Saturday, June 30, 2012

Expatriate? Ex-patriot?

(Originally posted at Moved here on March 31, 2017 because it fits better here. 

And I note now that there were serious ex-post-facto issues with the bill. Too bad the ex-post-facto clause of the Constitution now seems to have been nullified by ignorance.)

Sometime last month, the news about some famous big shareholder of some famous US company that was going public and expected its stocks to shoot through the roof (silly boys) was supposedly going to become a Shanghai resident and declare himself no longer a US citizen, etc., to avoid the huge tax burden such a sudden over-valuation would hit him with. Supposedly.

Silly boys, indeed. Well, the tax burden did not materialize.

Not to say that I would have blamed the guy. The US IRS is out of control.

But that's not what he did. He was simply asserting his original Brazilian citizenship. And he paid his US taxes, as well. On time. Well before the knee-jerk legislative reaction to rumours got started.

But some US Congresscritter got his shirt wrinkled or something and decided to sponsor a bill to force people like that to remain subject to US tax laws, and banned from entry into the US.

This is beyond silliness.

And, as I understand it, he called the stupid bill the "Expatriate Act" until someone explained to him the real meaning of "expatriate". (Maybe I'm wrong about that, but the term "expatriate" in the backronym title seems inappropriate to an expatriate who wishes he had been making enough money to pay US taxes all these years of living outside his homeland.)

Calling it the "Ex-Patriot Act" does not really fix the glaring goof in terminology. And it does nothing to fix the other issues with the Constitution. (Bills of attainder, anyone?)

Anyone who even voiced support of this bill really should check their understanding of Constitutional law. I'd go so far as to echo certain who questioned the Congressional qualifications of Congresspersons who supported it.

No comments: