Slashdot Mirror
Senators To Unveil the 'Ex-Patriot Act' To Respond To Facebook's Saverin
An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again." See this earlier story on Saverin's plan to make the leap out of the U.S. tax system.
don't we have much bigger things to worry about? This isn't a common case....well, it might be if things continue the way they are going.
A) More government/laws
B) More Taxes
C) More War
D) All of the above
1) Leave
2) only come to the country on holidays
3) have others do the work for you.
Why are your senators always so mad?
Why target only those evade their taxes by renouncing their citizenship? Shouldn't these politicians take a good look at themselves? How many of them use every loophole (or sneaky, illegal tactic) they can find to evade their taxes? These people are not above reproach. Most, if not all, are just as guilty of evading their taxes.
Like the Soviet Union where you can't leave?
Or like Nazi Germany, where you can leave, but not bring any of your valuables?
The move was likely a financial one, as he owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make $4 billion when the company goes public. ...
Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”
You're telling me he only has to pay 1.6% on $4 billion? Goddamn the rich have it good.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
was kind of hoping this was to cancel out the patriot act...
Many athletes from other countries with very high tax rates (Sweden for example) would become naturalized US citizens because the US was well known for having tons of tax loop holes for the wealthy.Now that those loop holes are closing, the flow of greedy rich people of flowing the other way. It's really not a big deal now that globalization has devalued citizenship for the most part.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
The nerve of Saverin to think that it was actually his money! What was he thinking?.
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Great. First we have the McCarthyist Enemy Expatration Act and now the Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy. Two really different things, the first being far more egregious than the latter. This is how you get clueless people to think they are supporting something good when all they can remember is "that expatriation bill".
Senators to drastically simplify the tax system and eliminate loopholes?
Instead, these two people are going to overreact to the publicity received by this particular individual and create a bill to address him and the people like him (I believe under a couple thousand people over the last few years). It will do little to impact the nation as a whole.
Imagine if they were to put their effort into fixing the root of the problem...
Doesn't solve the problem of unfair taxation, and makes a bad problem worse. Why are we still voting for these idiots again?
This signature intentionally left blank.
With asshats like Chuck Schumer in office, what makes him think Saverin (and many others) *want* to come back? It's a little like a hotel manager banning you from his hotel after you complain about the fact that someone took a crap on the room's bed.
Capital gains are already due when you renounce your citizenship. Placing the burden of proof on someone to prove they aren't renouncing for tax purposes is ridiculous, and possibly unconstitutional. Why would I need a "valid" reason to renounce my citizenship? And adding a clause to bar the person from reentry for life is just petty. Blaming people for leaving when we have laws and policies they disagree with is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Either we don't want those people here anyway, or else we're the problem.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The senators are just angry because they didn't get their cut of the action.
Expatriates from every country have family, friends, and historical ties to the country they came from. Denying visitation for that reason is morally wrong. Moreover I'm universally opposed to bills of attainder and ex-post-facto laws. They were stupid and contemptible back during the ACORN stupidity, and they're still an unreasonable abuse of legislative power now. If this act applies in any way to Saverin, it would be an undermining of the rule of law.
Probably more "American" than someone named "Rahm Emmanuel" or "Barack Obama".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This is America... the big melting pot and all that... names are the last thing that tell you where people are from here. I live in the area that Schumer (unfortunately) represents. We have hispanics with Polish names, Russians with English names and blacks with Irish names... and most of them are at least third generation Americans.
I'm not really sure what the big deal is. Yeah, we shouldn't let people dodge taxes like that, but this is a non issue. We've already got laws that handle this. When someone gives up their citizenship, they are required to pay taxes on the value of all assets as of the day they give up citizenship. And we've already got laws that permit denying future reapplications for citizenship. So I'm not sure what more you could reasonably ask.
how appropriate...captch is "absurd"
The legislature should not be trying to build "walls" to keep people from leaving, but should rather work on making the USA a desirable place to live. If a few rich people expatriate, it's not the end of the world. I think bitter politicians like these Dem senators give the USA a bad image.
It's funny that Schumer, who campaigned AGAINST closing tax loopholes for "investment managers" in 2007 now is snarking against this guy for a similar dodge. Guess he didn't send a big enough check to Schumer's office before announcing his plan.
