The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Mustachianism Around the Web => Topic started by: Cookie78 on July 29, 2015, 10:13:37 PM
-
https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/living-in-switzerland-ruined-me-for-america-and-its-lousy-work-culture/
I wish we had the part time work with benefits, etc. option more available here. I'd do 50% starting tomorrow.
-
Wow, it sounds like paradise. I'd also go for 50% in a heartbeat.
-
Yeah.. I nearly got a job in Stockholm recently, quite a similar work culture and freaking EVERYONE bikes. I would have gone in a heartbeat :/
-
So the whole article is basically someone making a million piss-poor choices and then blaming them on America instead of taking the responsibility herself.
Oh, you work seven days a week with unpaid overtime for $30,000? Your commute is long and you have to own a car? That's okay, it's not your fault. It's America's fault.
-
Careful what you wish for -
I work in USA for a large Scandinavian company; extremely international, 22k employees scattered around the globe.
First world ex-US countries largely mandate the work hours, benefits, etc. It can sound good on the surface but the mandates reduce flexibility for both employee & employers. For instance, my co-workers in Sweden want more OT, have client demand for more OT, but the government mandates OT maximums (laughably low maximums).
End result is that it is very difficult to find a full-time job with benefits. Look up unemployment rates (especially for the key 20-35 demographic). It's scary.
The American system allows for a lot more flexibility. We at least have the option to negotiate for more vaca, we have the option to work as a contractor from home, etc.
Don't be too quick to give up the freedom we currently have for the promises of benevolent central control. That's the antithesis of Mustachianism, no? ;)
-
Careful what you wish for -
I work in USA for a large Scandinavian company; extremely international, 22k employees scattered around the globe.
First world ex-US countries largely mandate the work hours, benefits, etc. It can sound good on the surface but the mandates reduce flexibility for both employee & employers. For instance, my co-workers in Sweden want more OT, have client demand for more OT, but the government mandates OT maximums (laughably low maximums).
End result is that it is very difficult to find a full-time job with benefits. Look up unemployment rates (especially for the key 20-35 demographic). It's scary.
The American system allows for a lot more flexibility. We at least have the option to negotiate for more vaca, we have the option to work as a contractor from home, etc.
Don't be too quick to give up the freedom we currently have for the promises of benevolent central control. That's the antithesis of Mustachianism, no? ;)
All great points, and I thank you for sharing your perspective.
It's the flexibility that I long for, but I (in Canada, but I hear it's similar in the US) don't really have the option of working part time for the same hourly rate. At least not in my current company/field. It's true you can try to negotiate and if you work towards it you can eventually find the right fit for yourself, when you have the experience and FU abilities to do so. I just like the idea of it being much more accepted to work part time at the same rate and benefits off the start rather than having to fight for it.
It's interesting that restricting OT reduces the number of full time jobs with benefits in Sweden. Shouldn't it have the opposite effect?
-
It's interesting that restricting OT reduces the number of full time jobs with benefits in Sweden. Shouldn't it have the opposite effect?
This very much a chicken and egg question that is very entrenched in political views.
Intuitively you are correct, however that assumes it goes from A to B....it really needs to go from A to B to C to D.
See, hiring a FT employee is enormous expense, headache, and porductivity drag for some time so businesses only want to do this when they absolutely need to (i.e. when there is sufficient revenue that supports it). It becomes even more of concern in certain governmental jurisdictions that have extremely employee friendly labor laws (typically liberal or socialist) that can make it very hard and expensive to terminate or layoff employees.
So the "B"and "C" of the journey is to have people work overtime (and possibly) hire part timers until the revenue level is sustainable and supports more full time workers and/or the existing employees become to worked and start exploring other options.
So that is how restricting OT limits new jobs.
-
It's interesting that restricting OT reduces the number of full time jobs with benefits in Sweden. Shouldn't it have the opposite effect?
Simplest way to think about it is you made each full time position more expensive. Whereas an American company could just pay overtime, a company with restricted overtime would have to incur all the overhead associated with another employee (which can be huge in big companies, mind you). The result is that the marginal value of the extra work is more than the overtime cost (i.e. profitable) but less than the cost of another full time employee. The solution is just hire more temp workers who don't have all the benefits, and thus overhead.
