Why do you say that?ricedoll wrote: My husband is a pilot so very high chance my baby is a Girl. .
Are you sure about that?ricedoll wrote:Give birth in Hong Kong, baby will be automatically HK citizen.
I'm not sure what you mean. There's no requirement that a U.S. president must have been born within U.S. territory. The constitutional requirement is that he/she must be a "natural born" U.S. citizen. In this very election cycle (2016), Republican Senator Ted Cruz is running for his party's presidential nomination. He was born in Canada. He acquired U.S. citizenship at birth from one of his parents per U.S. citizenship law. That's all perfectly fine -- he qualifies.FaeLLe wrote:That way they will be born American and not American by descent which can allow your child to stand for office of the President of the United States....
That has changed somewhat in the past couple of years as well (the details of which I'm not too sure of). Something about US Citizens born overseas is dependent on the US citizen parents having lived for minimum of 5~10 years within the US. Therefore, someone who gained US citizenship by virtue of being a child of a citizen born in the US, but has never lived in the US, may have a child but it that child might not be able to claim US citizenship by acquisition. As noted, I've not gone into depth on this but I do know there are changes to the US citizen born abroad category.SMS, I think those particular bridges are already crossed in this case, if I understand correctly. Birth in the United States is not a requirement for being born a U.S. citizen. Many U.S. citizens are born overseas.
To the extent anybody is still having problems, the OECD is now making sure that everybody from developed economies has the same problems. Countries are now starting to adopt the OECD bank reporting standards which in some ways are even more rigorous than the FATCA standards.sundaymorningstaple wrote:I haven't, but others on here have.
Well OK, but the legal status isn't actually a choice. U.S. citizenship either is or is not a legal, endowed fact at birth. This isn't a choice babies and their parents have.Obviously we aren't talking about 28% tax brackets when born, but the law is the law and will be there when they are of 'age'.
No, it's at least three. Hungary is another one, and Hungary doesn't even have a Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. There are also some countries, like Japan, that are "tax sticky," meaning that in certain circumstances it can be very difficult for its citizens to escape tax liabilities. In the case of Japan, gift and inheritance tax requirements remain in place for a full five years since the last departure from Japan.Stop to consider that only two countries in the world do that, and most don't even know about the other country so it really doesn't make much difference to them (Eritrea - and it's called a diaspora tax I believe).
You seriously wrote that in the same sentence and didn't see the contradiction? You get nothing from the United States...except a nice monthly check for the rest of your life, and the life of your surviving spouse (who is also eligible for a spousal benefit even while you're alive when she/he reaches retirement age)? A spouse who may never have even stepped foot in the United States?I've been filing two tax returns for 33 years, for what? I get nothing from the US, and now that I'm of an age to collect Social Security....
First of all, a minimum of 15% of your Social Security benefits are never U.S. taxed. Second, if you're concerned about the remaining taxability of Social Security benefits, you and your spouse should consider Married Filing Jointly. Assuming she is a non-resident alien spouse, she would make what's called a Section 6013(g) election and start filing joint tax returns with you. MFJ is a choice, and it's a dramatically better one in terms of Social Security taxability compared to Married Filing Separately. But whether the net effect for your household is better or not will depend on her income....they've now made THAT taxable as well even though it was NEVER to be taxable when it was created.
Why not? If you're entitled to it, you should. (Unless you're waiting until you reach or get closer to age 70 in order to boost your monthly benefit because you're in good health, expect to stay that way and beat the actuarial tables, and don't need the money yet. Then that's a very good idea to wait. But you should never wait longer than age 70 since the benefit doesn't increase beyond that.)I've not started drawing SS yet even though I'm eligible.
OK, that's bad question just on principle. Do you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet "get back" all their U.S. tax dollars? No, of course not. Do you think most U.S. orphans with severe learning and physical disabilities will ever be able to pay taxes equal to the government services such orphans will require for their entire lives? No, of course not.What do I get in return for my tax dollars?
....OK, good question! Fortunately you can change that if you don't like the particular package citizenship deal of rights, privileges, and obligations that you got/have. (Unlike Iranian citizenship, to pick an example, which is extremely difficult or impossible to shake off.) Nobody is forcing you to retain U.S. citizenship if you possess any other citizenship. (The U.S. won't let you become stateless if they can help it, rightly so.) Your choice, your call. Officers are standing by at 27 Napier Road, and they accept all major credit cards.Why am I still a citizen?
Oh? Why is that?Today, I'm not so sure and it's too late to change nationalities now as I'm 68....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests