Ok BBC now maybe you can enlighten me with your knowledge. You said CPF is not recognised by any other countries, does it mean your portion of CPF gets cashed out each month and you pay taxes on it? Other than fellow Americans, do your e.g. Aussie, European or Canadians friends go through the same thing like you? Like I mentioned the "CPF" in the country we work in is not recognized by the US, however I don't see my other expat colleagues face the same problem. They have their portion put into their "CPF" no problem. They are not just from one or two countries, but every country other than the US. Thats what bugs me if you said there is no such unicorn retirement account.The Singapore tax advantages of its retirement funds (CPF, SRS) are not recognized by any other country unless it has a tax treaty that says so, and Singapore has very few tax treaties in the first place. At least the U.S. has several tax treaties that protect U.S. Individual Retirement Accounts from foreign taxation.
Some countries even have global or foreign wealth taxes. The U.S. is not one of them, but at least it has some more tax treaties that help on occasion.
Moreover, Singapore has zero social security treaties at present. Consequently your Singapore work history doesn't count elsewhere, ever. Unless you hit the minimum work history ("vesting") time in a foreign country (which can be as high as 25 years), your (often hefty, still mandatory) social insurance taxes in that country get you exactly nothing for retirement. The U.S. has lots of social security treaties, meaning that your work in any/every treaty country can qualify you for retirement benefits from that country even if you spend as little as a year working there, as long as you hit 10 years inclusive of your U.S. history. And your spouse (and even in some cases ex-spouse) gets retirement benefits too, even if that spouse never worked.
Now this is something new to me. What do you mean?Singapore has zero social security treaties at present. Consequently your Singapore work history doesn't count elsewhere, ever... The U.S. has lots of social security treaties, meaning that your work in any/every treaty country can qualify you for retirement benefits from that country even if you spend as little as a year working there, as long as you hit 10 years inclusive of your U.S. history.
He's talking about the US, not Singapore.The U.S. has lots of social security treaties, meaning that your work in any/every treaty country can qualify you for retirement benefits from that country even if you spend as little as a year working there, as long as you hit 10 years inclusive of your U.S. history.
Live anywhere with an income or wealth tax, and most probably the answer is yes. It might even be worse than that, though. Under some tax codes since CPF contributions were never taxed you might owe income tax on the full value of the withdrawal. Switzerland is probably like that, to pick a random example.ricedoll wrote:You said CPF is not recognised by any other countries, does it mean your portion of CPF gets cashed out each month and you pay taxes on it?
Well, most of them are going to start being asked by their banks FATCA-like questions. Some of them have home country tax advantaged accounts that aren't tax advantaged elsewhere. Some of them are having increasing difficulty declaring nonresidence as their governments and tax authorities increase the "stickiness" of residency. As a matter of fact, I was chatting with a colleague of mine from a European country, and he couldn't separate from that country's tax system because he had a spouse living there. They were legally separated, but that didn't matter. Divorce did not necessarily end the link; it had to be a particular type of divorce. The U.S. tax code has nothing like that that I can think of.Other than fellow Americans, do your e.g. Aussie, European or Canadians friends go through the same thing like you?
We don't: "There is no such thing as a globally tax advantaged account." (Although a U.S. person still typically receives some U.S. tax benefit on CPF contributions thanks to the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion since the employee side contributions would be classified as foreign earned income, up to/within the FEIE limit. So it's still a very good deal.)sundaymorningstaple wrote:BBC & I are at differing viewpoints on this....
What a joke?! Now I will wait and see what you all patriots say.The Canadian movement dovetails with a legal claim filed by Canadian citizens against the Canadian Attorney General that challenges the constitutionality of Canadian government’s FATCA deal with the United States. The Canadian plaintiffs were born in the U.S., but left as young children to live in Canada. They never obtained U.S. passports or developed meaningful ties with the U.S. Even so, the case says, they are considered ‘tax cheats’ because they are not ‘IRS compliant.’
Yes, I am.sundaymorningstaple wrote:Technically you are correct....
Says who? Rich people?but in reality the general understanding is CBT is normally thought to mean "INCOME TAXES" on earnings and/or investments.
Of course it's not. Taxes are taxes. They raise revenues to support government, and they are compulsory. Money is fungible.Your trying to put government mandatory Medical Insurance into the same basket is a red herring.
That's a tax. If the U.S. government called the personal income tax as it applied to U.S. persons living overseas a "membership fee," would it cease to be a tax? (It pays for Medicaid!)It's not CBT at all as it's not a tax but a medical insurance premium which is why it is a payment based on age and not earning, albeit it's mandatory.
Not at all. The only confusing part is that somebody with a fairly well-to-do husband thinks that a tax that only 6% of the highest income citizens overseas owe is tyranny while a tax that hits 90+% of citizens overseas (modest and high income alike) is just fine. I don't know what moral value system that is except pure personal greed or at least opposition to progressive taxation, democratically decided.All you are doing is trying to do is confuse people (or maybe you are confused).
CBT is a term of art -- not mine! -- where the "C" can apply to both citizens and permanent residents. It does for both Singapore and the United States. I share your objection to the term, as it happens, for the same reason (and others), and I wasn't the first person to use the term in this forum. Nonetheless, for better or worse, it's the term people use to summarize the basic nature of Singapore's and the U.S.'s tax systems.Additionally, it's not CBT as it pertains to PRs as well and they are not citizens.
These are sales taxes, levied by state and local governments. They have nothing to do with the federal government.earthfriendly wrote:Bed Bath Beyond does not tax on the single serve Tassimo coffee pods but another grocery store does. Most restaurants tax on takeouts while others don't....
I have no problem with any legally competent adult who decides to terminate any citizenship per its democratically decided termination provisions. (In the case of the U.S. it's a $2350 fee based on the average, fully burdened cost of processing a renunciation or relinquishment -- I can believe the State Department on that point -- and occasionally some Expatriation Tax.) That's anybody's right, and it's an important right.sundaymorningstaple wrote:Good riddance springs to mind.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests