Tipping in USA/Canada

Greg Procter wrote:


Yes, I've done that - you're effectively saying that a person can be a
permanent resident in two countries at once. That's obviously not
possible, and it has nothing at all to any distinction between the term
and the words.

It has to do with how countries define the term, not the dictionary.
If the government rule for permanent residents, permit them to live
elsehwere, and the rule regarding this arrangement are followed, then
they can remain "permanent residents". As Craig has stated, he is a
citizen of one country, and a "permanent resAident" of mulitple
countries. I am a US citizen, live in the US permanently, but am NOT a
"US Permanent Resident". You understand this, correct?
Now, do not confuse the US Immigration definitions with the IRS
defintions. You can be a permanent resident for tax purposes, and not
be a legal immigrant permanent resident.
If you are here illegally, you sitll pay tax on earnings.
If you work at an illegal job, like burglary, you still are supposed to
pay tax on your "earnings"

Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

One can be a Permanent Resident of more than one country, as Permanent
Resident is a *legal status*, not an indication of where you are on any
given day.


We've covered that point!

And you still can't seem to understand it

Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Craig Welch wrote:


Mr. Travel wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


No, the law cannot apply _in_ other countries.

If the action is committed in another country, the law could still
apply. The action taken against the violator would probably wait until
they are back in the US, but the law APPLIES for the offense committed
in the other country. Maybe your dictionary doesn't have this word?

The best example is Taxation Law ... the IRS extends its reach to 'us
yanks' the world over, does it not?

I'm a New Zealander living in New Zealand - why would I know what the US
tax department does???
In New Zealand the NZIRS only concerns itself with wages or salaries
earned while the individual is resident in NZ.

US law concerns itself with the earnings of people in the US, as well as
the earnings of US Citizens and US Permanent Residents, inside and
outside of the US. There is a hefty exclusion of income, probably
90,000 USD by now, and there are also some credits for foreign taxes
paid. Additionally, IRS probably won't find out any income was earned.
However, that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.

Any yank working outside the US is going to be paying taxes in the
source country - then the thieving yank government taxes them on already
taxed income - I feel sorry for you all!

So to add to the large (and seemingly growing) number of things you
don't understand ... you've never heard of tax treaties?

Of course I've heard of tax treaties.

You might have heard of them, but if you *understood* them you would not
have made the statement "then the thieving yank government taxes them on
already taxed income".



You just told me the US government taxes them on taxed income!


That would be the case if the foreign tax on the non-excluded income is
lower than the US tax would be. Do you also understand there is a
substantial income exclusion to start with. Do you feel citizens and
permanent residents of a country owe nothing to that country?

Greg Procter wrote:


Yes, Craig, that's telling me that the US taxes US citizens and US PRs
on moneys earned outside the US, particularly "... and there are also
some credits for foreign taxes paid. "

No, you still don't get it.

From my understanding of this, but it was a few years ago when I was
thinking about transferring to Brussels, so research it if you really
want the info.

If the foreign tax rate is higher than the US rate, no additional tax
will be due.

IF the foreign rate is lower than the US rate, you would pay
(approximatelly) the difference up to the US rate, after deducting the
excluded income amount.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


Are you trying to make some point not related to my IBM PC?
Whatever it is, it's not being transmitted.

You claim the XT's name was not "IBM Personal Computer XT"
Actually I stated the XT was an IBM PC. You seemed to disagree.

I pointed out the prodcut numbers of 2 IBM manuals that have this name
on the cover.



My oldest IBM computer is an IBM PC which pre-dates the XT.

Let's try this again.
Is the XT an IBM PC?



I don't own an XT. I own the previous model IBM which is the "PC".

Can;'t you just answering a question without being obtuse?


My answer is absolutely straight.
I own an IBM PC which is significantly different in specification to an
XT.
I don't have a manual for it, but I do have a manual for an XT. They are
not the same.

I have spoken to the person originally in control of the machine and am
satisfied with it's liniage.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


No, the law cannot apply _in_ other countries.

If the action is committed in another country, the law could still
apply. The action taken against the violator would probably wait until
they are back in the US, but the law APPLIES for the offense committed
in the other country. Maybe your dictionary doesn't have this word?



The law can only be applied in the country it exists in.

So, if I violate a US law outside of the US, it doesn't apply, so I
can't be punished when I get back to the US?


Assuming you are a yank then you can be punished when you return to the
US
As a New Zealander I cannot be punished for a US crime occuring outside
the US when I return to the US.

See how that works?


If you are US Green Card holder, violate the restrictions on Cuba or
other US laws (like not filing a tax return), and you return to the US,
you can be prosecuted, no matter what your citizenship.

Why is this not yet clear to you?


It is totally clear to me.
Why is it you do not understand that the Moon circles the Earth?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

So you're saying that children or retired parents of "Green Card"
holders would need their own "Green Cards" to stay in the US, even
though the purpose of "Green Cards" is to allow foreigners to work in
the US, but that they would not need "Green Cards" if they held
"Permanent Resident" status, which you've told me is the same as the
"Green Card".

Are you sure you've got this straight?

I never stated the purpose of a green card was to work in the US.
I said "green card holder" is the same thing as "permanent resident' or
"resident alien"


Ok, I had always understood that a "US Green Card" was a licence for a
non-US citizen to work within the US.

How many times have I told you what it is?

How difficult is this to understand?



It's much easier when you stop assuming I would know your immigration
laws.
"Green Card" in itself doesn't impart much information, other than that
it's a piece of green card.

As stated multiple times before, the damn card is not GREEN.


You started on about "green cards"!



It is poosible for a non-US citizen to work, if they don't have a green
card. The are visas that permit them to worl.



Ok, so I've been misinformed by yanks in the pasr.

I am guessing you were confused.


Do you understand the meaning of the word "confused"?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



What would I care about your "Green Cards"???
I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my
opinion about them in regards to our discussion.

We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba.
In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien
would be relevant.



Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent
resident/resident alien of the USa..
Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options
can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him.

Again... and again..

A Green Card Holder/permanent resident/resident alien, doesn't have to
remain in the US. So, Craig being in Singapore doesn't mean he isn't a
US Resident Alien.



It's nice when we agree - it took you a long time to understand!

It was a typo. A permanent resident doesn't have to live in the US.


Of course not, a permanent resident would be a permanent resident of
where-ever he/she lived permanently.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Well, K-mart wasn't active in New Zealand pre-1970. I would guess, based
on the fact that a K-mart opened about 2km from my then home around
1993-4 that they started in NZ about 1991-2. At that time they could not
have sold "quarts" of oil. As to what is "relevant", you've consistantly
come out of 'left-field' or 'cloud-cuckoo-land' with what you consider
to be relevant, so I need to cover all the bases. At this stage, based
on your past efforts I fully expect you to start an argument about the
number of carats I claim to be in a chaldron!

Whether K-Mart existed in NZ pre-1970 has NOTHING to do with you
understanding approximately what a quart of oil is. The imperial quart
and US quart are close enough in size for you determine I was referring
to a small quanity of oil.



Well the US measure is short change - typical of cheating yanks.

So, NZ short changes it's citizens by using narrow gauge tracks.


Nahh, they're standard here.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Yes, I've done that - you're effectively saying that a person can be a
permanent resident in two countries at once. That's obviously not
possible, and it has nothing at all to any distinction between the term
and the words.

It has to do with how countries define the term, not the dictionary.

If it's a "term" then you write it capitalized or within quotation
marks, so that it is not confused with the dictionary meaning. This
isn't rocket science.
You could alternatively write "(has) permanent ressidence status".


If the government rule for permanent residents, permit them to live
elsehwere, and the rule regarding this arrangement are followed, then
they can remain "permanent residents". As Craig has stated, he is a
citizen of one country, and a "permanent resAident" of mulitple
countries. I am a US citizen, live in the US permanently, but am NOT a
"US Permanent Resident". You understand this, correct?

Of course - you've indicated that you're using the US term "permanent
resident" rather than the dictionary definition of the two words.


Now, do not confuse the US Immigration definitions with the IRS
defintions. You can be a permanent resident for tax purposes, and not
be a legal immigrant permanent resident.

Do you mean permanent resident or permanent resident?


If you are here illegally, you sitll pay tax on earnings.
If you work at an illegal job, like burglary, you still are supposed to
pay tax on your "earnings"