Marrying Foreign Women

[George90]

Hi Voodooman,

Thanks for posting to this thread. I am not sure how many resopnses you will get. This thread is not so active. I'd like to get more posts on it because foreign (non-American) women are where it's at for wives and girlfriends.

What country and city are you living in? (If you don't mind asnwering.)

I have not had any Asian women from Asia. I am not very attracted to the Asian body shape. I did have a Brasilian of Chinese descent once. She was gorgeous, Brasilian body and Asian face! The best combination!

There are lots of Asian in South America. Brazil has more Japanese, outside of Japan, than any other country. Are there Latin Asian in the country you live in? How are they for attitude? Do they have Asian attitudes, Latina attitudes, or some hybrid?

Thanks for your answers and for posting.

[VoodooMan]

Hey guys,

I was just curious on what types of opinions i would get from this post. I live in South American now, and absolutely love latin chicas here.

But I am also very attracted to asian women. I've never been to Asia, but have been thinking of taking a trip down to somewhere in Asia for a few months, maybe Indo or PI.

For those of you guys out there that have experienced both Latin and Asian ladies, in your opinions, would you say Latin or Asian women make better wives/girlfriends? Just generally speaking in terms of passion, sex, loyalty, honestly, materialistism, domestic abilities, treating a man right, ect ect. I heard many asian girls can be cold in bed, whereas with latina chicas I've mostly experienced hot times in the sack.
Not all latinas are the same, and of course not all asians are the same, so maybe everyone has had different experiences.

Thanks!

[George90]

There has not been a post here for almost 6 months. In the American Woman thread, there had been a series of posts about the low quality wives American women make. Several men bemoaned their divorces with AMs.

I objected to this on the grounds that only complaining about AMs is useless. DOING something, such as looking abroad for wives, is the better response to the current bad wife material situation in the US.

One poster wanted to start a flame war with me over that point. I would rather convince more men to start seriously looking over seas for wives.

So let's get this thread active again. Let's discuss how we can find better quality wives in other parts of the world, for those men who may want to eventually marry.

I suggest visiting the websites of various introduction agencies. I am familir with Latin American ones, but there are lots for Asian and Eastern European women. Check out Latin Social Network, My Latin Rose, My Latin Flame, Latin Euro, A Foreign Affair, Cali Charm, All Colombian Girls, Brazilian Romance, to start.

I think I am going to keep this thread alive with commentaries about various agencies, countries, and cities to meet wife material. Mongering is not incompatible with meeting non-pros who may be very good wife material. We need to walk our talk. If we say that American women make horrible wives, then we need to stop marrying them (and then complaining about it) and start marrying women who make better wives!

[Rock Dog]

They hate it the same way a business owner hates it when one of his long-term customers decides to take his business to another place across town.

It's pretty much the same comments too. Oh, those other people give a cheaper deal but they suck compared to us. Then they try and make you feel guilty for not wanting to put up with their crap forever so that they can keep benefitting from you forever.

Let's make up a little "Service Comparison".

Local women.... mostly (50 - 75%) fat and/or out of shape.
Foreign women..... very few (5 - 10%) fat or out of shape.

Local women...... poisoned by feminist ideology.
Foreign women..... what's a feminist?

Local women...... view men as adversaries, at best.. someone to be exploited.
Foreign women...... View men as caregivers and therefore someone to be supported and respected.

Local women.... 60% chance of getting a divorce.
Foreign women.... Don't know for sure, but it's got to be less than that.

Local women...... want to marry one that's 10 yrs younger? Mission Impossible
Foreign women..... 5, 10, 15 yrs younger?..... not a problem!

Local women..... have expectations bordering on fantasy, when they look between their legs they see a million dollar asset.
Foreign women... tend to be far more practical and realistic in their expectations. For them, owning a vagina is no big deal, because they know every other girl has one too.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

Rock

[Sinanju Master]

I think it's hilarious when an AW finds that a guy prefers a foreign woman over her, especially when the reason is divulged. Imagine their dismay when their little secret (all the manipulative games and other BS) is out and the guy KNOWS IT. The AW is reduced to being exposed for the second-hand (at best) specimen she is AND her subterfuge is revealed as it was when the Great Oz was busted when Toto pulled back the curtain! It's weird when you no longer care, to catch the stares of those who would turn up their nose at you...

[XXL]

Too bad the scientific method has no way to control for investigators who are too stupid to understand their subject matter well enough to run a study that actually reveals any real truth.

