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.
A) More government/laws
B) More Taxes
C) More War
D) All of the above
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 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."
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...
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
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.
Doing it as an individual is novel. However, it is a very common case for companies to do this - take all the benefits of incorporating in one place, then set up shell corporations to book all your profits elsewhere wherever taxes (and services, but it doesn't matter) are minimal. But then when somebody infringes their rights, they come crying to the powerful government where they incorporated (which actually has expensive stuff like courts and diplomats and armies to impose a global Intellectual Property regime... It's especially common among high-tech companies.) So if you include that, it is actually a large issue.
I'm not too comfortable with this particular law for some reason. I think I'd rather see nations work together to close the inter-government loopholes in corporate taxes instead.
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.
Investment income is the reward you get by risking your money by investing in a business. Investing in a business gives them capital to buy assets and hire employees.
It is not something that should be discouraged, unless your myopia extends to economics.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Or it's a little like a hotel manager banning you from his hotel after you took a crap on the room's bed.
Saverin has two points against him, thus far:
1. He co-created Facebook. Not a cure for cancer. Not an amazing new product that resulted in the net creation of jobs (I don't want to hear that Facebook employs people - sure it does, but so did the websites FB competed against. Job creation? nil.) But a privacy sucking website that was a mere incremental improvement on the sites it replaced.
2. He thinks the world owes him simply because that same world gave him a lot of moolah.
If Saverin wants to "Go Galt", let him. He's exactly the kind of whiny overpaid jackass that gives the super-rich a bad name.
There are many super rich assholes I have more respect for. Hell, even the Koch brothers can call themselves job creators with a straight face. The Facebook crew aren't even in the same ballpark.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
From the article, "Last year 1,700 people renounced their U.S. citizenship." YES, for a nation of only 313 million, 1,700 people renouncing their citizenship in a single year is a major problem. I for one am glad our Senate is on it.
Exactly. All the massive companies have their main corporate body elsewhere in a tax havens, and you get bet the main shareholder have their wealth set up in a similar manner.
Perhaps the politicians would be better off serving the public and not setting up laws to facilitate the above for a quick back-hand in their own self interest.
It has nothing to do with wanting to live in the US. It has everything to do with making money in one country and then evading taxes by running to another, which I will point out, is only an option for the ultra-rich to begin with.
Great Intellect...
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...
It's not a matter of not giving investors incentives. It's a matter of giving them reasonable incentives, then them turning around, giving you the middle finger, and not paying their fair share after being giving major tax breaks and government protection.
Just because you're wealthy or a large corporation doesn't mean you get to skimp on your share of the check when it's your turn to pay up.
I find it quite bad if the Senate is actually doing this in response to one guy leaving. The constitution offers us 2 key protections that I wouldn't want to live without:
* No ex post facto laws.
* No bills of attainder
In other words, the congress is forbidden from using their power to make laws to punish people they don't like especially after the fact. That leads to the worst sort of tyranny. Any law crafted to target one individual (or a very smal group) is effectively a bill of attainder, even if it doesn't mention them by name.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If I've ever seen an "I'm secretly jealous and very mad" post before, this was certainly it.
They aren't doing it to get Saverin after the fact.
They're doing it to make goddamn sure that nobody else gets any similar ideas.
Rather like the Berlin Wall, or other forms of capital controls. If Atlas starts to shrug, you chain him down.
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.
If he gave up his citizenship, he is no longer a citizen of the US and gets none of it's protections. He is not being charged with a crime after the fact, he is just not getting back into the country he renounced.
If a guy leaves because he has to pay $67 million after earning $4 billion then he doesn't deserve citizenship.
It was the 'system' who allowed him to earn that money in the first place.
Wait. The 'system' allowed him to earn that money? You mean the 'government', right? They don't do shit to help people earn money. They do everything they can to take earned money away. Why else would they be after him and threatening to end people's citizenship because of this? They didn't get 'their cut'? Sounds more like the mafia than a government.
Taxes are for the poor and the ignorant. The tax laws are written by wealthy law-degree wielding politicians and their corporate campaign contributors. There are no "accidental" loopholes. If you are middle class, live frugally all your life, you are sooner or later going to be in for a rude awakening. If you are an emerging rap star, athlete, lottery winner, or you inherit your great uncle's farm, you are going to get nailed. But if you come from wealth, or if you come into wealth through scheming, nepotism, and bribery, then you likely know how important it is to have a good wealth management company, tax advisor, and asset protection attorney. This is why you read about rich people declaring bankruptcy and then buying out some multi-million dollar company in just the next year. At some point your wealth grows to such an extreme point that you must protect it from the greedy masses of democratic societies. This is the world where you
incorporate in the Cook Islands
bank in the Cayman Islands
maintain residence in Monaco
maintain citizenship in Switzerland
register your yacht in the Bahamas
spend most of your time traveling the Caribbean and Pacific Islands
It doesn't hurt to befriend a lonely and isolated dictator or two.
That said, I'm pretty sure this isn't going anywhere. Republicans, for one, will oppose it just because it comes from Democrats.
Or maybe the fact that it will cost more money to get this law written, debated, passed and enforced than we would see from it. Or is this more about envy because someone is making more money and not paying taxes on it?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Investment income is the reward you get by risking your money by investing in a business. Investing in a business gives them capital to buy assets and hire employees.
It is not something that should be discouraged, unless your myopia extends to economics.
But the real engine for progress is work, not investment money. Capital by itself doesn't do anything without somebody to use it. However, the people actually doing the work are taxed more on their income than the people who provide the capital, even though they're the actual real creators.
Nobody denies investment is necessary. I don't however think it's economically or morally superior to live from investments rather that do good honest work. That's why I think taxing income from investment less than income from work is a bad moral choice, and provides all the wrong incentives for society. I mean, what would happen if capital income would be taxed equally to income from work, or perhaps even more? Would the rich stop investing, would they be, as you say, "discouraged"? This won't happen, or they'll lose their capital to inflation. What will happen is more money would go to the real creators, who would then be able to create more - or maybe some of the formerly idle rich would have to enter the work market themselves and actually become productive. Either way the society would be better off, so I can't really see where the bad part is.
If you think the government deserves credit for "allowing" someone to create a successful business, you're a lost cause.
It takes a very small government indeed to create the basic social order needed for a business to operate, and indeed that's a vasnishingly small portion (measured monitarily) of what our government does. Our government is mostly a pension plan with a military, and everything else it does is in the small "other" slice in the pie chart.
Sure, a few pennies from every dollar in taxes go towards the stuff you're talking about but it's the other 80+ cents per dollar that people are complaining about when they complain about taxes. It takes willful ignorance these days not to realize this.
I'm not the GP, but I guess you're right. I think your assertion is crazy. Remember we are talking about Facebook, which requires the internet to exist in the first. The internet is one of those projects created by throwing ridiculous amounts of money at the military. And that's not to mention all of the infrastructure and education funding which meant Facebook actually had employees and customers.
Feel free to run your businesses entirely in Sri Lanka, but in the real world, governments are useful and taxes are needed to fund them.
It means no high fund to fix the interstate network's bridges (yep, those states are going to get right on top of that one)
Why the fuck do you think the states have zero money to tackle any of this crumbling infrastructure?
It's the same reason people don't have any money to start businesses, businesses don't have money to hire people, etc:
THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS TAKING IT ALL FROM THEM