Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO
parallel_prankster writes "Bloomberg reports that Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook, has renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill. From the article: 'Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion through the IPO, the biggest in history for an Internet company. Saverin's stake is about 4 percent, according to the website Who Owns Facebook. At the high end of the IPO valuation, that would be worth about $3.84 billion. Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in that country. Saverin won't escape all U.S. taxes. Americans who give up their citizenship owe what is effectively an exit tax on the capital gains from their stock holdings, even if they don't sell the shares, said Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan's law school. For tax purposes, the IRS treats the stock as if it has been sold.'"
Just to provide a little bit more information to this story, here are the requirements for citizenship in Singapore: http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=132
-- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
Yeah... a guy who created a giant marketing scam based on US laws and protections, and is now dodging taxes. Wonderful. You Ayn Randians can have 'em.
Of course, now that I think about it, he might have had to spend an entire year dead to realize any tax benefit from it. I'm sure you could manage that sort of thing when you're worth a few billion dollars!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Actually the tax is quite low - 50 years ago, the tax was a lot higher.
And too many people don't understand that the government has no money of it's own. It must confiscate it from the citizenry.
The fabled Robin Hood is often mis-characterized. He wasn't robbing the rich to give to the poor. He was robbing the government (Sheriff of Nottingham) to give the people back their own tax money the Sheriff mercilessly demanded by force.
He wasn't much of an American. He had U.S. citizenship for a grand total of... 14 years. Apparently he wasn't very honest when he took the oath of citizenship in 1998. The U.S. doesn't need more people who lie under oath; we've got quite enough, so one less is an improvement.
In any case, there are a lot of actually productive people who'd love to become American citizens, most of whom won't be so quick to turn their backs on it if it makes them successful. I'd be happy to loosen immigration restrictions and let more of them in. And people who don't like the United States, and want to renounce it? Let them, especially if they're non-productive investor leeches. You don't see real American rich people renouncing citizenship: Steve Jobs didn't go anywhere, Bill Gates isn't going anywhere, even libertarians like Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers aren't going anywhere, because they aren't mercenary traitors.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'd tackle the discretionary spending in the defense budget first. The government is spending $666.2 BILLION there, as opposed to $80.6 billion on "health and human services" of which welfare is a part. Source.
If we reduced the U.S. Government (as a whole, not just defense) to the size it was in the 1990s you could do away with the income tax completely. Source. And think of how big the government was in the 1990s. What taxes could we eliminate if we reduced the government to the size it was before LBJ's "Great Society" (1965), the "New Deal" (1933), or even the income tax itself (1913)?
Liberty in your lifetime
On the plus side, they'll have more money. On the negative side, they won't have a very useful citizenship (EU and US citizenships are basically the most favorable ones to hold). And on the even more negative side, they're now required to two two years of military service, plus report once a year for military reserve training up until they reach the age of 40. (Saverin himself is exempt because first-generation immigrants aren't required to do the service; only their children are.)
Personally I'd rather pay some taxes than condemn my kids to years in the military, but perhaps he has other priorities.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
when $3.84 billion just isn't enough...
Let's just shut down schools, hospitals, and such. The market will provide. I can't wait to go to the Disney Exxon-Mobile ER and pay a fair market price of $5,000 for a visit that formerly cost $75. The security I will feel knowing that the fire department (which will only exist in communities with enough fires to provide demand) will automatically debit my bank account when they come service a fire in my building.
Ayn Rand was a hypocritical fool who shunned the very value of society only to feed off it in her own time of need.
"Going Galt" is a breaking of the social contract after having benefited from it, and deserves no more admiration than that afforded the bully who steals your lunch money to sneak out and stuff his face with McDonalds.
And when they created it in 1913, it was 1%, and only on incomes over $3,000 ($65,331.57 in 2010 dollars). There was a single 6% "surtax" on incomes over $500,000 ($10,888,594.79).
Liberty in your lifetime
As an immigrant *to* the US, I feel insulted. My family worked quite hard to *get* US citizenship, and I know exactly why, and why it was worth it. People renouncing it to make a quick buck to me almost feels like selling their souls.
I looked up Singapore individual tax rates. Max out at 20% and 0% on capital gains. Looks like a good deal for him. I assume Calif will get some tax out of him too before he leaves. I assume he must have another citizenship already. Notice Singpore requires two years residency before you can be a citizen. Of course maybe there is a billonaire's exception.
You forgot to mention that in 1913 wages and salaries were not included in "income". It was more of a capital gains tax than an income tax. That was a major selling point -- that they were only going to tax the rich.
See how well that worked out?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
No, but they have their labor. It's gone by different terms, and with varying levels of severity---slavery, serfdom, peonage, taxation---but it's what governments have done since the dawn of civilization: Steal from the poor.
Liberty in your lifetime
Fixed that for you. What would have been really cool is instead of his dad shipping Eduardo to Miami for safeties sake, the boy got his education old school, getting kidnapped for ransom and/or knifed outside a club in Sao Paulo. But no, he got a respite while raking in some unearned income in Brazil from the safety of FL. Next, he won the lottery when one of his few friends at Harvard needed some start up money for a social networking idea.
Now, he flips the bird to the country that gave him the safety, and an environment to make a major move up the SE ladder, because it's all his HIS! Well, screw 'em, and put 'em on a no-fly list as an ingrate of the First Degree, Order of the Asshole.
Frankly, we're not losing much when the likes of him take off: one of many sociopathic money grubbers constantly looking to game the financial system (privatize the profits, socialize the loses), and whose investments know no border no matter where they've bought a condo. If he participates in fucking the banks in Singapore like his kind did in the US, he'll end up in gaol faster than he can whine "class warfare".
Luke, help me take this mask off
I hope he doesn't live to regret his decision, as it's a hell of a lot easier to drop US citizenship than it is to get it back.
What if you reduced the government back to its size in 1776? Imagine how much money you'd save personally if you didn't buy food!
It all boils down to too much government spendings, especially on welfare, to raise the kids of those who just stay at home, making babies and taking drugs
Idiot. The vast majority of Federal spending goes to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Frankly, the major constituents for all of these are core Republican voters. The drugs are mostly for blood pressure, gas, and diabetes. So sure, screw 'em.
