Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued Over IPO
mrquagmire writes with this snippet from CNET: "Facebook shareholders have sued the social network, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and a number of banks, alleging that crucial information was concealed ahead of Facebook's IPO. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan this morning, charges the defendants with failing to disclose in the critical days leading up to Friday's initial public offering 'a severe and pronounced reduction' in forecasts for Facebook's revenue growth, as users more and more access Facebook through mobile devices, according to Reuters, which cited a law firm for the plaintiffs."
It wasn't because of taxes, it was because of fraud? hmm
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
First! Sadly, because I got in early, I'm sure I'll lose mod points.
Seriously. The P/E was stupidly high before. Now, even under the revised projections, it's slightly stupidly higher. The stock was due to tank in any case. As we used to say on the playground, "NO DO-OVERS!"
We're not making our millions off another tech IPO...
Waaahhhh!!! I want my money!!!
...they came up snake eyes. Or, perhaps a five. Either way, you didn't do your due diligence if you thought that Facebook, today, was worth 100:1 P/E ratio with a solid income track record established. Why is it that people want to sue when their bets went bad. Do you sue the track when that clean looking bay you bet to show comes in fourth because they didn't tell you he was off his feed that morning? Do you sue the casino and Nevada Gaming Commission when you don't ply well at the slots because the adjust the payouts since the last months payout percentages were posted?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Deception, lies, and broken trust ... oh wait, that was *just* in the movie. Uh huh.
The suit alleges that only big time investors were apprised that rising use of mobile would affect revenue. This was known to everyone weeks ago, well before the IPO. here's an article from a week prior to the IPO all about the mobile risks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9257232/Facebook-issues-revenue-warning-over-mobile-growth.html
All the whiny crybabies that got suckered into buying this stinker of a stock now want their losses covered?
Due diligence isn't just a cool sounding term. If you're an investor you've got to assume they're painting a rosy picture to try an convince people to invest. It's your responsibility to figure out if the story is too good to be true.
As trivial as it was to figure out that the Facebook IPO was a ruse, these plaintiffs deserve to have their case thrown out of court.
...to a nicer guy.
For Fucks sake folks. You bet on an intangible product that overvalues itself (based on what I've read), spend BILLIONS on it, and are surprised when the people receiving the BILLIONS are trying to make as much money as possible, even if it's unscrupulous?
And before I'm called for hating facebook (which I do) - I don't care what the company is; if it produces an intangible entertainment service that can be replaced at the drop of a hat, based on mass will and crowd decision making, it isn't worth b-b-b-b-billions of dollars.
Wrong guy, Mark Zuckerberg haven't given up his citizenship. But he does have an Indian wife now.
A) Saverin hasn't been involved in the running of facebook in years, and certainly had nothing to do with the IPO, so he will not be the target of this lawsuit in any way.
B) He did give up his citizenship for tax reasons, but not the tax reasons everyone thinks. He cannot and will not escape any taxes on money he made from the IPO, he earned those shares when he was a US citizen and will pay full taxes on them. He renounced his citizenship because he hasn't lived in the US in 4 years and was tired of paying taxes to the US for money he was making working in Singapore, which isn't that unreasonable.
Anyone who trusted Zuckerberg or believed Facebook could possibly be worthy
of investment deserves to be screwed.
It's called a life lesson. Take it and learn that your own stupidity can and will
have painful results.
Ok, Clearly we need to get a legion of armchair lawyers on this one. How can you have standing to sue the company if the alleged thing happened before you were a shareholder?
She's of Chinese descent, and was born in Massachusetts and grew up around Boston. Nothing Indian about her.
One of the reasons I left Facebook is because I tried FB mobile and it was a complete waste of time. Not to mention the fact that it increases your bandwidth usage, which you have to pay for, without any corresponding benefit. The entire online experience is going mobile now, and they haven't figured out how to monetize it. What I don't get is why FB is valued so high (74 times its earnings, IIRC). Perhaps they know they have a problem and are basically cashing in and getting out, while the gettin' is good.
Proverbs 21:19
No, Buffet has clearly stated that he will not buy stock in a company, if he does not know how they make money. That is why he stayed away from .com stocks when they were red hot.
In the long run, he strategy has worked out well for him and his investors.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
As one commentator said - "muppet bait".
No sane person/coporation who didn't have their own agenda (hello banks) would value a social chit chat and picture website at 100 billion. And only an idiot would believe it and the shares were worth it
WTF? First people completely forget to type in key words to their sentences, now people type completely WRONG words in their sentences?
'it is got that complicated of a company"? seriously?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I read the real prize of FB stock is about 10 USD. Then, what do economists know. It's not a science, but more like astrology.
Honestly how did anyone not see this coming? More and more major companies were starting to drop facebook as a platform for advertising, ie: GM.
Facebook stock almost back down to it's opening price this morning. I look for it's stock to hit a floor of around $10 in the next 3-6 months.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Buffet won't buy Facebook.
He only buys what he understands, that's why it's insurance companies and simple companies.
As a rule he doesn't understand tech, he doesn't buy tech.
He renounced his citizenship because he hasn't lived in the US in 4 years and was tired of paying taxes to the US for money he was making working in Singapore, which isn't that unreasonable.
The USA is actually the only first world country that even taxes their people while they are living overseas. For example in my country you don't need to pay any taxes back home if you live in another country for more than 6 months.
FB is a fad. It's too closed. Too constrained. Too inconvenient. Email and blogs are better.
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
If there's two there's probably three.
So I'm afraid I don't think what you say is true.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
... the day before the IPO.
This is going to get messy and the only asset Facebook has is its user data.
You do the math.
I'm gonna sue that fucking horse!
But isn't Canada just one of the states of the United States?
1) Agreed, their valuation was ridiculous from the outset, no doubt.
but
2) Mobile is how they'll eventually capture their advertising dollars. It is WAY too easy for mainstream users to successfully block ads today on desktop browsers. Mobile is much easier to force ads to actually appear.
The shift to mobile definitely -lowers- the value of those ads, but, it also locks in their display much more effectively for the vast majority of users. So in the end the mobile shift is a requirement for service like FB. This means they aren't worth as much right now, but in the future they are more likely to lock in their price and grow it.
Not that I would have been bold enough to short the biggest social transformation in recent history, but shares for shorting were really not available until today according to indicators on my trading interface. To me this means that real shares were being sold by real share owners who were scrambling to cut their losses or at least liquidate. There is no conspiracy here, just a hype machine and some fools. The market will find a value for FB if you give it an honest chance.
Saying the investors deserve to get screwed because they didn't do their "due diligence". and in some ways that is fair, it's also a large part of the housing bubble that led to a complete economic collapse as people were buying houses at absurd prices with no money down and variable interest rate loans.
So essentially the same people that want to get a fast buck and not doing the foot work to fully understand what they are getting into.
You can blame the guys the set the bear trap all you want, and personally I think we should bring back the guillotine, but you have to consider the average persons inability/stupidity to do the math and understand the issues are really the main problem.
If they had been smart enough they wouldn't have bought the houses or the stock.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
yeah, the one with all the money
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
What said postings initiate from serving partly broken facebook man big bad wolf
And oil and water, bitches! Don't even think about comin' up here and *liberating* us.
Look at your keyboard.
G is rather close to N.
Got = not.
Not very hard to see, is it?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
thanks for runing the fud thread :(
The increased regulation, litigation and process tends to turn companies to shit. The only reason most companies that don't otherwise suck to begin with go public is an overabundance of greed.
Regardless of disclosure laws if you think a greedy company will parade its dirty laundry in the public for all to see without lies and distortion you might be interested in some prime realestate in Florida I'm offering for pennies on the dollar.
Oh well... good for him. He also invested heavily in several investment (gambling) banks in 2008. He probably knew in advance that they would get bailed out by the taxpayers. Buffett's a bit of a creep.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Nope, I'm a Canadian who moved to the US. I had to do dual income taxes the first year because I spent a partial year in both countries. After that, it was only US taxes. If I were to actually make income in Canada then it would be a different story, I believe, but I can make as much as I want in the US and not pay income tax to Canada.
In canada we do not no.