Burn the land and boil the sea........
Why would he bother to come back? There are plenty of decent places to live in the world, especially when you have money.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I think they're pissed off because it's the most uncomplicated way (and fully legal) of avoiding taxes. You don't even need to hire expensive lawyers or anything, like many of them senators probably have, in order to evade taxes. It's ENVY!
As a nation of immigrants, I sometimes wish say China or another major country would try to pull the same thing with their citizens who have emigrated to the U.S. We would hear all kinds of politicians going high and right about human rights and violations of national sovereignty, etc.
One could argue that what FaceBook co-founder Eduardo Saverin did was unethical, but despite all of that, the right to emigrate and ex-patriate is a basic human right that is enshrined in U.S. and in international law. Punishing individuals who exercise a basic human right is by definition tyranny.
Before I emigrated, when I complained about high taxes and bloated socialism the left would tell me 'if you don't like it, leave!'.
When I told them I was emigrating they would tell me how evil I was for leaving and not staying there to pay high taxes to fund their wonderful government programs.
You just can't win.
"Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy”
Holy smokes! I needed to catch my breath after saying that...
A simple tax code, without flexibility in interpretation (which means that IRS just says "no you can't do that" even though there isn't any specific justification in the code), means giant loopholes and tax evasion in practice.
A substantial fraction of the tax code is the way it is because they are patches done to attempt to preclude diversions of income which were not intended by the simple code.
All sorts of very simple appearing programs in fact have egregious security bugs in the corner cases.
Who puts Saverin's house out when it is burning out of control?
Who paves the roads and repairs the bridges that Saverin's luxury cars utilize every day?
Who delivers the mail that Saverin relies on for his business and home operations?
Who manages the pipes and treatment of the shit that Saverin dumps down his toilets every day?
Who patrols the streets that Saverin lives and works on, protecting him from crime?
Who watches and protects the nation of America when terrorists and other countries seek to destroy Saverin's way of life, property, and business interests?
In Saverin's mind (and yours) all of these are freebies.. entitlements. No responsibility to maintain them whatsoever.
People like Saverin are half of what's wrong with America today. I will be glad when we are one less "Saverin citizen" when he departs for Singapore. We don't need trash like that here.
That someone is successfully abusing the system better than they are.
Would the damn Senate please GTFO of meddling in individual cases, please? Terry Schiavo, Eduardo Saverin? Dear useless fucking politicans, please address the problems of the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of citizens first. And if you must legislate over 1 "person", do so for the fucking "corporations are people too my friend".
Not that I sympathize with this slimy tax-dodger, but I hope he gets away with it.
The value of his demonstration on how the rich view the world is worth more to the world (and the American public) than the taxes he owes. I don't want that demonstration stopped.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't see why we should ever approve visas to any naturalized citizen who renounces their citizenship.
I don't care about the tax reasons, that's a red herring as far as I'm concerned.
As far as I know, it was US policy in the past to refuse visas to ex-citizens, it's a good policy and we should continue to have it.
It is not a right for foreign nationals to visit the US, and visiting can be regulated with almost no restriction (I can't think of any limitations, maybe for diplomats)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This was done by the USSR, Jews wanted to leave for Israel? Not before you settled your debt which strangely non-jews just didn't seem to have.
Mind you, another version of it could be extremely radical. Any refugee from a country who goes back to that country on holiday, can stay there... instant end to economic refugee's.
This plan makes sense if you truly believe in the free market and capitalism. It is basically just one hotel saying that if you pay in another hotel, you can't sleep in their rooms. But who believes in the free market and capitalism anymore.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...if there's a better solution from elsewhere, why aren't they jumping to the call? I bet there's a lot of opportunity here.
Apparently, the private sector and free market is supposed to be able to offer better, cheaper, more efficient solutions to, like, everything.
Well, I'm still waiting, just like I'm still waiting on that ideal implementation of communism that works.
But so far, it seems like the only answer private sector has is to basically flee and hide like cowards (outsource, renounce citizenship, move out...)
Because he didn't make any of that money based on Government-subsidized infrastructure, did he? Like, for example, the protocols and research necessary to create the Internet?
All valid points. However, I am a little bewildered as to why you have stood idly by whilst China conducts massive commerce over the same infrastructure with money actually leaving the USA and no sales tax being paid on those transactions to the American government. Where is your outrage there? Not only is that like a truck drive avoiding paying for roads, it's like a truck driver driving your money away on those same roads. Why is this not outrageous?
This is like someone making shedloads of money with a trucking company, and then doing everything possible to not pay for roads.
Look, my initial reaction to this story is identical to yours. I see this guy go to Harvard, reap the benefits of being in a safe country with tax dollars that create the ecosystem for something like Facebook to flourish and then when it comes to his turn to put back into the system, he kites off. Well, the story isn't that simple, he was born in Sao Paulo and probably is one of the people the US has brain drained from India, Brazil, etc in order to bolster our own economy. On top of that, Facebook is a global phenomena by now with serious activity world-wide. So, you know, I don't feel so bad that now Singapore or where ever he takes up residence has "reverse brain drained" the US in this instance due to "steep" taxes. I'd be more upset if Zuckerberg did it but in the end, this single IPO is probably trivial compared to every company maneuvering "sales" to Ireland and the Netherlands to avoid paying billions of dollars to the United States each year. This is a one time thing and I think the "Ex-Patriot Act" is garbage when they should be targeting the systematic avoidance done by almost every company that can claim international sales. Poor poor Eduardo, he was just being an efficient little Capitalist.
With corporate person-hood becoming a major problem, will the "Ex-Patriot Act" apply to these tax evasion strategies of which everyone is guilty?
My work here is dung.
It's not entirely to avoid taxes - he'll pay those regardless. It's to make it easier to do business in other countries. There have been a few articles on ex-pats, and the legal hoops through which people and foreign banks, in particular, have to jump is ridiculous, if not downright onerous. Some foreign banks have simply refused to do business with Americans because of these stupid regs. It's as if the good ol' US of A owns your ass, even if you're not in this country, or making money, here.
Schumer - my senator, unfortunately - is just grandstanding, once again, the pissbag...
Gee, corrupt Democrat bully Chuck Schumer threatens someone. And now slashdot helps him get more of the publicity for which he is so obviously whoring.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
From 8 USC 1182 - INADMISSIBLE ALIENS:
(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation
Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States is inadmissible.
So, what's the point of the "new" proposed law besides political grandstanding?
Why target only those evade their taxes by renouncing their citizenship? Shouldn't these politicians take a good look at themselves? How many of them use every loophole (or sneaky, illegal tactic) they can find to evade their taxes? These people are not above reproach. Most, if not all, are just as guilty of evading their taxes.
Tax avoidance is NOT tax evasion. There is a big difference between the two.
From what I understand his reasons are sound beyond saving money on his investments. The way the US works, if your a citizen and make money anywhere else in the world, no matter if you live in the US anymore, have a house or any sort of ownership and are perfectly legal to work and live where you are, Uncle Sam wants to tax that money anyway. So basically you're being screwed twice, once by the local government and then Uncle Sam for wanting their piece of the pie. I know this because I'm from England and live in the US, I don't pay a dime to the UK government. However if I became a US citizen and moved back to england, I'd be on the hook to Uncle Sam as long as I made money, Uncle Sam wants it. So at this point if you expected to stay in England for the unforseable future, give up your citizenship so you don't have to pay double the taxes.
I don't see anything actually new here. Technically the US gov already has the right to refuse entry to people who have renounced US citizenship, they just haven't been enforcing it. And they can already tax assets over $2 million as if they were sold immediately prior to renunciation of citizenship, and can continue taxing you for up to 10 years after renunciation (see HEART Act). This place turns into the Soviet Union a bit more and more every day.
He got rich in this country and reaped all the benefits of the system. Now that it is time to contribute he escapes and leaves the rest of us with the bill. Screw him, make him pay.
There is a big difference between somebody who expatriates and somebody who is playing lawyer games. The reason we have judges and juries interpreting the law is not to literally follow the rules but to apply some brain power to see past the literal and what is really going on. A tax cheat is not the same as somebody how moves away. We have to stop thinking of law as computer code and turning our brains off and processing law like a mindless computer. It is just a step above speaking rudely in a foreign language in a friendly tone - technicalities are no excuse for blatantly violating the entire purpose.
ACORN was a matter of funding; the budget is not law.
Ex-post-facto laws happen despite being unconstitutional but we allow them sometimes. Like how John McCain was asserted to be a natural born citizen when he is not due to ex-post-facto. He is not eligible to be president under the constitution; the irony is the Obama birther stuff - but they surely would have allowed ex-post-facto if McCain won...
Corporations use far more social welfare than people and they should pay when they leave after getting fat on the public's dime (this is done in smarter nations.) I could see how reasonable arguments can be made to extend the corporate reasoning to individuals.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I once worked with a guy named Zoltan. He insisted he was not an exiled king of Mars, but I was on to him!
Fucking repugnicans telling half the story as usual.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/07/28/kerry-to-pay-yacht-tax-in-effort-to-cast-off-controversy/
When did it become patriotic to PAY taxes? I hate facebook, and probably wouldn't even like this guy. But cheers to Eduardo Saverin for figuring out a way of depriving this corrupt and unjust government from gaining even more tax dollars to spend on war, giveaways to special interest groups and civilian spy programs. It's your patriotic duty to avoid all the taxes you can. Maybe if Chuck Schumer would focus on cutting his spending proposals for once, instead of on how he can squeeze more money out of his constituents, he could finally deliver a balanced budget.
spare me, schumer is the biggest israel firster since lieberman quit, i don't know where he gets off telling anybody that they owe america anything considering for him america is only secondary concern to his true "homeland".
You know government has too much power when our "representatives" feel so in control of our lives that they can personally threaten individuals in such a brazen way. I don't agree with what Saverin is planning to do, but threatening to throw the weight of the entire US Government to essentially take revenge against an individual for doing something legally, is not kosher in my book.
I'd buy it if they also threatened Exxon-Mobil, Google or Microsoft for setting up tiny subsidiaries with huge profits abroad so they can dodge taxes. But instead they're going after an individual with the purpose of scaring everyone else from doing the same thing. This is as close to an authoritarian fascist government behavior as you can get without calling it that.
Back in 2007, Halliburton was making so much money off no-bid war-related contracts, it moved headquarters out of America in order to avoid paying taxes on all the money it was making from the US government.
Very clever Mr. Schumer!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
If you renounce your US citizenship, you need to apply for some visa to subsequently enter the US.
All visa applications have a question "Have you every renounced US citizenship for taxation purposes?", right along with "Have you ever belonged to a terrorist organization?", "Have you ever engaged in prostitution?", "Have you ever withheld custody of a US citizen child?" and some similar ones.
The visa application forms say that "Answering 'yes' to any of these questions don't automatically deny your visa, but you will be asked to appear before a consular officer to answer further questions".
Of course, Saverin might try to not answer "yes" to that question on his visa application, but what are the chances the State Department happens to have a list of names/dates of birth/etc. of all people who renounced.
So, if he ever wanted to reenter US, I think he'd find it's far from smooth sailing for him. Of course, he might not want to reenter ever again, in which case, he couldn't care less
Since Schumer supports illegal immigrants I guess if Saverin snuck back in across the Mexico border Schumer would support his rights?
Not quite as american as these guys:
Larry Echohawk
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Tom Cole
Brad Carson
That is unless these guys don't actually meet your standard of "American" based on names.
Or maybe these are what you're looking for
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Ander Crenshaw
Mario Diaz-Balart
So it is the names or the party affiliation that makes them more or less "American" in your book?
I got here through a series of tubes
Didn't the Beatles move to the US to avoid The Taxman? I guess it's ok to come to the US to avoid taxes, but you shan't dare leave...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Mod parent up, I was thinking the same thing. This is political grandstanding.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Because they're not going to be able to charge people after the fact (ex post facto, as mentioned above), and if they dawdle about talking like this in public, then rich people might flee the country in fear of future retaliations.
I'm not sure if /. american readers realize this: but the USA is almost the only country that has rules saying that its citizens have to pay US income taxes when they do not live in the US? And hence USA is the only country where it is significantly relevant to renounce citizenship for tax purposes. And the US government actually dont like it and can refuse to let you renounce or ban you from entering the US if they can make a case that you renounced citizenship primarily to reduce taxes already under existing rules. I think technically you have to ask for permission to emigrate. I am a non-US citizen but lived in the US with an H1B visa for a short while. When I left the IRS tried telling me (when I called to ask about something tax related) that I need fill in a form to ask permission to leave. I snorted and said "I dont think so" and did nothing of the sort.
Seems vaguely like Stalinist Russia in the era when it was very difficult and illegal to escape (at least as far as taxation goes.)
And actually it is well known among international expats and tax advisers that for people thinking of obtaining a second passport, a US passport is something you actively do NOT want because its difficult to get rid of and has the unusual disadvantage of global taxation no matter which country you live in, and double filing requirements attached. Whats the point of being an expat in a low tax jurisdiction if the US is going to clobber for the difference. I know several people who elected not to get US passports, gave back green cards etc for this reason.
Seems to me the senator has it backwards, the US needs to get with the program and adopt the civilized norm in international taxation rules. Seems like if almost all other countries are taking the "we dont tax non-residents" rule that the US is a bit out of whack.
But I believe this has already been covered.
"IRC 877A imposes a mark-to-market regime, which generally means that all property of a covered expatriate is deemed sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation date. IRC 887A further provides that any gain arising from the deemed sale is taken into account for the taxable year of the deemed sale notwithstanding any other provisions of the Code. Any loss from the deemed sale is taken into account for the taxable year of the deemed sale to the extent otherwise provided in the Code, except that the wash sale rules of IRC 1091 do not apply."
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
If I read that correctly all his shares in Facebook are to be sold on the day he renounces citizenship and they tax any profits accordingly.
... you were born in the USA, but moved to another country, and weren't allowed to become a citizen there without sacrificing your citizenship in your country of origin?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Don't smoke, don't feed the homeless, don't pick which lightbulb you like, etc., etc.
Your own food is too fatty, salty, etc.
Liberals don't believe in a right to privacy except for the sexual sphere of life. They are busybodies par excellance.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
What's this guy's fair share for that infrastructure? Do you want to exclude all the items not needed for Facebook? Does Facebook need to pay for HUD, NASA, etc.?
And doesn't Facebook already pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and provide jobs and a service to the public at large?
The government exists to enable commerce, but that doesn't mean the government should have whatever percentage it wants.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"A free and prosperous society has no fear of anyone entering it. But a welfare state is scared to death of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out." - Harry Browne
Oooh, herp a derp! Deep pockets! They aint payin der FAIR SHARE. I want some a dat money too!
Pass a law to dictate that Facebook share price would go down after IPO, therefore punishing the guy who gambled the price would go up.
Remember, the dude has already paid the exit tax when he renounced citizenship, based on the FMV of his shares at that time. He'd only save tax if the share actually go up.
You want more laws, Senator? Here is the ridiculous law for your revenge.
I must be one of the only ones here agreeing with this move, and I find all the fearmongers and FUD-spreaders comparing this to Communist Russia more than a bit amusing.
Saverin was able to amass his wealth specifically because of the overall environment which existed in America. If Facebook was started in Singapore, there's now way that it would be where it is today. As such, he has an obligation to pay back into the system that fostered his wealth in the first place. If he wants to renounce his citizenship in a bid to avoid that obligation, don't let the door hit him on the way back.
A person who renounces citizenship - something which thousands of people dream about achieving someday - so readily simply to avoid taxes should be barred for life from reentering the country. If they don't want to pay back into the system, they have no right to enjoy the benefits it provides.
In my opinion, it's worth the loss in whatever taxes he owes just to get leeches like Saverin out of the country for good.
How about applying the same sort of treatment to companies that resort to similar manipulations to obtain tax benefits? That should have been evident years ago... seems to me that congress has a biased agenda here.
If you renounce your citizenship, they make it pretty much impossible to return to the US anyway. They do not treat you well at the border if you try to enter. Imagine the scene as the armored USA-USA border patrol looks at your papers. They specialize in making AMERICANS miserable; imagine indeed what they do to "traitors".
You don't come back.
No. My playing the game for subtle black humor. I'm like AliG in ASCII.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Maybe I should have included a :-) ?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The government is effectively paying him $67M to take $4B and invest it in Singapore instead of the US.
More power to him, so long as the government is insisting on getting paid AMT or capital gains now on unrealized income from an appreciated investment which hasn't been sold.
The problem is that they want their poind of flesh now, rather than waiting for it to turn from an investment into "mall money" (money you can take down to the mall and spend).
