Republicans Overseas has compiled a comparison of the world’s two major income tax methods: residence based taxation and territorial taxation. We’ve added the United States’ citizenship based taxation to demonstrate that overseas Americans would be better off with TTFI.
You can access a PDF copy here: RBT vs TTFI postcard
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
How do Republicans win in 2018, let alone in 2020, when their president’s approval rating is lower than Hillary Clinton’s self-esteem?
Easy: 5.7 million Americans who live and work abroad are registered and qualified to vote by absentee ballot.
Why’s that a big deal when we already have 194 million registered voters inside our borders, 135 million of whom voted last Nov. 7?
Remember absentee ballots in one state, Florida, won George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.
Read the full article at the Washington Times.
Currently non-Americans have very preferential (0-10%) tax rates on dividends, interest and capital gains earned in America while Americans are hounded by the IRS around the world at 38% tax rates on every penny earned outside of America.
Here are the tax rates enjoyed by non-Americans on American investments:
If we believe America First means US citizens first, then non-Americans should pay the same dividends, interest, and capital gains taxes as 322 million stateside and 9 million overseas Americans.
We will bring this issue to the White House on October 2, 2017.
Write a letter to President Trump to support putting US citizens first!
Would you like to see the language granting these tax rates to non-Americans? Then please read the US Model for tax treaties.
Please help us to spread the word about our Letter Writing Campaign and Petition!
You can forward our TTFI Airmail Postcards:
You can click to tweet:
Let’s end double taxation once and for all!
Plaintiffs in Crawford, et al. vs. US Department of Treasury, et al. have filed a filed a Petition for En Banc Rehearing in their fight against the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) and related provisions after the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower district court’s ruling that none of the plaintiffs had standing, i.e., sufficient harm to bring a challenge.
For a complete analysis of the reasoning behind the filing, please read the entire document here.
