Hide table of contents

I am a dual UK/US citizen, living and working in the UK.

Investing in the UK whilst a US citizen is fraught with difficulties. In short:

  • The majority of good investment options (e.g. most Stocks and Shares ISAs) aren't available to me as the financial institutions won't take US citizens due to FATCA reporting requirements
  • A few will take me, but any tax benefits due to ISAs are essentially wiped for me as the US doesn't recognise these benefits and so will want to tax any capital gains
  • Some of the most prevalent and popular investments available in the UK are actually taxed punitively by the US authorities (basically if they are Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs))

More on all this here if you're interested. 

Given my desire to invest, this has got me thinking about renouncing US citizenship.

However, the main benefit (and to be honest the only significant one I can think of), of hanging on to the US citizenship is that one day I can easily move to the US, where I may be able to do more good than in the UK. I am broadly working in policy, and from this angle it seems that the US is the place to be. I am worried about closing off potentially good career opportunities. 

Also, it may be possible for me to be sneaky and avoid US tax whilst investing in the UK, or I may be able to invest in US (e.g in a Roth IRA), sidestepping these issues. I haven't really figured out details here yet, but I don't think it would be ideal.

What do you all think? On balance, should I hang on to citizenship or get rid? Appreciate y'all aren't experts, but I would appreciate thoughts.

10

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


4 Answers sorted by

US citizenship is extremely valuable and your career opportunities at this stage are likely to be far more valuable to you in future earnings expectations than a few additional  percentage points on investments. 

In terms of investing, my understanding is that you are best off investing in the US and that there are US investment options open to you (Charles Schwab I believe often comes up as a broker in this area) rather than in the UK. 

I renounced my US citizenship two years ago (I still have a German one, living in Germany) because of the restrictions on opening bank accounts, the uncertainty on taxes on capital gains as well around inheritance taxes as well as the yearly cost of paying and additional CPA for the US return. The process was pretty straight forward (going to the consulate, paying the exit fee) and at that time they told me at the consulate that many people were doing this.I've since then travelled to the US once and wasn't questioned at the border.

Not having the option to work in the US is a significant downside so I wouldn't take the decision lightly. However once you start having more assets outside the US (especially if you start investing in companies) the risks and tax requirements can be significant.

If you can manage to open a bank account in the US it might be easier to invest there but usually you need a permanent address.

I short I think it's worthwhile to invest some time (and perhaps money in advisors) in further researching the options you have before making a decision that either reduces your work options or exposes you to unknown financial risks.

Do you currently have significant assets? I am not an expert in this but historically the US has imposed exit taxes on people who renounce their citizenship, to try to recoup the taxes they think you 'should' have paid.

No I don't have significant assets at the moment

I'm not very familiar with investment options in the UK, but there are of course many investment options in the US. I believe that being a citizen of the US helps a fair bit for some of these options. 

My impression is that getting full citizenship of both the US and the UK is generally extremely difficult, I imagine ever changing your mind would be quite a challenge.

One really nice benefit of having both citizenship is that it gives you a lot of flexibility. If either country suddenly becomes much more preferable for some reason or another (imagine some tail risk, like a political disaster of some sort), you have the option of easily going to the other. 

You also need account for how the US might treat you if you do renounce citizenship. My impression is that they can be quite unfavorable to those who do this (particularly if they think it's for tax reasons); both by coming at these people for assets, making it difficult to come back to the US for any reason, or other things. 

I would be very hesitant to renounce citizenship of either, until you really do a fair amount of research on the cons of the matter.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/17/could-eduardo-saverin-be-barred-from-the-u-s-for-life/

Thanks. I will look at US investment options. 

I don't have significant assets so I would only have to pay a $2,350 renunciation fee (this obviously still isn't great but in the grand scheme of things it's not that bad).

Curated and popular this week
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from Otherwise. Most people in EA won't find these arguments new. Apologies for leaving out animal welfare entirely for the sake of simplicity. Last month, Emma Goldberg wrote a NYT piece contrasting effective altruism with approaches that refuse to quantify meaningful experiences. The piece indicates that effective altruism is creepily numbers-focused. Goldberg asks “what if charity shouldn’t be optimized?” The egalitarian answer Dylan Matthews gives a try at answering a question in the piece: “How can anyone put a numerical value on a holy space” like Notre Dame cathedral? For the $760 million spent restoring the cathedral, he estimates you could prevent 47,500 deaths from malaria. “47,500 people is about five times the population of the town I grew up in. . . . It’s useful to imagine walking down Main Street, stopping at each table at the diner Lou’s, shaking hands with as many people as you can, and telling them, ‘I think you need to die to make a cathedral pretty.’ And then going to the next town over and doing it again, and again, until you’ve told 47,500 people why they have to die.” Who prefers magnificence? Goldberg’s article draws a lot on author Amy Schiller’s plea to focus charity on “magnificence” rather than effectiveness. Some causes “make people’s lives feel meaningful, radiant, sacred. Think nature conservancies, cultural centers and places of worship. These are institutions that lend life its texture and color, and not just bare bones existence.” But US arts funding goes disproportionately to the most expensive projects, with more than half of the funding going to the most expensive 2% of projects. These are typically museums, classical music groups, and performing arts centers. When donors prioritize giving to communities they already have ties to, the money stays in richer communities. Some areas have way more rich people than others. New York City has 119 billionaires; most African countries have none. Unsurprisingly, Schill
Sarah Cheng
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This post is my personal perspective. I’m sure that my colleagues on the Forum Team and at CEA disagree with parts of this. However, since I am the Interim EA Forum Project Lead, I recognize that my opinions and beliefs carry extra weight. I’m very happy to receive feedback and push back from others, since I believe that my decisions matter a fair amount. You’re welcome to reply to this post, DM me, find me at EAG Bay Area, contact our team, or leave our team anonymous feedback here. ---------------------------------------- When I took the role of Interim EA Forum Project Lead in late August 2024, I spent some time investigating where the Forum was at and thinking about what (if anything) our team should prioritize working on. Over the course of 2024 (and indeed, since early 2023), Forum usage metrics have steadily gone down[1]. My subjective opinion was that the Forum did not meet my (perhaps too high) expectations in terms of producing valuable discussions that enable collective intellectual progress on the world’s most pressing problems[2]. I felt that our team was focusing on the Forum software to the detriment of the Forum community, so since then our team has made some major shifts. The Forum Team as community builders Is it worthwhile for us to continue allocating our resources towards working on the Forum? If so, what should our team be prioritizing? The answers to these questions were not obvious to me. Eventually, after talking with others and reflecting on these questions, I’ve become more convinced that it is worthwhile. Here’s the main structure of my thinking[3]: 1. My baseline assumption is that EA’s influence will be net good for the world[4]. 1. Broadly, everyone on our team wants to do the most good with our careers. Since we currently work at CEA, for simplicity I’m limiting our ways of doing good to work that supports EA. 2. In order for the EA community/field/project to reach its future potential, it needs to grow in size/influence an