It's the same reason you see high unemployment or temp employment of young women in countries who have long mandated paid maternity leave. The law effectively makes those women more expensive to employ (statistically on average, not necessarily for each individual). I'm not commenting on whether the laws are right or wrong, but people do seem to forget about the reaction part of the action-reaction dynamic in all sorts of legislation (best example is war on drugs or prohibition).
I've met quite a few people who have gotten part time hours with full time benefits at giant corporations in America. The best way to do it is be a highly valued employee, and then be willing to push for what you want. It's hard to do if you are very young and inexperienced, but I imagine that's been the case for all of human history. Generally we want people to prove themselves rather than take them at face value. Look at this blog, MMM started it after he had proved himself. Not before. None of us would be reading this if it were an 18 year old talking hypothetically with 10 more years of work in front of him.
-
And remember that in America most workers are exempt from overtime - why hire another programmer/manager/engineer when you can just make the first one work evenings and weekends.
-
End result is that it is very difficult to find a full-time job with benefits. Look up unemployment rates (especially for the key 20-35 demographic). It's scary.
How is that scary? Youth unemployment rates in the 3 Scandinavian countries (Source: OECD Q1 2015):
Stats for youth under 25
Norway : 9.0%
Denmark: 11.5%
Sweden: 22.3%
For comparison:
USA: 12.6%
Switzerland: 6.3%
Stats for adults 25-54
Norway : 3.8%
Denmark: 5.8%
Sweden: 6.0%
For comparison:
USA: 4.6%
Switzerland: 4.1%
So really what you mean by Scandinavian countries is Sweden and only for the very young.
-
my work place allows you to go to limited full time i can go to 3 or 4 day weeks and still get full benefits. now with that being said it is frowned upon by most of my coworkers, even myself, b/c i have 2 people on my project team that dont work friday's. really hard to get things done.
My wife's company gives them 4 weeks PTO starting and after 5 years they up that to 5 and after 10 years they get 6.
I know neither of these are the norm here. And people make you feel bad for taking vacation as well as if you limit your work schedule.
I plan to go to 4 day weeks on the birth of our first child. and drop to 3 day weeks 2-3 years after b/c we'll just be setup for it thru crazy saving rates since i found MMM. I'll either take monday's or friday's off and my wife will do the opposite.
-
It appears the writer likes to complain a lot about choices she made, and then blames America for it.
But the thing I just don't understand, is this right here -
Weekends in Switzerland encourage leisure time, too. On Sundays, you can’t even shop — most stores are closed. You are semi-required to hike in the Alps with your family. It’s just what you do.
why would you be happy that you don't have the choice to go shopping on a Sunday? I mean, if you want to go hike in the Alps, having the stores open won't prevent you from doing so...
Also, American work culture is not bad. I came here from another country too, and while I think it can improve, I don't think its as bad as they make it out to be.
-
It appears the writer likes to complain a lot about choices she made, and then blames America for it.
But the thing I just don't understand, is this right here -
Weekends in Switzerland encourage leisure time, too. On Sundays, you can’t even shop — most stores are closed. You are semi-required to hike in the Alps with your family. It’s just what you do.
why would you be happy that you don't have the choice to go shopping on a Sunday? I mean, if you want to go hike in the Alps, having the stores open won't prevent you from doing so...
Also, American work culture is not bad. I came here from another country too, and while I think it can improve, I don't think its as bad as they make it out to be.
"why would you be happy that you don't have the choice to go shopping on a Sunday? " - maybe you could be happy for the people who do not need to work in those stores on Sunday and can go hike in the alps
-
It appears the writer likes to complain a lot about choices she made, and then blames America for it.
But the thing I just don't understand, is this right here -
Weekends in Switzerland encourage leisure time, too. On Sundays, you can’t even shop — most stores are closed. You are semi-required to hike in the Alps with your family. It’s just what you do.
why would you be happy that you don't have the choice to go shopping on a Sunday? I mean, if you want to go hike in the Alps, having the stores open won't prevent you from doing so...
