Not a Resident of Anywhere Buy My Boat

[hellosailor]

"This business could also provide "
That used to be called an SRO, Single Room Occupancy hotel. Or a rooming house. Still costs money to run, to license, to book a room.

[zeehag]

minggat--if you go to san diego often or at all, use downwind marine--they are good folks--tell then karen sent ye--talk with chris frost or david and have a usa address..worked well for me since 1995.

[rover88]

While I truly sympathize with the OP's philosophical position, the point here is that we are dealing with bureaucrats, who are wholly satisfied that all boxes are checked. Check the boxes, make the bureaucrat happy then move on with your life.

We live in an increasingly regulated world and the situation is going to further deteriorate as one of the last bastions of personal freedoms morphs into yet another overly regulated nanny state.

All that means to us nomads (and I have spend many years living abroad) is that we have to be slightly more cunning than our regulators, which is not difficult (or illegal) as discussed here.

[zeehag]

rover--is why i so like downwind marine--similar philosophy--they will "do" the mail and ye can use em for addresses in usa. bt doing that....

[Shull]

Originally Posted by Canibul

We pay US Federal Taxes on our income. We're as 'entitled' to US government benefits as much or maybe more than US residents, since we don't use most of the services that our taxes are paying to support. We're not using the roads, bridges, Army, Navy, etc. but we're paying the same share as though we were. Uncle Sam definitely collects more from US taxpayers living abroad than he pays out in useful benefits.

Way to go and thanks. We're still Red, White and Blue enjoying the good life with ss that we've invested in and paid for.

[hellosailor]

"We're not using the roads, bridges, Army, Navy, etc. but we're paying the same share as though we were. "
Right, and all the expats and US citizens overseas in places like Egypt or Iran who needed to be evacuated by the US military, they didn't "use" the Army or Navy either.
Nuh-uh, unless you go to the UN and get yourself formalized as a stateless person, you still belong to someone, and when the fertilizer hits the fan, an awful lot of folks are suddenly glad they didn't become citizens of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

You can indeed resign your US citizenship and stop paying those pesky taxes. But until then, you're entitled to be a nuisance and bother the folks at the local embassy about all sorts of things.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I hope the US will smarten up like the Uk and NZ and stop paying government benefits to those living overseas! These monies are meant not just to support retired folks but put money back into the local economies.

Not to get all political, but those Expats paid into the system all their lives, so they should be able to collect the benefits promised them, or receive a lump sum refund of all moneys paid into the system during their working careers + accrued interest.

[hellosailor]

"These monies are meant not just to support retired folks but put money back into the local economies."

Read the Social Security Act and the congressional debates that preceded it. Please do tell me where there's anything to back up your statement that it is intended to put mony into local economies. Please.

[zeehag]

"I hope the US will smarten up like the Uk and NZ and stop paying government benefits to those living overseas! These monies are meant not just to support retired folks but put money back into the local economies."

you are a sailor??? you do not believe in being the recipient of the benefits earned?? where do you call home????

[Boatguy30]

Social security is not a system you "pay into" The amount you pay on your salary goes to keep current retires afloat and they take that money and put it back into the US economy to buy your products or services. This is how it works not sure on the exact legal-speak.

If you are Ron Paul you think it's unconstitutional, but cash your check since you "paid in"

Now they want me to keep "paying in" for another 30 years only to tell me I'll be "truly free" when I turn 65 and get jack!

[hellosailor]

"they take that money and put it back into the US economy to buy your products or services. "

Where do folks get these ideas?

The *taxes* collected by the SSA are either invested in income-generating bonds, etc. or disbursed to beneficiaries to do what they please with. At no time does the SSA ever try to use that money to buy goos or services that prime the economy. The money is either invested, or disbursed. (Or pillaged by Congress for other purposes, which is neither here nor there.)

If you mean the retirees--and not the SSA--spend the money on products and services, why sure they do. But that's like saying I'm eating dinner because I want the municipal compost pile to grow. What the beneficiaries do with the money has got nothing to do with the intent of the SSA. The intent of the SSA is to provide for the elderly and indigent by daddying their funds and providing a little socialist safety net. Everything else is incidental.

Like the question of where my dinner will go, after I'm done with it.

[hellosailor]

"you do not believe in being the recipient of the benefits earned??"
Zeehag, I expect that Madison and Jefferson et al would have been the first ones to take up their arms--again--at being told the government could force them to join a socialist welfare state. The government can say, well, social welfare is no different from having a police department or a fire department, really. And perhaps they are right. But the program could have been optional. Like the saying goes, "you might have asked". Yes, folks would screw up their retirement plans or even skip them. But then again, some of us might have invested in Xerox or Microsoft, and done much better than the SSA has done, too. And I suspect a quick show of hands at the Constitutional Convention would have that's our right--to invest wisely or foolishly, but TO BE ASKED.

[Boatguy30]

Yes, exactly. Its meant to help the old folks from being too poor and dying in the street. I was putting a bit of a free market spin on it with the spending on services and products, etc so we can all feel better about it.

My original point was, if you "well off" enough to be globe trotting around by whatever means you prefer; you are well beyond the scope of those originally intended to be "secured"

Several other countries take this into account. If you don't live there, they don't pay. One could make the argument, they are POOR and living on a derelict boat in the third world since they are so poor and they have "paid in" In this case, I believe you need to haul ass back to the US and park said derelict boat south of the 312 bridge in St Augustine so some of that money will be coming back into our local economy.

Anyway you look at it; absent of asset testing benefits for current retires, its all a doomed PONZI scheme for someone my age.

Cheers,
Jeff

[hellosailor]

"if you "well off" enough to be globe trotting around by whatever means you prefer; you are well beyond the scope of those originally intended to be "secured""

So, your ideas of wealth, tax rates, and disbursement are right and Congress and the SSA are wrong.

gee, why not put it in global perspective? If you can afford hot water, indoor plumbing, and more than rice for dinner, you're too damn rich to get any benefits.

Forget about the boat, if you can afford cabletv you should be disqualified form all aid programs. How 'bout that?

Boats? Way cheaper than renting an SRO or a studio apartment in any large city. And way way cheaper than the cost of owning a home, right, we'd probably better disqualify home owners from all public aid as well.

No deal, Jeff. I don't see your personal choice of cut-offs as being any better than Congress's. If your complaint is that the rates and cut-offs are inappropriate--don't confuse the issue, just say it.

[Boatguy30]

Hellosailor

Seems like you're on both side of this or just against me? You're all into the brilliant framers being sickened by the welfare state in one post and then all for defending the status quo in the next post.

Anyhow, my original point stands. If you don't live in the US a significant period of time every year I don't believe you should continue to receive benefits. This has been the approach of many other countries as well. I suppose in the grant scheme of things the amount paid to those overseas is a small percentage of the total paid out.

Hopefully various ideas can be combined into reworking our system. We need more people under 40 to vote!