The former U.S. citizen explains why he chose not to cast a ballot in the 2016 election and why, if he had, he would have supported Hillary Clinton. His reasoning is framed around the practical realities of expatriate life, U.S. citizenship‑based taxation, and the limited political options for high‑net‑worth nomads.
Why he did not vote
- Residency complications – He spent zero days in the United States in 2016 and had to coordinate with the U.S. embassy to register, which he found cumbersome.
- Perceived lack of impact – Living abroad, he felt his vote would not influence policies that directly affected his situation.
- Civic disengagement – After years of watching U.S. politics from overseas, he grew jaded about the ability of any candidate to protect his interests.
Political evolution
| Period | Outlook | Key influences |
|---|---|---|
| Early teens (14‑15) | Libertarian, favoring personal and economic freedom | Limited exposure to mainstream parties |
| Post‑9/11 (≈16) | Brief surge of patriotism, gave the U.S. a chance | National sentiment after the attacks |
| Early 20s (business start) | Disillusioned by high taxes and limited returns | Personal experience paying substantial U.S. taxes |
| 2012 (Obama vs. Romney) | Pragmatic, no strong feelings for either side | Observed economic recovery and policy stability |
| 2016 (Trump vs. Clinton) | Saw Trump’s “America First” as a potential threat to expatriates | Concern that policies would push overseas entrepreneurs back to the U.S. |
Why he would have voted for Clinton
- Status‑quo on taxation – Clinton was unlikely to dismantle the citizenship‑based tax system, which, while imperfect, would not add new burdens for expatriates.
- Avoidance of further regulatory tightening – He believed a Clinton administration would be less likely to introduce additional bureaucracy that could make offshore banking and business operations more costly.
- Limited risk of “America First” policies – Trump’s rhetoric suggested a push to repatriate talent and raise taxes on high earners abroad; Clinton’s platform appeared more predictable for his lifestyle.
Core concerns for expatriate entrepreneurs
- Citizenship‑based taxation – U.S. citizens are taxed on worldwide income regardless of residence, requiring complex filing (e.g., FBAR, FATCA) and potentially higher effective tax rates.
- Regulatory exposure – Shifts toward protectionist or “America First” policies could increase scrutiny on offshore accounts and foreign‑based businesses.
- Economic migration – The U.S. may become less attractive for high‑net‑worth individuals if tax and regulatory pressures rise, prompting a move to jurisdictions with lower rates and more flexible corporate structures.
Implications for “nomad capitalists”
- Diversify political risk – Relying on any single country’s political climate is risky; consider multiple residency options.
- Structure assets for portability – Use legal entities and banking relationships that can survive changes in tax law or diplomatic relations.
- Monitor policy trends – Stay informed about U.S. tax reforms, especially proposals affecting expatriates, to anticipate compliance costs.
- Plan for long‑term expatriation – If the political environment becomes hostile, a full exit from U.S. citizenship (renunciation) may be a strategic choice, though it carries its own tax and legal complexities.
The speaker concludes that, for wealthy individuals who can choose where to live, the United States is increasingly an unfavorable environment. He suggests looking beyond the traditional two‑party system and beyond one’s country of birth when planning a financially sustainable, globally mobile lifestyle.
