At what point did you take your income off-shore?

[Fatbat]

Maybe its the same with Canada?

No, there's no definite rules with Canada. I had originally thought you had to be away for two years to claim non resident status but it doesn't seem this is true.

They look at each case individually and each person's ties with the country while they are claiming non resident status. So if you maintain property there, a car, furniture, a driver's license, phone numbers, bank accounts, credit cards, "social ties" << what a bunch of bullshit, etc. etc. they look at these things as anchors and indicators that you never left or had every intention of coming back or something like that.

When I've got significant coin worth worrying about I'll hire some skilled financial advisers to figure it out for me.

More here... Non-residents of Canada

 

[Donace]

hmm I would suggest instead of shoving it offshore instead research with a decent accountant on investing so to get maximum tax breaks / allowances and the such. The data i've looked over you can easily reduce your tax between 20-50% even if you think you have been 'efficient''...the rest then you can shove offshore if you want

Though Efficient tax planning! Grab a Lawyer / Accountant (not a bank!)

 

[nevele]

anyone that thinks they shouldn't have to pay ANY taxes is ridiculous, and if they try to hide it all they will certainly be caught.

that statement is ridiculous.
thought and action are different, and if you must hide your thought you've got a bigger problem than a ridiculous tax system.

I don't think I should have to pay any taxes.
I think contributions to maintain infrastructure, social and humanitarian services, scientific research etc. should be voluntary instead of compulsory.

I think the desire to personally research which organizations are doing the most good aligned with your personal beliefs about what good is, comparing community needs and projected income, then allocating your money as you see fit should be a societal practice taught in school.

it's nowhere near the detached 'gubment sez you need pay this many' practice.
and that's the point.

people should know how the system works. people should know what's needed to provide for our quality of life.
it might be a logistical nightmare. it'll probably take a hell of a lot more time than paying taxes does now, sure.

but it allows for something infinitely more valuable than ease of use.
freedom. and wisdom.

wisdom provided by understanding of who you are and how you exist. why you contribute. what happens if you don't.
freedom to pick and choose how you want your community, and the world, to evolve.

will it ever happen? probably not.
most people are kept stupid. they're valuable to those who want control over them.
and something like this could be one of the greatest threats to stupidity ever conceived.

...or a pipe dream. possibly a ridiculous pipe dream. but it's no more ridiculous than thinking this:

Being over-taxed is wrong, but taxes in general are good for everyone as long as the money is spent wisely.

because wisdom in politics is bought and sold, not taught or intuited or discovered.

anyway.
as broken as the system is, using offshore holdings as a means to evade tax is a shit move.

there are times when you should vote with your wallet. opposing a corrupt tax system is not one of them -- unless you're expressing why you're doing it (which would be an interesting spectacle, no doubt) avoiding tax like this does nothing to correct the problem. now if you plan on being the corporate voice of opposition by these actions, hominus hummus and you've got my blessings. get a good lawyer.

but if you're just looking for breaks and increased bottom lines like the big boys, yeah. you're the problem.

 

[kassam]

that statement is ridiculous.
thought and action are different, and if you must hide your thought you've got a bigger problem than a ridiculous tax system.

I don't think I should have to pay any taxes.
I think contributions to maintain infrastructure, social and humanitarian services, scientific research etc. should be voluntary instead of compulsory.

I think the desire to personally research which organizations are doing the most good aligned with your personal beliefs about what good is, comparing community needs and projected income, then allocating your money as you see fit should be a societal practice taught in school.

it's nowhere near the detached 'gubment sez you need pay this many' practice.
and that's the point.

people should know how the system works. people should know what's needed to provide for our quality of life.
it might be a logistical nightmare. it'll probably take a hell of a lot more time than paying taxes does now, sure.

but it allows for something infinitely more valuable than ease of use.
freedom. and wisdom.

wisdom provided by understanding of who you are and how you exist. why you contribute. what happens if you don't.
freedom to pick and choose how you want your community, and the world, to evolve.

will it ever happen? probably not.
most people are kept stupid. they're valuable to those who want control over them.
and something like this could be one of the greatest threats to stupidity ever conceived.

