Moving savings to Canada?
"The simplest, most convenient way I know of to ""move your savings to Canada"" is to purchase an exchange-traded fund like FXC, the CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust, or a similar instrument. (I identify this fund because I know it exists, not because I particularly recommend it.) Your money will be in Canadian currency earning Canadian interest rates. You will pay a small portion of that interest in fees. Since US banks are already guaranteed by the FDIC up to $250,000 per account, I don't really think you avoid any risks associated with the failure of an individual bank, but you might fare better if the US currency is subject to inflation or unfavorable foreign-exchange movements - not that such a thing would be a direct risk of a bank failure, but it could happen as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve under the auspices of aiding the economy if the economy worsens in the wake of a financial crisis - or, for that matter, if it worsens as a result of something else, including legislative, regulatory, or executive policies. Read the prospectus to understand additional risks with this investment. One of them is foreign-exchange risk. If the US economy and currency strengthen relative to the Canadian economy and its currency, you may lose substantial amounts of purchasing power. Additionally, one of the possible results of a financial crisis is a ""flight to safety""; the global financial markets still seem to think the US dollar is pretty safe, and they may bid it up as they have done in the past, resulting in losses to your position (at least in the short term). I do not personally recommend moving all your savings to Canada, especially if it deprives you of income from more profitable investments over the long term, but moving some of your savings to Canada at least isn't a stupid idea, and it may turn out to be somewhat profitable. Having some Canadian currency is also a good idea if you plan to spend the money that you are saving on Canadian goods in the intermediate future." Yes, you can put assets in Canadian banks.  Will it protect your wealth to a greater extent than the FDIC protection provided by the US Government? Probably not. If you do business or spend significant time in Canada, then having at least some money in Canada makes sense. Otherwise, you're trying to protect yourself against some outlying risk of a US banking collapse, while subjecting yourself to a very real currency exchange risk. It is absolutely feasible to move your savings into Canada. There are a few ways you can do it. However it is unlikely you will benefit or avoid risk by doing so. You could directly hold your savings in the CAD. Investing in Canadian bonds achieves a similar goal as holding your money in the CAD. By doing so you will be getting re-payed with CAD. Some Canadian companies also trade on US markets. In addition some brokerage firms allow you to trade on Canadian markets. The problem with any of the options is the assumption that Canadian banks will fare better then US banks. The entire globe is very dependent on each other, especially the more developed nations. If large US banks were to fail it would create a domino effect which would spiral into a global credit crunch. It wouldn't matter if your invested in Canadian companies or US companies they would all suffer as would the global economy. So it would probably be more valid to refer to your question - enter link description here If you are referring to weather the Canadian bonds would be a safer investment over US Treasuries it would all depend on the scenario at hand. Investors would probably flock to both treasuries.
"The bill proposed to ""Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up ""insourcing"" labor back into the U.S."" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below.   Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45.  However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians.   However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate.  There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted.  Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment).  The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house  For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example.  insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life." In Canada, when doing a debit transaction there can be the option to select which account the transaction is to be performed that would be where you'd have the choice to select a savings account. Some banks may offer interest on a chequing account if certain conditions are met.  I remember seeing once that there was a minimum balance of $1,000 at all times and a few other things that may make it less than worthwhile for the low rate offered. Another possibility is to see if your bank will automatically transfer funds from savings to main if needed.  I've had this happen a few times where money would be transferred in so I could have a purchase or cheque go through. This story really misses the point of this deal. This is not an inversion fueled by tax savings. In fact, it would likely end up in very little tax savings for the new companies given the effective tax rate that BK actually pays in the US (They actually pay 27% in the US vs about 26.5% in Ontario, where Tim Horton's is now).  Headquartering the new company in Canada has a lot more to do with placating Canadian regulators. The Investment Canada Act allows for the government to block any merger it doesn't see as in the best interests of the country. Clearly, one of it's biggest and most visible companies  being swallowed up by an American firm could fit that description. Politically, it is easy to see why regulators would have an issue with that.  However, if you make the new company Canadian... then it's seen as a win for regulators. &gt; They deprive the US of valuable income which has been earned through infrastructure, defense, education, etc  It doesn't. The main reason it exists is that the US double dips on taxes. The whole point of these inversions is to deal with how the US treats foreign income. Company still pays US taxes on business done in the US: ie., using US infrastructure. That doesn't change. If the company is head quartered in the US then the US expects the company to also pay taxes on foreign income -- ie., income that can't be referenced back to US infrastructure/education/etc. The company has already paid taxes in the foreign country, but the US feels the need to double dip. This double dipping is very much a US thing. It just makes moral, fiscal, and logical sense for them to do the inversion. The US government should have no rights to overseas money. The reason the move to Canada is simply that Canada, like pretty much all capitalist countries, doesn't tax foreign revenue.   You Americans really really need to look at your tax system. Speaking as a Canadian business owner who deals with US clients, it's just insane. It's easier to deal with the Chinese tax system in my experience. Yes, you can keep the accounts.  In fact, I opened my US bank account as a Canadian citizen living in Canada, and still have it after living in the US and returning. American Express offers UK cards and the have an excellent system for transferring the cards.  You should definitely contact them about this, otherwise you will likely have to start building credit from scratch in the UK.  AE Global Card Transfer Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border).  I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else. You have a variety of options depending on the specifics of your situation.  I would recommend the first option if you live in an area served by TD Bank (you can also research similar banks who have both a US and Canadian presence such as RBC). In order to give a more detailed answer you'd have to expose more information in the question regarding location. Additional Notes: "The point here is actually about banks, or is in reference to banks. They expect you know how a savings account at a bank works, but not mutual funds, and so are trying to dispel an erroneous notion that you might have -- that the CBIC will insure your investment in the fund.  Banks work by taking in deposits and lending that money out via mortgages. The mortgages can last up to 30 years, but the deposits are ""on demand"". Which means you can pull your money out at any time.  See the problem? They're maintaining a fiction that that money is there, safe and sound in the bank vault, ready to be returned whenever you want it, when in fact it's been loaned out. And can't be called back quickly, either. They know only a little bit of that money will be ""demanded"" by depositors at any given time, so they keep a percentage called a ""reserve"" to satisfy that, er, demand.  The rest, again, is loaned out. Gone.  And usually that works out just fine. Except sometimes it doesn't, when people get scared they might not get their money back, and they all go to the bank at the same time to demand their on-demand deposits back. This is called a ""run on the bank"", and when that happens, the bank ""fails"". 'Cause it ain't got the money.  What's failing, in fact, is the fiction that your money is there whenever you want it. And that's really bad, because when that happens to you at your bank, your friends the customers of other banks start worrying about their money, and run on their banks, which fail, which cause more people to worry and try to get their cash out, lather, rinse repeat, until the whole economy crashes. See -- The Great Depression.  So, various governments introduced ""Deposit Insurance"", where the government will step in with the cash, so when you panic and pull all your money out of the bank, you can go home happy, cash in hand, and don't freak all your friends out. Therefore, the fear that your money might not really be there is assuaged, and it doesn't spread like a mental contagion. Everyone can comfortably go back to believing the fiction, and the economy goes back to merrily chugging along.  Meanwhile, with mutual funds & ETFs, everyone understands the money you put in them is invested and not sitting in a gigantic vault, and so there's no need for government insurance to maintain the fiction.  And that's the point they're trying to make.  Poorly, I might add, where their wording is concerned."