Why expat Americans are giving up their passports - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/35383435 <comment><USER2> I am an American living in Prague and will be among those to give up their citizenship. The new FBAR requirements and the recently pushed through changes that require foreign banks to report are really a huge burden. It is a significant legal risk to be an American overseas. The fines are insane for failiure to report, even if you owe no taxes! You can easilly land yourself with a $20 000 - $80 000 fine for having a hundred bucks in the bank and no income. Indeed, it's not just double taxation, it's tripple taxation, because I have to have a special bank acount that is for Americans, and the fees for the "American expat" bank account are much higher than the ones for a normal bank account.

But I think that it is wrong to present this as a taxation issue. I would be fine with paying a percentage of my income in taxes. There are some benefits to being a US citizen, like that the army will rescue you if there is a civil war ;). But the fear uncertainty and doubt that surrounds these new regulations makes it nerve racking to be a citizen. Every expat I know here has nightmares about an audit comming and having all of their assets seized. And it has happened to some of them too! And that legal risk is no longer a form of taxation, because taxes are percentual (the more you earn the more you pay), but when you end up having to pay a fine that is higher than your net worth, that's just robbery.

We used to be a free nation, but thanks to austerity the 'r' had to be removed.

<comment><USER3> _> There are some benefits to being a US citizen, like that the army will rescue you if there is a civil war_

This is a common myth. If you don't intend to return to the USA there are no benefits to US citizenship, only downsides. The US may or may not rescue you if there's a civil war (see the fate of people in Yemen), but if they do, they will charge you for it at military rates you almost certainly cannot afford:

[https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/emergencies/cr...](https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/emergencies/crisis- support.html)

See "Will the US government pay for my travel? What will it cost?" which says, essentially, that no, it won't. This is unlike other countries which DO evacuate citizens for free and DO NOT charge taxes on non-residents.

<comment><USER4> > but if they do, they will charge you for it at military rates you almost > certainly cannot afford:

But the link you posted said "We charge you the equivalent of a full coach commercial fare on a comparable mode of transportation at the time that commercial travel ceases to be a viable option."

Where'd you get the "military rates" part?

<comment><USER5> When was the last time you bought a full fare couch ticket? People are usually buying "double deep discount" tickets. Most of the time you can buy first or business fares for cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> American citizens have to pay $2,350 to renounce citizenship? What kind of paperwork costs that much? (Or, why not just add more paperwork and charge $100K?)

[http://www.greenbacktaxservices.com/blog/renouncing-us- citiz...](http://www.greenbacktaxservices.com/blog/renouncing-us-citizenship- will-cost-422/)

> 1\. Consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully > understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to > reside in the United States without documentation as an alien.

> 2\. Consular officers must verify that the renunciant is a US citizen and > they must conduct a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential > renunciant.

> 3\. Consular officers must review at least three consular systems before > administering the oath of renunciation.

> 4\. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done within the > Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, D.C. After that, > the case is returned to the Consular officer overseas for final delivery of > the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant.

"Intense"? [http://hodgen.com/renunciation-interviews- intense/](http://hodgen.com/renunciation-interviews-intense/) gives a report from an interviewee:

> Also, despite what the State Department says, I did not have "two intensive > interviews", unless two interviews at a window open to view of all waiting > in the Passport Section at the London Embassy count. These were to make > sure, first, that everything was correct on the (many) forms I had sent in, > and, second, that I understood the seriousness of the step I was taking and > finally to swear/affirm my renunciation. I thought it was all rather less > intensive than it should have been, considering the seriousness with which I > had approached it.

The official estimate, reported at [https://www.rt.com/usa/183972-fee- renounce-us-citizenship/](https://www.rt.com/usa/183972-fee-renounce-us- citizenship/) , is that:

> the State Department notice gives an estimate of a consular officer's time > at $135 an hour working for 20 hours.

and confirms:

> "The questions are minimal and I didn't spend more than 15 minutes at the > window either time. It's not intensive. They ask you: 'Are you aware of the > ramifications of your actions?' And 'Are you doing this of your own accord?" > she said.

Finally from [http://worthly.com/news/cost-renouncing-u-s- citizenship/](http://worthly.com/news/cost-renouncing-u-s-citizenship/) I learn:

> Prior to 2010 it was free to renounce U.S. citizenship, but in July of that > year a $450 was established.

<comment><USER7> That sounds about as hard as cancelling comcast.

<comment><USER8> If comcast could charge $2350 to cancel, they would.

<comment><USER9> And really, at that price have you thought about upgrading to triple play?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am British, and am married to an american. My wife moved to the UK and has never worked since. I had no idea about her obligation to file anything. She's been here for over a decade.

Like a lot of people we use a joint bank account. My salary, and anything else goes in there.

A couple of years ago I sold my flat in central London, and had 400K (600K USD) in there at various points. I have no idea how to bring my wife into compliance, as if I do, she will be expected to hand over 25% of the maximum balance of this account for every year it was undeclared to a maximum of 5 years. I.E. 125% of the maximum balance!

She remains unaware, and I don't file for her. We'd risk losing our house (brought with the proceeds of the previous sale), if I attempt to fix this. I live in absolute dread of the IRS, and what they may do to our happy family.

<comment><USER11> I don't know if this applies to you, but state-side the sale of an asset wouldn't be counted as income.

According to this: [http://time.com/money/2803550/income-taxes-on-home- sale/](http://time.com/money/2803550/income-taxes-on-home-sale/)

If you lived in your previous home for at least 2 years, then you'd take it's original sale price plus closing/brokerage/etc costs as your "basis". Then take your later sale price subtracting those same costs. You get a $250,000 credit on profits.

So to me (a complete layman who's maybe not very good at taxes), that means if I buy a house for $200,000 plus 5% closing costs, my original expenses were $210,000. I later sell it for $450,000 minus 5% closing costs. That's $427,500. I've made $217,500 for holding onto the asset for two years. I should probably play the lottery. ;-)

Because I'm under the $250,000 single filing credit ($500,000 for joint filing couples, but I'm not sure how that'd work in your case since you're not a US citizen), I don't owe anything.

Say I did really well and made $400,000 in pure profit though (selling my $210,000 in the neighborhood of $600,000+).

You still get the credit so your taxable profit is $150,000 (assuming the joint filing credit wouldn't apply). That's taxed as capital gains. Not income. Which is a regressive tax. The highest rate is 20%. That'd be a $30,000 tax bill.

This all assumes you even put her on the title for the old property. If you didn't, then the sale doesn't mean anything necessarily. That she had access to the money through a joint banking account after the sale might complicate things?

In general I've found the IRS to be very helpful. They're not interested in prosecution (IME). They just want their due. And they're pretty flexible in making that happen.

Once upon a time I owed $15,000 in taxes from previous contract work, and hadn't filed in a few years because I was scared of the consequences. That's about the worst move. By not filing I racked up something like $1,000 in non- filing penalties each year as well as paying 10% interest on the amount owed.

When I finally did get my act together and contact them they waived further penalties, suspended the interest on the amount owed and set me up with a $300 a month payment plan.

There are a lot of horror stories out there. And bad things do happen to good people. But I'd like to imagine that most cases work out more like mine.

If I were in your position, I'd make it a priority to talk to a tax attorney, being sure they don't have a reporting obligation. It probably won't cost more than a few hundred dollars just to get some advice. Then I'd get a second opinion. Once I had some confidence I had a grip on the situation and how it was likely to play out, I'd talk to the IRS on my own, get on a payment plan if necessary, and put it behind me.

I'm not sure it applies in your situation, but stateside, simply avoiding filing properly is about the worst thing you can do. It doesn't just go away on it's own. That only makes it worse (interest and penalties).

But you know, I'm just some random guy on the internet. Figure out if tax attorneys have a reporting obligation and talk to one maybe? Good luck!

<comment><USER10> The problem is not that I made a profit in selling my house, it is that my wife had money in a bank account at all.

As she didn't file, she didn't know that you need to file an FBAR annually for each foreign account _. And the penalties for not doing so are those mentioned above 25% of the balance a year for 5 years.

_ and there are plenty who do file who don't know to file an fbar too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Upset about this issue and want to make a positive difference rather than debating technicalities or simply waiting for the other shoe to drop?