If the government doesn't have to pay for all these, the tax rate wouldn't be so damn high, and people wouldn't have to renounce their citizenships
They don't have to do anything, kid. 35% percent - before deductions and shelters - is high? Pffft! Anybody in Eduardo's position who's actually paying 35% is using form 1040EZ to do their taxes.
Luke, help me take this mask off
What a lot of anti-tax folks don't realize (or choose to ignore) is the fact that a tax regime that creates a civil society (educated, healthy populous, rule of law) in turn creates an environment that allows companies like Facebook to flourish. It's much harder to create wealth in an environment where your employees are illiterate, hungry and sick and corruption is rampant. Sure, you can drill oil wells or mine for gold, but you can't really create companies with IP in those environments. I guarantee you the next Apple or Google is not coming in Nigeria. Why do you think India is working so hard to create institutional change?
Seriously, I have no problem with someone giving up their citizenship if there's a real reason. There's usually not though since the US is perfectly fine with you having another citizenship, if you have a second one (or more) they just only recognize your US citizenship for their purposes. I have a Canadian citizenship, as well as my US citizenship. Also renunciations only count in front of a US council, with the intent to renounce. So a foreign country can make you "renounce" it in their ceremony and it doesn't count as far as the US is concerned and of course they are the only ones who matter for that.
However for people who do it to try and escape from taxes? Fuck them, put them on a permanent travel black list. No reentry to the US, ever. Since they dislike the US and its taxes to much, they are free to stay the fuck out.
Particularly in circumstances like this, it is pure greed. At the level of billions you are not talking about something that makes a big difference in quality of life. 9 billion dollars lets you live basically just an opulent life as 10 billion. It really is the case that the more you make, the less it matters how much more you make. Him paying the taxes wouldn't be the difference between the good life and the poor house, it is the difference between being able to get gold plating on a massive yacht, or just have a massive yacht, to the like.
So I say since he is telling the US he doesn't need them, they could say the same. Bar him entry. Maybe it won't matter, but I'm betting some day he'll want to visit for some reason.
Are you going to travel to the ER on privately owned dirt roads? Better hope the bridge owner isn't asleep for the night if you need to cross water.
"I can't wait to go to the Disney Exxon-Mobile ER and pay a fair market price of $5,000 for a visit that formerly cost $75."
Are you sure it would work out that way? You might plot the price of lasik and related eye surgeries over the last 20 years to see what less-regulated market might do.
And what do you have left when all the people who created successful businesses leave?
Liberty in your lifetime
In general, rich people don't leave. This is news because it's so unusual for a wealthy American to leave the country. It's more common for wealthy non-Americans to try to move to the US than the reverse.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You are correct. Society has changed in that the U.S. Government, having duped people into paying an income tax, turned itself into a global empire with its bloated military spending funded through confiscatory taxation (income tax increased to 77% during WWI), and then created myriad other things that were best left to the free market, all in order to justify the perceived "necessity" of the existence of such a big and bloated government.
Liberty in your lifetime
A place where you can start your own business without getting sued into the ground by established interests who've bought politicians?
Rich people don't leave, but their money does. To the Cayman Islands. *grumble grumble mitt romney grumble*
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Or maybe....the income tax started out as a tax on the wealthy, who didn't like it, but who needed large government services--like, say, a large global military presence to protect their overseas investments. (You don't think our military is spread all over the world because we feel like it, do you?)
Maybe those same people who BUY AND PAY FOR LAWS managed, over the course of a few decades, to get the laws shifted so that the tax burden now falls on working people instead of the wealthy, who benefit the most from very expensive things like armed ships, planes, and troops protecting their assets, lavish and ever expanding international airports, transcontinental transportation systems, diplomatic missions that seem rather preoccupied with protecting the rights of wealthy corporations and individuals overseas, an educated workforce, police to keep the educated workforce in line and compliant, and of course a huge spying apparatus that most likely illegally snoops on US citizens looking for people with wrong thoughts and almost certainly is engaged in industrial espionage on a massive scale?
Kinda depends on how you look at it, huh?
Please show me where I consented to this contract.
Your parents consented to it for you when they either gave birth to you in the US or brought you here. Presumably you are now of legal age. If you wish to no longer be bound by that contract, I suggest you leave the country, forfeit the priveleges of the civilized society that has already given you countless advantages and protections without which you would likely be destitute or dead, and find some place else in the world to hang out with other 'rugged individualists'. Good luck with that.
PS I used to be a Randroid too, and once upon a time I would have agreed with you. Then I grew up, attained some sophistication, discovered empathy, and got a clue.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Of course, back then, you worked till the day you died, since there was no Social Security. And that would be quite soon if you got sick and didn't happen to be wealthy, since there was no Medicare or Medicaid. And let's not forget that there were no food stamps or WIC checks, so if you were poor, you were liable to starve. That is, if you didn't rob or kill to get your food.
And there were no battered women shelters, or protections of any sort for abuse victims. And there were no regulations to stop companies from dumping all sorts of nasty shit into your air or water, or outright putting it into your food as filler. And of course your employer could force you to work 12 hours a day, with no weekends, and no overtime -- not that it mattered, since they could also pay you in scrip which was only good in the company store.
I don't see why you glorify that time period. The workers of the time hated it so much that they fought like hell to get us unions and social safety nets. Why are you so eager to throw away everything they worked for?
I'll tell you what. If you don't like paying to live in a civilized society, then you are welcome to get the fuck out. We'll be better off without you.
So renounce your citizenship and go elsewhere.
By remaining, you are implicitly saying that you can live with this system, or that it is at least better than any other alternatives.
I don't agree with how every cent of my taxes are spent, but that's what comes with representative democracy.
The benefits I net (security, social safety nets, police, fire, EMS, food inspectors, FAA, etc., etc.) far outweigh the things I don't like ("elective" war, eleven carrier groups, corn subsidies, etc.).
Nobody is compelling you to stay.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, viticulture, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
That sounds more like an argument against having things set such that the very wealthy can just skip town when the taxman comes and toss aside their country when it becomes financially convenient.
Implement a 90% exit tax. Problem solved. If you really hate the country, you're free to leave. But if you're only leaving because you've received the benefits of living here and now want to skip out on the check, well fuck you.
And by "suck even worse" you mean that their was booming economic expansion, the debt to GDP ratio was plummeting, and real income was rising at a rate in one decade that hasn't been matched percentage wise even over the last 30 years? Then, yes, things really did "suck".