You have to pay taxes on overseas income if you are canadian resident, and you have to specially disclose if you have foreign assets over 100k or some number around there. If you are a non resident in canada you still have to file income taxes on income earned in canada, which can then be dealt with through the ungodly myriad of tax treaties.
However, if you are *living* out of canada for more than 6 months you are no longer a resident, and do not pay taxes. You also are not automatically covered for health insurance.
*liviing* is important. You can spend 6 months out of canada and still be considered living in canada if you don't have a residence out of the country, and meet the criteria for strong ties within canada (and don't spend 6 months outside of canada in the same place I would presume).
As far as I know the only two countries in the world with citizenship tax are eretria and the US. (http://renunciationguide.com/Citizenship-Based-Taxation-International-Comparison.html) Although I grant that that source is a bit sketchy. Wikipedia says the same thing (that the source is sketchy and quotes the same information).
Speaking for Michigan, we come in peace!
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
False. Canada taxes its residents. Canada does not tax its citizens, unless they are also residents of Canada.
Read the explanation from the Canada Revenue Agency:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/rsdncy-eng.html
If you want a more detailed explanation of how your residence is determined for tax reasons, you should read Interpretation Bulletin IT-221, Determination of an Individual's Residence Status:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it221r3-consolid/it221r3-consolid-e.html
So I'm afraid I don't think what you say is true.
ME TOO!!!
1. Find people dumb enough to buy an IPO opening day.
2. Pump up useless social media company
3. Issue stock
4. PROFIT!!!!!!
You only have to pay Taxes if you are a resident.
If you plan on living for an extended period of time in another country you can declare that new country your country of residence and you no longer have to pay taxes in Canada. (It is more complex than this if your still earning a significant amount of $ in Canada)
DIE! DIE! DIEEEE!
It’s the beginning of the end, I tell ya. :)
If you buy that shit it's your own fault for being stupid. Regulations are important but in this case you don't need to be an SEC investigator to know the stocks a turd.
are easily parted.
Korma: Good
England does too. Love how some totally ignorant comment gets modified informative because it's vaguely anti-USA.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
you missed the got=not typo. heil grammar!
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
They seem to always get a piece of the action.
everyone saw how he made the company by stabbing the people closest to him in the back. what did you think he was going to do with the IPO?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
A shitty pseudo-internet for tweens and tards.
How does the IRS know about income from working overseas? During college I worked in England over a few summers (I'm a dual citizen), and I sure as hell wasn't paying out of my meager earnings to the IRS (and I wasn't aware of the requirement until reading the news re: Saverin). Does HM Revenue & Customs (or any country's tax entity for that matter) report to the IRS? IMO its none of their damn business what I earn out of the country...
lolz.. she is not indian by any chance!
- Email Alerts on SMS
The numbers that were available BEFORE the IPO made it look like a terrible investment. The market valuation being projected was WAY too high for even the unadjusted income figures...did these people learn nothing from the IPOs of the dotcom bubble? Apparently not.
Zuckerberg got his billion
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
You know it's going to happen when fresh water gets scarce. Canada has an existential threat on its southern border.
Not only that, they tax you if you leave. It's amazing how complicated our tax code is yet we can't provide basic human needs (IMHO) to our citizens.
They tax you if you're born. They tax you when you die. They tax you if you live elsewhere and they tax you if you renounce your citizenship. Yet corporations and the rich manage to find loopholes to avoid a majority of it.
What about the UK? I have heard horror stories about their taxes.
Isn't Michigan part of Canada or least part of Detroit or something like that?
Not true.
:/
In many countries, if you move outside, even for more than 6 months, you are still considered resident (and also required to pay taxes) under certain conditions.
For example, you might still pay taxes if you have personal interests in you country of origin, like if you own property or if you significant other and children still live there.
It is different from country to country. In my case, I am expat from European country living in the middle east more than 5 years already, and I would still have to pay income tax back home in case i owned any property there. I don't, BTW.
Except in this case, some of the analysts were revising down their numbers just before the IPO, and there is some suspicion that the institutional investors got told one thing, and the rest of the plebes got told something else.
The zuckers would have lost in any case. The possible illegal act was telling institutional investors, not failing to tell the plebes. There was a quiet period where people involved in the IPO are not allowed to say anything. I believe the analyst that revised the numbers downward worked at a bank involved in the IPO and was thereby subject to the quiet period.
Even if the reduced outlook had been more widely publicized, it wouldn't have made a difference. Everyone had stars in their eyes hoping to make it big. Would a 150 P/E ratio have deterred someone who was OK with a 100 P/E ratio? Doubtful. Investors rolled the dice and lost. Had the stock gone up, no one would be complaining.
The buyers expected this would be like every other major IPO in the recent past: the initial offering would be underpriced, then it would shoot up in the first day, which means that the banks and early buyers would have effectively taken money that should have gone to the founders and employees and instead diverted it into their own pockets. But it turned out Zuckerberg was smarter than that, and ensured that the IPO price was actually a bit on the high side. Now the buyers who planned on scamming Zuckerberg and the Facebook employees got scammed themselves. I don't feel sorry for these whiners.
So show us her long-from birth certificate!
"So I'm afraid I don't think what you say is true."
How about YOU back your statements up with some citations before asking someone else?
Go back to Reddit.
Yes, Canada does, though it's tied to residency rather than citizenship.
The CBC had some info on this last year.
England does too.
Uh, no it doesn't.
And, pedantically speaking, England doesn't tax anyone.
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
If there's two there's probably three.
So I'm afraid I don't think what you say is true.
Be serious. He said "first world country." *rimshot*
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
Then you believe wrong.
Once you cease to be a deemed resident of Canada, you no longer pay taxes in Canada. So, if you have a rental property in Canada and living in Bermuda, you are still a deemed resident because you are making money *in* Canada. But if you live in Bermuda and get nothing from Canada, then you pay no taxes to Canada.
Now, Britain has probably the best system for the "fat cats" in this world. You pay through the nose for income in the UK, but all foreign income is omitted from income taxes. So a Saudi Prince can live it up in the UK, get all the protection from any riots for free, and pay 0 taxes.
As for the US, you have to file US income taxes even if you haven't lived there for 20 years and have nothing coming in from the US either. But then, all roads (internet traffic these days) and all taxes go to Rome ;)
England doesn't tax its citizens once you have lived abroad for long enough.
the honeymoon is over for Zuckerberg.
USA taxes are incredibly low compared to just about anywhere else (obviously not EVERYWHERE else, but just about).
A lot of Americans believe that for some reason. Mostly, I presume, the ones who've never lived abroad.
I don't know if it's still the case, but, for example, I've read that Switzerland used to offer a flat-rate tax to some high-income foreign residents where they'd pay something like $50k a year regardless of their income. Or they can pay 0% tax in the UK if they handle their money correctly.
Be serious. He said "first world country." *rimshot*
You say that as though *Canada* is the country to be excluded...
Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the fish!
Depends. Many countries, not sure if Singapore, have income tax agreements with the US. In the case of an US citizen expact, the amount that goes to the feds via 1044 is only what's left over after paying income taxes in the foreign country.
Rather close? There's an entire key and half between them and they are hit by different HANDS! I figured it out myself, but still, that's a rediculously unforgivable typo. Even Dvorak and Colemak have the same amount of room between them (though Dvorak uses the same hand, but different fingers).
Screw P/E. Another 4 billion people left to grow baby, booyaah!!! This FB stock is gonna go batman! This is a $100 stock, go Zuckie, go!!
Actually England doesn't, at least not on income tax:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/tax-leave-uk.htm
So... yeah, actually it is a pretty ridiculous requirement of being a US citizen.
Does HM Revenue & Customs (or any country's tax entity for that matter) report to the IRS?
Probably, if asked. You're just not important or wealthy enough for them to care.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Zuck's big day:
1. Huge IPO!
2. Get married!
Zuck's crap-a-riffic big day-after
3. IPO was a bust. Lawyers sharpen their shark teeth and sue everyone in sight!
4. Wife decides to annul the marriage. "I was just kidding."
It raises the rates on rich person's income tax to around 90% [...] So basically he's trying to hurt people who work for a living (get paid wages & taxed at 80-90%)
I think you need to define what a "rich person" is, otherwise we'll continue to not take you seriously.