It may be no surprise that FATCA and FBAR present several consitutitional issues. Chief among them are the following:

-As the IRS can unilaterally sign unauthorized pseudo-treaties with foreign governments, the Senate's role in ratifying treaties is bypassed

-Fourth amendment: Private financial data is collected indiscriminately

-Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive fines, may be leveraged when compliance is not perfect, and without Rule of Law provisions to ensure any protection for the accused. (My recapitulation of points in [1] )

Thankfully, several large scale legal challenges on exactly these grounds are now underway- by Sen Rand Paul and 6 other expats [2] , and perhaps even more promisingly, by super lawyer Jim Bopp (who took down Mc-Cain Feingold [3]).

You can also donate a small amount to support the latter case: [https://fatcalegalaction.com/contribute/](https://fatcalegalaction.com/contribute/) Thanks for reading, lets not give up hope, and remain fired up to the correctness of this cause because, in the words of Bopp - "The U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's liberty and freedom, while FATCA undermines both,"

We deserve better!

Signed, An American living in Paris

[1] [http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18253...](http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18253-critics- mount-constitutional-attack-on-dreaded-fatca-tax-regime)

[2] [http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/9D07FB4...](http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/9D07FB48795BBF9285257EC1006BB907?OpenDocument)

[3] [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/superlawyer-j...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/superlawyer- jim-bopp-takes-on-mccain-backed-tax-ac/?page=all)

<comment><USER13> 1\. The IRS isn't signing binding international agreements, they're agreeing to cooperate with foreign governments in the reporting of financial assets, which is well within their legal privilege.

2\. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to data you're legally compelled to surrender to the government. By your logic, every form 1040 that's ever been filed is a fourth amendment violation.

3\. The eighth amendment has almost never been used in a constitutional case involving excessive fines. When it has, the court has primarily used it to prevent pseudo-fines that aren't really called fines in order to skirt the eighth amendment.

Sure, FATCA might be annoying, but a legal challenge has almost nothing going for it. Don't get your hopes up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "The US Treasury worked tirelessly to address many of these problems, and most have been resolved. If there are still problems with the law, then I believe Congress should hold hearings to see how it can be improved."

I bet they are wondering how to stay motivated on this one. Well a minor update to the legal system should fix the problem:

Welcome to Congress, we have now designated you a "US Congress Person" for filing purposes.

Being or having been a Members of Congress will require you to file all forms that could be requested of any "US Person".

In cases like FATCA you will also be required to disclose all accounts in your country of residence to meet our test of equivalence for "US Persons" abroad. Banks in the US will now be required to follow all procedures for FATCA for the special case of "US Congress Persons" or face 30% penalties. If Banks are unable to establish whether account holders are "US Congress Persons" they shall pay 30% penalties on all US sourced income.

The penalties for failure to file any form as a "US Congress Person" shall be no less than the highest established for other "US Persons".

Being convicted of some crimes and failures to file may limit your time in office but does not change your status and obligations as a "US Congress Person". If (Ex-)Congresspeople would like to renounce their citizenship they will automatically face the maximum 10 years of continued filing with the IRS as provided by the current regulations. "US Congress Person" like "US Person" can not be renounced separately.

Children of US Congress Persons shall inherit all filing birthrights of being a "US Congress Person".

(edit- fix mis-attribution of renunciation/IRS filing issue to FATCA)

</comment><comment><USER15> This affects my girlfriend. She has a dual passport but only lived in the US to the age of six months. We are are British but live in Spain which already makes for complex tax arrangements, and this on top of things is just crazy. How the hell does the US think it has the right to tax people who haven't lived there for over 30 years?

<comment><USER16> Does your girlfriend have access to services as a US citizen? Such as embassies, entrance to the US without a visa, or evacuation in case of war? Who should pay for those services if your girlfriend doesn't want to?

<comment><USER17> 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.

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.

Citizens of a number of countries can enter the US without a visa. They don't also have to fill out tax returns in the US.

<comment><USER18> >Almost every western country does, and none of them tax their citizens abroad.

This is certainly not limited to western countries, to underscore your point. Even India evacuated its citizens from Yemen, while the US did not. [1]

On that note, India also organized the largest-ever civilian airlift to evacuate tens of thousands of citizens from Kuwait during the Iraq invasion (1990). [2]

[1]: [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/7/us- among-26-c...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/7/us- among-26-countries-asking-india-to-help-citizens-escape-yemen.html)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_airlift_of_Indians_from_K...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_airlift_of_Indians_from_Kuwait)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For what it's worth, at least part of the problem should be fixed when the EU's Payment Accounts Directive [1] comes into effect [2]. It prohibits both discrimination on the basis of nationality (as long as the customer is legally resident) in article 15 and enshrines the right to a basic bank account in article 16.

This does not solve the other problems with FATCA, but it should eliminate at least one practical and very real annoyance for Americans living in the EU.

[1] [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3...](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0092)

[2] Technically, the directive is to be transposed by September 18, 2016 at the latest, but some member states may be dragging their feet.

<comment><USER3> It just represents total capitulation by the EU - all banks will be legally required to have a relationship with the IRS and do their bidding, as turning away US persons will not be possible any more. As that's extremely expensive, in turn, those costs will get passed on to all the non-Americans. So everyone else ends up paying through higher bank charges for the costs of IRS compliance.

<comment><USER19> It's not being done for the benefits of US citizens, that's just a side effect. The goal of the Payment Accounts Directive is to ensure that every EU resident has access to banking services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For most tax forms, the IRS says "you have to fill out this form so as to pay the correct taxes."

For FATCA, the IRS says "FATCA targets tax non-compliance by U.S. taxpayers with foreign accounts." [https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign- Account-...](https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign-Account-Tax- Compliance-Act-FATCA)

In other words, FATCA treats all Americans overseas as a priori criminals -- the form is being filled out to "target non-compliance."

<comment><USER21> This is exactly how the IRS treats all non-resident US tax payers. My ex, a joint Canadian/US citizen, had a problem with her taxes one year. The CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency) sent a letter that basically said "You appear to have made a mistake on your taxes, we think you owe an extra $XXXX. Check with your accountant, sorry for the bother if this isn't correct." the letter from the IRS basically said "You have defrauded the US Government of $YYYY. You will be arrested if you return to the US. You will be extradited if your country of residence supports extradition for Fraud. Fraud of this amount can result in <list of horrible penalties>"

Her accountant cleared it up in a few days, apparently someone at the IRS had made a mistake about Canadian Tax Law and reported the problem to the CRA which didn't verify it. It was a scary couple of weeks until we got the letter from the IRS which said the taxes were fine but included a warning about not letting this happen again.

I'd have renounced just for that bullshit.

<comment><USER22> Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? People make simple mistakes all the time. With something as bloated and obtuse as the US tax code the margin of error for honest mistakes is drastically increased. Criminal action should be classified as preemptive malicious intent. Glad to hear things worked out to you. Props to the CRA for it's professional conduct.

<comment><USER21> Also, many parts of the tax act have grey areas where even the CRA/IRS is unsure. You can call the CRA/IRS several times and get different opinions on a situation depending upon which agent you talk to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, I know a us born billionaire who rescinded his citizenship last year to avoid fatca.

He has successfully evaded both the US and UK tax authorities to the tune of half a billion or so, he tells me.

The guy gives crazy amounts to philanthropic causes instead. He doesn't want his hard earned wealth pissed away by clueless bureaucrats.

So. Anyone who tells you fatca has been a success is full of it. It penalises "normal" people, and the evaders keep on evading. Uruguay is where they've all now got citizenship.

<comment><USER24> >He doesn't want his hard earned wealth pissed away by clueless bureaucrats.

Yeh, but guess he likes driving on roads and making use of many of the other public services taxes pay for

<comment><USER23> Actually, doesn't own a car, and spends most of his time in third world nations doing said philanthropy - but I'm not here to talk about his relative merits, just that fatca is ineffectual.

<comment><USER25> To recap:

[1] Random person on Hacker News personally "knows" a billionaire.

[2] Billionaire renounced U.S. citizenship without having to realize any significant capitals gains.

[3] Billionaire doesn't own a car. He just spends his time touring Africa, solving AIDS or malaria like Bono or Bill Gates.