I think they know too well what they are doing. Much more men who marry are exploited by their wives than the reverse these days and the policy makers or social scientists know it, but the aim of such studies is not to establish either truth or justice but to make a case, so they only go on about men seeking submissive wives. Some submissive wives indeed who can sue for divorce after two year's marriage and get half of your wages during their entire life!

It is useless to argue with Femdom. You refute one argument, Femdom already has five more ready to be pulled out of the hat.

Likewise, I don't think it's a good idea to give explanations as to why we want to marry foreign women. Whatever our reasons, it should be our right to marry whom we want, and it is that right that is being questioned.

[George90]

Men look abroad for wife material for 1 basic reason. AW's want INDEPENDENCE from men. Foreign women prefer INTERDEPENDENCE with a man. A marriage with a forien woman is much more cooperative and much less confrontational and combative than a marriage with an AW.

[Chocha Monger]

Night Cat:

American women are always ready to brand foreign women as submissive and subservient when an American man happens to be interested in them. The AW who speak so "authoritatively" on the subject, most likely, have not ever had a close relationship with women in foreign countries. These same women when on vacation in foreign countries tend to very obnoxious and often treat the hospitality workers like slaves. They act bitchy, picky and even yell at service personnel. There is nothing even remotely approaching the illusion of worldwide sisterhood among women that they regularly crow about while back home in the US. Doesn't that make you wonder about their genuine concern for their foreign sisters being controlled by oppressive American men?

American women give new meaning to the word "control" with their bitching about toilets seats being left up; denying fathers their visitation rights; witholding sex in marriage; and being unbearably demanding when put in supervisory positions in the work place to name a few. Perhaps, what they really what to say is that control is the sole domain of American women.
Of course, women never want to control anyone, right? Those insane bouts of jealousy and vindictiveness have nothing at all to do with wanting to control men.

The article is a thinly veiled assertion that American men want to control foreign women who in turn exchange submissiveness for a better standard of living; therefore the relationship is a farce. While some cross-border marriages might be contracted purely as the means to an end, that does not mean that this is the case in every instance. American women marry under false pretenses everyday, yet, there have been no calls to tighten regulations on marriage and divorce in the US.

It is rather obvious that American women will accuse and point fingers at anyone who threatens their continued ability to be in control.

[Bart9000]

Regarding the research report posted by CM:

Like so many pseudo-scientific studies these days, this research report looks at the issue in black-and-white terms, and thereby fails to lead us to any truth or understanding.

The report makes no distinction between a man who wants to mold a woman to serve in a kind of master/slave relationship, vs. a man who wants to simply find a woman who has not yet learned to turn a relationship into a power game, and keep her away from those influences, and therefore maintain a mutually cooperative and harmonious relationship for as long as possible. Being an optimist, I am willing to assume (until there is evidence to the contrary, and none was given) that most of the men are the latter kind, and therefore we can conclude just as easily that their interest in traditional values is sincere. In other words, maybe many want control, but only to the extent of being able to avert a "control freak" situation, and no more. The study cynically failed to consider this possibility.

Considering that the evidence presented is open to subjective interpretation, no conclusion is certain. Too bad the scientific method has no way to control for investigators who are too stupid to understand their subject matter well enough to run a study that actually reveals any real truth.

This is probably the result of observer bias...which an academic should be aware of and guarded against.....also, political correctness-it would certainly be impolitic to dispariage a protected social class like females. At the very least, an academic should know that analysis of human behavior requires more than just a "T-Shirt answer" (it is postulated that any answer to a complex question that will fit on a T-shirt is inevitably WRONG. "They hate us for our freedom")

B9K

[Night Cat]

Regarding the research report posted by CM:

Why do American men want foreign wives? Most of the personal reports from American men who have married women through these agencies talk about "traditional values."
...
experience and the observations of others show that, contrary to responses in questionnaires, those who have used the mail-order bride route to find a mate have control in mind more than a loving, enduring relationship.
...
Older men, says Glodava, often want women "they can mold" and therefore do not want those who are too educated. "They would just become like any other American woman," they said. She concludes that, "It is apparent that power and control are critical for the men."

Like so many pseudo-scientific studies these days, this research report looks at the issue in black-and-white terms, and thereby fails to lead us to any truth or understanding.

The report makes no distinction between a man who wants to mold a woman to serve in a kind of master/slave relationship, vs. a man who wants to simply find a woman who has not yet learned to turn a relationship into a power game, and keep her away from those influences, and therefore maintain a mutually cooperative and harmonious relationship for as long as possible. Being an optimist, I am willing to assume (until there is evidence to the contrary, and none was given) that most of the men are the latter kind, and therefore we can conclude just as easily that their interest in traditional values is sincere. In other words, maybe many want control, but only to the extent of being able to avert a "control freak" situation, and no more. The study cynically failed to consider this possibility.