Is his secretary a "rich person"? How much does she make? How much would someone need to make pre-tax to be a "rich person" under these proposed laws? Would you be considered a "rich person" with your $150k yearly salary?
but still, that's a rediculously unforgivable typo.
I can't figure out if this is ingenious self-deprecating humor or just run of the mill hypocrisy.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
England doesn't tax its citizens once you have lived abroad for long enough.
The UK doesn't tax its citizens from the day they leave the country to live abroad. You'll only pay tax if you're still considered a UK resident (e.g. if you work for a UK company and they send you to work abroad for a few months).
Belarus is another which taxes its non-resident citizens. You're in great company. :D
Yes, *that* Belarus - the one with a Soviet-style dictator ruling over a command economy.
They know when you left the US based on Customs records, they send you a form and want to know what you made.
'it is got that complicated of a company"?
And they don't know how to use quotes?! seriously?
...then there's probably four.
and if there's n, there's probably n+1.......
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Actually, it alleges that only big time investors were given specific revised revenue projections related to that effect.
There's a difference between a vague qualitative description of the effect of mobile and specific quantitative revenue projections based on that effect.
It wasn't because of taxes, it was because of fraud? hmm
Not likely. Extradition rules (if any) still apply, regardless of citizenship.
Facebook does not have a locked in market. Its primary asset is the friend network of its members. But that friend network is not owned by them. I am perfectly able to move my friends over to, say, Google+ if I choose, and if my friends choose. Admittedly this doesn't look likely right now, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a mass exodus. All we have to collectively do is to say to each of our friends, "hey, let's meet over on that other network".
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
In the UK, they go much further, you are accountable under British law while living outside the UK!
In other words, they can control you even while you are outside their jurisdiction, or in other words, there is no limits of their jurisdiction world wide on British citizens.
Yes that's correct, there are some caveats to it. Are these the same rules as for US citizens? Or are the US laws more stringent?
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
I love the way you got a plus 5 informative out of making up complete crap and putting "I believe" in front of it. Did you have any reason to believe that? Did it even sound remotely likely?
Wrong again, wrongfag.
I'm Canadian, I worked in Japan for years, and I never paid a cent of tax to the Canadian government.
"They tax you if you're born. "
no, we don't, and you parents get money for it.
"They tax you when you die."
You're dead, you aren't taxed. You're estate is IF it is worth more then 5 million.
". They tax you if you live elsewhere"
true..but. If you are gone for a year, then the first 91K is tax free. Also, if you are employed by a foreign company and may pay taxes, you don't pay SS.
"tax you if you renounce your citizenship."
No, they don't.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'll try to find the birth tax.
The death tax, 'you' are still getting taxed. It's your money even though you're dead. That still counts as a tax in my book.
So if you make more than 91k you get taxed. So, yes you do get taxed abroad.
Expatriation Tax
You can deduct foreign tax paid from what you owe to the U.S., so in the case of U.K. it will most certainly zero out any tax due to the IRS. Knowing that, it's probably not even reported or looked into at all.
:wq
Rather close = roughly 1.25 inches away.
Forget about your thumbs near the spacebar? Not everyone types the same way.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What about the UK? I have heard horror stories about their taxes.
The UK has a weird status called resident but not domiciled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Residence_and_domicile
Effectively that means as a foreigner you can live in the UK, and only pay UK tax on your UK income. You don't pay UK tax on foreign income. You can maintain this non-dom status for many many years.
This scheme is exploited by many companies. They pay you a nominal salary in the UK (and you pay UK tax on that), but the majority of your compensation is paid to you in a foreign no-tax country.
AFAIK you only pay taxes on money you bring in to the US , so that B) explanation is a little shifty as well, but whatever, I am sure IRS will know how to handle that
Actually, although your message is clear, the details are not entirely correct. Regardless of how long you are outside of the country, if you have strong ties in Canada (a house, a wife/husband/children/family, bank accounts, etc.) then you are still considered a "factual" resident for tax purposes (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/rsdncy-eng.html). You must still FILE taxes, but you don't (necessarily) have to PAY taxes. You pay taxes only on income received from Canadian sources. Any so-called "Worldwide income" is exempt from Canadian taxation as long as there is a tax treaty with the counterparty country (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4131/t4131-e.html#P201_20183).
If you live outside of the country for more than 6 months (6 months plus one day), then you aren't afforded medical insurance. Hence, snow birds who fly back and forth from Canada every 6 months.
Oh lord, here we go again with the "rich are evil" and "poor old 99%", and it's painfully obvious that you don't make any sort of money. Corporations and the rich don't "manage to find loopholes", and they sure as hell don't "avoid a majority" of taxes. These things you call "loopholes" aren't dishonest, illegal, or evil, as you and your liberal friends try to convince others of. They are documented, legislated tax advantages that encourage and reward risk taking, prosperity, and success. And these tax breaks are actually small, no matter what your commie liberal friends try to convince you of. The top 10% actually pays over 70% of the national tax burden. And get this: the top 1% brings in 20% of the annual gross income...but their share of income tax is 38%!! How is THAT fair? I'd say a good metric of their "fair share" (as Barack "Marx" Obama says) should be around the same as your amount of gross income. If you are part of a group that is bringing in 20% of the gross income, you should be paying 20% of the taxes. Fair to me means EQUAL, but I'm sure the libs will find a way to argue that one.
So, I'd really appreciate it if people don't push this "poor me" attitude towards income or wealth inequality. These "evil rich guys" are trying to protect the outcome of risk, hard work, sacrifice, and dedication in ways that have been legislated and approved as legal and appropriate. God, I hate how idiots spin this to actually convince some of the sheep that someone's "fair share" should be more, just because they have been successful. Remember people: you take the reward out of success, you can just say bye bye to innovation and prosperity. Look at the history of the Soviet Union, or even modern day Europe for that matter.
Typical, and typically stupid. Anyone who thought Facebook was fairly valued at something like 100x earnings was an idiot. Expecting the stock to go up from there? Really?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Neither does the US, chillax, too much disinformation here passing for a fact
It's amazing how complicated our tax code is yet we can't provide basic human needs (IMHO) to our citizens.
Oh, we can. We just decided that "teh socializim is ebil!!11!" and that money is much better used on endless clusterfucks of wars to "bring freedom" while domestically creating a police state, and corporate blowjobs.
Face it. If you want the government to do something right, you have to tell them to make a left turn.
Define "make any sort of money". I make $70k a year as an engineer. Compared to most people it's good. Compared to the top it's a drop in the bucket.
I would have absolutely no qualms paying 50% taxes if it meant I got some sort of services for it like they do elsewhere.
I don't think he 'knew' but he probably suspect the odds were in that favor. I would have invested as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
there's lots of ways this applies does it not? like owning canadian shares which wouldn't be too uncommon, or real estate, etc, they all kick you back into canadian taxes
Specifically, their mobile app sucks. That'll drive people back to the full site. Or so they hope.
because they aren't rich too.
That's basically how the whining sounds. Waaaah, the stock didn't skyrocket like Googles! Waaaaah!. All those rich greedy bastards aren't even richer greedy bastards. So they sue.
So I say what's good for the goose... and turn it around. The 99% should SUE the 1% for 156 Trillion dollars, or approximately the value of all derivatives and credit default swaps.
Seriously, let's take 'em to court because we've not gotten our American Dream.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
B) Wrong, Saverin renounced his citizenship to avoid paying his 15% capital gains tax on his investment in American companies, including his shares in Facebook. Given his financial situation, it is unlikely that he is "working" in Singapore.
You Canadians have all gathered together in large cities right along the border. Looks like an invasion force :)
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
So that's Mick and Bianca went down to St. Tropez back in the day? All I know is, that it seems every rich person in the UK moves somewhere else, but you are saying that foreigners have it better there. OK I can see that.
You're going to need to back that one up. I believe Canada does the same thing.
I love the way you got a plus 5 informative out of making up complete crap and putting "I believe" in front of it. Did you have any reason to believe that? Did it even sound remotely likely?
I believe the guy is an idiot.
In the US you are exempt on taxes up to I believe $85,000 per year so long as you are paying taxes in another country and meet certain other requirements, like length of time outside the country, etc.
Neither does the US, chillax, too much disinformation here passing for a fact
Yes it does, but there's a large exemption before you have to pay. $90,000 if I remember correctly?