I knew, though not well, a Netscape guy who was a paper multimillionaire when the Netscape IPO happened. In order to make it a long instead of a short term capital gain, and thus pay less tax, he did an exercise and hold, rather than a same day sale. Then the .bomb happened and the stock price tanked. So there he was with a couple hundred thousand in share value, and the government wanted their 35% of the $27M they valued it at at the time the options were exercised.
Eventually he killed himself, rather than going to Federal (debtor's) prison for tax evasion, since you can't dismiss taxes owed through bankruptcy.
Capital gains taxes as a matter of public policy are potentially defensible, even though they make you pay taxes on an investment of after-tax income and therefore amount to a surtax, but AMT is just asinine: the government can wait to get its money until I get my money.
-- Terry
They should go after Apple (saved $2 billion in US taxes last year) and GE (paid $0 US Taxes on $19 billion dollars in income). Savarin is just an easy target because he is a kid, he is high profile, and he doesn't employ an army of lobbyists in Washington to protect himself. The amount of money they can extract from Savarin is chump change compared to the tax money not paid by major corporations. They should leave him alone and go after the major offenders, but they never will because they are scared of the big companies. I expected more from Schumer than shooting a fish in a fishtank.
We have the party of "I know this won't get passed but it'll get me votes" and the party of "I know this should get passed but saying no will get me votes".
Not saying it's always both, or that there's anything wrong with the principle of trying to pass it anyway or trying to say no anyway. But it shouldn't be so damn common...
Yeah wasn't sure, if you were joking or not. Sorry for the rant.
I got here through a series of tubes
start from a position of honesty and integrity
That, I believe, is the "reverse cowgirl".
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
you haz it!
No prob. I DO think that Barack Obama hates Black folks, 'tho.: http://blackagendareport.com/content/why-barack-obama-more-effective-evil
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If the government limited itself to providing police and roads, that would be one thing. It does not restrict to the basics, however.
It should not be surprising that someone decided to renounce their citizenship (and give up all those "benefits") for a country that still has all those roads - without all the hassle.
More taxes = -rich = crappy us economy
This guy isn't a crook he as the freedom to leave and he did. When the USA says the rich mush pay a arm + leg + left nut they tend to leave the USA.
If your wondering why foreign money isn't coming to the USA there is a tax of 25ish percent for bring money into the USA. Really our government is so greedy that people who want to spend money here have to pay the government. Plus there is a 25ish export tax that is in place for people who want to manufacture here.
So we take money from people who want to spend it here and tax the crap out of people who want to create jobs here for export business and we wonder why our system is so screwed up???
This isn't a political party problem this is a Govt problem in general. I it was a party problem we would have had more fighting over these issues. Both parties are so far from the constitution it's sad.
"Groups that have has a lasting impact on the social order -- the Populists, the original Progressives, suffragettes, labor, blacks -- organized outside the party system; indeed, when they were brought in the tent, they became less effective. The public has been told, again and again, the only choice is to hold your nose and select one of the two parties. It's time we recognize that that myth no longer serves us. "
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/barack-obama-the-great-deceiver.html
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Will this include a provision for punishing leave-behind relatives?
God, how East Germany of Schumer!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Consider this...
If you lived in California and thought their taxes were too high, would it be "unpatriotic" if you decided to move to another state?
What if California decided to charge you an exit tax and sent you a bill after you moved? Would you consider that to be fair? After all, you lived in California and were able to take advantage of all the wonderful opportunities and benefits provided by the California government.
After you have sold all your property and moved out of California, you now work in Florida and earn all your money in Florida. However, the state of California says you still must report and pay taxes on the money you earn in Florida. They give you credit for Florida taxes, but they still want want you to pay taxes on your Florida income. Also, besides making you pay taxes, California wants you to give them the details of any financial accounts you have in Florida. Would you consider that to be fair?
Here's another scenario...
Let's say that both of your parents were born in California, but you were born in Florida and have lived there all your life. You've never even been to California.
One day, you receive a tax bill from the state of California. They claim you owe them taxes because both of your parents were California citizens, so therefore you must be a California citizen and owe taxes there. Would you consider that to be fair?
