That is only applies to so-called earned income, you still owe taxes on all of your other income. And many people earn considerably more than $108k.

Furthermore, even under tax treaties, it is not uncommon for some part of your income to be double taxed due to differences in recognition and classification of income and foreign taxes paid. Americans often have to pay more taxes than if they only had to pay taxes in either country separately.

And this is on top of the onerous reporting overhead and other difficulties.

Faulty assumption; Americans who live abroad do not benefit from the US system: social security/disability/retirement, health programs, military, public infrastructure etc. pp. is provided by the country where they live.

Does the country where they live run the embassy too and I just never knew about it?

What's the embassy doing for me as an American citizen living abroad who uses none of their services (except passport renewal but that's only because of the other ridiculous rule that US citizens must travel there on a US passport). Why am I paying for it?

What if you live in another town and are paying for that fire department? Just kidding. But really if you live in a country which has a tax treaties with the US, you also can offset your taxes with taxes paid to a foreign country anyway, so even for high-earners nothing goes to the embassy. If you do use the embassy, you generally do pay them fees of course.

The embassy is for maintaining relations with foreign countries, not just passports and birth certificates (and pricey notary services). That seems like a sideshow. When it comes to services for the public, they appear to spend most of their time dealing with visa applicants, based on the crowds and lines I've seen. They also do offer assistance for missing persons abroad; if you have a relative that goes missing abroad the embassy will investigate. That seems nice of them. I assume other developed countries' embassies are basically the same though.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, I don't ever use the services they provide and I won't because they are provided by the other country I am a national of. I have no links to the US. Zero.

I guess to fit in your analogy I live underwater?

They should not pay taxes in full to get 1% of the benefits.

Why not? I could just as well say that someone making $50k in Arkansas shouldn't have to subsidize consular services for someone making a quarter million a year abroad. They're not really paying "full price" either given the large exemption.

The US has an interest in maintaining embassies and consulates independent of its expat population. And we often pay for whatever services we get there, so you aren’t subsidizing us.

Additionally a government should think about practicality and fairness before it implements policy. It is impractical and excessively burdensome to try and tax residents of countries that aren’t the US. Despite your stated beliefs elsewhere, it does not take very much income or bizarre situations to wander into dicey tax situations that are frightening for the expat. A small business (which is taxable in the US if you net more than about $430) can mean difficult filing in the US. I don’t earn all that much, and I’ve spent a lot of this summer working on my US taxes for no purpose other than to have them piled up somewhere, unless some IRS agent decides to make my life much more difficult.

Most people use their country's embassy approximately never.

Where they do need to use it (such as registering a birth) it's usually replacing use of a different government office, had they not lived abroad.

Oh well, that's alright then. As long as it's only successful people getting screwed I suppose we're good.

Well, wehther it's alright or not, whether it is accurately characterized as 'getting screwed' or not, at least it's only the ones who can most afford it.

No, this hits the upper to middle professional class the hardest. One percenters are handled by a staff with white gloves as always.

Strange that we're all commenting on an article concerning specifically the ultra wealthy renouncing citizenship to reduce tax liability then

Perhaps you are being sarcastic in the parent comment, but United States "screwing" its successful people and forcing them out means that these successful people will no longer contribute to United States, but to their new home country instead.

Without their contributions the Unites States will be less successful, thereby "screwing" everybody in it.

This trend within United States is especially ironic and alarming considering that United States gained its success specifically by giving home to persecuted people from other countries with capacity for success. Conversely, other countries, some obvious examples being Nazi Germany and USSR, were not successful specifically because they forced out their successful people.

If it was just getting taxed up to a point I think you'd have a reasonable argument, but looking at the torturous nonsense they have to go through to the point where even US banks think the costs of having them as clients isn't worth the hassle, it's clearly way beyond that. Also, many of these people don't actually owe any tax at all, or relatively small amounts, but it's ridiculously difficult and costly to prove it.

I mean what is the objective? Raise tax revenue from ex-pats, or drive them out of US citizenship? What's actually happening seems to be the latter, not so much the former. Surely that's a serious policy failure.