England? You mean the UK? And no, they don't.
True, but not Quebec! We are not a privince of Can^H^H^H US!
First he helps destroy the credibility of the concepts of privacy and secrecy in the population, and now, with the 3rd largest IPO in history, he's helping destroy the credibility of the economic system...
I don't know if he's more like Jesus or Lucifer, but damn I'm starting to love that guy...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Go back to digg, kid. Slashdot is for adults who want to discuss serious issues concerning tech, science, engineering, and other nerdy topics. Oh, and the ocassional joke as well. Check your FAQ, the fud thread is a troll here.
Now shoo. Get off our lawn.
Free Martian Whores!
Is it too late for her to answer No?
No bother, we're going to rape him with the exit tax anyways.
Got very hard to see, is it?
;^)
Fixed it for you
I had to do dual income taxes the first year because I spent a partial year in both countries.
Wha? There are tax treaties, dude. If you actually paid twice on the same income, either you have a very unique situation or you did it wrong. Usually you pay one and get a foreign taxes paid credit for the other.
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
Here's a reference. Only the US and Eritrea are this dumb.
I've lived abroad for more that 20 years, and I am very tired of filing an ever-increasing number of forms with the US authorities. It's not only the IRS, you also have to file separate forms with a separate agency detailing your foreign bank accounts - which, frankly, is none of their business.
The US does allow a deduction against foreign income, but this is worth less and less as the value of the dollar continues to crash. Depends what currency your country uses, of course, but the US doesn't care or make any allowance for that. In my case, the dollar has lost fully half of its value in the last few years. Turn that around: from the IRS point of view my salary has doubled (even though it actually hasn't). Great.
Add to that the pressure the US is applying to foreign banks, in an attempt to rake in money. I won't go into details here, but the US behavior here is closer to blackmail than to any sort of legal proceeding. The result is that foreign banks now ask you up front "are you subject to US taxes?" If you answer "yes", many simply refuse to do business with you. The US government is making it difficult for normal Americans to get on with their lives.
I have also had enough. I will be renouncing my citizenship before the year is out.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Why would she do that?
Saying "No" just turns her to an ex-girlfriend, who might get back a few things she left at his house.
Saying "Yes" and then asking for divorce later turns her into an ex-wife, who can still ask for half his wealth, custody, etc.
Have fun if you were dumb enough to buy some!
Does anyone remember the dot com bust? This is no different....Facebook is a one trick pony that really doesn't offer any service or product that is of any critical nature. Even Google offers MORE services if you want to argue this point. What are you investing in? Another intangible 'service' that has very little paths to growth aside from getting advertisers to pay for time. So what....at least with a business that provides something tangible or mildly useful they have a shot at sustaining growth based on it and NOT solely from advertising....it's no wonder these FB owners are selling...I would too...
In Canada you file to become a 'deemed non-resident' at which point, if the country in which you are living has a tax treaty with Canada they claim to work it out behind the scenes. It used to be that you had to file every year, but they got rid of that a long time ago, as it was just paper work. Once you became a 'deemed non-resident' they kept that status.
In order to become a 'deemed non-resident' you have to show that you severed major financial ties with Canada. For example, you can't own and rent out a home. If you do your world income becomes eligible for taxation.
(I could go on, but its been a while since I looked at this, and I'd hate to sound to informative).
You have to pay taxes on overseas income if you are canadian resident, and you have to specially disclose if you have foreign assets over 100k or some number around there.
Yep sounds about right, you do have to disclose your investments though. I made around $80k in foreign investments in the last 9mo and had to disclose it, but it wasn't taxed. What was taxed was the primary part of the investment past the initial investment.
Rest of your post spot on though.
Om, nomnomnom...
No thats not true. Canada does not tax their citizens who move abroad.
Nor does the UK, nor do any european countries, etc etc.
Trust me the US is alone on this.
also untrue. UK does not tax its citizens when they move abroad. In fact when I left in 1999 they gave me a part tax refund for the part of the year I left. (Because they give you a full years tax allowance and I only worked 2/3 of a year, the average tax due is lower, and I already paid some months on the assumption of the higher rate).
Sweet :)
Everyone wants to sue facebook because they saw it in a movie. Y'all are pathetic! What happened to working hard for a living?
The sovereign nation is the United Kingdom (England is just one part of the UK, which consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). England doesn't raise taxes, the United Kingdom does.
You are no longer subject to UK income taxes the very day you leave the country to live somewhere else. So yes, it is just the USA (and Eritrea) that taxes non resident citizens for income tax.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
This puts an objective value on his non-marital (pre-marital?) assets, which she presumably therefore wouldn't share in case of divorce. Combine that with his $1/year salary (presumably to avoid any tax other than 15% capital gains), and her half of community property grows at $0.50/year. If she works, she might end up owing him money if they divorce!
Disclaimer: IANAL and certainly not a divorce lawyer. Please correct me if I am wrong, which I probably am.
absolutely not. I have a UK passport and the UK does NOT tax you. as I said in the thread further up, they even give you a tax refund for the part of the year you werent in the UK as your tax rate goes down by working part of a year while benefiting from a full years worth of tax allowance. That pretty much proves it in itself - why would you give a refund if you were still due to pay it even though you left!
you must be thinking of the ancient slashdot when it was "news for nerds" now... not so much ;)
That's not a large exemption any more because the dollar has been sliding in value for a long time now. It's less than the average salary for software engineers in Switzerland, for instance, and that's with an aggressive currency peg to the Euro. If that peg wasn't in place or was weaker, it'd probably start including all kinds of non-professions, just due to exchange rate disparity.
Exactly, people using Buffet as an example of a moral compass are even bigger suckers than the ones they are piling on.
Split year working in two countries means split income to two countries taxes, not paying income on the same money twice.
Guess the message is Canada is not a first world country...
Isn't Michigan part of Canada or least part of Detroit or something like that?
Not quite, although Canada is one of Detroit's southern neighbours
As far as I know the only two countries in the world with citizenship tax are eretria and the US.
You sir, owe me a new keyboard...
Actually, Canada doesn't. My brother, a Canadian citizen, lived in Brazil for many years and never had to pay Canadian taxes on money he earned overseas. He works on off-shore drilling rigs and so his workplace was the ocean. He did have to pay American taxes when he worked for an American company and Brazilian taxes when he worked for a Brazilian company. Now that he's moved back to Canada, he'll start paying Canadian taxes again.
That is not taxing you on your foreign income. Thats taxing you on your rental income in the country you left!
Most countries do that, thats a rather different case. They'll do that even if you never lived in the country and dont have a passport! Countries want to tax companies and individuals that make profits in their country, but obviously not to tax them on taxes they earn in other countries.
They banks gave him very favorable terms on his investment with preferred shares with 10% dividends etc. because they were hoping he'd bail them out. He invested a little but he knew they were fucked and didn't put up too much money. They also ran to the Saudis and Singaporeans hat in hand begging for investments. This is the real reason we had to bail the banks out. The Saudi's invested billions into the banks just a few months before the collapse came, can't have our number one ally (and spreader of extreme Islam) losing it's shirt after we begged them to save us! Strangely the Chinese didn't put any money up...
They didn't so much "gather". Everybody else just froze to death.
Sounds like there will be a sequel to "The Social Network". That should make Hollywood happy.
What I always wonder about these comments is that doesn't US have some kind of prenuptial agreements? These are common in other countries, especially when the other person has significant wealth compared to another. It's not really even frowned upon, as people understand the reasons.
So why does everyone put so much thought about Zuckerberg losing half of his fortune? For me it would be quite clear that there would be an agreement made before marriage.
What about the UK? I have heard horror stories about their taxes.
I'm a Brit living in the US, and the only tax I pay is to the US government - federal, state and city! Also, the tax system in the UK is considerably easier to operate within as an employee, as your employer handles your deductions and the Inland Revenue calculate how much you owe/are owed. Apart from a few fringe cases, I have never known anyone who was owed money to / was owed money by the Inland Revenue at the end of the year, so I guess the employers know exactly how much to deduct.