[4] Billionaire has a secret lair, from which he dresses up in a costume and fights crime by night.

I could be making some of these up. I started to have serious doubts right at [1], and completely got off the train by [2].

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I just noticed that this year if you open a bank account in most EU places they all ask you if you are a US citizen or have a green-card for the US to tick a box on the account opening forms.

I'd really hate it if my own country would force all the banks in the world to report back to the "mothership" and hence track my every move around the world for what? The IRS? Sure there are also other implications such as total control over the movements of a citizen. Can see why people renounce their citizenship. This isn't freedom any more.

<comment><USER27> Switzerland has renounced any business with US citizens after changes in US law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The use of the term "expat" rather than "immigrant" is interesting. I read a piece in the guardian the other day which framed that distinction in terms of white vs non-white ([http://www.theguardian.com/global-development- professionals-...](http://www.theguardian.com/global-development- professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration)), but it's obviously a bit more complicated than that. I don't think the two terms are synonyms, but they are _very_ close, and once you try to pick apart the differences, I think the distinction does start to unravel.

Thought experiment: think about how the article would have felt had it been titled: "Why American immigrants are giving up their passports". I think it would have felt different, and I wonder whether an American reader might have felt slightly insulted by that change.

I'd be interested to know whether other languages/cultures draw that same subtle distinction between "immigrants" and "expats", or whether it's just some vestigial remnant of the UK's colonial past.

<comment><USER29> 2 thoughts .

Immigrant: person who's moved to a new country indefinitely

Expat: person who's moved to a different country temporarily

Also a 2nd definition from my personal experience

Expat: a person sent temporarily to another country by their company. Usually they are in $300k+ a year job and their company pays their relocation expenses and their rent.

As someone who has lived abroad for 8 years of my own choice, in other words I don't fit that 2nd definition of "expat", it was an eye opener how the 1% lives because there are entire industries set up to cater to them. Before I lived abroad I never saw that but living abroad all the English magazines target those type 2 expats and are full of ads for services far far beyond anything I could possibly afford. Example: ads for apartments starting at $6k a month to $20k a month plus. So, suddenly I was acutely aware of just how big a different there is.

<comment><USER6> That definition isn't really true.

The term for anyone working outside of their home country is 'migrant worker'. Some migrant workers are called expats. These tend to be rich, at least on a global scale.

Many foreigners come to the US as seasonal farm workers. Almost no one refers to them as, say, "Mexican expats", even though by your definition that's exactly what they are.

While on the other hand, Madonna is one of many Americans who are called "expat" but live overseas and have no plans (or at least no definite plans) to return. There's a long list at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_expatriates_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_expatriates_in_the_United_Kingdom) if you want to see more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I work at a non-US bank and we can't have US citizens as clients because of fatca.

We would like to have them as clients but AFAICT fatca compliance would cost us a non trivial amount of money for the few (but relatively wealthy) potential clients

</comment><comment><USER31> For those looking to renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mike Gogulski has chronicled and documented the whole paperwork-heavy process on his blog:

[http://www.nostate.com/about/](http://www.nostate.com/about/)

In his case, after submitting the paperwork and burning his passport on YouTube, he chose to not get another citizenship, which means he's now stateless.

<comment><USER7> Being stateless is not a good thing. It might seem that because you're member of none you are superior to all but having citizenship is not just a tax burden, it also allows you to partake in a lot of activities (such as travel, commerce and so on).

Getting bank accounts and other goodies when you're stateless is rather troublesome.

<comment><USER31> > Being stateless is not a good thing.

That's wholly a matter of individual preference. I know Mike Gogulski personally and I can attest to him being quite happy having made the choices he did, and no longer being part of what he perceives as an evil empire. The tax question never factored into his decision, it was moral questions that preoccupied him.

<comment><USER7> I applaud the mans morals but I foresee some practical complications in such trivalities as child-birth, hospitalization, estate planning (and eventual execution) and so on. None of those may apply to him and he's apparently thought this through very well but the wheels of government have a very annoying habit of grinding on with or without your consent and by placing yourself purposefully outside of the system you might find one day that this can backfire. I sincerely hope he has a back-up plan if he ever needs to be part of some formally recognized entity again, it's easier to lose a citizenship than it is to gain one.

<comment><USER32> For all practical purposes having Nicaraguan citizenship does nothing for the guy who empties the wastebaskets at work. From what little high school spanish I can remember, he seems fairly happy and unconcerned about all these supposed problems you list. He might be the first stateless person in your area, but I assure you he's unlikely to be the first non-american citizen in your area to have a child or visit the hospital or whatever else.

<comment><USER7> That he's unconcerned does not mean the problems of undocumented citizens aren't real. It likely means that he's simply not going to make too much of a point of it because it is not in his power to make a change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Every form I see about financial matters here in Italy has a checkbox that I must tick to state I'm not a US person. No financial institution wants to deal with them because of FACTA. An unintended consequence for sure and I hope they'll fix it. Still it's telling about the general attitude of lawmakers all around the world.

<comment><USER20> Right. Imagine if every financial form had 200 extra checkboxes -- dictated by the Mongolian Treasury, the Namibian Treasury, etc.

But that's not the case. Only the US imposes financial regulations on _every_ bank in the world.

<comment><USER34> Well other countries could try, but banks wouldn't really care because of limited exposure and inability for most countries to collect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> One reason I'll never seek a Green Card or any kind of permanent residency. Such a shame for such an awesome country; I'd love to spend some years living in the US.

</comment><comment><USER36> This story hits close to home. My wife and I had wanted to buy a home in Central America (I really enjoy that area of the world) and live there about 2/3 of the time, but also maintaining a modest residence in Arizona.

We gave up that dream when FACTA became a law. The US government is basically making it as nasty as possible for citizens to live abroad.

Why is the government doing this? I think it is simple economics. Americans spending their social security checks, and savings, in other countries slightly weakens our economy.

We also love living in Arizona, so life is good, but the FACTA laws are nasty shit.

</comment><comment><USER37> Another scenario:

US Citizen living and working abroad buys a house for X in local currency. Later sells same house for the same amount X in local currency. That local currency has appreciated by 20% against USD in the timeframe. And the IRS computes capital gains in USD, not in local currency.

Net result: the seller owes IRS "capital gains" taxes on 20% of the value of a house that was bought and sold for the same price.

</comment><comment><USER38> Doesn't the "I" in "I.R.S." stand for "Internal?"

</comment><comment><USER39> Scared to turning my permanent residency into citizenship now.

<comment><USER40> Sorry to break it to you, but if you're a non-US citizen but a permanent resident in the US, you're a "US person": [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.15)

This means that you're completely subject to US tax law, even if you leave the US. Congratulations! You're now subject to FATCA!

<comment><USER7> Except of course that if and when he leaves he ceases to be that US person because he's no longer a permanent resident.

<comment><USER41> You're a permanent resident until you formally renounce permanent residency at a US embassy or consulate. Some may permit mailing in your green card, others require you to appear in person. However, the process is or was free when I went through it.

I think there are other ways of losing permanent residence, but the only guaranteed ways are when you renounce or when the US takes it from you. Either way, you better have written proof.

If you're a long-term permanent resident (8 years or more), then you're subject to the same expatriation tax rules as US citizens. The IRS agents that I spoke to were all friendly and helpful, but unfortunately none of them knew the expatriation rules. It wasn't as bad as it may sound, but it wasn't fun either.

You also have to file a preliminary tax return before you actually leave the country (informally called the sailing permit).

Anyway, just leaving the US isn't good enough when you're a permanent resident and until you're through the process you're on the hook. And don't forget to meet FACTA requirements for the year in which you gave up PR...

<comment><USER42> I wonder.

You can lose your PR status simply by:

> Fail to file income tax returns while living outside of the United States > for any period. [1]

But they do require you report your loss of PR status to the IRS.

So I wonder if failing to file thus losing your status would count as good enough to the IRS.

[1] [https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card- granted/ma...](https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card- granted/maintaining-permanent-residence)

<comment><USER41> I don't know. My impression is that you don't officially lose your status until some US government official or agency confirms it. Presumably, you may not have intended to give up PR. Maybe you had a stroke or you were unable to meet the requirements through no fault of your own. But I'm speculating. I don't know.

As for the IRS, the rules are in the instructions to form 8854[1]:

> Date of termination of long-term residency.

> If you were a U.S. long-term resident (LTR), you terminated your lawful > permanent residency on the earliest of the following dates.

> 1\. The date you voluntarily abandoned your lawful permanent resident status > by filing Department of Homeland Security Form I-407 with a U.S. consular or > immigration officer.

> 2\. The date you became subject to a final administrative order for your > removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act and > you actually left the United States as a result of that order.

> 3\. If you were a dual resident of the United States and a country with > which the United States has an income tax treaty, the date you commenced to > be treated as a resident of that country and you determined that, for > purposes of the treaty, you are a resident of the treaty country and gave > notice to the Secretary of such treatment. See Regulations section > 301.7701(b)-7 for information on other filing requirements if you are such > an individual.

[1] [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8854.pdf](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- pdf/i8854.pdf)

EDIT: These are the rules for long-term permanent residents (8 years or more). I don't know what the rules are for other permanent residents, if there even are any. But you're probably better off if you clearly state your intent and file I-407.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> America is one of the few countries that could get away with this, as being American has such a premium. It'd be nice to see them use their clout to force through legislation that stopped companies from playing silly beggars with their offshore profits if they wanted access to US markets.

<comment><USER7> What premium is that over say being the holder of passport from the UK, NL, DE, FR, ES, IT, CH, SE, DK, NO, FI, BE or any one of a host of other countries that don't have such crazy tax rules?

<comment><USER44> The US economy and quality of life commands that premium.

Note - My fiancee is British and I've lived for 4 years overseas in the EU (UK 3 years, DE for 1). As the tax code as an American begins to squeeze more and more, I've become more reluctant to "pay" that premium, but there are indeed aspects of American life and opportunity that don't currently exist in the EU.

<comment><USER45> I constantly have to remind myself that people who browse HN learn strongly libertarian and are mostly well-off white males. Otherwise, saying that the US quality of life exceeds that of the UK, Germany or Switzerland is just blatantly false.

<comment><USER46> saying "blatantly false" does not make something factual. Please provide and argument with evidence instead of blanket racist remarks.

<comment><USER45> For an example, this site doesn't have very comprehensive indicators but it's a good start:

[https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/DE/US](https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/DE/US)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Doesn't US have bilateral tax treaties with (at least) Western European counties? And shouldn't such a treaty strive to protect American citizens from paying double taxes?

<comment><USER48> The problem isn't citizenship-based taxation, it's an odd concept but it's been there for a very long time, there's a relatively high standard deduction and IIRC your local income tax is also deductible. Expats have dealt with that for more than a century.

As the article points out, the problem is FATCA which doesn't come close to fixing the issue it's supposed to fix (income tax evasion) and completely breaks expats under the standard deduction limit.

<comment><USER47> Let's say I am an American citizen living in France. Why US government doesn't close a tax treaty with French and demand 20% of the total amount I pay for all the taxes annually in France?

<comment><USER48> Because that makes no sense? Why would the french state give part of its (perfectly normal and standard) income tax back to the US for no reason?

<comment><USER49> It makes sense if it is bilateral ( US giving money to France for French people working there ) and common enough that both countries don't want to deal with the hassle.

The real problem is that the US is the odd one here. Every other country save 1 or 2 tax people income based on residence . So there is a legal clash that probably prevent any kind of sane and simple bilateral agreement like the one most of the first world countries have between themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm surprised 10% of the comments are on the topic of Grenada-style evacuation from warzones. The total number of evacuee's vs total number of expatiates over the last couple decades must be a truly microscopic percentage.

I have a long term goal of moving to Canada; better health care system, I love winter sports and weather, etc. I personally know people in Belgium and Sweden and Ireland. Evac sounds very unlikely, and if there were a military invasion, it would probably be the USA doing it, so I'm anticipating coordination would be complicated to the point of uselessness (First cross the front lines of the battle without getting killed to enter the USA sector, then evac? Seriously?).

</comment><comment><USER50> In addition to excessive paperwork, potentially higher taxes, loss of privacy, inability to obtain financial services (bank accounts, mortgages), Americans living abroad also deal with punitive treatment of pensions earned while abroad if they have also earned u.s. pensions and poor political representation...

I'd also suggest those of you living abroad to check out [https://www.americansabroad.org/](https://www.americansabroad.org/) a political advocacy group (i have no affiliation)

</comment><comment><USER51> From the article, "In 2010, just 1,006 gave up being US citizens, but since then the numbers have risen every year."

Let's think quantitatively to see if there is really a net trend here. In the most recently reported year, there were approximately 680,000 new United States citizens through naturalization.[1] So barely more than 1,000 United States citizens renouncing citizenship is swamped by several hundred thousand new citizens each year. I am an American citizen who has spent two three-year stays working and living abroad during my adult life. I've read about this taxation issue for decades, and filed United States tax forms from my place of foreign residence, but I've never seen a good reason to renounce my United States citizenship, nor has anyone else in my family.

The most common complaint about United States policies around citizenship that I see here on Hacker News is the complaint that it should be much easier to come to the United States to work on an employment-based visa. (It's more difficult than many participants on Hacker News desire, but settling in the United States with an employment-based visa is sufficiently easy that I know people just in my own social circle here in the Midwest who have settled here from Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Taiwan, China, India, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Ecuador, Argentina, Korea, and a variety of other countries. Many people would like even more employment-based visas to be available, but they are already available by the tens of thousands.

[1] [https://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/naturalization- fa...](https://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/naturalization-fact-sheet)

</comment><comment><USER52> Part of the problem is how difficult it is to understand what your obligations are, even if you intend to comply. And then there are things that are just plain unfair. Let's say that you live in Canada and you bought your house for $500,000 Cdn. Five years later you sell it for the same $500,000. Except during that time, due to exchange rate fluctuation, the house increased in value relative to the US dollar, going from, for example, $400K to $600K US. (Entirely possible, given how much change there has been in the two currencies over the last few years.) The US considers you to have made $200K US in speculation and expects you to pay taxes to the US on that gain. Even though there was no gain -- you live in Canada and bought and sold the house in Canadian dollars. Capital gains exemptions don't apply here--they consider this to be currency speculation. Mindboggling. And easy to get yourself in trouble over without realizing.

</comment><comment><USER53> > "The United States is one of only two countries in the world that has > citizenship-based taxation (the other is Eritrea)."

I very recently read that Brazil does this too - that no matter where you currently live or work, as a Brazilian citizen, you have to pay taxes on it to Brazil (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

<comment><USER54> You have to pay taxes on any income you earn on Brazil, even if you don't live here.

You don't have to pay taxes on income taxed afar, even if you live here, and on any income not earned here if you live afar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> So is America still the land of the free?

It looks more like a prison: \- Follow rules (that you are supposed to somehow know) \- Forced to take on debts to survive \- Hope you don't get penalized or \- God forbid you need healthcare

It's a great country for people with money and resources. The common man is just screwed.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wasn't familiar with Charles Rangel until I read this article..

For anyone who suspects the US is engaged in a "Buy American" (or else) campaign to sell domestic evasion/financial services, the man who apparently wants to be identified as behind FATCA seems to be the poster child of evasion the patriotic way:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel#Unreported_asse...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel#Unreported_assets_and_income)

The World's Favorite New Tax Haven Is the United States (bloomberg.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978847](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978847)

</comment><comment><USER56> Relevant: [http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/14/about-the-isaac- brock...](http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/14/about-the-isaac-brock- society/)

</comment><comment><USER57> I live in Japan, and when I went to open a bank account there was a lot of paperwork, including this funny form that said they would notify the American government of my address and how much money I had. I felt pretty violated by it- as if the NSA stuff wasn't enough, they now track me outside of the US. I don't make enough money to be taxed, but I don't like being tracked, either.

</comment><comment><USER58> Does this also affect H1B holder that are temporary living outside the US?

<comment><USER59> If you work for a USA company, yes - it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> For all the people from HN dreaming of American immigration, be aware that 'US citizens' in this article (any anything else pertaining to taxation) should generally be read as 'US citizens and permanent residents'.

Also be aware that while renouncing permanent residency is much simpler (and you'll be sure to lose it if you're out of the country long enough), you may be exposed to significant tax liabilities for doing so - especially if you're holding illiquid startup stock.

</comment><comment><USER61> Isn't that fully a political issue? Current administration want to be tuff on foreign accounts, but some GOP candidates seem to reverse the law.

Ref: [http://www.repealfatca.com/index.asp?idmenu=4&idsubmenu=159&...](http://www.repealfatca.com/index.asp?idmenu=4&idsubmenu=159&title=lets- get-republican-presidential-candidates-uon-the-recordu-for-fatca-repeal)

</comment><comment><USER62> I've had questions about this for some time.

1) When you drop US citizenship and become "stateless", what happens? Are you deported from the US since you are no longer a citizen? To where?

2) Are you unable to get health insurance? A job, with no SSN?

This has fascinated me for years but I have never seen anyone write about the real world practical impacts of what happens if you become stateless.

Any links to that information?

</comment><comment><USER63> "...foreign banks to identify US citizens among their customers to US tax authorities. The penalty for failing to do so can be as high as 30% of all a bank's dealings with the USA."

So, could any new, small bank start accepting americans as costumers but completely refuse to deal with the USA, not even a tiny transfer, or charge a 50% fee for each transaction?

Would that be legal?

<comment><USER64> From what I understood of the law when I was wondering about my banks, yes.

Though I have no idea how small and local the bank would be to not have to think about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> > [Double taxation] has been the case in the US since the Civil War in the > 19th Century

That's a fascinating detail to me, as it explains why the US, and pretty much only the US, has double taxation. I'm guessing they instituted it so Union citizens still had to pay tax even when living in the Confederacy?

</comment><comment><USER66> This makes America looking really dam pathetic and makes me less proud to be an American.

</comment><comment><USER67> I don't understand, isn't it easier to get around this by keeping your foreign bank account balance low (less than 10k) and transferring money on a regular basis to your US bank accounts to make sure it stays under 10k?

<comment><USER6> If you live overseas then you probably want to do thing like save up for retirement, or a house. While you can have a US bank account, it means taking a loss to change the money first to then from dollars.

You also have to be very careful with your direct deposit. If it goes into your local account (because it's expensive and more complicated to wire the money to a US account) and make $5K/month then you have to be absolutely sure that your local bank account doesn't have $5K in it. And be sure to watch the exchange rates!

If you sell a house, you can't put the profits into a local account but must figure out some way to have everything sent to the US. Which may not be easy.

In some countries, like Sweden where I live, the government can fill out your taxes for you, because they know how much you make - except for foreign accounts. If you have, say, $100K in a US account, drawing interest, then you have to declare it appropriately.

So no, it's not easier for the millions of Americans who live overseas to keep the bulk of their money in a US bank account.

<comment><USER68> I will also add that many (most?) US banks will not provide banking services for you if they know you live overseas. You have to maintain a US address. Even then, if they discover that despite having a US mailing address you actually reside overseas they will close your account. It's happening more frequently these days.

<comment><USER6> Wow, you're right! I looked into that just now. I figured USAA, which provides banking service to military and ex-military, and therefore likely has many members who live overseas, would be more likely to provide banking services to overseas Americans.

[https://communities.usaa.com/t5/Other/INVESTMENT-ACCOUNTS- WI...](https://communities.usaa.com/t5/Other/INVESTMENT-ACCOUNTS-WITH- OVERSEAS-ADDRESS/td-p/30680) suggests that even banking with them may be problematical, at least if you have no US address.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Reasons for giving up your US citizenship aren't officially listed, but one of the main reasons cited is Fatca - a 2012 law designed to target overseas accounts held by wealthy Americans.

</comment><comment><USER69> US dollar is a giant Pyramid scheme. [http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779](http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779)

</comment><comment><USER70> Its a tiny percentage too, less than 1 in 2000 living abroad. A higher fraction dies abroad every year.

</comment><comment><USER71> I don't even have to click to know what this is about. God damn government wants to tax me despite being overseas.

Don't get me wrong here. I love my country but hot damn do I hate our government. HK or UK or Canadian passport would probably be nearly as good but without any of the bullshit.

<comment><USER20> No, this is NOT primarily about taxes. It is about expensive reporting requirements -- the sort of paperwork usually done by billionaires and big corporations must be filled out by every American, even those with low- incomes.

<comment><USER72> Yes, taxes are still an issue! Look at how the Mayor of London just had to pay capital gains taxes to the US because he was born there. He sold his primary residence, which is cap gains tax exempt in the UK, and the profit exceeded the threshold in the US, so he had to fork over money to the IRS. It's a complete joke and scam.

<comment><USER6> ("NOT primarily about taxes" != "taxes are not an issue". My biggest complaint is precisely the expensive reporting requirements.)

<comment><USER72> Forms can be filled out. Look at Australia. If I want my retirement fund to be self-managed, I basically cannot because of inconsistencies in the tax treaty. And, what if I choose to live and work in Hong Kong or Singapore or the Cayman Islands? Why should the US have rights to tax my income above $100k if those states are tax-free? Did the US pay for my education? No. Not even my healthcare! The socialist states don't even do this.

<comment><USER6> The majority of people that I've read about who are complaining about the situation are not complaining about having to pay taxes, because they don't have to pay taxes. I don't have to pay taxes to the US because I don't make enough in Sweden.

But I do have to spent the time and money to have someone to fill out the forms.

I also have to worry that my bank might decide to cut me off, because they _also_ have to "fill out forms", that is they also have "expensive reporting requirements". Even if you paid no taxes and had no problems with the tax treaty, you still might not be able to get a bank account in Singapore.

Yes, there are a lot of people who also don't like the taxes. It's an important point. But not the primary point, which is the expensive reporting requirements for both American citizens and banks which do business in the US and which have American citizens as clients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> That's an amazing story. I never knew those details.

</comment><comment><USER74> So, is it time to throw some tea in the harbour now?

</comment><comment><USER75> I wonder how bitcoin could fit in this scenery.

</comment><comment><USER76> Is it because of incredibly dumb tax laws?

 _reads article_

yup.

Fatca is a pretty gross law.

</comment><comment><USER77> >Her voice cracks and her eyes well up. She is in the process of relinquishing her American nationality. Soon she'll visit the US embassy formally to renounce her citizenship, she says, under duress.

>"I'm very proud of being an American. It's what I am when I look in the mirror.

>"If it weren't for Fatca [the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act] and the decision by the bank, I'd never be doing this. Never ever. It's just breaking me in half."

Caterwauling by the 1%.

<comment><USER78> It can be a huge hassle for normal US citizens living outside the US. Most banks won't deal with them because of the risks involved. As a US citizen abroad, just getting a regular bank account can be next to impossible.

I live in Singapore and when I was signing up for a stock trading account I asked what would have happened if I had to answer yes in the box that asked if I was liable to pay income tax in the US. The answer was plain: "you wouldn't be allowed to have an account with us".

<comment><USER77> I lived in Singapore for 3 years and managed without a stock trading account.

It's one of the easiest places to open a bank account, actually.

<comment><USER79> This is a recent development. How long ago were you in Singapore?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> If you live abroad & give up your citizenship, I think you should sign a waiver clause giving US government release of liability for any security, diplomatic services, basically anything you'd ever ask for. The US is off the hook for your safety and comfort, forever. Perhaps this is already part of the process, not sure.

IMO, depending on where you are living abroad, that might give one misgivings about turning in ones passport.

Just my 2 satoshis.

<comment><USER81> Isn't that exactly what giving up your passport does? And as long as you've acquired a new one from a developed country, you're probably better off anyway for safety and comfort (e.g. other countries may cover your medical care)</comment></comment>


The 4 Types of Emails Programmers Receive - <AUTHOR> http://www.kevinwilliampang.com/2010/03/12/the-4-types-of-emails-programmers-receive/ <comment><USER2> I'm a sys-admin, not a programmer...for me, the "OMFG THE COMPUTERS ARE ON FUCKING FIRE!!!!!!!" emails, which are always CC'd to at least 10 people, end up being something stupid like

"Reset your password...that box, the one that keeps popping up telling you that you need to reset your password, what it generally means is that your password has expired and that YOU NEED TO RESET IT!"