Federal spending in 1990 was $1.1 trilion. Source. Federal spending is currently $3.8 trillion. Source. These figures are a combination of "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending.
The individual income tax for this year is $1.359 trillion, and the corporate is $0.358 trillion. Source.
( 1.359 + 0.348 ) / 3.809 = 0.449 = 44.9%
If you remove the $1.707 trillion that represents the income tax from the total Federal revenues of $2.902 trillion, you are left with $1.195 trillion of revenues. $1.195 trillion is bigger than $1.1 trillion, hence current federal revenues, minus the income tax, could pay for the 1990 budget.
Ron Paul states that:
Ron Paul is telling the truth. His 45% figure is accurate; his assertion that current Federal revenues sans income tax could pay for the 1990 budget, is accurate. You, however, are trying to confound the issue by bringing up irrelevant statistics, conflating statements I made with Ron Paul's statements, and outright lying when you say that Paul is doing so.
Liberty in your lifetime
Except that the 1990 budget was based on a country that had 50 million less people and wasn't facing the fact that there will be 10s of millions of baby boomers hitting retirement that will leave huge revenue shortfalls.
But I am rich and deserve all of the profit I milk from the stupid working class. I owe it to myself to relocate to Bermuda, so that I can setup a tax shelter. While doing so, I hope to find local prostitutes that I can ...., well, guess getting into the mind of a millionaire is a crazy place, glad I am just a poor sap that posts on slashdot.
This is mostly correct, although there are plenty of wealthy people out there that don't become such parasites.
Not understanding this is one of the reasons why no amount of government interventionism ever seems to help the poor or middle class in the long run. The wealthy parasites in and behind government (bankers, financiers, and similar assorted rent-seekers---all non-productive types) steal from the poor and middle class. When the people finally get sick of it, their anger and envy is directed toward "the rich"---which inevitably falls on the productive rich (entrepreneurs, businessmen, upper middle class), not the parasites who are truly responsible for the mess.
New laws are passed, new regulations are created, taxes are increased---all of which impact the poor, the middle class, the small businessmen, and other productive people. The parasites already know how to work around such laws and taxes because they wrote them---and wrote in the loopholes! So the end result is more people are pushed down into poverty while the parasites get richer.
Liberty in your lifetime
If you wish to no longer be bound by that contract, I suggest you leave the country, forfeit the priveleges of the civilized society
Are you sure it is the US that you are in? I can think of many adjectives to describe our sad republic, but "civilized" is not among them. Go do a "police brutality" search on youtube and then come back and boast about how civilized we are.
More like a country of poorly educated, spoiled, rich people who think we are much, much smarter than we really are or ever will be. We are a country with no shortage of self-esteem or confidence, but a huge shortage of real ability and intelligence. This discussion is a perfect example of that sort of empty arrogant nationalism with nothing at all behind it. We are a country that is great only in our own minds. Perhaps that is what really makes us unique. Nothing will ever convince us of our own ineptness and incompetence because we are so very certain of our inherent superiority and greatness. We are a country that renounces and hates the very thing we once stood for. The one thing that really did make us special. What could be more sad and pathetic than that?
Instead of being the place where you were free to do pretty much anything you wanted we are now just known as the neighborhood bully. And like most bullies we are cowards at heart. Unwilling to start any fight that would be even remotely fair, and yet still boasting to ourselves about how tough we are. As tough as those cops were who were beating Rodney King. So tough that the unexpected demolition of a couple of tall buildings is enough to change our entire way of life. If anything has ever proven the inherent cowardice of America it was 9/11. It has demonstrated our true character and we don't even have the insight to realize how pathetic it all is. The rest of the world is laughing, and they are not laughing with us.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
No, (immoral) rich people will hire accountants and lobbyists so they can pay the absolute minimum.
They'll stick around and use society's benefits while not wanting to pay for them.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Actually the tax is quite low - 50 years ago, the tax was a lot higher.
Why stopped at just 50 years ago?
Before there was any tax, there was none.
One of the root cause of America'ss independence was that the Brits were taxing too much on too many things.
Including tea - hence, "Boston Tea Party"
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
When was this? If you're thinking of the U.S. in the late 1800s, which is what most people think libertarians mean by a free-market society, you are deeply mistaken: This was an incredibly anti--free market time period, with all sorts of government laws and regulations favorable to large, well-connected industrial corporations. The government supported outright monopolies, gave massive subsidies to corporations, forcibly intervened on behalf of the companies in labor disputes, eliminated all common-law protections against pollution in the name of "progress," and so on. Laissez-faire didn't mean free market; it meant "let the industrialists do anything they want."
Since then, the government has simply, and only to some extent, "switched sides" as to whom it benefits with its legislating, taxing, and regulating power. In the twentieth century, they had to break up monopolies of their own creation. They had to legislate in favor of trade unions only after their attacks on such had allowed corporations to get away with so much. They had to create consumer protection laws, environmental regulation, securities regulation, banking regulations, &c., against depredations they allowed. They had to redistribute wealth to help the poor that they (effectively) created. And so on.
Liberty in your lifetime
We were still in building-a-superpower mode long after the institution of the income tax and the New Deal, and probably even after the Great Society. The downfall didn't start until the 80s, with its massive tax cuts, deregulation, explosion of Wall Street gambling, and culture of greed. Yes, all that stuff probably made us a bit richer in the short term, and it made some people a lot richer. But in the long run, it's destabilized the markets and encouraged businesses to focus on quarterly profits at the expense of long term planning.
Before you can go Galt, you have to be Galt, and this guy isn't, unless he knows how to generate power from static atmospheric electricity (or some other way), or something like that. If Facebook went belly up, the US economy would go along just fine.
Or, you know, you put money, in a savings account, and just retired. Savings accounts being at their lowest these days, might I add.
See, the Social Security measure was supposed to be like the Welfare program; it was a catchall for the people who got old, who were unlucky in life, and meant primarily as a feel good measure about society. Charity is another name for it, and again, it was supposed to be something only a handful would even consider using; the vast majority of future retirees were supposed to still use a Savings account.
Now it has grown into a monster, with people saying f*ck it, let's not save, we'll just make do with the Social Security we get. And when your entire retirement plan revolves around Social Security, the politicians know they can count on your support.