Considering that the evidence presented is open to subjective interpretation, no conclusion is certain. Too bad the scientific method has no way to control for investigators who are too stupid to understand their subject matter well enough to run a study that actually reveals any real truth.

[Bart9000]

One of the big Financiers (Geroge Soros maybe?) did it....he renounced US citizenship and became a citizen of one of the carribean nations with no income or estate taxes (they will be back by the way-shouldn't have been repealed in the first place....this was Republican ass sucking to people who have last names like Hilton and Rockerfeller, disguised as "helping out family farmers").

By the way, don't hold me to this, but as I recall, Social Security is partially non-taxable because it is essentially a government administered lifetime annuity payment

You can set up your own annuity payment with cash...as I recall, you can purchase a contract from an insurance company for say 300,000, annuitize it, and have a lifetime payment stream of like 30K annually (some contracts come with COLAS also). They will amortize the payment to your life expectancy, and if you outlive your expectancy, they continue paying you after all of your principle is retuned to you....this is considered to be entirely interest, and is fully taxable. Conversely when you first start taking the payments, it is mostly your own money that is being returned to you (sort of then inverse of a mortgage where most of your payment at the beginning is interest), which isn't taxed.

By the way, check out:

escapeartist.com

for everything you would want to know about expatriation, dual citizenships, 2nd passports....they do want money for some things, but have a lot of free info..


B9k

[Lima Busy]

has any expat heard about monger(s) renouncing their citizenship and gone native for good??

"Some experts also questioned whether the new measure would generate the tax revenues anticipated by Congress. If companies bring Americans home or some of those overseas renounce their citizenship, the revenue estimates will not hold."

No, It is too easy to get around the tax laws. Remember, Tax evasion is illegal but tax avoidance is a perfectly legal hobby. When choosing your personal paradise you should look for lower tax structure, plentiful beautiful young women, cost of living. I choose Peru (Lima) as they have the worlds youngest population and a 3x1 ratio, low cost of living and tax rates.

LB

[Cavechu]

has any expat heard about monger(s) renouncing their citizenship and gone native for good??

"Some experts also questioned whether the new measure would generate the tax revenues anticipated by Congress. If companies bring Americans home or some of those overseas renounce their citizenship, the revenue estimates will not hold."

[DirkDingy]

fuck. i didn't know. i really don't want to know either. what really sucks is that before if you made 100K abroad you were only taxed on it as if you made under 20K as the first 80-85K or so was tax free. now, to the irs, it's like you are making 100K instead of 20K. Our HR people previously got creative with our partner level staff and minimized their tax liability with per diems and housing & auto allowences. Now it looks like this loophole is closed.

I don't make over 80K anyway, save last year when I was in Iraq, but it still sucks.

i tip my hat off to sen grassey's staff for some skillfull political play. those who are likely to complain are too busy dodging bullets in some warzone or are otherwise unable to muster and mount any sort of meaningful protest.

damn near every american has an elected representative looking out for their interests but the expat....maybe i'll start a pac to address this....nah, i'm going to law school next year so I really don't care...


for the record, I think that americans abroad should pay some amount of taxes to the motherland but i just dont know how much.

[Lima Busy]

Uncle Sam takes a bite out of expatriate incomes

By Sharon Reier International Herald Tribune

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 2006

It may have been sold as a tax cut package, but the document that President George W. Bush signed into law on May 17 will mean an extra tax bite for many Americans who live abroad.



Those expected to feel the most pain are expatriate workers who earn comfortable, but not lavish, livings and semi- retired workers earning some foreign income while drawing U.S. Social Security, pensions and other income from U.S. sources. Many of these expatriates will be pushed into higher U.S. brackets, as will employees and independent professionals in no-tax and low-tax areas like much of the Middle East, some Caribbean nations and Hong Kong.



As Steven Horton, a certified public accountant practicing in Paris, put it: "The middle class will get hammered."



Senior employees who collect generous expat benefits, like housing allowances and reimbursement for their children's school fees, also are expected to have bigger U.S. tax liabilities - but their companies probably will pick up the costs as part of their benefit packages, tax experts said.



The new law, however, does contain some good news. The foreign earned- income exclusion, which was under threat of extinction just three years ago, was maintained and will be indexed to U.S. inflation as of the 2006 tax year. That means U.S. taxpayers will owe no tax on their first $82,400 of income earned abroad this year, up from $80,000 in 2005. Indexing had been scheduled to start in the 2008 tax year.