Also, American work culture is not bad. I came here from another country too, and while I think it can improve, I don't think its as bad as they make it out to be.
"why would you be happy that you don't have the choice to go shopping on a Sunday? " - maybe you could be happy for the people who do not need to work in those stores on Sunday and can go hike in the alps
No offense, but I don't think you thought this through. No one forcing workers. Those that want to work on a Sunday and make extra money can do it. Those that don't want, don't have to.
-
No offense, but I don't think you thought this through. No one forcing workers. Those that want to work on a Sunday and make extra money can do it. Those that don't want, don't have to.
That doesn't seem to be what happens in the US.
You get a job. The boss says "and now you work Sunday". So your "don't have to" entails quitting. That isn't really an "option" in a market where jobs are scarce.
Sure, no one is forcing ANYONE to work. But generally, if you want to eat and pay your rent, you have to.
Yes, not having shops open on Sundays limits the choices of those who wanted to shop; but it allows leisure time for everyone; not just those in non-retail jobs.
And remember that in America most workers are exempt from overtime - why hire another programmer/manager/engineer when you can just make the first one work evenings and weekends.
Yep. The concept of overtime doesn't exist in many positions. Sure would be nice to be paid for evenings and weekends.
-
End result is that it is very difficult to find a full-time job with benefits. Look up unemployment rates (especially for the key 20-35 demographic). It's scary.
How is that scary? Youth unemployment rates in the 3 Scandinavian countries (Source: OECD Q1 2015):
Stats for youth under 25
Norway : 9.0%
Denmark: 11.5%
Sweden: 22.3%
For comparison:
USA: 12.6%
Switzerland: 6.3%
Stats for adults 25-54
Norway : 3.8%
Denmark: 5.8%
Sweden: 6.0%
For comparison:
USA: 4.6%
Switzerland: 4.1%
So really what you mean by Scandinavian countries is Sweden and only for the very young.
Thanks for that --- I wonder if the Scandinavian country numbers are the U3 or U6 numbers.
In June 2015, the real unemployment rate (U-6) was 10.5%, nearly double the widely-reported unemployment rate (U-3) of 5.3%. Here's how to calculate both:
Step 1. Calculate the official unemployment rate:
U-3 = 8.299 million unemployed workers / 157.037 million in the labor force = 5.3%.
Step 2. Add in marginally attached workers: There were 1.914 million people who were marginally attached to the labor force. Add this to both the number of unemployed and the labor force.
U-5 = 10.213 million / 158.951 million = 6.4%.
Step 3. Add in part-time workers: There were 6.505 million people who were working part-time because they couldn't get full-time work, although they'd prefer it. Add them to the unemployed, they're already in the labor force.
U-6 = 16.718 million / 158.951 million = 10.5%. (Source: BLS, Table A-15)
Course this doesn't account for the long term discouraged, those that have opted out entirely and the now huge percentage of disabled/abled folks. Don't have a clue on how Scandinavian countries account for unemployment?
The sad thing about the US economy now is that many people with low skills are forced to work 2 to 3 jobs with under 20 hours per week in each job. Terrible trajectory for the US.
-
Comparing Switzerland or the Nordic countries to US averages on these types of metrics is pretty ridiculous. The countries are so different in so many different ways (not policy related) to make these comparisons useless.
The US is still a largely rural country with a ton of agriculture. Heck, most of the western US isn't even inhabitable. When you're averaging earnings between New York City and rural Mississippi, you get a different answer than you would averaging earnings between Zurich and Bern. It's the same with measuring unemployment.
Switzerland is a bit of an anomaly. They're a small landlocked country that has leveraged their currency, tax and privacy laws, and a few large international firms to create a very large GDP/person ratio. This isn't exactly something that the US could mimic. Of course, there are plenty of advantages the US has that the Swiss can't mimic either.
The nordic countries are also a ridiculous comparison. These countries have mostly leveraged massive oil wealth against a small population to create a world-class social welfare system. It clearly works for them, but it's obviously something that's not repeatable the world-over.