I am John Hurt.
The US makes it very easy to keep a US citizenship. To renounce it you have to do so in front of a US consular officer, and with the full intent of renouncing your citizenship. Any other way isn't valid. So if another country as part of their immigration process say "Give us your passport and say you renounce your US citizenship," you can do so and it doesn't matter. You can go to the US embassy and get a new passport later. The US doesn't consider their ceremony valid, they consider you still a citizen. Of course when it comes to US citizenship, the only opinion that matters is that of the US.
Also other than taxes, there aren't really any burdens of staying a US citizen. They don't require you to show up twice a year to praise the president or something. You can have the citizenship and it is just something you have. Taxes also aren't a problem, if you aren't trying to get out of them. If you live in another country, work there, and pay taxes there, you are fine. The US is a-ok with that, they don't want a cut.
They only go after taxes when people are clearly trying to dodge taxes that they'd otherwise owe. They don't want rich people to make a ton of money in the US but technically live in Barbados and not pay any taxes.
So really the only reason to formally and actually renounce a Us citizenship are:
1) If a country you are immigrating to actually makes you do it properly, to a US council. Of course even then who knows because that would be done in the presence of the US council and they might decide it was bullshit since you were forced.
2) If you really dislike the US so much that as a statement or personal moral matter you just can't keep your citizenship. Fair enough, but of course then you'd better be sure.
3) To evade taxes. In that case, fuck you.
Otherwise, people keep it. My parents moved to Canada like 5 years ago. Mom is from there, so Canadian of course, but got her US citizenship when she lived here. Dad was born in the US, and recently got his citizenship up in Canada. Neither renounced their US citizenship and neither are going to. Why would they? Nor a I renouncing my Canadian citizenship, though I live in the US. I can keep both and it is no big deal.
"Going Galt" is a breaking of the social contract after having benefited from it...
"Going Galt" is abandoning a government and leaders that abandoned their duties to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and thus have broken their oaths of office, and hence the "contract" that gives them their authority.
They have taken an oath as servants of the people, but instead, seek to rule over them as their masters and confiscate/limit the fruits of their labor and give them to those who have not earned it in exchange for political favor, and try to control what private citizens spend their own money on, while limiting the amount of success someone is allowed to attain.
There IS no more contract. Those in government over the last ~60-80 years who are and have been anxious to progress past the limitations on government scope & power set on it by the Constitution broke it long ago. It hasn't existed for many decades. It's now, and has been for some time, the Rule of Men, not the Rule of Law.
This turning-away from the Rule of Law is one of the central underlying problems (though not nearly the only one) with the US. The US will never equal the achievements of individual freedom and wealth of it's past for it's present & future citizens until this is corrected and the Rule of Law is once again supreme.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Whereas today, 3% net. Or, if you are GE, zero net, plus billions back. What's your point again?
It it increases by the same factor of 7.57 over three years then in under 21 years you will all have renounced your US citizenship. Of course that is exceeding unlikely to happen but this is why you need to be concerned about large factor increases even when the numbers are small because they can grow very fast - although I don't see any reason to suspect that such a huge growth factor will be maintained.
Oblig XKCD
No, we think it is a sufficient way to raze the stupid assertion that economic output is the result of low taxes.
You are right that the U.S. Government itself can't "do" anything. It's an abstraction that a bunch of violent people operate under, a "d.b.a." if you will, in order to evade personal responsibility for their actions.
Politicians, demagogues, and so on, did the "duping."
The people don't decide anything in this country. The political classes do. Politicians decide they want something, then go about "manufacturing consent" through propaganda, playing on people's fears, hopes, hatreds, and so on. Then the people duly vote for what they've been told they want or need.
Liberty in your lifetime
I could care less if this guy thinks he's going to circumvent paying taxes. He'll be part of a publicly traded corporation and there are many ways to skin a cat.
Yep, I see you didn't cover inflation at all! Or even in the increase in population, as the other poster just mentioned. Maybe you think more can be done with fewer people, but that's not always true. Sometimes that is a bad idea.
Sorry, but there's a reason why I mentioned both things. You obviously don't care to be honest, you'd rather just stick to your deceptions. Ron Paul is not telling something that is accurate. He may be making claims that he believes are true, but they are poor calculations, and that's not an improvement. That's actually a sign he's not thinking of the situation in a comprehensive fashion.
And yet you're trying to blame me for bringing up irrelevant statistics...for shame. You're the one lying here, since if you were at all honest, you'd recognize what matters, and you surely aren't so incompetent as to not even consider inflation. Let alone break not out the mandatory spending. Heck, you didn't even mention Social Security taxes, which ARE counted in the budget, especially in the number you used for revenue. In fact, 959 billion at Wikipedia. That's right, most of what you're talking about being left over is actually from Social Security taxes. My word, do you not even realize how bad your accounting actually is?
Heck, just add up what's listed on your own source's page:
Total receipts:
Item Requested
Individual income tax $1359 billion
Corporate income tax $348 billion
Social Security and other payroll tax $959 billion
Excise tax $88 billion
Customs duties $33 billion
Estate and gift taxes $13 billion
Deposits of earnings and Federal Reserve System $80 billion
Other miscellaneous receipts $21 billion
Total $2902 billion
Please add up the excise taxes, customs duties, estate and gift taxes, Federal reserve deposits, and miscellaneous.
Nice, figure, huh? Apparently you'd rather Social Security be purposed entirely to fund every other role in government.
If Ron Paul came to my house with such nonsense, I'd be calling somebody in Congress to check his sanity.
Of course, back then, you worked till the day you died, since there was no Social Security.
Or you bought your house outright and saved your money for retirement like a responsible adult would. Just as an example putting that money directly into a 3% APR passbook savings account would likely return more than putting into Social Security. You might want to look at something like this for some detailed numbers: http://www.inmessment.com/finance/is-social-security-a-good-investment-lets-review-the-numbers/
And that would be quite soon if you got sick and didn't happen to be wealthy, since there was no Medicare or Medicaid.
I again refer to the link above for return on investment. In addition there is a strong case to be made that medicare and medicaid pervert the natural cost and procedures used. What they are willing to pay for gets used whether it is the best way to do it or not (insurance also has this effect). This in the end increases the overall cost of healthcare. It has gotten so bad that doctors don't even know what the cost of the procedures they order are thereby removing any chance of controlling expense or cost while treating a problem. If you don't believe go to your general practicioner and ask them for EXACT pricing. Many will provide an estimate that is off by almost 30 - 40% because the cost has risen that much since they last knew them.
And let's not forget that there were no food stamps or WIC checks, so if you were poor, you were liable to starve.That is, if you didn't rob or kill to get your food.
And there were no battered women shelters, or protections of any sort for abuse victims.
Yes, you are correct there was nothing like charities, local community groups (lions, jaycees, kiwanis, etc) that did anything to help out those in need. Most of those groups are gone or almost inactive now because the government stepped in to handle it. Good thing to because there is no waste, fraud or other negative effects from a system that HAS to provide for people even if they have a huge number of kids to get more from the state for it. Go live near a housing project and tell me food stamps are a great idea. I used to see people sell them for 30 - 50 cents on the dollar in most of the local grocery stores so they could by items not covered when I was a student. All these things used to be covered by charities and local community social organisations. Additionally, according to your premise as taxes rose crime should decrease. I'm not and expert but this doesn't seem to agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
And there were no regulations to stop companies from dumping all sorts of nasty shit into your air or water, or outright putting it into your food as filler.
These laws could be made anyway and the EPA funded by excise taxes and/or hefty fines for companies that violated the rules. You do realise that before there was income tax there was a large government surplus, right? It's before all these programs we "authorised" under the reinterpretation of "the general welfare" clause. As it is now company fines are considerably less than the profits from the violations. I point to the gulf spill, fracking, valdez and BP oil spills, divesting of GM's useful assets from all the environmentally damaged sites leaving them to be left as is with no real chance of funding for proper cleaning as clear examples of how large companies are not held accountable for the environmental damage they do. These same issues apply to FDA which is now self funded by the companies that apply for product approval and has led to using carbon monoxide to keep meat red to fool customers, BPA still allowed in many containers even baby bottles, BHT in
See, the Social Security measure was supposed to be like the Welfare program; it was a catchall for the people who got old, who were unlucky in life, and meant primarily as a feel good measure about society. ... it was supposed to be something only a handful would even consider using; the vast majority of future retirees were supposed to still use a Savings account.
The first half of that is true, the second half is false. I suspect that's a talking point you heard somewhere, cleverly designed to mislead with a grain of truth.
Yes, it is true that Social Security was designed as a sort of welfare program to protect the poor, and that it wasn't supposed to support those who could get by without it. But what you're missing is the fact that at the time of its passage, the vast majority of seniors were living in poverty. And remember... this is the 1930s definition of poverty! (Technically, it also was designed to exclude vast swaths of the population, primarily women and black people. Hopefully no one advocates a return to that.)
Now, if you want to talk about going back to the idea of not giving Social Security to those who don't need it (roughly the top 20-30%), then that's something I might be able to get on board with. But "returning" to a past that never was, in which only a relative handful collect benefits, would leave huge numbers of elderly out in the streets.
The inflation point is interesting. Paul also wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and end their profligate printing of money, thereby ending inflation. Maybe Paul accidentally ignored the inflation factor when he figured this, or he's expecting it to work out in a post-inflation system, and my math just worked out by pure coincidence.
As for the health care system, you sure can undo 22 years of rising costs: Eliminate the parasitic, oligopolistic insurance companies that the government created with the passage of the HMO Act. Up until the 1970s, people often paid cash for health care, and prices reflected actual market values for the services. "Strict rationing" is, of course, exactly what I'd expect the government to do: They created the crisis by inserting themselves halfway into the equation, on behalf of the insurance parasites, and now they'll come along and clean up the fallout by inserting themselves all the way into the equation.
Liberty in your lifetime
Inflation's a bitch.
Your 1990 budget is spending 1990 dollars. Your 2012 budget and income tax figures are in 2012 dollars. Adjust for inflation, and federal spending in 1990 was closer to $2 trillion.
From that point on, your math all falls apart.
If that were true, I'd applaud it. However it is doubly wrong. First: Saverin isn't renouncing his citizenship to protest the ever more powerful police state. He's saving on taxes. Second, Going Galt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt) is a response to taxation. It is, in the Randian philosophy, the response of the "producers" deciding to withhold their economic clout and genius from the selfish workers/lazy poor people who want to suck off the teat of big business. It is classic class warfare from the perspective of the 1%.
In reality, the poor are far from lazy, and the ranks of the working poor are ever increasing thanks to short sighted policies that benefit businesses and wealthy individuals over sound economic leadership. The workers (and that includes the innovators) are the ones who move society and our economy forward, not the owners/producers and their teams of lawyers/politicians.
Jealousy is an ugly, ugly emotion.
He made his money by providing a service that people chose to use, not by putting a gun to anyone's head. Any money he manages to keep out of the government's hands, is money that won't be used to intrude on the freedom we have left.
Typical rich asshole, privatize profits, socialize losses
What losses? This isn't one of the banksters we're talking about here.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, if taxes cause companies to move away, then why aren't all corporations based in Afghanistan? Why are't all billionaires citizens of Singapore?
First: Saverin isn't renouncing his citizenship to protest the ever more powerful police state. He's saving on taxes.
And you'll notice I simply described what "going Galt" means. I didn't say Saverin was going Galt.
However, removing yourself and your wealth from the clutches of a corrupt and greedy government bent on using wealth redistribution to buy the votes of the short-sighted, greedy, and ignorant I would consider a valid and sensible action no matter what you want to call it.
"Going Galt" is about far more than simply taxes. It's about political corruption and cronyism, and using the power of government as a tool of the powerful to crush competition and/or as leverage to demand a piece of the action and/or control over innovation. It's about rejecting redistributionist/collectivist tyranny.
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Rand
That such actions anger those who believe the fruits of others' labors is their right concerns me not at all. Well, besides checking the sighting accuracy of my weapons regularly and assuring I have plenty of ammunition and supplies as well as a functioning means for off-grid secure communications, that is.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Which is better, getting paid 60 grand a year with 50% taxes and the freedom to do things like go to work without paying to use the road to get there, or making 18 grand a year with way more expenses like the toll on the road to get to work, higher food prices as they also have to pay and higher everything else as the rentseekers need to make a bigger profit.