On the negative side, the new law caps the exclusion for housing allowances - rent, utilities other than telephone, property insurance, occupancy taxes, maintenance and furniture rental - that U.S. corporations often provide to executives sent overseas. The cap is calculated as 30 percent of the foreign earned-income exclusion, minus the 16 percent that it is assumed would be paid in the United States. For 2006, it is set at $11,586; under the old law, the exclusion was virtually unlimited.



Another significant change is the treatment of foreign income and of ordinary income from U.S. sources, which includes Social Security, pension income, interest income, income from U.S. partnerships and other investment income, but does not include capital gains and qualified dividends.



The change, known as the "stacking provision," will tax any income beyond the foreign earned-income and housing exclusions at rates that would apply if the exclusions did not exist. Previously, any income beyond the exclusions was taxed as if it were the first dollar earned, and therefore at the lowest tax rate.



Bob Hudson, a senior tax partner with Baker & McKenzie in Miami, said the law essentially ends a "windfall" for middle-class people living abroad. It will have less effect on the wealthy, he said, because they are already taxed at a higher bracket.



The increase may be more hypothetical than real for Americans living in countries where the tax rate is higher than in the United States - a group that includes most of Europe, as well as Israel, Australia and Japan. The United States, as part of treaties to eliminate dual taxation, grants a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries. In high-tax jurisdictions, these foreign tax credits help soak up the extra U.S. tax liability. (The Alternative Minimum Tax used to contain a limit on the amount of foreign tax credits expats could use, but that was changed last year, Horton said.)



Expatriates in no-tax countries like Saudi Arabia and low-tax areas like Hong Kong, where the maximum tax rate is less than 20 percent, will feel the pain more acutely. While Americans who work in these countries are still eligible for the foreign earned-income and housing exclusions, their taxes on any additional foreign income, as well as on ordinary income from U.S. sources, will jump to the higher brackets.



U.S. retirees living abroad on U.S. Social Security, pensions and other investment income from U.S. sources, like interest, should see little change in their U.S. tax bills, Hudson and others said.



"Investment income has never been allowed to be excluded," Hudson said. "The philosophy behind the foreign earned-income provisions is they are supposed to support people working overseas, not people clipping bond coupons and sitting in overseas caf�s."



But the stacking provision means the increasing number of retirees abroad who are supplementing their U.S. retirement savings with part-time work will pay higher tax rates on their ordinary income from U.S. sources.



Multinational corporations, meanwhile, may find themselves paying higher tax bills for their expat executives. Kent Klaus, a partner in the international services practice at Deloitte Tax in Chicago, said that many employers offer either tax reimbursement or tax equalization. Under the former, the employer pays the tax on expat benefits such as school fees and home leave, which are considered income; under the latter, it pays the difference between actual tax liability and what the executive would have paid at home.



The difference could be considerable, since expats tend to have more expensive housing than they would at home, noted Paul Bodner, an international tax attorney in Great Neck, New York. "It is not unusual for the senior person to have a lavish house because the entertainment responsibilities are different from back in the home office," he said.



Up-and-coming managers who might benefit from international experience also have housing costs that typically outstrip those of a person in the United States, since "the person doesn't know the area," Bodner said. "You may have to be in an American enclave because the family needs to be surrounded by people who speak English." So even if the statistics say that housing costs more in the greater New York area than in, say, Lyon, the cost for the expat family could be higher. Horton said the lion's share of the $2.1 billion that the government expects in new tax revenue over the next 10 years would come from "clawing higher taxes away from the oil companies," which send platoons of workers to the Middle East.



How much of the additional tab multinationals will pick up is subject to negotiation. For the most part, Hudson said, employees enjoying posh accommodations "in general are really important people, and the corporations will pick up the bill." Professional staff in demand, like petroleum engineers, are likely to "have enough leverage with their employers" to negotiate a raise or bonus to cover the additional tax, Hudson said. The losers in no-tax and low-tax countries will be self-employed workers, like art dealers or computer consultants, who have no corporate subsidies to rely on.



Apart from renegotiating their benefit packages with their employers, Americans overseas have few ways of softening the blow, tax experts said. They might try to take a page from the very wealthy and rely on capital gains and qualified dividends for their investment income. The new law extends the taxation of this income at 15 percent until 2010 - one reason that some wags have nicknamed the legislation "No Millionaire Left Behind."




U.S. executives warn expatriate tax increase may backfire

By Keith Bradsher and David Cay Johnston The New York Times

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 2006

The sudden, and retroactive, imposition by the U.S. Congress last week of much higher taxes on Americans living abroad has left individuals and companies scrambling to regroup, while many executives and entrepreneurs assert that the move could backfire by hurting U.S. business interests at home and abroad.