I just don't think these comparisons of "better" are useful in terms of idealizing public policy. There are policies that clearly work in Europe that don't work in the US. And there are policies that work in the US that don't work there. And that's okay.
-
The nordic countries are also a ridiculous comparison. These countries have mostly leveraged massive oil wealth against a small population to create a world-class social welfare system.
Only Norway has oil. Sweden, Denmark and Finland, if you count that) have NO oil income.
-
The nordic countries are also a ridiculous comparison. These countries have mostly leveraged massive oil wealth against a small population to create a world-class social welfare system.
Only Norway has oil. Sweden, Denmark and Finland, if you count that) have NO oil income.
I admittedly don't care enough to do a ton of research or get into a pointless internet debate about it, but a quick google search shows plenty of oil production for each of those countries. I am aware that one or more of these countries has made some moves to tax oil companies instead of taxing the oil coming directly out of the ground. Maybe that's what you're referring to?
Regardless, my point still stands that what works in northern Europe does not translate well to different geographies. Just look to the financial disasters occurring in Southern Europe.
-
As an ex ex-pat I always laugh at these posts. "this is what it was like for me so it must be like this for everyone." Americans love to point to "europe" as some sort of paradise, as one post above mentioned. There are pros and cons to everything.
In France I taught english for 20 hours a week and got paid well. This is not normal for people there and I recognize that. I sure as hell won't make a blog post about how great everything i there because I happened to find a cushy job. There are so many misconceptions that americans have about various countries in europe, and the way some people talk you would think "europe" is one big country with the same rules and laws for all. Haha.
-
Ugh, and reading the comments reinforces my thoughts even more.
-
I admittedly don't care enough to do a ton of research or get into a pointless internet debate about it, but a quick google search shows plenty of oil production for each of those countries. I am aware that one or more of these countries has made some moves to tax oil companies instead of taxing the oil coming directly out of the ground. Maybe that's what you're referring to?
To be honest, I was wrong. Denmark has oil too. My bad. By "having oil" I mean actually having oil & gas fields within their borders (territorial waters in this case). Sweden and Finland have none. There are however companies in the oil industry in e.g. Sweden, but it is either with all operations overseas or later parts of the process (refining etc). It comes down to definitions I guess.
Furthermore, I fold. While I have opinions that differ in some aspects, neither do I really care about the discussion enough to do the research. The "no oil" reaction was a knee jerk reaction we're not all norwegian. ;)
-
I admittedly don't care enough to do a ton of research or get into a pointless internet debate about it, but a quick google search shows plenty of oil production for each of those countries. I am aware that one or more of these countries has made some moves to tax oil companies instead of taxing the oil coming directly out of the ground. Maybe that's what you're referring to?
To be honest, I was wrong. Denmark has oil too. My bad. By "having oil" I mean actually having oil & gas fields within their borders (territorial waters in this case). Sweden and Finland have none. There are however companies in the oil industry in e.g. Sweden, but it is either with all operations overseas or later parts of the process (refining etc). It comes down to definitions I guess.
Furthermore, I fold. While I have opinions that differ in some aspects, neither do I really care about the discussion enough to do the research. The "no oil" reaction was a knee jerk reaction we're not all norwegian. ;)
Fair enough. It's refreshing to see that we can both be happy without trying to prove ourselves in internet argument.
-
I'm curious how hard or easy it is to achieve FIRE in some of these countries with generous benefits. It seems to me like they may get these benefits, but it is much harder to have a higher savings rate in those countries and as such you are then stuck working until the government deems it is retirement age and you are also stuck living in that country to continue receiving the benefits.
It does sound like a more healthy way of living though. Insane work hours in the US, whether self-imposed or required by most jobs, can be quite draining to health and family life.
-
My wife is french. In france she was paid about 35K euros and often found herself working 10-12 hour days, including an epic night until midnight. She was never paid for that overtime. Here in the US she is paid $75k and works significantly less and only has to go to the office 2 days a week, works from home otherwise. In France our sundays were often spent filling out crazy amounts of paperwork required by the government, not hiking in the alps. Maybe I should write a blog post about why the US ruined france for her?