...or a pipe dream. possibly a ridiculous pipe dream. but it's no more ridiculous than thinking this:



because wisdom in politics is bought and sold, not taught or intuited or discovered.

anyway.
as broken as the system is, using offshore holdings as a means to evade tax is a shit move.

there are times when you should vote with your wallet. opposing a corrupt tax system is not one of them -- unless you're expressing why you're doing it (which would be an interesting spectacle, no doubt) avoiding tax like this does nothing to correct the problem. now if you plan on being the corporate voice of opposition by these actions, hominus hummus and you've got my blessings. get a good lawyer.

but if you're just looking for breaks and increased bottom lines like the big boys, yeah. you're the problem.

I agree with just about everything you said. The thing about people not thinking they should pay taxes was literally directed at people that say they don't think they should pay taxes. Obviously thought and action are not the same. It would be better if we could decide where to donate our money, and how much, etc. but the problem is that far too many people would just hoard all their money...may sound negative but that's the way I see it.

 

[Xrproto]

The IRS has too much power. They can fuck you every which way and then ask questions.

 

[JohnCJackson]

LOL. You're right. Gotta be smart about it...nothing wrong with hiding a little bit here and there, but anyone that thinks they shouldn't have to pay ANY taxes is ridiculous, and if they try to hide it all they will certainly be caught.

Being over-taxed is wrong, but taxes in general are good for everyone as long as the money is spent wisely.

Taxes are immoral. There's no such thing as a "little bit evil." However there are practical considerations and differences between "'should" and will. Should I have to pay taxes? There's a difference between that and whether it is in my best interests to pay. Personally I think there are certain income streams that I would definitely file/pay and do my best to comply. There are also legal tax avoidance strategies ( one of the interesting things about Obama is how he has no problem associating with tax cheats but has no problem condemning LEGAL tax avoiders). There are other types of income and taxes that no normal person would claim.

 

[turbolapp]

All the more reason to do just that. I didn't make my money so I could let the government redistribute it. But I'll be more than happy to help anyone looking to become successful themselves. Life is not a zero sum game.

This cracks me up. You like those streets you drive on? How much do you guys pay for that private school you send your kids to because I know you don't use public education since that's what taxes pay for. Enjoy the murders, rapists and child molesters being kept in a place that is far away from you? National Defense? (and of course I mean just the basic defense, not the "lets create a war" defense)

Does this nation have issues with it's tax system? Yes. Should there be reform with the way it's distributed? Certainly. But by moving your money off shore so you can completely shuck your responsibility as a US citizen? Why don't you just move yourself off shore with it.

(Vinny this is not directed at you just a rant in general about people who don't want to pay the piper. Being that this is wickedfire and most people here are anti establishment, I'm sure I'll get flamed enough for it anyway )

 

[popeye]

Being over-taxed is wrong, but taxes in general are good for everyone as long as the money is spent wisely.

Yea taxes are GREAT! When is the last time you have seen the government spend their stolen loot wisely?

 

[montana]

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

 

[bprimeelite]

I think taxes will go up so really it is all about how you invest your money and store it to get the maximum breaks. I think going offshore may be risky for awhile as the feds could say you are not entitled to that money if you are not a citizen of that country or they will tax is heavily when you bring it back in. I would also say many of these lower tax states as Wyoming etc will start seeing more and more businesses move there.

 

[turbolapp]

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

That's an intriguing idea, I had not seen that.

In theory it could work. Unfortunately it would never come to be because a) Something of that magnitude has never been done, it's extremely radical (just in the amount of overhaul) and no politician wants to be labeled radical anything b) It would eliminate the IRS. That's alot of jobs plus see a). c) what kind of impact would something like that have on consumer spending? Would people be hesitant to spend less? would they go over seas to buy? buy more on the internet? With regards to what has happened over the fear of consumer confidence and spending in the last year or two, something like this would, again, have a hard time grabbing the ear of any politician.

Edit: All of that being said, I think I would be able to get behind an idea like this if it was ever put to a vote.

 

[geekcognito]

Unfortunately it would never come to be because a) Something of that magnitude has never been done, it's extremely radical (just in the amount of overhaul) and no politician wants to be labeled radical anything b) It would eliminate the IRS.

er...

Ron Paul FTW

 

[grim001]

This cracks me up. You like those streets you drive on? How much do you guys pay for that private school you send your kids to because I know you don't use public education since that's what taxes pay for. Enjoy the murders, rapists and child molesters being kept in a place that is far away from you? National Defense? (and of course I mean just the basic defense, not the "lets create a war" defense)

This attitude is the one that's laughable. Everything you mentioned could be done with 2% of the current budget, or handled by private companies in a far more efficient and accountable manner. It's easy for you to support taxation because you aren't part of the middle class being kept in wage slavery for your entire adult life. Without the huge burden of taxation, the economy would grow exponentially, providing a drastic increase in quality of life for the majority of people in this nation, and even for people in other nations that indirectly benefit from the prosperity of the US. Funding the 2% that's necessary for the government to do its job would be absolutely no problem with voluntary contributions once everyone has a hell of a lot more money of their own to spend as they see fit. Not to mention that voluntary taxation would force the government to be accountable, as it would only exist as a reflection of what people are willing to pay for (and is therefore a justifiable expense). The taxation system you support is absolutely incompatible with the idea of an accountable, efficient government. Your own ideals are the cause of the flaws in government which you've complained about.

The purpose of government as it exists is not to further the welfare of the people, it is just a power hungry organization embedding its tendrils deeper into every aspect of one's life over time. Refusing to support this insidious system is a noble thing to do if you don't wind up hurting yourself in the process (by getting caught).

 

[guerilla]

This cracks me up. You like those streets you drive on?

This presumes that only the government can build roads. Most of the early roads in America were private turnpikes and toll roads. Most states in the 19th century outlawed public finance for "internal improvements" because they were boondoggles and open fraud.

How much do you guys pay for that private school you send your kids to because I know you don't use public education since that's what taxes pay for.

Private education gets better results for almost the same cost (per student) as public education. Private education has to be accountable to the parents as customers. Public education is politicized and thus the incentives are skewed away from what the parents and children want and towards what the state wants. There are numerous studies on this. The teachers unions fight like hell to surpress anything that exposes their racket.

Enjoy the murders, rapists and child molesters being kept in a place that is far away from you?

Free market security and justice would not waste resources on imprisoning people for non-violent victimless crimes like pot smoking. Most of the prison population are people who have made unpopular lifestyle choices, not dangerous criminals. A private system would have no incentive to waste resources on non-violent offenders, and thus we might conclude they could do an even better job against violent offenders simply because they would have more resources to do so. Certainly the courts would function much more efficiently with a much simpler definition of what is actually a crime and a smaller docket of cases to process.

Does this nation have issues with it's tax system? Yes. Should there be reform with the way it's distributed? Certainly. But by moving your money off shore so you can completely shuck your responsibility as a US citizen? Why don't you just move yourself off shore with it.

Why is it that the people who work the hardest and smartest, have to pay for the people who do not work as hard and smart? You know your success doesn't come by luck, it comes through effort. So how is a system fair where you have to carry all of the people who care less than you, and produce less than you?

Taxes ultimately are a guilt scam. We were talking about it on Syndk8 how in other countries, everyone understands taxes are extortion, but in the west, there is this mass hypnotic experience where people think taxes are noble and patriotic. Freely given charity is noble. Someone forcing you to give up your money under threats of violence is theft. It doesn't matter if it is a mugger or a priest holding the gun. It's still theft.

The people who profit from the tax system are the politicians, the super rich regulatory monopolists (banks for instance) and the politically connected (Warren Buffet, Oprah etc).

Consider this. Politicians do not actually pay taxes. Taxes are only paid by the productive members of society. So politicians collect taxes and pay themselves. If they pay any taxes in return, all they are doing is returning some of the taxes they took. It's a clever game where they ape the real taxpayers to create the impression that they are just like us.

/rant

 

[schockergd]

I don't care too much for the idea of turnpikes , and prefer the idea of public paid roads , this SHOULD of been done with gas tax , but now the gov dips into the road funds so much , they no longer have money left over.

I don't mind paying taxes for useful things, but when i'm paying others mortgages , health care , welfare, drugs ,ect i get upset.

I live next to a carryout , and every time i'm over there there is always some older lady or guy using a EBT card (Welfare) and they're getting the stupidest crap ever, junk food ,ect. I'm paying their bills..........

So, what my plan is : Minimize my taxes till the govt realizes businesses don't like them.

The gov is so inefficient at everything they do , private businesses do it much better.

 

[DreamMachine]

You know what happens when you have no taxes? You get Somalia.

Seriously, it would be like mad max, US style. If nobody had to pay tax and they made it voluntary, who would pay? I believe taxes are a necessary "evil" of living in a civilized society. People as a group are inherently stupid and egotistical. If it's left up to the individual to allocate taxes, 99% of people will keep that money for themselves. The government exists to allocate that money for the greater common good and I now think any sort of "basic common infrastructure" like roads, power, water, gas, telephone, internet, etc. should be owned by the public. It's not as efficient, but when you get privately owned power stations, you get JIT power generation and brownouts in California.

I used to believe in no taxes like you guys, but now I believe in paying a share that is fair.

 

[guerilla]

You know what happens when you have no taxes? You get Somalia.

No. When you get no taxes, you get 19th century America, or the closest example today, Hong Kong.

You get Somalia when you have western government destabilizing your government, and preventing the Somali people from owning their own country so foreign corporations can rape the land.

Seriously, it would be like mad max, US style. If nobody had to pay tax and they made it voluntary, who would pay?

No one.

I believe taxes are a necessary "evil" of living in a civilized society.

You got the evil part right.

People as a group are inherently stupid and egotistical.

So it makes sense to elevate some to leaders, and institutionalize their ability to take from others?

Are you really trying to tell me that politicians are more righteous than regular folks? That they are inherently smarter and more selfless?

lol

If it's left up to the individual to allocate taxes, 99% of people will keep that money for themselves.

That makes sense. People would pay for what they want. And they would only want what they could afford.

The government exists to allocate that money for the greater common good and I now think any sort of "basic common infrastructure" like roads, power, water, gas, telephone, internet, etc. should be owned by the public.

There is no such thing as "public ownership". It is impossible for the public to own something as a group.

As far as the greater good, that has been the slogan of tyrants for centuries. I believe Stalin, Mao and Castro were really big on reminding everyone about the greater good. The USSR collapsed, the Chinese were starving to death, and the Cubans live in abject poverty.

Has no one here read Atlas Shrugged or Animal Farm?

It's not as efficient, but when you get privately owned power stations, you get JIT power generation and brownouts in California.

They had brownouts and rationing in the USSR as well. The reason why you get JIT and brownouts, is because state and federal regulation limits competition. Competitive carriers could not afford brownouts, because they would lose customers. Privatized monopolies are no different than state monopolies, because the losses for both models get socialized.

 

[vinny lingo]

No worries, Turbolapp.

I'm definitely not one that would fit in with the crowd in that tea party pic pointing out all the tax-funded services around where they were standing. But the person who said that everything you listed off could be funded with something like 2% of the current budget is pretty close to how I feel.

I pay my taxes. I also work toward less tax, and more responsible use of those funds.

 

[vinny lingo]

Guerilla, 19th Century America had its fair share of problems. It wasn't the promised land of milk and honey. But what it had that is so sorely missed by you and me is individual liberty.

 

[guerilla]

So, what my plan is : Minimize my taxes till the govt realizes businesses don't like them.

You've basically got the right idea, but when you say you like public roads that's the same principle that validates welfare. There really is no middle ground on the right to confiscate property from John and use it to build or provide goods to Jeff.

When you say it is ok to violate property rights for purpose X, it doesn't take long for someone to point out that the rights should (and can) be violated for purpose Y. And so on and so on until government takes everything, and provides everything. First it is security and justice. Then it is rail and roads. Then it is medicine. Then education. Then pensions. Then the auto industry. Then health care. Regulate communications, food, entertainment, sex, marriage, sports...