The $69 billion tax cut signed into law May 17 raises taxes on Americans living overseas by $2.1 billion over the coming decade.



The law effectively forces many overseas Americans into higher tax brackets by imposing complex new requirements for calculating the value of housing allowances and then taxing the allowance at the lowest rates. Americans in no-tax or low-tax jurisdictions with high housing costs, like Bermuda, the Middle East, Singapore and Hong Kong, will be hit hardest, partners at two major accounting firms said.



The legislation will more than triple the U.S. tax bill for Kristine Kraabel, a gift shop owner in Singapore, and her husband, a former marine who is now the regional human resources director for an American company there.



Their tax adviser calculates that they will now owe more than an additional $17,000 in U.S. taxes, even as they continue to pay $20,000 in Singapore taxes.



Last year the law allowed most overseas Americans to exclude $80,000 of foreign earned income from the income taxed by the United States. The new law adjusts the exclusion for inflation to $82,400 for this year, but it raises taxes by adding complex new provisions on how the exclusion is calculated. The changes are retroactive to the start of this year.



Increasing taxes on overseas Americans was cited in a report last year on tax reform and improving tax compliance by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.



The new law does nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Americans living overseas who have stopped filing income tax returns, even though Congress taxes Americans on their worldwide income regardless of where they live. "This law is targeted at those who are filing tax returns, not those who have stopped filing," said Peter Merrill, a partner in the national economic practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Washington.



Merrill also said that he could "see no deep tax policy reason for this change," which he characterized as a way to raise money from one group of taxpayers to offset cuts for others. Other tax experts said they concurred in that assessment.



Many overseas Americans say the measure will hurt exports and employment in the United States. Jack Whiteford, a regional sales manager in Taipei, said that in the past five years he had negotiated export deals that have created 75 full-time mining jobs in the southeastern United States.



But Whiteford said he was now worried that his employer, whom he declined to identify, might not indemnify him against the much higher taxes he will face under the new law, making it far less attractive for him to stay overseas.



"It's pulling money out of all of our pockets," he said.



Michael Abdalian, a tax partner in Ernst & Young's human capital practice, said he had spoken to many employers in the past week about the increased tax burden. "Most companies have programs designed to protect their employees from additional taxes," he said, so the expense will probably be borne by employers.



Paying the higher taxes and then the taxes on the higher income to cover the taxes is a costly proposition, Abdalian said. Because the new rules will push many Americans overseas into higher brackets, he said, many companies will spend $2 for each $1 their overseas employees pay in taxes. The entire $2 will be deductible by the corporation.



Because the tax is retroactive, many families are just starting to realize that they did not have their employers withhold enough tax from their paychecks for the first five months of the year. Many employers will have to adjust their budgets, cutting into capital available for investment.



A common worry among many American lawyers, investment bankers, executives and others living overseas is that their employers will start hiring citizens of other countries instead of Americans. Other industrialized countries do not tax their overseas citizens on foreign income, so these citizens can afford to work for less than Americans and still have higher take-home pay.



Abdalian said none of the many employers he had spoken with were "pulling up stakes and running out" because of the higher costs, but he cautioned that this could change.



Some experts also questioned whether the new measure would generate the tax revenues anticipated by Congress. If companies bring Americans home or some of those overseas renounce their citizenship, the revenue estimates will not hold.



The law may also encourage more tax evasion, especially by Americans who work for foreign employers, who do not pay taxes in the United States and thus may not file tax documents with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.



The new legislation may discourage American entrepreneurs who have been heading to Taiwan and elsewhere in East Asia so as to be close to high-tech manufacturers while inventing new companies based on Internet phone companies, biotechnology advances and other innovations, said Philip Diller, the chairman and owner of Pristine Communications, a multilingual publishing company in Taipei that processes economic data and other information.



Many overseas Americans are especially upset because the tax increase was approved so quickly.



Lindy Paull, a PricewaterhouseCoopers partner who is a former chief of staff to the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress, said that, like many others, she had "heard the rumor" that taxes on Americans who work overseas would be increased just one day before language to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the tax bill became public.



On the other hand, she said, the concept was raised last year by Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and "we knew the hunt was on for revenue to make the bill work."



The suddenness of the move meant that American Chambers of Commerce in Asia did not have a chance to mobilize, as they did when the idea was floated during previous sessions of Congress. "We were held back by the U.S. Chamber because they didn't think it would be popped in this time," said Richard Vuylsteke, the executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei.