That honestly seems quite reasonable. Citizenship comes with all sorts of obligations like getting drafted and serving on juries, taxes are simply the most obvious.
On the up side you can apparently still qualify for Social Security benefits.
It’s a reciprocal relationship with rights and obligations on both sides not ownership. For example the FBI doesn’t invoice victims or their families when it gets involved in kidnapping cases.
Capital gains are deferred without interest until an asset it sold, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an obligation for those years.
> rights and obligations on both sides not ownership
I would say consequences of infringement are much worse for individual citizens than for the government.
If the government confiscates some of your money through "civil forfeiture", you then have to sue the government and prove the money was gained legally.
Just like every other civilized country. The fact that it was even mentioned suggests that for Americans it might not always be the case in some situations, which is quite frightening.
It’s not an issue in American. Thing is we are talking about renouncing citizenship so the comparison is to other countries.
Looking deeply at the social counteracts of other countries is really interesting because of how many different things we take for granted aren’t universal. Free speech in the US is more limited than I would like, but it gets much worse even in countries that look civilized in other ways.
FBI has no jurisdiction outside the US, so you don’t gain anything this way.
Free speech in US is poorer than in most Western countries, as it fails to protect you from anything other than most government institutions. For example in US it’s fine for your employer to fire you because they don’t like what you say in your private time. Other countries provide better protection.
My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims?
The FBI may get involved for citizens outside the US. The international situation is complex but being or not being a US citizen can very much change FBI involvement.
PS: My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims? It’s a concern if your considering renouncing citizenship and moving to a country where it’s a concern just as free speech should be a concern if your moving to a country without it.
No one is thinking that. It was an example by the other commenter of a free and valuable service provided by the government as part of their side of the bargain
A service which is always provided for free - there are no countries that invoice victims. It’s the fact that the commenter assumed it might not be free that’s frightening.
That’s the whole point, it’s always free. The commenter pointed out that it’s a valuable service that is always free as part of the social contract. You can be frightened by this if you’re really determined to be, but no sinister dystopia was implied.
It’s common for cops to require bribes to investigate crimes in developing countries. Not every time, but almost every interaction can end up as a shakedown.
Reciprocal relationship = either party can end it under certain circumstances. If the taxpayer wants to move, the state has no moral right to force them to stay
You compare obligations to debt (which do have an upfront playout) but then state there is a benefit. How does that work with debt? Why would a jury of peers be a benefit, unless you assume positive bias? How does that work with the draft?
If you’re paying an electric bill the benefit associated with the debt was receiving electricity. How does that work with debt? For debt like a credit card bill it’s the money you spent when buying stuff etc. If you meant taxes then it’s government services already received, for example a strong military.
Why would a jury of peers be a benefit, unless you assume positive bias? It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers so you would only pick it if it’s better than being judged by a judge. That doesn’t mean it’s a positive bias, you might assume judges have a negative bias.
How does that work with the draft? Look at all the countries that have been invaded, compare them to countries that haven’t been. That’s the benefit of a strong military and the existence of the draft is part of that.
On the up side you can apparently still qualify for Social Security benefits.