My favorite is when a printer runs out of toner and I get an email saying "Help!" (which I _loathe_ ) "we're all 'down' over here and can't get anything! HELP! SORRY FOR BUGGING YOU!"

This drives me insane because:

A) Stop using "help", you're not 6 years old, you haven't fallen down a well

B) You know how to change the toner, there is a _stack_ of toners sitting right next to your printer.

C) You're not "down", "everyone" is not "down"... _you_ specifically cannot print, the printer is _telling_ you that you can't print, and it's even _telling_ you how to fix the problem, just LOOK AT IT!

D) Saying "sorry for bugging you" has got to be one of the most obnoxious things you could even possibly say. Stop. If you need something, just ask for it.

Comic related: <http://newslily.com/comics/17>

Also, in some ways this: <http://newslily.com/comics/24>

<comment><USER3> I also work largely as a sys-admin, but I do some desktop support as well.

I get a lot of vague emails. "My internet is down," is a favorite of mine, as it could be a network outage, a local computer misconfiguration, a page being inaccessible, or simply the user getting an error page from the site because the URL they bookmarked doesn't exist anymore. If it's an email problem, it's probably because they didn't read the error message.

I also loathe when people walk over to my desk and say, "I hope I'm not interrupting you. {insert problem}". Now I've already been interrupted, so my train of thought has been derailed (worst when programming). I then have two choices, help the person because I am now not so busy with something else that I can't help but reward their behavior by doing so, or brush them off and try to get back on track with my previous task and risk being a bit of a jerk in the process.

Either way, I've already lost out. I'd gladly take a vague email over a confused user walking over to my desk.

<comment><USER2> At least you get the descriptive "internet".

Lots of times I just get "I'm locked up"...

My favorite "I'm locked up" is when somebody else logs on to the workstation that the user normally uses. "Locked up" means "there is a different user name in the user name field that mine!".

Another favorite is when a user types their password wrong enough times on our iSeries system. It does something called "varying off" (disabling the terminal until I re-enable it)...so they keep trying... _at all the rest of the terminals_. Pretty effective denial of service attack if you ask me!

I remember one user who was furious with me because he had worked for the company for over a year, and WHY THE HELL HADN'T I SET HIM UP WITH AN EMAIL!!!?!?!

I had...the trouble was that he had to click the icon (which is on his desktop, and on his start menu) labeled "email". Oh joy!

Also, don't get me wrong, I love my job :), sometimes the users screw up, but it's generally pretty low-impact :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is how _we_ handle those emails:

Reply to _The Vague Email_ option A: This might be one of the 8 reported errors in your version, does any of the following apply to your situation (link-to-bug-tickets)? Please check if upgrading to version+1 beta (link) fixes the problem. If not, please if possible provide an exact step-by-step reproduction recipe, as described on <http://somewhere/how-to-report-errors>.

Reply to _The Vague Email_ option B: This is not a known error, and XYZ works for me. Please if possible provide an exact step-by-step reproduction recipe, as described on <http://somewhere/how-to-report-errors>.

Reply to _The End of the World Email_ : None. This is always more political than technical, so the department leader gets to handle these ... people.

Reply to _The Red Herring Email_ : Yes, it is working. Can you please give details as described on as described on <http://somewhere/how-to-report- errors> ?

Reply to _The Ideal Email_ : Thank you for the detailed report. We will start working on this issue immediately/next tuesday/next month. You can try workaround ZYX or download version+1 beta in the meantime. If the problem becomes urgent, please let us know.

<comment><USER5> I find that for each of these e-mails, I make a decision about what to do based on who the user is. Some users are much more careful about writing an 'End of the world' e-mail than others and should be handled accordingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _The End of the World Email -- URGENT!!! System is down! NONE of our users can do XYZ! Please advise!!!11!_

I'd love to get one that actually said "advise". I usually get "please advice".

<comment><USER7> "Please advise" is one of my pet peeves. It's almost always a passive- aggressive code word.

<comment><USER6> At least they're using the correct word. "please advice" makes no sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Or what about the:

"My brother/brother in law/uncle is a plumber/chiropractor/architect and all the software they have sucks! How about they tell you what they want, you build it, and we can cut you in for 20%"

<comment><USER9> My favorite in that vein was a complaint about the quality of... CattleMax, a software package for tracking cows. It's a frontend for a database with fewer than ten tables. Somewhere in eastern MT are a couple of ranchers who'll be rich, if they can just get someone to write, support, and advertise this software in exchange for 10% of the net profits. Unfortunately, I am not that someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Actually, one of our customers started writing "Thank you!" e-mails one or two weeks ago. I guess my boss managed to convince her that twenty hours of support per day is _not_ the norm.

</comment><comment><USER11> I find I can get more of the last kind of emails when I'm working with one or two folks who appreciate knowing how to get their issues solved. i.e. I train the folks I work with on how to help me help them. It takes time and there are usually only a handful of people who will do this, the rest will continue to do what they always do. But every little bit helps. My biggest satisfaction comes when new employees learn from my favorite few without me having to teach them. :)

</comment><comment><USER12> "We've been having this [really easy to diagnose and solve] problem and haven't been able to use your product for 3 days."

"I'm in the middle of doing a demo at [big prospect] and had [obscure problem] when doing [something nobody's tested]."

"Why didn't we do [proposed solution that was argued at length for weeks before choosing the current one]?"

"Thanks to [list of everyone except the guy that really did all the work] for working so hard on this release."

</comment><comment><USER13> "My computer is messed up. It keeps saying X."

"It's right, believe it."

"Umm... really? Hey, that worked!"

</comment><comment><USER14> I will say that I'm glad to have a few clients who'll throw me something like the Ideal Email.

</comment><comment><USER15> I do a lot of free coding for people, and my most favorite email is "YOU CHEATED ME AND GAVE ME A BROKEN SCRIPT!" because they didn't understand how to use it.

I've almost never gotten the 4th and best type of email =/

</comment><comment><USER16> I only count 3 types of email, I have yet to spot an example of the 'ideal email' in the wild!

</comment><comment><USER17> You forgot the 5th one:

"We're sorry to say we couldn't accept your proposal for funding."

</comment><comment><USER18> Sadly, we hapless programmers are the only ones who will ever read this blog post.</comment>


How to Deal with Differences in Opinion - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-i-deal-differences-opinion-siddharth-gopi/ <comment><USER2> While I appreciate the intent of the piece, I disagree with many of the author's positions, including but not limited to:

>My preference for early stage discussion is towards lower gear channels like Email / Slack as opposed to higher gear channels like In-person / Video Conference. This is for the simple reason that lower gear channels help you achieve clarity of thought more effectively than higher geared ones. There's less room for an adrenaline fueled frenzy to kick in when you have to write things out, and read it once over before you hit send.

I disagree with this because it's much easier to misinterpret a person's intent in text vs in-person, and it's much easier to react negatively in text vs in-person.</comment>


Facebook Instant Search - <AUTHOR> http://fbinstant.net/

<comment><USER2> Woaw thats sweet</comment>


Why we've decided to stop producing TNW Magazine for Android - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/30/no-more-tnw-magazine-for-android/?utm_campaign=social%20media&awesm=tnw.to_b0TPT&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Spreadus <comment><USER2> Certainly a sensible decision for their usage, but it's worth noting that pretty much all the reasoning (apart from the fact nobody on Android actually downloads the thing) is only an issue because they're moving from the iPad to Android.

None of the technical reasons given are actual issues with Android, they're just differences between iOS and Android. If you published a magazine solely on Android and tried to move it across to iOS you'd have the same issues (unless you found a functional platform-agnostic media store, which may or may not exist).

They are of course completely justified to stop producing an android version. Not many people used it, and I don't doubt that there's a lot of work converting between the two. Why is there a lot of work? Because the starting point is an iOS specific magazine design, not because Android is inherently limited.

<comment><USER3> It's the whole "optimised for IE5" thing all over again.

Once you've got in the boat of single platform optimisation (using Apple Computers store for video and music integration in this case) then moving to something that is platform agnostic is hard.