The flip side of things not being open on weekends means that you can never get things you need done without taking time off. Need to go to the bank? Take a day or afternoon off work....
Also suck when you are bike touring and roll into town with no food and the only grocery store is closed. In rural areas they close from 11:30am to 2:30 pm and close again at 6pm. Even though when I toured there I was always in civilization, I carried at least 2 days worth of food in case I could not get to an open store.
-
I'm curious how hard or easy it is to achieve FIRE in some of these countries with generous benefits. It seems to me like they may get these benefits, but it is much harder to have a higher savings rate in those countries
Speaking for Sweden:
True, in general the salaries are lower than in the US, even pre-tax, and then the taxes take their share. COL varies, but its probably not generally lower than in the US. It's not impossible to FIRE using a regular job, but it I think it's harder than in the US.
The average salary for a doctor in Sweden seems to be 70k USD / year pre-tax and 48k USD after taxes.
(the total tax rate between the cost for the employer and what the doctor gets post-tax will be around 48%. )
(for any swedes reading, I found the salary on http://www.lonestatistik.se/loner.asp/yrke/Lakare-1234 and I calculated with "arbetsgivaravgift" of 31,42% on top of the salary and took the total tax from jobbskatteavdrag.se with default settings).
and as such you are then stuck working until the government deems it is retirement age and you are also stuck living in that country to continue receiving the benefits.
Speaking for Sweden:
You can get your pension whereever you move. Thailand is very popular these days for retirees.
If you stay within the EU, you also in general have the almost-free public healthcare too. There's a large swedish diaspora in Spain. And if you move outside and keep your citizenship, you can move back once you need the healthcare.
-
That doesn't seem to be what happens in the US.
You get a job. The boss says "and now you work Sunday". So your "don't have to" entails quitting. That isn't really an "option" in a market where jobs are scarce.
Or one could go work for an employer like Chick-Fil-A that is closed on Sundays. I am just saying that there are options.
Also, if one works on a Sunday, they may be off on a Monday, which may very well be more convenient, because if you need to run some errands, go to the DMV, etc., its a lot easier on a weekday, and they don't have to take time off.
Look, the point is this - choices are better. You may say that there are less choices because people need to work for money, but that's real life. I come from a country where if people didn't work, they don't get to eat. That is by no means the case in the US, and as long people don't get lazy and entitled, this country will be fine.
-
Comparing Switzerland or the Nordic countries to US averages on these types of metrics is pretty ridiculous. The countries are so different in so many different ways (not policy related) to make these comparisons useless.
The US is still a largely rural country with a ton of agriculture. Heck, most of the western US isn't even inhabitable. When you're averaging earnings between New York City and rural Mississippi, you get a different answer than you would averaging earnings between Zurich and Bern. It's the same with measuring unemployment.
Switzerland is a bit of an anomaly. They're a small landlocked country that has leveraged their currency, tax and privacy laws, and a few large international firms to create a very large GDP/person ratio. This isn't exactly something that the US could mimic. Of course, there are plenty of advantages the US has that the Swiss can't mimic either.
The nordic countries are also a ridiculous comparison. These countries have mostly leveraged massive oil wealth against a small population to create a world-class social welfare system. It clearly works for them, but it's obviously something that's not repeatable the world-over.
I just don't think these comparisons of "better" are useful in terms of idealizing public policy. There are policies that clearly work in Europe that don't work in the US. And there are policies that work in the US that don't work there. And that's okay.
I think one has to be careful not to confuse politically motivated policies with policies derived from externalities like geography, wealth, etc.
It's true that Switzerland has a very wealthy, stable and homogenous population compared to the US, but there are still policies that they have adopted that could absolutely be migrated to the States, and are not for no reason other than politics. The concept of a wealth tax for instance - supplemental to an income tax, which is mentioned in the article - would do a lot to redress the issues of income inequality in the US.
