[british_india]

So, the State Department is supposed to maintain a worldwide set of consulates--with no charge to you--just so they can swoop in at your time of need and give you services that you then pay for. Do you think all those State Department resources just come out of pixie dust when you need them? Duh, no. We pay things called taxes to keep that worldwide network of consulates existing and available if you need them.

No, like so many expats, you just want to skate under the radar--gleaning the advantages of that blue passport--while expecting the "little people who pay taxes" in the states to float you.

No, all the expat whiners here can go right ahead and whine. Please renounce your citizenship. Your beef is not with the US Government that maintains this country for you to return to if you so choose based on your citizenship--but with all the prior tax evaders who caused the damned FBAR and then FATCA to exist in the first place. I have not heard a single whining expat here point the finger at the true culprits--the tax evaders who were so egregious that they caused FATCA to be passed with a bi-partisan majority in 2010.

[dalke]

Your anger is uncalled for. There's a trivial solution. As leoedin points out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11071749#up_11072396 :

> The UK embeds the cost of consular protection and embassy services into the renewal cost of a passport - approximately £15 in 2010, probably more now. It's an insurance payment that most people will never use, so it doesn't need to cost very much per person.

I would gladly pay an extra $30 for each passport renewal than pay my accountant $600 every year to tell the US I don't need to pay taxes on my $35K income. That would raise it from $135 to $160.

If you're going to complain that emigrants like me don't point the finger to "true culprits", then I can complain that people like you also never point out the true culprit - a messed up system at the State Department which requires taxpayers who never have and never will travel internationally to subsidize consulates so that emigrants like me can have a backup plan in case war ever comes to Sweden. The more equitable plan is to fund it through a passport fee so only those who may need those services, eg, tourists, business travelers, and yes, emigrants like me, pay for it.

[british_india]

It's amusing that you attempt to marginalize well-reasoned opinions you don't share by labeling their holder as having "anger".

Finally, do you think it costs $30 to maintain a consulate? Just stop your whining: either renounce or pay your taxes.

Finally, in a civilized society, when you encounter laws you don't like--you work to get them changed. Otherwise you're just a childish scofflaw--no different than the bank robber who complains about the laws against robbing banks. "emigrants like me can have a backup plan"--not sure if you meant this as a joke, as it entirely undercuts all your arguments. If you want a backup plan--you gotta pay for it. You could have just as well gone to Somalia as Sweden--so the unlikelihood of war there is not germane to the conversation.

Whiner.

[dalke]

> "do you think it costs $30 to maintain a consulate?"

I'll answer your question by quoting you: "Duh, no."

That's the cost spread across all the citizens with a passport for the extra citizen services which aren't included in the normal fees. There are 15M passports issued every year, so that's $750M each year. How much money do you think is needed?

I say "extra services" because there's no reason a passport fee should include the business promotion services of an embassy. There's no reason a passport fee should include the cost of the treaty negotiations and government-to-government liaison. There's no reason it should include the fees already captured elsewhere, like visa application fees or passport renewal fees. Nor is there a reason that a passport fee should include for paying for espionage done by the embassy.

It's amusing that you attempt to respond to my criticism by not understanding it.

I may be a whiner, but you are a liar if you call me a criminal. I pay $600/year in accounting fees to provide the necessary paperwork to the US to prove I owe them nothing. In addition to the taxes I pay the Swedish government.

Moreover, because I live in Sweden, my income and taxes is public information, so you can verify it for yourself if you think I'm lying.

[rogerbinns]

Amusing rant. Incidentally the personal attacks are highly amusing because I AM NOT AN AMERICAN.

As for the last paragraph, I am subject to FBAR & FATCA. The burden of them falls disproportionately on those who are not egregious tax evaders. It is extremely expensive and time consuming complying with them when you are doing the right thing. The evaders can afford to hide what they should be declaring by virtue of having more money, and having more to gain. Plus they have more loopholes and other ways of obscuring their money thanks to the same legislatures.

There are many ways things could fairer. For example these little people who are spending lots of time and money on filings could have their costs reimbursed. If living in a country with a mutual tax treaty then the exemption limit could be raised (currently $10k across all accounts). Or perhaps fairest of all is requiring all US tax payers to do the same thing - list all their accounts and all balances everywhere including domestic.