It's an interesting case study though, that it's costing they're losing money (I think that's what they're saying) by creating for the diversity of the Android platform. Would be nice to see the figures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To me, the biggest problem is "magazines as apps". Magazines should be in a common file format that won't lock you in to a particular platform.

<comment><USER5> We solved this problem many years ago with PDF.

<comment><USER6> Do PDFs scale to mobile phone sizes? I've tried reading PDFs on my phone and it's possible, but not a pleasant experience.

<comment><USER7> No, PDF is basically digital 'paper.' However, publisher-end tools and workflows can produce multiple PDFs from the same content for different form factors.

HTML5 and related technologies probably have the most promise in this sector though due to the large amount of cross-device styling and customization that can be done with CSS3 and JavaScript.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> ""You make a beautiful magazine for the iPad, and then you dumb it down for Android'.

That meant removing movies, sound, interactivity and content."

Interesting, I wasn't aware that Android devices can't play movies or sound, and don't react to touch.

<comment><USER9> The exact H.264 profile supported by different devices varies greatly -- it is not an issue with Android the OS but with the range of different devices in the Android ecosystem. With only a few iOS devices, you can test them all with your encoded media (in fact most media encoders have presets for iOS devices) and offer encodings that support all devices.

This simply isn't possible with Android. Either you lower the quality (because your video must all be H.264 Baseline 3 for compatibility) or you'll simply get pockets of oddball devices that can't play media (because they don't support the entire set of Main or High profile video features).

Additionally, the magazine is probably using HTTP Live Streaming to handle media (the ideal protocol for streaming to iOS devices). While Android technically supports this in Android 3 and 4, there are differences in supported features. Specifically, most of the features in version 3 of HTTP Live Streaming (which came out in iOS 5) -- including multiple audio tracks, closed captions, frame based indexes and more -- are not supported in Android.

<comment><USER10> You make an interesting point. Would it not be possible though, to host multiple encoding profiles on a server somewhere, and have the device download the best match for its screen and decoding capabilities?

<comment><USER11> I'm sure it is possible. I'm not sure it is worthwhile/profitable to manage, support and test such a set up.

<comment><USER12> As far as I can renember this is a core feature of HTML5 video support: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Multiple_sources>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is actually pathetic reading.

> "You make a beautiful magazine for the iPad, and then you dumb it down for > Android'."

and then you read

> "we pick movies from the iTunes store"

So essentially, it was about being lazy in the first place and opting for a close ecosystem.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. They could, you know... Try to find a proper cross-platform solution. I also love their logic here:

"To give you some insight in how little uptake we saw on Android here are some statistics: for every Android user that downloads an Android magazine we have 80 iOS downloads."

Which is funny, because it's also possible that the Android/WP users are just going to <http://thenextweb.com/magazine/> instead of downloading a dedicated application to provide "movies, sound, interactivity and content"... Last I checked, my web browser is _fully_ capable of providing all of that already.

<comment><USER15> But iOS users could be using the web version as well ?

So it really doesn't seem that you're in a position to be questioning someone else's logic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sooo....it sounds like they have a serious tooling problem, any recommendations on what they should be using either on Android or for cross platform publishing?

side comment: the oddity of a site called "the next web" focused on dragging the paper magazine format onto a digital platform cannot be overstressed, what's wrong with their great website that people need a magazine app?

<comment><USER17> Maybe Unity, even though it's a game engine it should be able to do everything a multimedia diskmag is supposed to do.

<comment><USER18> It's a long time since I've heard the word "diskmag". Off to scene.org!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> You lost me at "See, we pick movies from the iTunes store that people can download right to their iPads. We pick music the same way and books too."

I chuckled and closed the tab when I read that. Consider not relying on proprietary methods of content delivery if you want interoperability.

</comment><comment><USER10> > But even then we had to deal with frequent crashes, a less intuitive > interface and a platform that is even more fragmented than iOS.

Frequent crashes? Sounds more like an issue with the app than the platform. You can develop unstable code anywhere. The remark about Android being "less intuitive" is also a classic among Apple fans, but I don't really understand why people keep saying this. It's just not true anymore.

<comment><USER20> Which conveniently ignores the 80:1 download ratio. _That's_ the damming figure.

Edit: re your second point. How frequently do you uses both platforms? Personally, I use both extensively everyday. TNW have a point.

<comment><USER10> I'm not contesting the 80:1 ratio (although bornhuetter makes some good points against this argument as well.)

I'm contesting their Android-bashing on ease-of-use and technical merits. I use and have used an Android phone and an iPod touch for the past 4 years.

<comment><USER20> I take the points, but with a caveat. The overriding issue here is one of signal to noise and it isn't a simple proble to fix with the pervading attitude exhibited in this thread overall. It'd be interesting to know exactly how much demand there was from Android users. We see stories that are similar to this reasonably often. The trouble is that the discussions are way too emotive. Reasons put forward are generally dismissed as "FUD" or "fanboys", with emotional response always seeming to block rational discussion. Until we get pas this, we won't get beyond where we are.

<comment><USER21> There is no caveat. They made a crappy Android version and paid the price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sounds like they have a team of iOS developers who created a very platform specific app, and don't want or know how to port it to other platforms.

They created a half-assed Android effort and didn't bother advertising it properly. Now, instead of doing a proper job, they have just abandoned all cross-platform development? That's very short sighted.

<comment><USER3> Is this the case, cause from the article it sounds like they failed to compromise (I'm thinking pixel perfect design vs fluid?) to accomodate the diversity of Android forms but that they had managed to create a product but not one that was working financially?

It's not something I use, are there examples of similar magazines that are profitably managing a media-rich cross-tablet presentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, they are telling us that you can't buy iTunes movies and songs on android devices. Of course android sucks because of this lack.

Why does this remind me of Microsoft and IE aroun d 10 years ago? Oh yeah, it's because there's a monopoly and people complain why not everything is working the same way as it does in the proprietory counterpart.

</comment><comment><USER24> Interesting, and sensible decision that they unsurprisingly got pummelled for.

</comment><comment><USER25> Am I missing something, or would a magazine not be simpler just to publish as HTML?

<comment><AUTHOR> Top 2 reasons:

1\. in-app purchase for subscription with users that already have a card on file

2\. better control of content and performance

I don't think they did particularly well with (2). "Our Choice" by <http://pushpoppress.com/ourchoice/> and Alice in Wonderland (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gew68Qj5kxw>) is much closer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> See previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4991267>

</comment><comment><USER27> Echoing one of the comments, as an Android user I never use the app store for magazines; only Google Currents. I'd probably pay for content I care about, if there was a mechanism for doing so, but I won't install anything else. Why should the content be a seperate app, anyway? If it's just for crapware purposes, then good riddance!

</comment><comment><USER28> I've had this same experience several times when doing cross platform app dev. Even though Android supposedly has a majority marketshare now, iOS downloads/users are usually at least 2:1, if not a more crushing 8:1 or 12:1.

It's unclear to me if it's just because Android users use their devices different (and get less apps), if it's because the app market doesn't lend itself to finding apps, etc...

The exact same cycle always repeats: 1) Release iOS first 2) Get lots of angry Android complaints 3) Release Android 4) Get a trickle of users. (I know you may be thinking, well you released to iOS first so your app probably isn't at good on Android, but we've tried it the other way around as well)

<comment><USER29> Android is now globally around 4:1 or more to iOS but only about 40% of those Android users are running 4.x and I strongly suspect those are the users that actually download apps so in terms of userbase the two platforms are really pretty close to the same from the point of view of the app developer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Walled gardens. _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER31> I think it is rather interesting that diskmags now are mainstream stuff</comment>


Sex, Lies, and the TSA  - <AUTHOR> http://andybrett.com/tsa

<comment><USER2> Great example of how the TSA's attempts at spin on their blog are alienating people. They keep quoting the CBS poll that found that 80% of the people are in favor of scanners (if you don't tell them about the naked photos or radiation risk or lack of effectiveness), and ignoring the CBS poll from the next day that came to the opposite conclusion -- that 80% opposes the scanners once they know the fact.

obviously both are unscientific internet polls but repeatedly citing the one and not the other is just so transparent ...