Better treatment of working women through mandated maternity leave, a better safety net for healthcare, and so on... there's nothing innate to the geography of the US that prevents any of these measures from being implemented.
-
Thanks for that --- I wonder if the Scandinavian country numbers are the U3 or U6 numbers.
This would be U3. I assume that I can find U6 in their equivalent to BLS website but it would require a decent amount of digging and google translate.
The sad thing about the US economy now is that many people with low skills are forced to work 2 to 3 jobs with under 20 hours per week in each job. Terrible trajectory for the US.
Unfortunately, it is the same in most developed countries that I have seen.
-
I appreciated that this was one of the few (only?) 'I lived abroad and loved it' articles that mentions paying taxes to two countries. Americans are the only people in the world that have tp pay tax to the homeland as well as the country of residence. Despite all the tax treaties in the world, this makes double taxation inevitable, which is why Americans can't live for long periods overseas. It is sad to have this restriction as a us citizen.
-
I appreciated that this was one of the few (only?) 'I lived abroad and loved it' articles that mentions paying taxes to two countries. Americans are the only people in the world that have tp pay tax to the homeland as well as the country of residence. Despite all the tax treaties in the world, this makes double taxation inevitable, which is why Americans can't live for long periods overseas. It is sad to have this restriction as a us citizen.
Not true, look up foreign tax credit. Usually if you pay more in the country you live in than the tax you would pay in the US (typical in Europe) then you will not have to pay tax in the US. Now, if you are in a country with little/no taxation then yes, you will pay US taxes.
-
Americans can't live for long periods overseas
Sure they can! I'm moving overseas on Monday and don't know if I'll ever come back. Just like health insurance or having a will, paying taxes requires me to take time to educate myself and then work to keep records and stay on top of my obligations, but it's nowhere near as bad as a blanket "can't"!
Pew pew pew (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/).
-
Where are you moving?
-
@zoltani, @grantmeaname, I appreciate your optimism and yes, with the right attitude, anything is possible. I am not talking about people living for a few years overseas, though, I am talking loooong term. You will find that us citizens are barred from purchasing mutual funds from int'l companies because the offering institutions don't want the regulatory hassle of reporting to uncle sam. Good for you if you have your investments in place in the us, because brokerage firms (even vanguard) won't open new acccounts for people with a foreign address. And the tax-free retirement accounts you may be required to pay into in your country of residence WILL be taxed when you receive them-- by the u.s.a. And woe betide the american who falls in love, stays and has children with a person of another nationality... They will have an OMG moment when they realize they've passed on to their children the duty to pay US taxes for the rest of their childrens' lives... Even though the kids have never lived in the us and may not even speak English all that well ( good luck filling out that 1040, junior!).
-
Where are you moving?
London!
-
Well, I was speaking from experience, but I did not have a ton of US investments at the time.
-
@zoltani, @grantmeaname, I appreciate your optimism and yes, with the right attitude, anything is possible. I am not talking about people living for a few years overseas, though, I am talking loooong term.
As am I.
You will find that us citizens are barred from purchasing mutual funds from int'l companies because the offering institutions don't want the regulatory hassle of reporting to uncle sam. Good for you if you have your investments in place in the us, because brokerage firms (even vanguard) won't open new acccounts for people with a foreign address. And the tax-free retirement accounts you may be required to pay into in your country of residence WILL be taxed when you receive them-- by the u.s.a. And woe betide the american who falls in love, stays and has children with a person of another nationality... They will have an OMG moment when they realize they've passed on to their children the duty to pay US taxes for the rest of their childrens' lives... Even though the kids have never lived in the us and may not even speak English all that well ( good luck filling out that 1040, junior!).
It's not good to assume that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is arguing from a place of ignorance. My day job revolves around the US taxation of foreign financial institutions and accounts. If you'd like to head over here (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/taxes/help-me-understand-british-tax-advantaged-retirement-accounts/) to chat about the actual tax consequences I'm happy to meet you there, but it seems to me that you're more listing these things as examples of doom and gloom than really interested in the practicality of living abroad as a US citizen.