Here in the US the situation is far more complicated even for someone in such a trivial tax situation as myself - no investment earnings, mortgage, other revenue sources, etc. I have to wade through hundreds of pages of explanatory documents to fill in boxes which the IRS then go and check independently anyway. What's worse is that most tax software doesn't work for Non-resident Aliens, so the people who most need help with the tax system are left to figure it out by themselves or pay an extortionate fee to an accountant.
Last I checked, around 10 years ago, you don't have to pay US taxes on money earned overseas up to $75,000. After that you have to pay taxes.
No they're not. Most comparisons showing an "incredibly low" tax rate for the U.S. only look at Federal taxes, forgetting that the U.S. has substantial local government taxes which are absent in other countries. If you add up all the Federal, State, and local taxes, the U.S. ends up around a 25%-30% effective tax rate, vs. around 30%-40% for Europe. Lower yes, but only slightly.
The IPO process is broken and needs to be reformed in a bad way. Company insiders and brokerage houses are gaming the system. They are trying to use the public markets as a dumping ground for new public companies so that the new public companies and the brokerages can "take the money and run" and leave public investors holding the bag.
There needs to be new federal legislation enacted to level the playing field for public investors.(BTW: information asymmetry is one of the things destroying the US and preventing everyone here from seizing on opportunities, but that is a subject for another thread). Public investors need to have the same information that the insiders, brokerages, and road show attendees do. Unless this is corrected, public investors will lose faith in IPO's and the country will be sorry for it.
Disclosure: I own no FB stock.
Tax treaties generally focus on earned income. Unearned income (interest, capital gains) tends to fall through the cracks. For example, Canada's tax treaty with the U.S. doesn't cover Roth IRAs. In the U.S., the Roth IRA is a retirement device where you invest income which has been taxed, but you don't have to pay tax on the returns (in exchange for the money being locked up until you retire). If you were a U.S. citizen residing in Canada (thus making you liable for Canadian taxes), you would have to pay Canadian taxes on the returns from your Roth IRA. If you have a high amount of unearned income especially if it comes from atypical sources, you can end up being double-taxed.
No. He split the year. If he left in August, he'd pay US taxes from August to December, but Canada taxes from January to August.
Also, bear in mind that one of the rationales for the U.S. taxing based on citizenship rather than residency (like Canada) is to discourage U.S. citizens from enjoying the benefits of citizenship, but living abroad to avoid taxes.
good riddance. Let come other country claim all of the self-centered blowhards.
...he's helping destroy the credibility of the economic system...
How do you destroy something that doesn't exist?
- users increasingly engage with competing products;
- we fail to introduce new and improved products or if we introduce new products or services that are not favorably received;
- we are unable to successfully balance our efforts to provide a compelling user experience with the decisions we make with respect to the frequency, prominence, and size of ads and other commercial content that we display;
- we are unable to continue to develop products for mobile devices that users find engaging, that work with a variety of mobile operating systems and networks, and that achieve a high level of market acceptance;
- there are changes in user sentiment about the quality or usefulness of our products or concerns related to privacy and sharing, safety, security, or other factors;
- we are unable to manage and prioritize information to ensure users are presented with content that is interesting, useful, and relevant to them;
- there are adverse changes in our products that are mandated by legislation, regulatory authorities, or litigation, including settlements or consent decrees;
- technical or other problems prevent us from delivering our products in a rapid and reliable manner or otherwise affect the user experience;
Whoever exercised due diligence did not buy, yet...
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125-12-034517.txt&FilePath=%5C2012%5C02%5C01%5C&CoName=FACEBOOK+INC&FormType=S-1&RcvdDate=2%2F1%2F2012&pdf=
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
Yeah, H&R Block makes a ton of money during tax time.
Just because everyone jumped in on this and got screwed doesn't mean you can just whine about it and get a do-over. We were all alive and functioning during the dot-bomb where overvalued web companies tanked and billions just dissolved. Just because you have a short memory and don't learn from experience doesn't mean that you should be shielded from the results of your actions.
In other words, suck it up buttercup. You gambled - you lost.
But hey! All is not lost. Maybe I can help you regain some of your lost fortune. You see...I have this friend, a Mr. Mugabe Zombobo in Nigeria, a former chairman of the Unfufu National bank.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If Canada wants Detroit, they can have it!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Can you back up your statement? The below statement suggests if you earned income that didn't originate in Canada, you don't have to pay Canadian taxes.
"Non-residents need to pay Canadian taxes on income that originates in Canada. The types of income that might be included here include pension payments, Old Age Security pension, dividends, rental payments, annuity payments and so on"
http://www.canuckabroad.com/international-banking/dealing-with-taxes-when-living-abroad.html
Exactly, isn't that why everyone who is rich in the UK moves to Monaco or somewhere like that? In the US if you get rich you don't have to move, just put your money in a trust and/or securities and pay 15%. Monaco is kinda small so I would expect the rent to be high.
It depends on the state, but generally whatever you have before the marriage, you can keep afterwards. The issue gets a bit murky though when you're dealing with stocks. First off, any dividends earned after the marriage are community property, and typically any increase in the value of his stock (if he sells it while they're married), can also be considered community property, and possibly even if he DOESN'T ever sell it, she might get some of the shares the value of which would match the increase at the time of the divorce. The issue gets even murkier if there's dividend re-investment going on, since now the stock purchased with dividends IS community property, while the rest isn't.
It's better to just not get a divorce. If that isn't an option, it's a much better choice to just not get married in the first place.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
"Surrender her pronto, or we'll level Toronto!"
The Zucker was too busy arranging to get married to be bothered with such details.
"Facebook shareholders have sued the social network, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and a number of banks, alleging that crucial information was concealed ahead of Facebook's IPO. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan this morning, charges the defendants with failing to disclose in the critical days leading up to Friday's initial public offering 'a severe and pronounced reduction' in forecasts for Facebook's revenue growth" ..
That's only SEVEN days for the lawyers to file, must be a record there somewhere. I am also curious as to who really is behind this lawsuit. Did Zuckerberg piss off some financial house by not passing them a humongious bung to handle the IPO. Also who wrote these forcasts and where did they reside these past SEVEN days and how the the lawyers for the plaintiff get wind of them so quickly after the IPO. If they posessed such information prior to the IPO then why wait 'till after the IPO. Would such a lawsuit now provoke a selling scare at which some people might then snap it up at rock-bottom prices. The public have a right to know - you know.
AccountKiller
South Detroit. AKA Windsor.
I think someone said it was a province of Canada but it wasn't me.
You have to be resident in Canada (not just a citizen) to be subject to worldwide taxation. The same in true of all other developed nations, they will tax your worldwide income but only if you are resident there normally. Another oddity of US tax law is the repatriation rule whereby US based corporations are subjected to US corporation taxes on income earned elsewhere and already subjected to taxation in that jurisdiction (in effect double taxation), no one else does that either.
yeah, from what i've gathered it was fraud, they gave some investors/companies a heads-up.. and the rest of the world, none.
So now you can sue somebody because of your own stupidity? Great country America.
That's what I've been trying to say but just couldn't think of Windsor which is in Ontario I think.
it's a much better choice to just not get married
-Restil
Totally agree. And thanks for signing your post, this way I can be sure this wasn't some imposter.
American and dual citizens residing in Canada pay US taxes on their Canadian tax free savings account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax-Free_Savings_Account effectively nullifying the whole point of having one.
I sure hope none of the court costs will be paid by taxes, think of all the jobs those guys could create with the bottom 99% underwriting the government services their business consumes.
Using GDP (PPP) per capita, Canada would barely beat out 10 states for a ranking of 40th. Going to Canada must feel a bit like going to Mississippi.
Frankly, I'm not surprised that the stocks haven't fared will since the IPO offering. It was pretty obvious that speculation was looking downward from the offering. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that. This lawsuit is baseless, and ridiculous.
England doesn't raise taxes, the United Kingdom does.
Well technically my council tax is raised by an English council
I just finished watching the original, and realize that, when all the facts are in, there would be enough material to make Social Network 2. All the twists and turns, including sidebar stories about how the characters in the first movie behaved in the decade following the initial launch of TheFaceBook. Not to mention all the new faces in the boardroom and in "other places". (Did they ever repair the chimney?) And there are so many interesting little details: will anyone have an iPad?
The USA is actually the only first world country that even taxes their people while they are living overseas. For example in my country you don't need to pay any taxes back home if you live in another country for more than 6 months.