<comment><USER3> The poll the TSA is citing isn't an Internet poll. It counts more than the other poll you're citing to oppose it.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/15/politics/main70579...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/15/politics/main7057902.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

<comment><USER4> Who says that?

<comment><USER3> Who says what? CBS says the TSA's favorite poll was a real poll. The commenter says both are Internet polls, and is wrong.

Or do you mean, "who says Internet polls aren't real polls?" Answer: in addition to "everybody", also "common sense", since Internet polls are self- selected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Weak. TSA isn't citing a poll about it's pat-down searches, which is what caused the recent uproar. The CBS poll has an overwhelming majority of respondents --- 83% of Republicans, 81% of Dems --- in favor of using +full body+ [em. orig.] digital x-ray machines.

(They'd have gotten I think a lower rate if they had worded it more aggressively --- "Some airports are now using imaging machines that allow TSA agents to electronically see through clothing" or the like.)

The problem we have is not that the TSA is lying; it's that people aren't well-educated about what these machines are actually doing. It's counterproductive to whine about numbers that the TSA is right to be citing; all you'd be doing is further obscuring the real issue.

<comment><USER5> I would argue that the recent uproar is over both the pat downs and the scanners.

The fact that the poll, as you point out, 1) only mentions the scanners and not the alternative and 2) doesn't fully indicate what's really happening should be further reason to call them out for citing it.</comment></comment>


Thousands of Women Say LuLaRoe's Legging Empire Is a Scam - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-04-27/thousands-of-women-say-lularoe-s-legging-empire-is-a-scam <comment><USER2> One of the people interviewed in the article is a Mormon, and the article explains that LuLaRoe itself was founded by a Mormon. This is not a coincidence. [http://kutv.com/news/local/follow-the-profit-how-mormon- cult...](http://kutv.com/news/local/follow-the-profit-how-mormon-culture-made- utah-a-hotbed-for-multi-level-marketers)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've got mixed opinions about this.

On one hand, I want this "direct selling" (more like direct scamming) industry to die in a fire.

On the other hand, if the above happened, there will no longer be a way for financial "natural selection" to weed out the idiots. A single Google search is all it takes to figure out that these "business opportunities" are not profitable what-do-ever, so if despite that you still go ahead and put down $7k on their product, I'd say you deserve your fate.

</comment><comment><USER4> reddit is ordinarily a cesspool, but the [https://reddit.com/r/antimlm](https://reddit.com/r/antimlm) page is a wonderful source of amusing things about MLM.</comment>


Court Of Human Rights: Convictions For File-Sharing Violate Human Rights - <AUTHOR> http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/court-of-human-rights-convictions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/?

<comment><USER2> Why are falkvinge.net posts _still_ upvoted here? This guy is a quack with no grasp of the law whatsoever.

The linked analysis on the blog contains the real consequences of this ruling:

\- posting pictures online that one took himself of someone else's dresses can constitute copyright infringement (not so interesting, this has long been the case - but it's a point that often gets the I-hate-copyright quacks up in arms)

\- the distinction was made between 'for monetary benefit' or 'for the public good'. The 'public good' to be interpreted narrowly - saying 'I uploaded the new Metallica album to the pirate bay is my way of sharing culture' is not 'for the public good' (this last point was not made explicitly in the ruling or the analysis but it's implicit from all the previous case law; it would be interesting to see a judgement otherwise, but to the best of my knowledge the ECtHR has so far even refused to just hear cases based on this argument)

\- furthermore, to quote from the analysis : "Speech, messages, pictures and content which are merely money driven do not enjoy the added value of the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In the Court's view, the margin of appreciation in such circumstances is a very wide one, even in a case where the interference by the authorities takes the form of a criminal conviction or a very high award of damages, both 'sanctions' with a risk of having a chilling effect." This is merely reinforcing existing rulings at various levels that got the general interwebs riled up - "it's inhuman to convict somebody to millions in damages to run the pirate bay!" Sorry buddy, ECtHR just said it isn't.

\- Choice idiocy, typical falkvinge style:

"When this court makes a decision, that decision gets constitutional status in all of Europe (except for Belarus, which is not a signatory)."

Oh please. OK, not everybody has to be a lawyer, but at least read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_internati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_international_law) before making dramatic claims like this. Also, using words like 'constitution' that have very different meanings between legal systems (hint: it usually functions very differently in civil law systems as it does in the US) usually only adds confusion; in this case, I'm not sure if it's deliberate or just because of general incompetence.

"A court that tries somebody for violating the copyright monopoly must now also show that a conviction is necessary to defend democracy itself in order to convict."

What? What the court said was that the 3-step test established in many other aspects of ECtHR rulings apply here as well; he even quoted it one paragraph above his claim: "Exceptions can be made to Human Rights according to a well- defined three-step test: the verdict must be necessary in a democratic society, <etc>"

How he got from that to what he claims, I can only ascribe to acute illiteracy.

Please, sensible people on the internet: don't get your case law reporting / legal advice from falkvinge.net. If you think his reasoning will help you defend your case in court if you even end up there for copyright infringement, you'll be in for a very rude awakening.

<comment><USER3> So what it means is that copyright can not be used as a means to censor free speech? Well, that's what I understood anyway.

That's still interesting. And although I also found the wording very confusing, I upvoted it (I usually do this as a bookmarking method). Please, don't hate me!

<comment><USER2> Yes, that's roughly what it means, and it isn't exactly surprising, nor new. The rhetoric in the article is tabloid-style reporting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was a good explanation of what this ACTUALLY means on Reddit [1].

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1828u4/eu_just_t...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1828u4/eu_just_took_a_big_step_towards_freedom_of_sharing/c8b2tj4)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In addition to Roel_v's very cogent dismantling of the article, I'd like to point out a separate issue: European copyright law is generally based on a different premise than American copyright law. European copyright law is generally based on the moral right of an author to control access to his original work. If you look at the history of copyright, the U.S. has in an number of cases expanded copyright domestically to match broader protections under international treaties reflecting European laws.

<comment><USER6> Yes, funny that no-one ever seems to "harmonise" away from what well connected lobbyists want, it's always in the same direction (more copyright in this particular case).

<comment><USER5> "Well-connected lobbyists" is a boogeyman. Governments have been harmonizing towards more copyright because:

1) It's easy to point to the media industry and whisper the word "jobs." There is no other word, not even "checkbook," that gets a politician to perk up his ears more quickly.

2) We're a society that understands and values property. The idea that someone should have control over their original works, even total control, is an easy sell to a society that defines even a teenager cutting across a yard as illegal trespass. Freedom to share ideas is something we also value, but: a) we associate that much more closely with political speech than creative works;[1] and b) such freedom is a newer, less fundamental idea to us than property.

A great example is moral rights in creative works. There are no "well- connected" art-industry lobbyists that got European legislatures to recognize moral rights to artistic works. It was purely the result of it being an easy sell that artists had inherent rights over their creative works, even extending to a certain ability to control the use of those works post-sale.

[1] And even to the extent we associate it with creative works, we associate it with the right of content creators to publish socially uncomfortable material (pornography, etc), rather than any "right" of content consumers to share other peoples' original content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting, very interesting, maybe we will be able to steer copyright back toward its original purpose ( block plagiarism )

Copyright purpose was not preventing people from getting your work for free, it was to prevent them to pay for your work to someone you did not authorized, like some crazy publishers of 16th century that would happily sell copies of books, even books not complete yet, without paying authors.

<comment><USER8> Shakespeare was a victim of this. People would sell copies of his plays and he would get nothing.

<comment><USER9> "But Shakespeare didn't just read these texts and imitate their best parts; he made them his own, seamlessly blending them together in his plays. Sometimes the literary approach got Shakespeare into trouble. His peers repeatedly accused him of plagiarism, and he was often guilty, at least by contemporary standards. What these allegations failed to take into account, however, was that Shakespeare was pioneering a new creative method in which every conceivable source informed his art. For Shakespeare, the act of creation was inseparable from the act of connection."

Page 220, _Imagine by Jonah Lehrer_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a long explanation of the ruling here:

[http://echrblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/copyright-vs-freedom- of-...](http://echrblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/copyright-vs-freedom-of- expression.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Finally, the human rights act does something useful instead of giving criminals lots of extra rights, oh wait...</comment>