just don't think the Supreme Court will bite even if this thing goes through.