This is actually not correct. I've also heard this being said from many other sources, but in reality if, as one example (and I don't think it's the only one), you are a DoDDS (Dept. of Defense Dependents School) teacher living in, say, Europe or Asia - a teacher who is definitely a U.S. citizen - pays zero federal income taxes since they live outside CONUS. One of the 'benefits' of said such job. (FYI: DoDDS teachers typically teach the children of those in the military on U.S./NATO military bases around the world in a totally Americanized school system)
I thought the whole idea of a free market, was it was legal to offer a can of coke for say, $200 USD, or more, if there was no fraud involved. There *may* be in this case, but my understanding is, it was a case of here's Facebook shares, here's what we're selling them for, you choose if you wish to buy them
Er... why?
I'm actually surprised Switzerland, France, Israel and a few others don't have citizenship taxes as well. For those countries citizenship entitles you to a whole lot of protection internationally (from extradition, for your investments etc.). Some countries (notably poor ones) don't have citizenship taxes but they are supreme assholes about what you can take in and out of the country.
Having a citizen who doesn't pay taxes can pose real problems, and having citizenship in certain countries provides a lot of privileges (e.g. having citizenship in any EU country lets you work and immediately claim residency in any EU country sort of thing, I think it's more complex than that though). I remember a few years ago when there was an evacuation of foreigners from Lebanon Canada was cooperating with brazil to get each others nationals out (no idea why brazil). The problem with this plan is that it was costing a shit load of money to get people out, and not all of them would be able to pay it back even if you demanded it of them. So who's footing the bill? Those of us who pay taxes back in canada. Now that's a bizarre rare event and shit happens, but if you can use your citizenship as a shield to get away from something you did elsewhere that does incur a cost to the government.
For most countries it's probably not worth it for the relatively small amount of money they'd get. But I would have expected that a few other places would have had citizenship taxes.
Of course he knew. He owns the politicians who are paying for the bailouts.
unlike if you're an Australian abroad, when the embassy will tell you "tough shit, you're not in .au now." If you're lucky they'll call your folks back home who can send you a care package in whatever foreign prison you land in.
If you're female however, you might have a chance, because you look good in the tabloids and can whip up a good old-fashioned racist fear of our white girls being defiled by brown people. (read also: Schapelle Corby)
TL;DR: Australian taxes buy you no protection overseas. Either find a UK grandparent, and get a UK passport, or do what other Aussies abroad do and pretend to be from New Zealand. This last part is analogous to those American college kids backpacking thru Europe who have the Maple Leaf sewn onto their backpacks, so that the locals don't hassle them about US foreign policy :-)
sustainable living
earned income, not passive money. Then they kick you straight to the highest tax bracket. So, not much help for anyone making over say $100,000 US.
Maybe not "for" but you gotta admit that all this mainstream pop culture stuff is surely news TO nerds.
Think about your statement for a minute. You do realize that Ross Perot ran, and nearly won, where his platforms biggest goals was to reduce the US tax system to a single postage card sized form for all citizens. Point is: We have know that US taxes have been a wreck for 20+ years.
Now, who do you think lobbied hardest against tax reform then? Who do you think lobbies hardest not to reform taxes now?
1. The people that benefit from the 60,000 pages of tax "law" and loop holes.
2. Tax agencies, and Lawyers that specialize in Tax law.
Most of the US would benefit if it was fixed and fair.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's okay, because it only affects the 1%.
You have to *file* taxes, but you can exclude up to $91,500 per year of income earned overseas (there's also a housing deduction/exclusion, I'm not sure of the limits on that offhand) meaning that the vast majority of "working expats" don't need to pay any taxes to the US government.
They only tax income above $91,500, or non-earned (interest/dividend/alimony/etc) type income.
Which means that it's only the rich who get taxed. And as anybody, anywhere, can tell you, it's an unequivocally good thing to tax the rich relentlessly. What are you, a fat-cat 1%'er arguing that the rich should get away with not paying their fair share? Must be nice lighting your cigars with $100 bills, friend, but where I come from, we demand a fair share!
I see, so you'll only pay for it if you get something out of it? What is it you don't understand about how the other rich kids feel, again?
If you make 70k/yr, congratulations - you're making well over household median income, putting you somewhere around the 70th percentile of households. This means that you're outside the top 25%, which paid nearly 88% of all federal income tax in 2009. You want more services? Start paying more in, you can certainly afford it, Richie Rich. Household median is around 45k. Guess what - you're not going to be given more services, you're going to be ASKED TO PAY for more services. Joke's on you.
(Sources: IRS data, as shown here.)
You generally pay taxes for the part of the year you were in Canada before you moved abroad, not for whole year. I.e. Canada taxes you for the time you're still considered a resident. If you move to country that also taxes you for the time you're resident, then you haven't really been dual taxed. Unlike the US who will double-tax their citizens for the whole year.
You're wrong about the healthcare. Residence status for tax and for OHIP for instance are different.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ohip/travel.aspx
definitely much more of a success than Slashdot:News About nerds :)
Perot ran twice, getting 20% and 8% of the popular vote, and not even one electoral college vote. That's nearly won? Please step out of the reality distortion field.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
New Zealand will tax you for your first year of non-residency. I'm picking it's actually quite common
It is not the proper job of government to provide "basic human needs". The government should do nothing more than to identify, codify, and protect human rights; which rights consist of not having your life or the means of sustaining your life damaged.
Whenever the gov't extends beyond those basic functions, by logical necessity it violates the rights of some.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Obviously this is info from 1966, but maybe similar things are still happening (or at least happened in the decades since), since you say "every rich person in the UK moves.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman
People are complaining that Mark Zuckerberg is dishonest? Shocker.
Well, in your situation, if you make less than $50,000, you could fill out the 1040EZ. I presume you make more than that. If so, then it's really not THAT hard. Get your W2, fill in the amount, take the standard deduction, look up how much you owe in the chart. If you paid more than that, you get the extra back; you owe any you paid less than that.
I know I simplified it, and obviously the tax code could be much easier in general.. But in your situation, it really is not too complicated.
Whoever inherited your money gained money upon your death. Why shouldn't they pay income taxes on it just like they have to pay on everything else?
(If you claim "it's already been taxed", then why is my income taxed when my employer already paid taxes on it?)
Nonsense. If you want the government to do something right, you shut the government down, all of it, then decide what bare minimum of the 'right' things it should do and tell it to do only those things at a very specifically calculated budget and then apportion the taxes to that budget from the States.
You can't handle the truth.
Well, out of your 70K, paying 50% would be 35K.
Clearly, to you it makes sense to pay 35K if every single thing you wanted was covered by whatever government program and all of your charges would be covered in that 35K.
I was fixing my teeth in Germany this year cost 12K (Euro), nearly all of it paid out of pocket though I carry private insurance of-course. That was just one of the things that I had to spend on this year.
However if I had to pay 50% of income in taxes for things I spend on out of pocket, I would overpay by 99% and would still get a shittier service, because I'd have to wait in line and I'd have worse results. Not only I'd be overcharged, there would have been no competition for my money from the sellers, they wouldn't be competing for my money, they'd be getting paid by gov't, so I wouldn't be a client in the first place, just another checkmark in a log book.
No, thank you, but no thank you. It absolutely doesn't make sense to pay 50% in taxes the more money you make. Income taxes are both morally and economically wrong, but progressive income taxes are even worse. At least with regressive income taxes, those who make more money would have been charged less percentage wise, and since they are already buying all of their stuff privately, they'd be robbed less, while those, who are relying on gov't to provide for them with all those programs, would have been paying for it with half of their earnings.
You want fairness? Regressive income taxes are more fair than the progressive type.
You can't handle the truth.
Humor me here, Facebook being king of social networks goes public to end the monstrosity that it is, calls it a good run and pushes everyone over to Google+. Now Google and the NSA get all of the marketing/intelligence they need to sell/monitor the world.
By which you mean, the tax bracket that's way too low because the rich folk have spent so much time and money purchasing congressmen, right? They should be taxed at an even higher rate for having the temerity to try and dodge paying their fair share!
By which you mean the rich 1% who are underpaying their "fair share"?