After not living in the US for a few years, your view of the US is quite disillusioned. They don’t want you to come back and live there. The need to keep everyone thinking the US is the best. /s

The thing is, many of these expats aren't even "paying into the system" anyway. I have to file US taxes but can deduct what I pay in taxes in my country of residency, which is higher than I'd pay in the US; as a result, I don't actually owe any US taxes. But, like another commenter said, I have to pay thousands to someone to figure out how to even file all this stuff. In other words, some local accountant is making bank, not the IRS.

I could probably be convinced to get on board with an initiative to make filing easier, but this is a different argument than I was responding to.

From what I’ve read, the US is possibly one of the worst countries to have to file taxes with, paperwork-wise.

And that’s for the simple scenario of someone actually living in the US.

But is also is another issue altogether. How US citizens can bear with this and the lobbying that spawned it is beyond me.

The people who have complicated taxes also usually have complex income sources and generally higher incomes. If you just get your wage the tax forms are relatively straightforward. Being international complicates things but you'll notice people are talking about the headaches associated with running their businesses, capital gains, etc.

It doesn’t take much for an American residing abroad to have complicated taxes. I work a salaried job and am trying to save for retirement and that puts me into the complicated bracket because of the rules on pension taxation in my country of residence vs the US. Our options for investment are very limited, compared to every other resident of the country. My local brewery was doing a grassroots investment campaign and I couldn’t even buy £20 worth of shares to support them because as a US person that was forbidden.

Yeah, while you could argue that the IRS should do pre-filled electronic returns, the reality is that if you have a W2 and a couple 1099s, doing your taxes is pretty straightfoward.

As you say, it's more complex income sources and potentially deductions that lead to big accountant bills.

Or simply the fact of living overseas.

And you mention 1099s, i.e. self employed. Well, if you run a sole proprietorship as an expat, you still have to file US self-employment tax forms, and there are also QUARTERLY filing requirements with penalties for non-filing.

Or you need to get the paper certifying that your country has a totalization agreement with the US (not all do).

And since 1099 isn't a thing in EU, you have to file the US 'small business' tax form, which is actually 3-5 forms.

so as an expat, even what should be very straight forward turns into a massive mess.

Sure. Yes, I was assuming a US citizen/resident working for an employer who has income from a few basic sources and is taking standard deduction--which actually describes a lot of people. (And I was mentioning 1099s mostly in the context of a brokerage account.)

Well, I am glad to stand corrected.

Most of my knowledge of it comes from all the threads about Intuit's and H&R Block's lobbying regarding what IRS could and could not do to simplify tax filling.

If you don’t me asking. If it is as straightforward, what actually is the point in said lobbying?

Serious question, what benefits do you think US citizenship and US embassies provide over and beyond what pretty much every other western country provides to their citizens?

As multiple people have explained, preparing the required paperwork each year is a major expense and hassle, even if you do not owe any tax. Also, if you are technical enough to frequent this web site and you think $108K is a lot of money, you are being underpaid.

Googling, just the first one that comes up, suggests that median income for "software developer" in USA is $86,523. Meaning half make less, half make more. $100K is the 75th percentile, meaning 75% make less. (https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Software-Developer-Sal...)

Some people that work in especially high-paid sub-industries have a mistaken idea of what typical "technical enough to frequent this web site" (?!) people make.

And even if most software developers did make over $100K, it could still be a lot of money? The median income in USA as a whole looks to be about $52K, with $100K being about 83rd percentile (83% of USA makes less than $100K).

I don’t think that zip recruiter data is accurate, apparently the average engineer salary in Sunnyvale is 100k, where I can see new grad salaries are above 120k and do that doesn’t take into account bonuses or stocks.

We can all quibble over the exact numbers but I think the point is well taken: not only does a six-figure salary place you pretty high among American workers overall, but it also puts you in a better spot than many developers. Not everybody gets to work at prestigious tech companies

> Also, if you are technical enough to frequent this web site and you think $108K is a lot of money, you are being underpaid.

Sorry, what? Exactly how much technical ability does it take to frequent a website? You have the strangest delusion I've seen on HN and that's saying something.

To further illustrate that point: I'm a barista.

I work food service.

> Also, if you are technical enough to frequent this web site and you think $108K is a lot of money, you are being underpaid.

Most software engineers in Europe, aside from freelancers, and probably the world, don’t make anywhere near $108k.

I’m self employed, and had a green card, I paid the accountant 700€ to file the US tax form and paid a couple thousands dollars in taxes because I hit the minimum tax rate.