Morally speaking, there are two principles at play.
The first is paying your fair share of taxes for enabling the system of rule of law, financial protection, courts, stability provided by national defense, etc. that help you earn that money in the first place. This argues for paying taxes in the country where the money is earned.
The second is the principle of progressive taxation that funds the entire social system where you live -- roads, schools, parks, police, health care, retirement. The richer you are, the higher the rate you can and should give back. Thus it doesn't matter whether you make your money at home or abroad -- it counts toward the taxes you're morally obligated to pay for where you reside and/or are a citizen of.
Because these conflict, the US allows for Americans to let taxes paid abroad count against their US taxes, so they're not double-taxed. Which is one form of a reasonable compromise. There are many other forms you could imagine.
I lived in country A - normal apartment, I went to a really shitty school, got bullied there, didn't finish university. I had to pay out of pocket for healthcare as public option sucks and didn't want to help me. I made my money selling my software to people abroad. How is it in any way fair that I pay all my taxes in country A instead of to all the countries that really made it possible for me to earn money?
>>Thus it doesn't matter whether you make your money at home or abroad -- it counts toward the taxes you're morally obligated to pay for where you reside and/or are a citizen of.
What about all other countries that were stable and nice enough and allowed me to make money?
Why should I be "morally obliged" to pay taxes in a country I didn't choose, that was shitty to me and didn't help me much if at all? I used very little resources there (now I finally moved). It would feel even more unfair if they followed me abroad and required even more taxes.
>>There are many other forms you could imagine.
Yeah, like paying proportionally (or progressively) for resources you use in a country or for business you do in that country. It seems really unfair that my country gets all my taxes for providing very little to me while all other countries that gave me business opportunities got close to nothing (some VAT in EU countries but that's it).
> It seems really unfair that my country gets all my taxes for providing very little to me
Do you not get police and fire protection? Health care? Rule of law? Urban and rural infrastructure? National defense? Some level of education? Courts that enforce property protection? And so forth?
We often don't see all the benefits our government provides because we take it for granted. But if you ever go visit somewhere where you need to hire bodyguards so that you're not kidnapped while driving, security forces around your compound to prevent it from being looted, and pay constant protection money to the local crime boss so he specifically doesn't kill you and take your stuff... you might realize your taxes pay for a whole lot more than you think.
Obviously every country can do more. But in a democracy that's why we try to vote in candidates who will improve things. And you can always try to move to a better country, if they'll let you. But that's up to them.
(If you live in a dictatorship, then obviously you have more reason to be able to complain since you don't have any legal ability to work for change from within the system.)
>>Do you not get police and fire protection? Health care? Rule of law? Urban and rural infrastructure? National defense? Some level of education? Courts that enforce property protection? And so forth?
I got some of that although I got robbed 3 times in my life and police has done nothing. The point is I got those services at the level of any other citizen. What I really benefited from are other countries than mine which I paid 0 taxes to. It would be fair if I paid proportionally to those at the price they see fit for me doing business there. As it is my (shitty) country got all the taxes how does it make sense?
>>We often don't see all the benefits our government provides because we take it for granted.
My point is that the country gets all my taxes and I pay disproportionally even though it's real other countries (the one I sell to) that made it possible for me to do well.
When I spend a few months per year in Spain I don't pay taxes there eithre. I think it's unfair. It would be better if I paid proportionally to my resources usage/time there.
There's your answer. I was in exactly the same position (felt what the country had to offer me was piss-poor, so I left).
Whilst I lived in that country however, _I paid taxes_. A country has costs, just like a household. There's the obvious things like police and other civil servants, but there are also countless invisible costs that go to holding a country together. To say "well I didn't choose to be here anyway" is childish.
Because physical presence incurs costs to taxpayer funded infrastructure? Why should I be able to dodge taxes by working remotely abroad? Are you saying independently wealthy people should be able to roam around and freeload without paying tax to their resident nation?
In the US many people falsely believe illegal immigrants do exactly that, and that lie has contributed to a lot of outrage, so obviously people perceive the system you're proposing as unjust.
>>Because physical presence incurs costs to taxpayer funded infrastructure? Why should I be able to dodge taxes by working remotely abroad? Are you saying independently wealthy people should be able to roam around and freeload without paying tax to their resident nation?
Yeah so tax their presence: land, resources usage, consumption. If you insist on taxing their whole world wide revenue don't be surprised when someone living across multiple countries choose one that isn't yours and then you get 0 taxes.
I live across 4-5 countries spending a few months here and there. Fair system would tax me for my presence/consumption/resource usage accordingly. That tax might be progressive (bigger house taxed at higher rate, luxury consumption taxes at higher rate etc.) but shouldn't belong to one country if you care about fairness.
In the US most things are funded by income and payroll tax, the taxes you mention add up to about 30% of our budget so are not enough on their own. In addition I am unconvinced that it is even possible for consumption taxes to be progressive enough to make up for their inherent regressivity at high income levels. I do think it would be reasonable for the global tax to be prorated by time spent in the US though, which would solve your objection.
> Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Most of that amount, $59.4 billion, was paid to the federal government while the remaining $37.3 billion was paid to state and local governments.
But still, wouldn't you need some valid status to get one of those? I know from friends that had to get it for their child that they had to prove status if I remember correctly.
You do not need to prove any kind of status other than you are a foreigner and this is your identity. A foreign voter registration card, a foreign national ID card, or a USCIS-issued photo ID card can all be valid. It doesn't inherently mean you have the right to stay or work in the US.
That's a part of why there was a lot of hubub about ICE searching the IRS's databases for potential targets. There are a lot of people who are probably working in the US paying income taxes without authorization to stay or work in the US. The IRS generally doesn't care about your immigration status, it just cares about collecting taxes.
You can get a tax identification number without an SSN.
An illegal / undocumented worker working a standard W-2 paycheck job is going to have taxes withheld and sent in by the employer, even if they never file their own tax return.
It is not like that, usually immigrants live in grey arey keeping all contacts with govt to the minimum, the whole idea of hiring illegals is to avoid taxes.
I know that from personal experience of being illegal immigrant in US of very close person.
Some might be using faked documents to get a 'legit' job, in which case the job will withhold and pay taxes like any other legal employee. That's what the report I linked to is showing.
Are you asking why any country is able to impose a tax on its residents? Morally, because they owe an obligation to the society they live in. Practically, because the state has a local monopoly on violence and may jail them unless they pay.
Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use (or wealth you have in that country). Why someone who made millions in Poland (and paid taxed there) should pay 20x for living the same life in say Spain as a typical resident there?
It's so easy to say "moral" but I struggle to see the moral principle at play. I understand paying proportionally to resources/wealth in that country. I understand paying progressively for those or income in that country but why pay in proportion to what you have already build in another place?
As it is I live for a few months per year in Spain for free.
One of the reasons I am advocating for sane taxation instead of knee-jerk one (like wealth tax on world wide assets). I would really like to pay my fair share there but as it's nothing or a leg I choose nothing.
> Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use
It is proportional to the resources you use in every case where that is possible. It is nonsensical to say "Well, you used only 2% of police time this year, so that's how much police-tax you'll be paying", not least because it is impossible to put a "usage" on the benefit of having police in the first place. Where it is possible, like how much land you own, you are taxed proportionately.
>Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use (or wealth you have in that country).
This is analogous to asking why should software be priced on value delivered, vs priced on costs incurred in producing. Value pricing is much more common.
The value you derive from living in the country of your residence is higher that your poorer neighbors; hence you are charged more.
I, as a rich techbro, but not an Uber rich techbro, have to pay ~46% of my income in tax. (even though the majority comes from the US in USD) Don't get me wrong, I earn a fucking kings ransom, and I don't mind paying that amount of tax.
but. If I was earning maybe 4x that amount, I could probably avoid a whole bunch of tax. It doesn't seem correct that the richer you get, the more optional tax is.
Having listened to my more senior colleagues, it wasn't that much more. If you own your own company, or have the ability to change your contract, its probably a lot less.