I'm confused - isn't it a GOOD thing that the government is taxing those fat-cats like this? How do we get our fair share out of them, if we don't tax them even when they're working overseas? If you let them get away with that tax dodge, they'll be moving overseas in droves just to avoid paying their fair share of my entitlements!
> I see, so you'll only pay for it if you get something out of it? What is it you don't understand about how the other rich kids feel, again?
I'll only pay for it if I see society as a whole get something out of it.
> You want more services? Start paying more in, you can certainly afford it, Richie Rich. Household median is around 45k. Guess what - you're not going to be given more services, you're going to be ASKED TO PAY for more services.
Don't get all high and fucking mighty. I DID pay into it for 6 years. I then decided I wanted to complete my masters. So I went back to college. Long story short I got screwed out of a TA position and found myself without health insurance. So I've progressively developed a hole in one tooth because of a cavity and have a wrist injury that limits me to around 50% mobility because I can't afford to go to a doctor. I've been to the ER ONCE without health insurance. The visit, them to look me over and splint something was over a grand. Then you get 2 bills. You get a bill for $400 from the Hospital for 'renting' a room and all the overhead. And then you get billed from the service that provides the doctor.
That '70k' a year job doesn't start for another month and in the mean time I get to deal with the pain of my tooth because our country has decided as a whole that providing for its citizens isn't worth it.
Second, Fuck You. I'm watching my father die of cancer right now because of this mentality. He has always responded very well to chemo when he comes out of remission. Except 3 years ago his company decided that at 58 he was 'redundant'. So he used almost all the rest of his severance to pay for COBRA for one year for him and my mom. And since that ran out he's been with nothing. He's paid into the system since he was 18 and now he's sitting at the house I grew up in wasting away. He's always been around 220-240 stocky Rugby player. (He still plays at 61 when he gets the chance). The last time I saw him his clothes were hanging off of him and he was considerably thinner. He's also got a chronic cough that is most likely related to the cancer. Do you want to guess what oncology appointment costs? I'm not talking about any blood work or even treatment. Last I heard one bag of chemo was something around $10k.
Until I start working full time again I can't provide for myself, let alone him. I'm hoping and praying that the SCOTUS doesn't deny preexisting conditions. Because at that point I can do what ever I can to make him my dependent in the IRS's eyes and
Meanwhile, what have we spent on the F22 project? How much has Afghanistan and Iraq cost us since 2001? Everyone is going broke but I'd rather live in a country where they go broke taking care of their citizens rather than going broke blowing up someone elses.
I never want my children to be punished for going back to school. I never want my kids to see me wasting away dying of some easily treatable disease because because I lost my job.
So yes. I'll pay into it if I see that it is doing society something. Other than that, fuck off.
So at this point it's been taxed 3 times. And as Andy Dufresne pointed out. Just give it away to your family before you die in increments.
N/T
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Well, in your situation, if you make less than $50,000, you could fill out the 1040EZ. I presume you make more than that. If so, then it's really not THAT hard. Get your W2, fill in the amount, take the standard deduction, look up how much you owe in the chart. If you paid more than that, you get the extra back; you owe any you paid less than that.
I know I simplified it, and obviously the tax code could be much easier in general.. But in your situation, it really is not too complicated.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the 1040EZ; I've had 2 years experience now. The most difficult part in my case is not the federal but the NY state + NYC tax form which has a large amount of exemptions and deductions for varying circumstances, local school taxes, and a boat load of other things.
Well, in your situation, if you make less than $50,000, you could fill out the 1040EZ. I presume you make more than that. If so, then it's really not THAT hard. Get your W2, fill in the amount, take the standard deduction, look up how much you owe in the chart. If you paid more than that, you get the extra back; you owe any you paid less than that.
I know I simplified it, and obviously the tax code could be much easier in general.. But in your situation, it really is not too complicated.
I should also add that tax forms are full of jargon which has to be pierced before any newcomer to the system can even begin to start.
I thought you just sew the confederate flag on your baggage and they mistake it for being british :D
I thought most geeks remapped their keys based on ergonomic usage simulation results that had been fed data from data recorded during their own keyboard usage and various parameters such as hand size and joint flexibility.... ?
Translation: I'll demand that those with more money than me pay for entitlements for me. Your poormouth woe-is-me story would be funny, if you weren't making WAY more than the median income. Here's the thing you don't understand: YOU ARE ONE OF THE 'RICH' who will be expected to PAY for these services. And you spent that whole response telling us how you can't possible afford to pay more. This means you're more than happy to push the burden further up the economic ladder, meaning that before long, the top 20% of income earners will be nothing more than beasts of burden, paying for the stuff you feel you so richly "deserve."
By which you mean, "I paid very little into it for 6 years, and I expect to be taken care of for the rest of my life."
Many people complete their masters degrees without quitting work and going back to school full time. Sounds like you made yourself a shit sandwich, and want all of US to eat it. You're not entitled to a blank check because you've decided you're bored with your job. Do your masters work nights and weekends like everybody else, or plan ahead for it and budget your money accordingly. But of course, you're the VICTIM - you were 'screwed out' of a TA position, it's not that you made a piss-poor, unrealistic plan, and then executed even that piss-poor plan poorly.
The irony is rich: you're whining about how society owes you, when in fact, you're *exactly* the person who society is going to be skinning alive. Don't expect more benefits, you'll be *paying* for the benefits, along with all the other people who the political rhetoric have decided are "rich" because they have a good salary.
You weren't punished for going back to school. Life punished you for being a dipshit who decided that rather than work, you wanted to go chase some undergrad tail full time. You could have easily kept working, and earned your masters. Your dilemma is of your own making.
Cancer is "easily treatable"? Assuming it's lung cancer, the average 5 year relative survival rate ranges from 6-67% for lung cancer, depending on type. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but even if your dad has the earliest detection of the most treatable form of lung cancer, his odds weren't that great. Given your statement that "He has always responded very well to chemo when he comes out of remission," that certainly suggests that he was diagnosed some time ago, as he's had the chance to be treated, go into remission, and be treated again when cancer reappears - several times. This suggests that it's been at least a few years for him, and given that even best case scenarion, 1 in 3 lung cancer patients don't survive 5 years from diagnosis, your suggestion that his cancer could be driven into remission again, but he just doesn't have medical care, is at least a bit suspect - even with medical care, it's very likely that the cancer is simply overwhelming systems.
WRITE A FUCKING CHECK THEN. You want society to pay for you, but you don't have a job, because you decided to quit working and go back to school. YOUR problem, not ours - you could have gone back part time. When you found out your dad was sick, you could have also gone right back to work to try and help him out, working on your masters in whatever spare time you have. It's not society's job to make your life cushy and ensure that you never have anything to worry about, or never have to make a hard decision about postponing additional schooling in favor of returning to work to help support a sick parent.
In Australia, you pay income tax on money you make in Australia even after you've lived overseas for six months.
However, Australia has a fairly wide coverage of Double Taxation agreements, which means (usually) once you become a tax resident of another country (more than half of the year spent living there, etc.) the tax you pay in Australia counts towards the tax you'd owe in the country of residence, so in effect you pay the greater of "Australian tax on Australian income" and "foreign-country tax on worldwide income".
Which normally means that any income tax withholding done for you in Australia is tax you'd have to pay anyway to your country of residence, so it just avoids you getting a surprise giant tax bill once a year.
This includes one with the US, although I haven't looked at the details of it to see if it covers US citizens resident in Austalia.
http://archive.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?ContentID=625
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com
No, if I owned a property in my home country, I would be considered a resident and I would have to pay income tax on all my income, even the one I made outside of the country.
The USA is actually the only first world country that even taxes their people while they are living overseas. For example in my country you don't need to pay any taxes back home if you live in another country for more than 6 months.
That is just not true. Israel (at least as of 2004) has essentially the exact same policy. Chile as well, and there are many others. (In fact, Chile even taxes foreign residents on income in their country of origin.) Europe is the big exception to that rule, which was in fact one of Sarkozy's arguments against Hollande's plan to increase taxes on the wealthy. He said that Hollande would cause French "job creators" to move to Switzerland and Germany, which would cost France jobs and hurt the middle class. Hmm, where have I heard that before?
