BF2S Forums More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes

Uzique wrote:

america could learn a lot from scandinavian 'socialist mediocrity' when it comes to living standards...

My living standard is quite nice, thanks.

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US spends a good deal more money defending Israel than Europe, go bitch at them.

I dunno but, doubt it. Considering the troops, the equipment, the logistics, the bases..I gotta think more is spent in Europe.

And that amounts to how much in Norway? ... please remind me cause I must have forgotten that we have US bases in Norway ...

http://www.gettingaround.net/pages/usafe-norway.php     So you think bases in germany, England, Spain, Greece Italy etc  offer no protectino to Europe as a whole, yeah including Norway.

jord wrote:

I think they offer strategic interest to the US as well lowing.

Well, our network of bases was in response to the Soviet threat. Nowadays I think we keep the bases simply because it allows easier staging for sending troops elsewhere in the world. It also has the nice effect of cutting down the chance of a re-militarization of Europe and the possibility of another world war. Y'all have a history of not playing nice with each other

jord wrote:

I think they offer strategic interest to the US as well lowing.

Of course it does, protecting our allies has a very obvious benefit to the US.

yes, i am saying that if you pulled your troops out of europe we would not descend into the fourth reich.

jesus christ what a crazy view of europe you have over there.

you use us for satellite bases / refuelling opportunities / illegal CIA detainment for the middle-eastern theatre and russian strategy.

you're not 'world police' making sure europe doesn't return to its warlike ways. take a long hard look at yourself. rofl.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am not excusing our spending, but lets face it, to be chastised as fiscally irresponsible by those who do not spend on their own defense in lieu of having someone else protect them is somewhat condescending and insulting,

So is the suggestion that our interventionism is purely for the safety of our allies....   Some of our interventionism is truly needed for security reasons, but most of it is motivated by economic interests.

Granted, I realize that even countries like Norway profit from war.  Norway actually has a pretty significant arms industry.

They also grabbed one of the largest oil fields in Iraq.

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

oh puh-leez do not fucking patronise about war-some history.

dude the US has taken the flaming-torch from europe when it comes to war-making and aggravating conflicts.

in fact, since the end of empire and the building of nations in europe between WW1-WW2, the US has taken over that empire-building, militaristic strategy. so drop the silly tone and read a history book.

While there is historical precedent for such a move, I think what would be more likely with Europe in a world where the U.S. became less militaristic would involve France becoming more interventionist followed by the U.K.  Germany would likely take longer to build up its military and engage in interventionism because of their shame regarding WW2.  Japan would also likely become more interventionist.

See?

Wait, people believe Europe would go back to war if we pulled out? the majority seem to get along just fine without wanting war. .

Back to the OP:

I love the US and I've always wanted to live somewhere like the Pacific NW so I don't think I'd move. I would, however, hire some smart tax attorney who can use as many loopholes as possible to reduce my tax owed.

tuckergustav wrote:

This seems like a silly question...but I would rather ask it than assume one way or another...

Aren't you expected to pay taxes in a country that you are living and working anyways? So, would you be paying taxes to the US and that country?

you dont have to pay the taxes in certain countries, also you dont have to pay the state income tax if u live in: Alaska,New Hampshire,    Tennessee,Florida, South Dakota, Washington,Nevada,Texas, Wyoming

Uzique wrote:

galt isn't talking about involvement in africa and the middle-east again, turq... he's not on about interventionism.

his suggestion is that, according to 'historical precendent' (i.e. one very badly misunderstood world war, in his eyes) europe would soon descend into a state of extreme far-right nations aggressing against other democratic ones. fourth reich. fascist italy again. general franco in spain. what he doesn't understand, clearly, is that those governments were the product of contextual, historically-specific social, economic and political factors. factors, such as post-war civic depression and working-class ire, that gave birth to extreme right-wing views. there is nothing on that scale or nothing like that in current, modern-day europe. your example about eastern-european states are also pretty irrelevant, because the dissolution of the USSR after the stalinist policies of ethnic nation-building (also in central asian states, the uzbekhistans etc.)... not because of a 'european' cultural or political predisposition for war.

sometimes the american education establishment really disappoints me.

The condescension isn't necessary.  That always seems to have been your weakness in discussing things because it colors your perceptions about people -- most notably Americans.

Nevertheless, Bosnia is relevant.  Again, I'm not saying that Europe culturally leans toward war, but it is surely capable of engaging in it under the right conditions.  These conditions are still affected by outside involvement, like ours.  Ethnic cleansing is the sort of thing that can feasibly occur in any multiethnic state, and when economic conditions worsen, cultural relations tend to follow.

I can't speak for Galt, but I'm not personally suggesting that our involvement singlehandedly prevents war from breaking out across Europe.  What I'm saying is that any nation that poses as a looming authority powerful enough and willing enough to get involved in any conflict does have an effect overall on global stability -- sometimes this is a positive effect, sometimes not.

Also, nature abhors a vacuum.  This applies to geopolitics equally as much as it does to many other things.  If the U.S. becomes less involved and/or less powerful, other nations will fill in the void.  China and Russia are well positioned to become more interventionist, and France, the U.K. and Japan all have this potential as well.  Even India may become more interventionist with time.

Nice job falling into the trap I set Turquoise. American hubris at its finest

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

india rapes kashmir every single day and nobody does a thing. imo europe is the last place in the modern-world you need to be 'world policing' in order to maintain order and civility. we've had our share of empire, had our fair share of war and our fair share of brutal humanity. i think one of europe's last interests is any more conflict on our own grounds.

Western Europe is fine.  Eastern Europe is really the only cause for worry.  For various reasons, the Balkans have always been a "powderkeg" throughout history.  Granted, things seem to be better now.  Greece's economy is fucked though.

But I would agree that India and Pakistan are far more worrisome than any of Europe.  So is most of Africa, the Middle East, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Venezuela, Colombia, etc...

And none of it is our problem.