Seems like so many people would rather make 1/3rd what they do now as long as they can give it to private industry instead doing socialist things like having public roads, a public police force to protect their property and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The downfall didn't start until the 80s
I consider the "downfall" to be the loss of our freedom, and that was long before the 1980s. My grandfather was thrown in Jail for protesting World War One.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Social Security measure was supposed to be like the Welfare program; it was a catchall for the people who got old, who were unlucky in life, and meant primarily as a feel good measure about society. Charity is another name for it, and again, it was supposed to be something only a handful would even consider using; the vast majority of future retirees were supposed to still use a Savings account.
Well, and the pension that the retiree's employer would provide for the rest of their life. Let's not forget that.
The downfall didn't start until the 80s, with its massive tax cuts, deregulation, explosion of Wall Street gambling, and culture of greed.
The middle class has always carried the majority of the tax burden, but they haven't been paid their fair share.
It started in the 70s when workers' productivity vs wages started to diverge.
It didn't help that Reagan decided to drastically cut tax rates, but the long term problem has not been lower taxes,
it's been that workers aren't being payed enough & therefore, the government's tax revenues haven't kept pace.
This wouldn't be an issue if the individuals who were accumulating 40 years worth of profits were paying the top tax rate.
But they didn't. For 40 years. So we're boned.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This Saverin guy must have sure dug a lot of ditches or served a lot of hamburgers.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They didn't extradite Bin Laden. Just sayin'...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But you guys better be prepared for the consequence - GE and all the other corporations will move out of USA once you guys do that, resulting more millions of Americans queuing in front of the unemployment offices
Its really simple: You want to sell to Americans, You are an American Company who pays their fair share of taxes, or you pay a stiff import tariff. You want to take advantage of the developed infrastructure and stable developed economy, you have to contribute to it. Is it that unreasonable to expect companies to contribute to give back to the people who made their success possible?
And as far as this Eduardo Saverin asshole is concerned, he ought to be lynched as a traitor. He takes advantage of the benefits of the US when it is convent to do so, but when he makes lavish amounts of money, hes ready to pick up an move in order to avoid paying it. And this isn't for a little money. This guy is going have billions with a B. Do you realize how much money a billion dollars is? If he had to pay 50% of his money in taxes, he still will have close to 2 BILLION dollars. He will be able to buy mansions, jets and boats without blinking, and he can't man up an pay his fucking share of the bill. I hope the stinking ratfuck is slowly raped to death by Somali pirates. Burn in hell, Saverin.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Some interesting bits around this:
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship
Effective June 2008, U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are subject under certain circumstances to an expatriation tax, which is meant to extract from the expatriate taxes that would have been paid had he remained a citizen: all property of a covered expatriate is deemed sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation date, which usually results in a capital gain, which is taxable income
and those conditions are listed here: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
If you expatriated after June 16, 2008, the new IRC 877A expatriation rules apply to you if any of the following statements apply.
Your average annual net income tax for the 5 years ending before the date of expatriation or termination of residency is more than a specified amount that is adjusted for inflation ($145,000 for 2009 and 2010, $147,000 for 2011, and $151,000 for 2012).
Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation or termination of residency.
You fail to certify on Form 8854 that you have complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the 5 years preceding the date of your expatriation or termination of residency.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
It seems to me that it is not only Saverin who is not mindful of and not caring about the health of the nation and the people around him. Judging from the articles linked below, it seems that the entire of Facebook is not healthy:
.
... was charged ... based solely on a Fac
Facebook's reputation in the mainstream media is rapidly getting worse. Facebook is getting a bad reputation partly because of articles like these:
Worst company: Facebook was a semi-finalist in the April 2012 competition to be voted the worst company in the United States
Facebook follows its business rules? Not always. The April 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal story, Selling You on Facebook, says:
"Facebook requires apps [mobile phone software applications] to ask permission before accessing a user's personal details. However, a user's friends aren't notified if information about them is used by a friend's app. An examination of the apps' activities also suggests that Facebook occasionally isn't enforcing its own rules on data privacy."
There's more like that in the article.
Facebook tracks every web page you visit that has a Facebook button (using Javascript). For example, if you visit the Oregonian Newspaper web site, Facebook tracks every story you visit, even if you don't click on the "Like" button. There are ways to prevent that (using Firefox with the NoScript add-on), but most people don't know about them.
Companies pay people to click on Facebook "Like" buttons. The number of Facebook "Likes" doesn't give any indication of popularity.
On December 9, 2011 it was necessary to click on a Facebook "Like" button to be allowed to see Fry's Electronics ads.
Do 86,688 people (on April 9, 2012) really like Firestone Complete Auto Care, or did the company offer something to be "liked"?
A few problems with Facebook: Richard Stallman wrote a short list of things wrong with Facebook.
How much information does Facebook keep? Read the December 13, 2011 article, Twenty Something Asks Facebook For His File And Gets It - All 1,200 Pages.
What do people in other countries think? The May 14, 2010 article, Facebook is not your friend gives one idea.
The June 15, 2011 article, The End of Facebook, and the June 14, 2011 article, Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook? give others.
Most people don't understand the problems that may occur. For example, consider the March 28, 2012 article, Teacher's aide says 'no access' to her Facebook; now legal battle with school.
This April 4, 2012 article would be funny if it weren't so sad: Woman arrested for assault based on Facebook photo. Quotes:
"Aston
Simply put a 200% tariff on any product and service from a company that has left the US. Bam, instantly every company the ran for a tax heaven has to come back or see its product unable to compete with new local offerings.
As for "essential" products? Simply remove US protection from foreign products. See how MS likes it if it no longer is protected by the US copyright laws.
People forget that we created governments to be powerful opposition to the rich. Government is the one who can answer the question: "You and what army".
Capitalists like the wheeny above seem to think that companies and the rich can do whatever they want and the government and the people just have to sit back and take it. That is only the case if you let weenies run the country.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
As a Dutch Web Developer I have had jobs and job offers with foreign companies and... they are not what they seemed. In Holland, we get a lot of extra's on top of our salaries. A 100% refund on public transport for instance that isn't (yet) taxed. 370 euro's is the max, for a small country, you can travel quite far with that and of course a subscription also allows you to travel for free on non-work trips. Since the price of a subscription goes down the further you travel, the point where you just buy a free travel pass for the entire country is easily reached and I have had one for years. Remember, that in Socialist Russia, public transport is somewhat usable (well except since the capitalist came into power, 2 years of VVD rules and more breakdowns then in the previous 100 years).