And let's be clear about how the US taxes its citizens abroad. If you are a regular Joe Schmo and you move to a foreign country for work, the US allows you to exempt the first ~$100,000 of your foreign income from your US taxes. You can even increase that deduction if you purchase a home with a mortgage in your country of residence. What the US does not allow you to exempt are capital gains and certain types of income that are generated in the US while your are living abroad that are not taxed by your country of residence. For instance, if you earn money on commercial real estate in California while living in Luxembourg, California and the IRS will tax you on that income, but Luxembourg will not. The system is basically set up to prevent wealthy people from moving out of the US to avoid paying taxes on investments and other rich-people earnings that depend on the US and hiding it in Swiss bank accounts. In other words, ordinary wage-earners who are, for example, relocated by their employer to a foreign company will not pay US taxes on their foreign income, but zillionaires can't escape paying (already ridiculously low) taxes on their capital gains just by moving to the Virgin Islands.
Having said that, US citizenship is really only useful if you plan on living in the US. If I recall correctly, Saverin is Brazilian, so if he wants to live in Singapore then there is no reason to keep US citizenship.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
How would they tax us?
If you're not earning in the UK then you can't pay income tax - not on their PAYE system so they don't even know you're earning :O
If you don't own any property, then you don't owe any council tax.
If you're not buying goods in the UK then you're not paying any VAT.
All UK taxes are based on living and working in the UK - if you don't live here then you don't pay.*
*Possible exception of BBC licence fee? :P
The cost of living is very high in Switzerland compared to most other countries. It only makes sense that they earn more.
I think I'd rather die all in one go - best to get it over and done with.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They fled as far South as they could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation#International_double_taxation_agreements
What about the UK? I have heard horror stories about their taxes.
I'm a Brit living in the US, and the only tax I pay is to the US government - federal, state and city! Also, the tax system in the UK is considerably easier to operate within as an employee, as your employer handles your deductions and the Inland Revenue calculate how much you owe/are owed. Apart from a few fringe cases, I have never known anyone who was owed money to / was owed money by the Inland Revenue at the end of the year, so I guess the employers know exactly how much to deduct.
I've had money owed to me from the Inland Revenue, and known other who have also been owed. In my case, I worked full time for half a year (and another half of the next tax year), and in each case I paid tax as though I had been working for the whole year (I guess thats just the way the system is set up, I don't know if this is just the company or standard for the UK). I got it back at the end of the tax year (pretty painlessly, I just called up and said I think I paid more tax than I should have done, they checked and sent me a cheque).
Other ways I've known are usually to do with getting the wrong tax code (often being assigned an "emergency" one when starting a new job), someone changed job and their tax code said they were working at two jobs and it took a while for it to be updated.
Now though I haven't had issues with over/under paid tax, but I work full time for the whole year and, like you said, employers know how much to deduct.
England doesn't tax its citizens once you have lived abroad for long enough.
I was reading an article that claimed that one wealthy businessperson avoided paying some of their tax in the UK by flying their private plane out over international waters so they could claim they owed less tax because they had resided in the UK for less than some number of days. So it might not even be the living abroad - just the not living in the UK.
Well, by the same logical necessity it violates the rights of some if it doesn't. You see, every government decides for a different set of rights because there is no such things als "natural rights", all rights are artificial constructs.
Article one paragraph one of German constitution: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
This comes even before the right to life and is the fundamental principle of German constitution and also the reason for the huge social safety net in Germany.
If you want to live under a different set of rights, that's fine with me, but do not try to preach your set of rights as the only valid one.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Income taxes are both morally and economically wrong, ..to you and the barking right minority. To the majority they are sane, moral, and necessary in a civilized society.
It is not the proper job of government to provide "basic human needs".
This is a particularly moronic statement. This may be *your* view of what *you* would vote for, but in a democracy, it is the right of the people to elect a government to provide whatever level of services they deem appropriate. It is the 'proper job of (that) government' to as far as is practical provide these services. I.e. It should be the 'proper job' of the people to define what the 'proper job' of government is.
Or are you saying that democracy means nothing, and no government should be allowed to provide any services that *you* disapprove of?
You and the GP should get married, you'd make a lovely couple.
I've hears the same sort of self-entitled whining and temper tantrums from my kids when they were growing up. Parent poster seem to think that he is an adult, so he don't have the excuse of immaturity for hisover-inflated sense of adequacy. The way America is "hurting itself" is by indulging such spoiled, self-centered attitudes from the leaches who take everything they can from society and then leave everyone else to pay the price.
did you join the air force for the free education or so that you can kill those funny looking foreigners? It obviously wasn't out of any love of the country that gave you what you needed to inflate your ego to such a large level.
Fine, "huddled together for warmth along the border."
WTF?! There are people who aren't fully lingual in English!? ON THE FUCKING INTERNET NO LESS?! My goodness, what has this world come to.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
So right, that makes perfect sens for rich people to move to someplace that has 0 tax. So if you over tax the rich they will just move somewhere else. And thanks for the clarification.
There were a few songs back then such as "Taxman" and I'm not saying every UK rich person moves but it seemed to be the case with the Rock band members from there. As far as anyone else, doesn't Bernie Ecclestone still live in the UK because as you say things have changed. I just didn't know how much. I the US we get news of an 80% possible tax rate in the UK and that sounds a bit much and unfair not that it is supposed to be fair.
I was just joking, so no one in Canada get mad at me please. The last time we tried to invade Canada we got our butts kicked. In fact I think the so called environmental issues over a Canadian pipeline to the Gulf Of Mexico have more to do with keeping gas prices low in the US since most of our imported oil comes from there and stopping a project like that would limit Canada's access to Global markets that might pay more.
I think that is kind of short sighted for the US myself, but hey i don't run things.
Well that seems to be as close as any one came to fixing that. 15% flat without loopholes period. I does eliminate a lot of government jobs and some accountants, but the well to do will still need an accountant because I would only propose taxing what someone gains. If they reinvest it some where else, then maybe no tax. It's still not as simple as it sounds. Determining what is and is not profit would keep some jobs. If you are gonna be a politician you have to be pragmatic and very good at double talk.
Whomever wins should keep things how they are come December. After that the only real issue I see is capital gains and some trusts. Instead of raising those rates, I propose to ease up the tax burden on everyone so that more people can work and make more money. Too much tax just makes things worse as far as revenue for the government goes because of the law of diminishing returns.
The debt ain't that bad either considering what kind of collateral the US has to back it up. Just add up what the US is worth and compare that to other countries. Our debt to value is not too bad as the US is probably worth $600 trillion at least although I haven't seen to many studies on the subject. Maybe we could put some unemployed accounts back to work to find that answer out.
The US is now doing OK but now the rest of the world is tanking and taking us with them.
NICE reply, i can't understand the pop culture references to Canada and France being done in demeaning ways. If anything, Canada must be way way better, based on Moore's "Sicko"
I suggest you watch Moore's "Canadian Bacon".
With a thumb.
He might have destroyed your ability to distinguish credibility from popularity, but that's it.
No holidays or honeymoons at Facebook HQ this summer, there is only one item on the agenda - Who is responsible for this mess? To find the answers, you will need a closer look at each VP's timeline in the run up to the IPO.
"Apart from a few fringe cases, I have never known anyone who was owed money to / was owed money by the Inland Revenue at the end of the year, so I guess the employers know exactly how much to deduct."
Um, you must've missed the news where when Inland Revenue switched to new computerised systems over the last few years, literally millions of people in the UK have been over/under taxed. I myself was over-taxed, which I'm not too fussed about as it's nice getting a big fat lump sum cheque through.
The system is theoretically simple, you have a tax code, and you get a deduction based on that. The problem is there are many many tax codes, and if you get things like private healthcare from your employer then this can affect your tax code.
I agree in general the UK's system is pretty good and is only getting better with the new systems where there is less scope for error - now anyone who works full time and doesn't do any other taxable work doesn't even have to be aware of the tax system, let alone fill any forms in. They just get told each month and a summary at the end of each tax year how much they paid in tax, but to date it's far from foolproof, whilst still better than most places it's absolutely false to say adjustments occur in only a few fringe cases. It's long been far more widespread than that.
That's correct. Sorry I wasn't more clear causing some confusion. As I re-read the original post I think I misunderstood what they were implying as well. But, you can't blame folks for getting a bit confused when talking taxes. :P