-
@givemeaname, ? These are the practicalities of living overseas long-term. Your non us spouse and kids WILL be affected by your us status in their investment and banking choices. Nothing more practical than that.
-
OK, how do you plan to keep on stashing for retirement when you are in Merrie Olde England? If you have it on another thread, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it.
-
People from other countries who live in the US only pay US taxes on US earned income, nothing to their homelands. Why doesn't that work both ways?
.......
Believe me, I know all about the FEIE. But even filing is a hassle. Esp. If you are a non-native speaker, have never lived in the US, and don't keep up with US tax law.
-
People from other countries who live in the US only pay US taxes on US earned income, nothing to their homelands. Why doesn't that work both ways?
.......
Believe me, I know all about the FEIE. But even filing is a hassle. Esp. If you are a non-native speaker, have never lived in the US, and don't keep up with US tax law.
"People from other countries who live in the US only pay US taxes on US earned income"
AND any income earned outside the US - just in case people were thinking otherwise;)
-
I have a hard time believing that children born of US citizens while they are abroad have to pay US taxes the rest of their life. Do you think they automatically become citizens when they are born to you, even while living in another country?
-
@zoltani: yes
------
If you were born overseas to a US Citizen who was raised in the USA, YOU are a US citizen and must file yearly US taxes and F-BARs even if
- you don't know you are a US citizen (penalties will apply for not filing)
- you didn't choose to be a US citizen
- you have never even visited the United States.
You are 'free' to renounce US citizenship if you
- file five years of back taxes
- pay an 'exit tax'
- pay a renunciation fee of $2350 (I believe this is the highest in the world- most countries don't charge)
- are prepared to face punitive measures for renunciators, like never ever being allowed to visit the USA, even as a tourist (this has been proposed in some state senates)
-
I have a hard time believing that children born of US citizens while they are abroad have to pay US taxes the rest of their life. Do you think they automatically become citizens when they are born to you, even while living in another country?
And since the USA now has very tough reporting requirements on financial institutions - often foreign banks won't let US citizens open accounts.
There were a rash of stories of US citizens that had lived in the UK for years or were married to locals suddenly having their mortgages and bank accounts cancelled and having to move everything into their spouses names.
-
How often is often? Source?
Never had that problem, I opened bank account.
-
@givemeaname, ? These are the practicalities of living overseas long-term. Your non us spouse and kids WILL be affected by your us status in their investment and banking choices. Nothing more practical than that.
My wife is a naturalized US citizen so clearly she decided all of the good outweighed the fact that she'll have to pay taxes. And again, this is my day job so you don't need to lecture me.
OK, how do you plan to keep on stashing for retirement when you are in Merrie Olde England? If you have it on another thread, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it.
I already did but maybe a second time (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/taxes/help-me-understand-british-tax-advantaged-retirement-accounts/) would be helpful.
People from other countries who live in the US only pay US taxes on US earned income, nothing to their homelands. Why doesn't that work both ways?
.......
Believe me, I know all about the FEIE. But even filing is a hassle. Esp. If you are a non-native speaker, have never lived in the US, and don't keep up with US tax law.
Yes, it sucks. If I were the despot of the United States I would change it today. But when something bad happens in life, you can either log on to the MMM forums and piss and moan, or you can educate yourself to minimize its impact, then go and do the things that make you happy anyway. Moving overseas is an exceptional opportunity and if you want to believe that it can't be done, as you originally asserted, that's your prerogative. But I'm just going to go do it, and deal with a hassle once a year, rather than stay home because it's impossible difficult a hassle.
-
And since the USA now has very tough reporting requirements on financial institutions - often foreign banks won't let US citizens open accounts.
There were a rash of stories of US citizens that had lived in the UK for years or were married to locals suddenly having their mortgages and bank accounts cancelled and having to move everything into their spouses names.
I'm with Zoltani. I think the hype about the damage FATCA has done to expats is much greater than the actual damage FATCA has done to expats. And the reporting requirements really aren't that bad. I'm not a multinational financial institution with trillions of assets and it still took me less than a week to understand FATCA forward and backward. I'm not saying that your anecdote never happened - I'm saying this is the standard canned response every time the expat life comes up, and it seems to me you're overstating the severity.
-
True - it's probably mostly silly season reporting in the UK.
But our local credit union, here in a small village in Canada, has asked us to take the American on the board off the account for a small local charity because they don't have the resources to deal with any issues - or their lawyers/insurance/parent organisation has told them to worry.
-
@givemeaname, ? These are the practicalities of living overseas long-term. Your non us spouse and kids WILL be affected by your us status in their investment and banking choices. Nothing more practical than that.
My wife is a naturalized US citizen so clearly she decided all of the good outweighed the fact that she'll have to pay taxes. And again, this is my day job so you don't need to lecture me.
OK, how do you plan to keep on stashing for retirement when you are in Merrie Olde England? If you have it on another thread, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it.
I already did but maybe a second time (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/taxes/help-me-understand-british-tax-advantaged-retirement-accounts/) would be helpful.
People from other countries who live in the US only pay US taxes on US earned income, nothing to their homelands. Why doesn't that work both ways?
.......
Believe me, I know all about the FEIE. But even filing is a hassle. Esp. If you are a non-native speaker, have never lived in the US, and don't keep up with US tax law.
Yes, it sucks. If I were the despot of the United States I would change it today. But when something bad happens in life, you can either log on to the MMM forums and piss and moan, or you can educate yourself to minimize its impact, then go and do the things that make you happy anyway. Moving overseas is an exceptional opportunity and if you want to believe that it can't be done, as you originally asserted, that's your prerogative. But I'm just going to go do it, and deal with a hassle once a year, rather than stay home because it's impossible difficult a hassle.
Why do you consider moving to the UK a better opportunity than the USA?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
@givemeaname, ? These are the practicalities of living overseas long-term. Your non us spouse and kids WILL be affected by your us status in their investment and banking choices. Nothing more practical than that.
My wife is a naturalized US citizen so clearly she decided all of the good outweighed the fact that she'll have to pay taxes. And again, this is my day job so you don't need to lecture me.
OK, how do you plan to keep on stashing for retirement when you are in Merrie Olde England? If you have it on another thread, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it.
I already did but maybe a second time (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/taxes/help-me-understand-british-tax-advantaged-retirement-accounts/) would be helpful.
People from other countries who live in the US only pay US taxes on US earned income, nothing to their homelands. Why doesn't that work both ways?
.......
Believe me, I know all about the FEIE. But even filing is a hassle. Esp. If you are a non-native speaker, have never lived in the US, and don't keep up with US tax law.
Yes, it sucks. If I were the despot of the United States I would change it today. But when something bad happens in life, you can either log on to the MMM forums and piss and moan, or you can educate yourself to minimize its impact, then go and do the things that make you happy anyway. Moving overseas is an exceptional opportunity and if you want to believe that it can't be done, as you originally asserted, that's your prerogative. But I'm just going to go do it, and deal with a hassle once a year, rather than stay home because it's impossible difficult a hassle.
Why do you consider moving to the UK a better opportunity than the USA?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I didn't read it that way. The way I read it moving to another country is an opportunity, not that opportunities are better than in the US. I'd have to agree with grant, if you have the chance to move to another country then take it. My time living abroad was great, but it also made me realize that for the long term I preferred being in the US, YMMV.
-
[quote author=grantmeaname
I didn't read it that way. The way I read it moving to another country is an opportunity, not that opportunities are better than in the US. I'd have to agree with grant, if you have the chance to move to another country then take it. My time living abroad was great, but it also made me realize that for the long term I preferred being in the US, YMMV.
Yeah, I mean I'm actually asking because I have dual UK/US citizenship and I'm currently applying for jobs to go to the States but obviously the UK is also an option for us and I've been considering it as another option. But no question the job opportunities are stronger in America just through sheer volume of numbers - there's probably 20 U.S. Jobs in my field for each job in England.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Why do you consider moving to the UK a better opportunity than the USA?
Because I enjoyed living in London last time I tried it and someone is offering me crazy fistfuls of dollars to do so.