A Dutch salary also includes contributions to unemployment programs, pension, healthcare etc etc. So, if a Dutch person says he get 5k, that is NOT all the money flowing out of the employers bank account to benefit him and society. This is constantly changing because Dutch governments fall down quite a lot and we have had to have coalition governments for decades but it means that a job offer from a US based company and native Dutch one needs careful consideration. It gets especially interesting if the person making the offer hasn't got any experience with the Dutch labor market.
You need to take even more care if as a Dutch person you are thinking of working in the US. Be REALLY careful how the money is going to flow. It is not the same for all US states or even cities but simple things like if you get a house, how is garbage collected? Who pairs for public transport (often doesn't even exist), car, fuel, road charges? How is medical covered? No dutch job advertises with medical coverage because that is standardized. How many paid holidays do you get? How many mandatory holidays? How do you get paid if the company goes bellyup (hint, IN holland your pay is ensured with no fuss, no hazzle, you get your full salaray). How quickly can you be fired (Holland 1 months notice and there are a lot of safeguards for dismissal, not just unfair ones, just saying, we don't need him anymore is not enough).
Add it all up and I have turned down many an English over (for some reason, the English speaking world has really bad labor laws) because it just didn't make any sense. They wanted me to take a pay cut for less security while working more hours. How attractive!
But Americans believe in this system, presumable thinking that one day they too will be rich and they don't want to be paying their wage slaves a decent salary then. The American Dream consists of, if I ever become rich, I want to keep it all, even if I have so much I could never ever spend it and got to take it to the grave with me.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Progressivism is a recognized political concept that advocates deliberate social change in response to other social and non-social changes that occur in the world, whether that be industrialisation, urbanisation, technology etc. Past progressive issues include limiting (and ultimately, banning) child workers, allowing women to participate in the workforce, and allowing women and ethnic minorities to vote. More modern movements include outlawing discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, and age.
At the time of all of these movements that advocated social change, there were opposing social conservative movements, which advocated maintaining the existing social rules and structure. And still, in modern times, there are many people who believe that a return to the social norms of the past would be preferable to modern society, even if that means abandoning or limiting the use of technology. In particular, cell phones, smart phones, and the internet have all prompted social change, whether it be small social change like people talking on the train, changes in sexual behaviour as a result of widespread access to hardcore pornography, or people directly using these devices to communicate and organise larger social change like the Arab Spring. There are social conservatives that oppose all of these things.
In reality, it is very difficult to stop non-social changes from prompting social change, but it is possible - as societies like North Korea and Afghanistan show - if a concerted effort is made to limit the spread of change, and the impact of technological developments.
Actually the tax is quite low - 50 years ago, the tax was a lot higher.
I'm sorry, but this is a lie. While the federal income tax rate itself might be "lower" than it was 50 years ago, that is only part of the picture. Most of us working stiffs also have Federal Medicare and Social Security taxes along with State and Local income taxes tacked onto our paychecks. That ups the burden significantly. Then once we do get our money, most of us are subject to sales taxes and excise taxes. If you have any subscription-based service like a cell phone or cable TV then you pay taxes on that. Do you like electricity and water? Guess what that is taxed too. "Own" a home? You get to pay property tax. If you drive then of course you pay gas tax. And while Federal taxes may have come down, for most of us a lot of these taxes are going up.
Between all these taxes I'd dare say the overall tax rate in the US for most people is far higher than we can remember it being in our lifetimes. The argument that "taxes are quite low" is silly and wrong.
As for the subject of this post quitting the US to get a better tax rate, part of me can't blame him. There are over 200 countries from which one can procure government services, if the US doesn't offer the best value on them for the amount of tax paid, why not pick another one?
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Yeah, society and the taxes that run it are a form of looting. I don't think he minded the looting that paid for the infrastructure he depended on every fucking day, and the teachers who educated the people he relied on to get work done, and the military that made sure he wasn't too busy doing the ole Sig Heil to bother with anything else and courts that and system of laws and enforcement of those laws that provided him with the legal framework he needed to make his money or the EPA who made sure he wasn't dead from dioxin exposure or all the other myriad of governmental services ..."looters" ... who made civilization possible and carry it forward on civil servant wages and the promise of a government pension at the end of a lifetime of service.
This guy is a poster boy for the problems when people become so much more wealthy than the average person. They become selfish, uncompassionate and basically sociopathic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/rich-people-compassion-mean-money_n_1416091.html
Permitting these monsters to also hold influence proportionate to their wealth is where most of America's political and social problems come from. I don't give a fuck how tired you are of anything to do with anything "1%", what we have in America is an oligarchyy-kleptocracy being run into the ground economically, environmentally and morally by the scum who could give a shit about anyone or anything so long as he's got access to an all you can eat buffet of his favorite vices.
The super-wealthy twist and distort the system so it works only for them and at everyone else's expense. That's a fact and anyone denying it is just living in a fantasy world in which they're in line to be the next billionaire.
"I got mine, now watch me fuck you all. I don't need you,. and you can't touch me."
That's about the most dangerous thinking process a member of society can develop.
And yes, I do understand that programming and technology are areas that attract a higher than average number of such types. Let the mod down begin.
Fuck you. Read history.
Facebook may be a gigantic spy machine that induces the hapless and naive to surrender bit by bit most intimate details which are then assembled into a dossier to be used to suppress their own political, employment and economic opportunities so the rich can stay rich and keep the poor poor, but it's not going to save the rich from what comes when the system collapses in ecological and economic devastation . They'll share the same fate that all the past and present kings who thought of themselves as "untouchable"- and had better reason to consider themselves so- shared .
How soon until we read about some vet-who-can't-get-treated-by-a-tax-starved-VA taking a six dollar .50 BMG from two klicks away and exploding this fucking narcissistic panty-boy-billionaire's head like a two dollar melon?
Not soon enough. Ayn Rand's Galt character was just the (cardboard character, cartoonish) embodiment of the desire to have no obligations placed upon by society whatsoever, while of course being permitted
Maybe you need to fucking learn what the word "earn" fucking means.
What part of the government paid for R and D in basic science did you EARN ? What part of the infrastructure whose TIT you suck every goddamn day of your miserable useless life did YOU earn?