-------------
If you think the above situations are ridiculous, then just substitute "USA" for "California" and "Singapore" for "Florida". Then you'll discover that everything is absolutely true. You'll also discover why many people have made the quite rational decision of renouncing their USA citizenship.
The USA is the ONLY country that requires its non-resident citizens to report their world-wide income and pay taxes on it. If a USA citizen moves to Singapore, they are still legally required to report their income and pay taxes back to the USA. They are also required to report any financial accounts they may have in Singapore. A Canadian or Brit (or a citizen of any other country) living in Singapore has no such requirements. Not even citizens of semi-socialist countries like Sweden and France require their non-resident citizens to report foreign accounts or pay taxes back home. They may be required to pay taxes in Singapore, but once they've been gone from their home country for a certain period of time, they are no longer required to pay taxes there.
Think the last scenario mentioned above is far-fetched? It's not. There are thousands of American citizens living in Canada who have never even set foot in the USA. Their parents were American, so that makes them American citizens. Now the IRS is going after them and requiring them to report their Canadian assets (like bank and retirement accounts) and to pay taxes on income earned in Canada.
Instead of spouting ignorance, do your homework and you may discover why Mr Saverin's decision makes perfect sense. Especially when he is originally from Brazil and may not have any deep connections to the USA.
The USA is not the home of liberty and freedom. USA tax policies are anti-freedom and out-of-step with the rest of the world. It's like telling a slave they are free to leave the plantation, but you still have to pay money back to the plantation owner. After all, you had the "benefits" of living on the plantation.
Some taxes are necessary, but if you think the current tax structure and bloated government is reponsible for "creating the internet" or other such nonsense, then think again. Yes, the original internet may have been created by the government-funded DARPA project, but do you really think that we would not have something like the internet today if DARPA had never existed?
Do you think that the telegraph and telephone would not have been invented if Morse and Bell had never lived? Do you think man would never have flown if the Wright brothers had decided to stick to bicycles? How did radio and television co
Why is the Democrats solution to everything to raise taxes?
Um, Saverin is Brazilian, dickhead - that's his point.
All of this sonds like! "Waaaaa We made all those nice tax rules to take your money! You can't just WALK OUT on us! "
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It almost seems fair enough to expatriate for the sake of not giving tax money to those who seem hellbent on using it to ruin the nation. Do we really need more drones, more war, more authoritarians, or more cameras? It will be interesting to see people expatriating and investing what they save to enhance their new homes. A million dollars here = new toys for dicks & pricks. A million dollars elsewhere could do a lot more. And how much of it all goes to the unaccountable DoD to lube the trail of endless debt and suicidal empire?
He left the US and renounced his citizenship a year ago. Only now is it news because of the IPO? Schumer is one of the worst for totalitarian Marxism in the senate. He should be tied to a tree upside down and fed Ex-Lax for a month.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The looters show their true colors---maybe this will cause a mass exodus of even more productive people, and their wealth, to places they won't be preyed upon (nearly as much, at least).
Liberty in your lifetime
If enough of the "working class" libertarians moved to Somalia with the same level of funding by the Koch brothers as they've dumped into US elections you guys should be able to run out the local warlords you don't like and set up shop for yourselves. Seriously, I've heard tons of you bitch about how you are "going to go john galt," I just wish you'd all do it. If you really believe it'll fall apart without your hard work, prove it. Or is it that deep down you don't think you could make it without either a) our government or maybe b) the servant class you use to cook your food and landscape your lawn?
The Love Canal landfill was perfectly fine, properly sealed and maintained by the company, which was unwilling to sell it. The local GOVERNMENT, wanting to build a school, came along and threatened to seize the land using eminent domain. The company relented and sold the property for one dollar, with the deed stating that the site was dangerous for human habitation. The local GOVERNMENT then proceeded to dig up the site for a sewer system and landscaping.
That's just one example. The rest of your points would collapse under similar scrutiny.
I am not talking about people renouncing citizenship to dodge taxes. I am talking about how expatriate get taxed in the normal, income sense of the word.
US citizens get taxed twice when they work overseas. Once locally, once by the US.
Foreign citizens who work in the US get taxed only once - by the US.
Yes, there is some tax relief written in the tax code, but it makes things harder and more complex. If a US company wants to expand overseas it puts them, and any US citizens they want to hire, at a disadvantage.
