Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Loses $20m Battle With S. African Reserve Bank Over Expatriated Funds
An anonymous reader writes: Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth has lost his long running battle with the South African Reserve Bank over a R250m exit charge ($20.5m) levied on his personal fortune when he tried to ex-patriate to his new home on the Isle of Man in 2009. The exit charge was part of a capital control system since abandoned by the South African government, which Shuttleworth had successfully argued at the Supreme Court of Appeal last year amounted to an unconstitutional tax. The Supreme Court ordered the Reserve Bank to pay Shuttleworth back.
While Shuttleworth had promised to leave the R250m in South Africa as a fund for helping others to press constitutional issues to the highest court in the land, the Reserve Bank appealed to the Constitutional Court for a final appeal — which it won this morning. The upshot being that the bank gets to hold onto the money after all. One judge did offer a dissenting opinion, however, in which he said he would have dismissed the final appeal with costs. The article notes that "The irony is that the exit charge at the heart of the matter is no longer levied on transfers going out of the country."
While Shuttleworth had promised to leave the R250m in South Africa as a fund for helping others to press constitutional issues to the highest court in the land, the Reserve Bank appealed to the Constitutional Court for a final appeal — which it won this morning. The upshot being that the bank gets to hold onto the money after all. One judge did offer a dissenting opinion, however, in which he said he would have dismissed the final appeal with costs. The article notes that "The irony is that the exit charge at the heart of the matter is no longer levied on transfers going out of the country."
So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it. Thats what The Economist is for.
I've never seen a government that ever willingly gives you your money back. Once they have it they'll try every conceivable way to keep it. Whether or not it's legal or morally right to keep it, they don't care.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Is this /. worthy?
First world problems....
The fundamental problem is wealth redistribution. It sounds good to some people but it all comes back to robbing Peter to pay Paul; most people call it stealing.
The real irony is that if it carries on like this the exit charge will be less than the legal costs
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
So South Africa levies a 20.5 million dollar tax or fine on Shuttleworth for moving his fortune out of the country. Shuttleworth sues, but also says he will leave the disputed amount of money in a South African bank for the purpose of creating what is essentially a charitable fund to help finance constitutional court cases for South African citizens of modest means. Shuttleworth loses on final appeal, and the kicker is that South Africa stopped assessing the penalty long ago, but unfortunately to late for Shuttleworth. None of this is a tech, science, or even politically related subject. Its just a rich guy getting screwed by the government. Sucks for Shuttleworth, but he already pretty much wrote the amount off when he said he would leave it as a legal fund.
And yet the most prosperous times in the US, for example, was when the marginal income tax rates on the wealthy were at their highest. Trickle-down voodoo never has and never will work.
You know who else seized people's assets as they left the country?
I think I heard from this guy. I got an email the other day that started "Greetings and blessings to you. I am the right honorable Alfred Depiero, attorney at law for the honorable Mark Shuttleworth. You seem being a person of good moral standing, and such we need your help to move R250m out the country of South Africa. Your fee for performing such service will be $US 5M American dollars payable directly to you." All they wanted was my banking information.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
From a rich person to a bank? How is that redistribution? If the bank gave it all away, to charity, to its poorer customers, its poorer employees, or even just threw it out the window one day, I'd be all for them taking the money from the rich guy and so would most people I'd wager, stealing or not. In reality it will flow into the pockets of other rich guys, that is not redistribution.
That only holds true if redistribution fails to grow wealth.
If Peter robbed Paul first, it seems fine by me.
How the Wealthy Hide Assets - How to Hide Financial Assets
So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it. Thats what The Economist is for.
The Economist hasn't been about economics or finance for the longest time that I can remember. It's always been a mouthpiece for a bunch of opinionated Know-it-alls about things not just in Britain but worldwide. Yeah, they do comment a bit on economics & finance - just like the business section of any political magazine like a Newsweek or TIME
Is it better if Paul robs Peter then fucks him in the ass? What is this Fox News?
Since he was willing to donate it as some form of legal aid, I'm assuming it was relatively insiginficant.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The most prosperous times were also immediately following a World War where we hadn't lost most of our industrial base, unlike most of Europe, which gave us an enormous trade surplus. It was also an exceptionally successful era of research.
Trickle-down economics can work, depending on the other incentives in the economy.