[mike_hearn]

The USA charges people it evacuates from war zones, and may or may not do so at all. It is not obligated to do so.

Additionally, if she has dual citizenship, she would get it for free from the UK anyway even if she lives in Spain.

People with British passports also have 90-day visa free access under the Visa waiver program. Unless she intends to move there, there aren't really any benefits to being a US citizen, and certainly nothing that can justify extra-territorial taxation. She gets no services from the US government.

[chrisseaton]

If she's come to the conclusion that she doesn't need any of the services that she gets as a citizen, for the reasons you've given, then why is she still a citizen? Either it's worth it (including any emotional attachment) when you balance it against the cost or it isn't.

But if she chooses to retain her citizenship then she's incurring a potential cost to the US, which surely it's reasonable for her to contribute to.

[mike_hearn]

What costs? If she doesn't live there she imposes no costs on the USA. If she ever returned and started imposing costs, she'd also start paying taxes.

Why is she still a citizen? The article says she's in the process of renouncing. Not done already probably because:

• She might one day need to spend time with family or elderly relatives, even if she'd prefer to stay abroad.

• The USA does not allow you to give up your citizenship for tax reasons. She's probably screwed herself here by talking to the BBC, so I suspect she doesn't know that (edit: wrong, I missed the part in the article where it says Jane is a pseudonym). If they think you relinquished your citizenship to avoid taxes they can simply levy taxes on you anyway.

• Giving up citizenship is itself an expensive process and can trigger an "exit tax" that assumes you liquidated every asset you own on the day of renouncement, including things like a home. This exit tax can itself make giving up US citizenship financially infeasible.

• It costs $2350 and can take months.

In short, the entire US FATCA system is designed to screw over expats as hard as possible. It's very hard to get out and isn't at all justifiable under any moral or ethical code I'm aware of. The only reason the US can enforce it at all is the primacy of New York in the financial system and the incredibly aggressive Congress.

[mike_hearn]

Oh, and I forgot the main one of course - lots of places won't let you become stateless. You need to be a citizen of another country already to give up your US citizenship. And that, in turn, is a very long term and difficult process.

[chrisseaton]

This thread was originally about 'how the hell does the US think it has the right to tax people who haven't lived there for over 30 years?' You or I may disagree with those issues, but those people having rights as a US citizen and access to US consulate services may be why the US thinks it has a right to tax them.

[dalke]

To quote mike_hearn's earlier comment "You say this like other countries don't also offer those services. Almost every western country does, and none of them tax their citizens abroad."

I think your argument is a post hoc justification.

Plus, "access to US consulate services" makes no sense. Many if not most Americans living overseas pay no taxes to the US. The complaint is the hassle and expense of filing the paperwork, and the likelihood or at least worry about exorbitant fines.

Finally, who do you think uses those services more - American tourists and business people, or those who live in the country?

Elsewhere leoedin points out that 'The UK embeds the cost of consular protection and embassy services into the renewal cost of a passport - approximately £15 in 2010'. That sounds like it's more equitable, and it shows that consulate services are not expensive. I pay 20x that amount for my accountant to deal with my US taxes, and would gladly play a flat $100 "I live or travel overseas" fee instead.

[mike_hearn]

It was pointed out elsewhere in this stories discussion that the Citizen Services section of the State Dept is "profitable". So there's no need to levy taxes to pay for embassies. Fees (like the $2000+ fee to renounce) more than covers their costs.

I am still failing to see what rights, if any, they actually get out of this arrangement. The right to vote ... except that the only issue that concerns them is the treatment of expats, and expat votes are spread around all districts meaning they are essentially ignorable. Not worth anything.

[bmelton]

Agreed with everything you said, but it's worth pointing out that Congress doesn't set the expatriation fees, the State Department does, which falls under the executive branch.

Ostensibly, the fees were raised as a reaction to Eduardo Saverin's expatriation for tax avoidance purposes.

Congress is to blame for plenty, but not this.