T'aint trilingual yet. (I guess they're webcasting in Arabic, but the actual sat channel is due sometime next year. When is China going to announce their Arabic-language channel? They're the only permanent Security Council member who doesn't have one in the works.)

Also, what's up with these international broadcasters and british accents? Are american-accented newscasters that few and far between?

British accents are more trustworthy, yes?

I presume tax issues and experience. Americans are far more stay at home. And the US has an imperial tax system that puts American staff at a fiscal disadvantage - only country in the world to my knowledge with such policies, rather queerly structured it appears to make Americans internationally uncompetitive.

Strange.

Dear L,

could you expound on that a bit more? What does that mean? How are American staff at a financial disadvantage?

If an American is hired by, say, BBC World or Al-Jazeera ... does s/he then not pay taxes according to the law of wherever s/he works?

--MSK

let's face it: british accents have more sex appeal.

MSK

Americans are taxed universally, if you are off-shore, you face the same tax rate as on-shore. No other country does that (this excludes in EU issues, that are no longer 'expat'). So, US expats require X% (whatever the US income taxation rate is, 35 %) more in compensation to be at the same net as any other expat.

An immediate disincentive.

A US staffer either eats the difference or requires a higher compensation.

A structural disincentive to expatriation, holding other issues such as personal preference aside.

Note that there's an $80,000 exemption for that beforehand. (that is, you're only taxed x percent on income above 80k per year).

1. Accents: There is absolutely nothing as comforting when abroad as the softly spoken royal English of the BBC World Service.

2. China: All I know is that the little radio I used to listen to for lack of a TV ("Panasoanic", and still so cheap) had a hard time NOT getting the Chinese channels. Though fortunately one of them was in English.

1. Accents: There is absolutely nothing as comforting when abroad as the softly spoken royal English of the BBC World Service.

True, I watch BBCW all the time for that reason...although I admit to having a soft spot for slightly drawled American accents as well. Comes from having been looked after/entertained by Americans while on solo trips abroad.

Yep, taxing people over $80,000 a year isn't exactly squeezing them, and besides, you often get to make up your own expenses and deductions if you're not a contract employee, because the IRS doesn't have a way of double-checking your overseas documentation of expenses. Americans do have to pay social security tax, but that's as it should be, because they're going to retire in the US.

They also make those of us who are not US citizens pay social security tax after a while, whether or not we are there on long-term work visas...in addition to regular taxes.

Apparently the English sound cleverer and more reliable to Americans too...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/weekinreview/10lyall.html?ref=weekinreview

Well, faux analysis

taxing people over $80,000 a year isn't exactly squeezing them,

My dear innocent, comparative advantage. American executives (and one's expat staff usually is in the 100K range, one does not send schmoes overseas) are in competition with others - as non-US resident or citizen executives will look generally cheaper, ceteris paribus.

Of course your analysis is exactly why the Americans have the imperial system they have.

Below 100k and you're mostly in NGO range, most private sector executives, managers, business owners will easily be over the 80k.

You're in effect making a structural disincentive for internationalisation of one's own native born entrepreneurial / executive class; reinforcing provincial business views.

and besides, you often get to make up your own expenses and deductions if you're not a contract employee, because the IRS doesn't have a way of double-checking your overseas documentation of expenses.

Shrug, I have no idea, however I have never encountered a Fisc that hasn't ability to imposepenealites first.

Americans do have to pay social security tax, but that's as it should be, because they're going to retire in the US.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Again, I am unware of any OECD nation that imposes global taxation like the Americans.

They also make those of us who are not US citizens pay social security tax after a while, whether or not we are there on long-term work visas...in addition to regular taxes.

Eh. That sounds typical.

Of course the pvt sector will make over $80K - but it will still be a lower overall tax rate for them as they are only being taxed on the amount over 80K (unless that's invested in IRAs or 401(k)s - those aren't taxed at all).

Do other OECD nations negotiate tax treaties with other countries that allow their nationals to not be taxed locally in exchange for nationals of said countries not being taxed in the US? BBC says 10% of Brits live overseas, they aren't taxed at all?

Bloody hell, are you all dim?

The issue is comparative, US expat professionals are the only ones taxed internationally. Normally speaking, one is not taxed by the "home" nation.

BC says 10% of Brits live overseas, they aren't taxed at all?

They are not taxed by UK authorities on their income overseas if they are resident overseas.

The US is the only OECD nation which does so.

Comparative disadvantage. Have you low-rent dimwits finally grasped this?