Fucking none of it.
So STFU about what you EARNED or this coke snorting degenerate thinks he EARNED because if you were going to EARN it, you'd have to start with studying science then recreating everything society has created and given to you as your fucking silverspoon birthright biotch.
You earned jack. You took an inconceivable amount of goods and know-how that generations have paid for in taxes in time in labor in suffering and in blood and thought of it as "yours" just like this puss filled filth sack did. Then you bitch slap everyone who came before and preen and prance around like you invented it all, paid for it all, created it all and "you don't owe no-nobody nuthin!"
Ayn Rand was an amphetamine addict. The process of being an addict of pharmaceutical stimulants systematically degrades you brain in a known and characteristic way- it turns you into a megalomaniac void of higher order emotional cognition. Thus the character of John Galt. Thus this fucking shit bag who, if the FB movie is to be believed, basically coke-snorted away whatever fucking ganglia it was that was passing for his brain back in the day.
One of the totally legitimate functions of society is to limit - through whatever means are effective- the harm and damage the mentally deranged anti-social psychopaths can inflict on society. I hope this guy dies in the most degrading abasing manner imaginable, preferably at the hands of one of society's most disadvantaged and deprived members, perhaps his drug dealer or one of the whores he has to pay to fuck him
This statement is factually wrong. The Boston Tea Party was not a result of more taxes, it was a result of less taxes.
British tea was taxed. That allowed American contrabandists to sell their contraband tea cheaper. When the tax on British tea was rescinded, it was economically harmful to their American competitors.
Hence, Tea Party.
You have to show first, that you aren't already getting paid that "fair share".
Income disparity is the greatest it has been since right before the Great Depression.
40 years of profits have mostly been squirreled into low tax or offshore investments.
If that same money had gone to employees, it would have been subject to normal levels of taxation and kept our government solvent.
Really, it's almost like I talked right past you.
Did you bother to click the link and look at even one of those graphs?
Here's one: http://i.imgur.com/wBgyq.png
I'd say these numbers more or less speak for themselves.
That should more or less answer all your questions.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The wealthy are looking for ways out, they are moving their production out. Jim Rogers lives in Singapore though he didn't renounce his citizenship yet, I don't know why.
The problem with leaving is that there is a huge exit tax and IRS forces the person to liquidate all assets and then pay large taxes on them, but this means that a rich person, running a company has to sell, the entire thing or piece by piece, or however, and this is really ridiculous, given that you don't have to be a citizen in USA to own parts or entire companies, after all, anybody with any stock in a USA based company is a part owner, and you don't have to be a US citizen or resident to own US company stock.
You can't handle the truth.
On the contrary, history has shown us that poverty correlates inversely with welfare states. When the state does not provide adequate welfare, private charity never makes up the difference with statistical significance. There's been at least two major empirical studies to determine this which are summarized concisely on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
you are almost right, except in saying the rich are taxed a considerable amount. given all the loopholes, the rates can be significantly different.
here is a great example: a doctor living in the US can pay around 35 pct of their income to taxes(granted, at a very high earning level, but still). A person who simply trades futures on an exchange pays no more than 25 percent. In what way does the trader offer so much more of a public service that the tax rate should be lower?
we can go on, using the 15% on carried interest as a PE investor vs a small business owner paying significantly more, as much as the doctor.
Let`s make it even better: if I day trade with my own personal money, I pay up to ordinary income tax. On the other hand, if I create a mutual fund and engage in similar trading and be an owner of shares of the fund, I can defer to long term capital gains without changing my trading style.
The rich are not some monolithic group, but if we leveled the tax system and treated all income as equivalent (that includes gifts from your parents, i.e. inheritance), rates could be much, much lower. Oh, and filing your taxes would require about a 4th grade education, as compared to a college degree it now requires when your returns grow complex (as mine have). You could massively lower taxes on many of the rich simply by removing exemptions and deferrals that others use.
No, he should be completely free to come and go as he chooses, and to renounce being a member of any country at will. Allowing such behavior is a basic freedom that any and all should be allowed to exercise. What I said has nothing to do with this in the slightest.
What I object to is his using the US as a platform to grow billions in wealth, and then not contributing back when he should be. There are billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that US citizens have invested into infrastructure of the country over the last several hundred years, and that makes it a great place to start a business. The country has roads, a mail system, decent public education, and non-corrupt public servants. There are fire departments, airports and Intranet infrastructure. The country is stable, secure, and there is a developed banking and financial network. People want to live here, and there is plenty of highly skilled talent. All of this came at a cost that was paid for by taxpayers. And now that this guy makes several billion dollars, enough money that he could never even realistically spend it under ordinary circumstances, he abandons his citizenship to avoid paying his taxes. He is no less than a common thief, abet one with a lot of personal accountants advising him on how to cheat the American people. He is about to steal 2 billion dollars from the country, a country that worked hard to give him a chance at his dreams of success.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It is money of the investors who are willing to pay for FB shares, and you are not paying for it..
Your assumptions are incorrect, he is benefiting from all the advantages that being in the US confer that were paid for by you and I. You think that FB could have got of the ground in a country without a government or infrastructure, like Somalia? Who paid for that, in dollars and blood over the last several centuries? The people of the US. You want to be a patriot? Don't try to cheat the system by cutting and running in order to save yourself from paying taxes.
I am not advocating that he pay more than anyone else, just because he has money. I think that he should play only exactly as much as the law says he owes, (without trying to exploit loopholes). He is saying that 2 billion dollars is worth more to him than contributing to the country that gave him a chance to succeed, and fuck the law, he will take is money and run when given the chance.
You say that there shouldn't be taxes, while enjoying all the benefits that the provide you. You are spouting off against taxes ON THE INTERNET, WHICH WAS STARTED WITH GOVERNMENT FUNDS. Show the strength of your conviction. Stop paying taxes, turn off your Internet access, unplug your phones, turn off your water and sewage and tell the police and fire department that you don't ever want or need their help. You and all the small minded fools like you that rail against paying the very modest taxes that are asked of you are short sighted selfish twits. Walk the walk little man, renounce all the blessings that society pays for with taxes. I dare you.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
A very vulgar way to say "I stand on the shoulders of giants".
Granted, I like a little vulgarity here and there. But wishing death on someone is really pushing it.
:(){