And, to your point directly, I am o.k. with people who renounce their citizenship to come visit the US. I would be o.k. if Terry Gilliam (Monty Python, Brazil) came back for an extended stay in the US. We live in a global economy. If we expect to lure top flight talent to the US we kind of have to play fair and expect some the talent to flow the other way. Being small and petty will not help the US. And it looks like Saverin is paying the taxes due as per the law, I have no issue.
Contrary to public opinion, there are nicer and cleaner girls in the USA than in China. You just need to know where to look for. Also as a plus our ass is safe thanks to the world strongest military.
New Economic Perspectives
When did we start making laws that make something that has already been done illegal? Why are we even debating how much he has to pay. He renounced his citizenship months ago. Does nobody else find it disturbing that our government is going after someone who is not an American citizen living in this country for breaking a law we have not yet created?
He has no chance of passing this ACT
No Government has a Right to Tax. Admittedly they could and probably have a right to deny service to those on their 'do not patronize' list, for non-payment or for other reasons, but I have the same right. Exactly what service is a traveler abusing merely by visiting a territory some Government claims as "theirs"?
This is fabulous. Now the US is akin to China in its most repressive periods, and very similar to Communist Russia and East Berlin. Will US citizens need "exit visas" soon as well? I don't think this is what the founding father's imagined when they drafted up the Constitution. This is just another form of repression, its just keeps getting worse and worse and joe six pack just does not care.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071886/ns/news-special_coverage/t/double-life-marc-rich/#.T7cmautYugg
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Wasn't there a wired article or something similar about wealth management in a global economy, where the sane approach is "5 Flags"?
1. Residence
2. Citizenship
3. Bank
4. Place of Work/Employer
5. Trust Fund
This is funny, so you do not want people to come here and live without citizenship, but it was okay for your ancestors to freely come to the US, uninvited and slaughter the people the land belonged too.
Now you are saying you do not want people who are rich to leave, I thought the tax bracket was fixed for the rich to pay little in taxes, but others in the middle/lower class may take this idea and run with it.
Again another fine example of wasting time and money for an moronic bill. We the people should be able to publicly hang morons like this instead of allowing them to re-run for office.
...and miss the invasive full body scans, fingerprinting, addition to a database, and general state harassment? or the third world medical system? or the mass unemployment? or the poor job prospects? or the ghastly food?
More laws = More corruption
Casteism
The fellow's only reason for giving up his citizenship is to avoid paying his share of the taxes we all must pay. Yes indeed, speaking as an American citizen, he is not welcome here. Plus, he should pay the taxes anyway. The money will flow through American banks to his accounts, wherever those accounts may be. As that flow occurs during and after the IPO, all appropriate taxes should be extracted. He and others who forsake citizenship to avoid taxes should be declared persona non grata, never again to be allowed entry to this country, besides having taxes extracted as their wealth leaves our shores.
They are called off-shore holding companies, and plenty of them pay no tax in the US. This is just a legal way for an individual to do the same, and why shouldn't you be allowed to do so if you wish. He pays an exit tax on the value of his stock holdings when he ex-patriated (sp?). Furthermore the US is one of the few countries that taxes its citizen's living aboard. It's not rational to pay taxes when you are not taking advantage of the services your country offers. Furthermore like plenty have said, opening a bank account outside the US when you are a US citizen is a major pain in the ass due to plenty of patriot act and IRS red tape and general bullshit. The guy is just being smart.
A threat like this only makes sense in a country with rule-of-law. The US rule for foreigners travelling here is about the same as China, Dont embarass our politicians or policemen. Dont threaten our companys interests. In context this threat is more like saying Ive got my eye on you, Saverin, than actual policy.
I frankly don't understand what all the hoohah is about.
The guy hasn't done a single thing illegal. He's played completely by the rules. The rules as set by the very government that's now attacking him for playing by their rules.
Corporations do exactly the same thing - they escape their tax burdens by keeping money off shore. It's perfectly legal. The gov set the rules. The corporations follow them. All is legal.
But -CONGRESS- is upset because an individual follows the law and lowers their taxes?? He's followed the laws and rules; the very laws and rules put in place by (drumroll) CONGRESS.
Another example of how the true subjects of the government are the corporations. The humans scurrying around are just pests.