Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttleworth Loses $20m Battle With S. African Reserve Bank Over Expatriated Funds

Posted by timothy on from the house-like-to-win dept.

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."

66 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. So rich guy loses court case with bank by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Stuarticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tech is made out of people. Who live on the Isle of Man, for entirely legitimate reasons.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    2. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's on Slashdot because it's their own website not yours. So they make the rules and decide what gets posted. If you don't like it, start your own website and leave.

    3. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.

      Slashdot has been posting non-tech stories for more than a decade now. Get over yourself.

    4. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.

      Slashdot has been posting mostly non-tech stories for more than a decade now. Get over yourself.

      There, i fixed that for you - you are welcomed!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    5. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Many of the roads of have no speed limits. That's legitimate enough for me. Also, it is the sister isle to Thomas the Tank Engine's (fictional) Sodor, which might be reason enough for someone else.

    6. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Slashdot's mostly non-tech stories have been left-wing outrage disasrerbation fodder for more than a decade now. Get over yourself.

      There, i fixed that for you - you are welcomed!

      There, i fixed that for you - you are welcomed!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plenty of mental illnesses have been going on longer than civilisation. Doesn't make them normal

      Yes, yes it does. Try a dictionary. It might help.

      or that they should be tolerated in normal society

      As before, gays have been part of normal society for longer than it's been civilized.

      Its only in the last few decades with lots of gays in the media that the propaganda that its normal has been pumped out to this extent.

      Right, only in the last few decades have we permitted homosexual people to admit that they exist without persecution, which is how people like yourself can be so hilariously confused: willful ignorance.

      But don't worry, swings and roundabouts.

      Oh, I'm not worried. I'm confident that homosexual people will continue to gain the same human rights as the rest of us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suggest you take a trip out of your comfort zone to countries away from the cuddly comfy west and see how "confused" I am.

      Your argument is that I should visit some regressive hellholes which are known to be poor on human rights as my comparison? They treat women like second-class citizens in those countries as well, I suppose you also support that wholeheartedly.

      Give your boyfriend a kiss and cuddle in the middle of a street almost anywhere in the middle east, africa, russia, central america or the more conservative parts of far east and see how long before you're beaten up or in prison.

      Yep, I was right. You ticked off a list of places it's shitty to be a woman without any apparent awareness that these places just don't get the whole "human rights" concept in general. Which, mind you, I don't think are natural; I think we have to fight for each one, and then go on to defend it.

      Hell, even do it in a lot of southern US states and see what happens.

      Yes, I already know the south is full of hicks in sticks. Until you get to ATL, perhaps, which is one of the gayest cities in the world. Dallas is also very very gay. Austin has (had? haven't checked) a gay bar called the "Rainbow Cattle Club" that you drive past most times you go downtown via the 35. So there's even places in the south where homosexuals are permitted to behave like all the other humans, most of the time anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of those countries that condemn homosexuality aren't too hot on women's rights, people that aren't the same religion as them, or people with different colored skin or birth place living with or having the same rights as them.

      Intolerant people are intolerant, what a revelation.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    10. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Does he even actually live on the Isle of Man, or is his "home" there a P.O. box that he just uses to avoid taxes?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    11. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      So that everyone can stand up in their cubicles and do a little happy dance. It's good for the soul.

    12. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      I suspect that this sentence explains Shuttlesworth's REAL reason for "living" there:

      From the Wikipedia article:
      "The Isle of Man is a low-tax economy with no capital gains tax, wealth tax, stamp duty, or inheritance tax"

      Yeah, if I were a billionaire, I would sure want to "live" there too. I could put my P.O. Box "home" right next to Mark's.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    13. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      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.

      Treating this like "Shuttleworth's problem" is losing sight of the big picture. The SA government is desperate to prevent money leaving the country, because if it was easy to get out, a significant chunk of the population would (SA, particularly in the large cities, is not a fun place to live). They may have eliminated the apartheid-era controls, but they've introduced far stricter ones to prevent capital flight from the country. Shuttleworth's case is just one of the more visible ones, there are huge numbers of people who would leave if they could get their money out.

    14. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal

      Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)

      Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Treating this like "Shuttleworth's problem" is losing sight of the big picture. The SA government is desperate to prevent money leaving the country, because if it was easy to get out, a significant chunk of the population would (SA, particularly in the large cities, is not a fun place to live). They may have eliminated the apartheid-era controls, but they've introduced far stricter ones to prevent capital flight from the country. Shuttleworth's case is just one of the more visible ones, there are huge numbers of people who would leave if they could get their money out.

      I think this is part of a more general problem. You see it more in lousy countries like South Africa, but the same thing really happens to a lesser degree everywhere.

      In every country lots of people are born and die every year, and many people come and go. Those who are born tend to have abilities that fall onto various bell curves, generally reflective of the people who are already there, and the same is true of those who die. Those who come and go are not distributed in the same way. Those with a lot of talent/resources are much more mobile than those who lack these. If the country is a desirable place to live for those with the means to move, then there will be a net flow of these populations into the country. If the country is undesirable for the mobile to live in, then they will tend to leave.

      So, if a country has lousy conditions or taxes mobile populations higher than other countries, then it will tend to lose these mobile populations. The problem is that these are also the people who are most able to pay taxes. People who are unable to earn much of an income or who are needy (disabled, etc) tend to stick around. That creates a downward spiral as those who are able to work leave, and those who are unable to work accumulate, and thus increase the demands on those who remain and still pay taxes.

      The usual solution to this is to make it more difficult for people to leave on their own. The only other solutions I'm aware of basically amount to begging, or just neglecting those in need so that those who are well off don't have to pay for them and thus don't have as much incentive to leave.

    16. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".

      First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally. Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.

      The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

      It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.

      Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".

      First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.

      Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down :-)

      Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.

      Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not the norm.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert :-)).

      However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.

      The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

      It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.

      Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.

      You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.

      Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    18. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".

      First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.

      Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down :-)

      Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.

      Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not normal.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert :-)).

      However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.

      The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

      It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.

      Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.

      You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.

      Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    19. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc.

      Yes, so let's look up common and rare, shan't we? One of the meanings is of frequent occurrence. Well, what does "frequent" mean? Oh look, constant, habitual, or regular. There have constantly been gay people throughout history, and the occurrence seems somewhat regular. English is fun because words have a lot of different meanings, but homosexuality is clearly "common".

      Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not normal.

      [citation needed] I've just shown that they are normal. What we currently know leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are normal.

      However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*.

      Oh right, we were going to look up the word "rare". Is homosexuality "coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon"? No, there's a homosexual born every few seconds, it's common as we've already discussed, it's not even unusual. Statistically, we all know multiple homosexuals. So, is homosexuality "thinly distributed over an area; few and widely separated"? No, homosexuals are everywhere, even in places where they are persecuted; straight people make homosexual babies all the time. Obviously, homosexual people produce heterosexual people as well, or we'd all be gay now. So, are you then arguing that homosexuality is " unusually great; unusually excellent; admirable; fine"? A lot of homosexuals would surely agree with you.

      Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum?

      You're arguing that homogeneity is normal, and I'm arguing that heterogeneity is normal. How ironic. In truth, it's not normal for everyone to have the same sexuality. You want it to be, but it just isn't. It's normal for a percentage of the population to be homosexual. That's why it tends to be true even when a society outright prohibits it — it only goes underground.

      Finally, even in this second version of your comment, you failed at quoting. Learn to slashdot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You are not, as you seem to believe, arguing for your political ideology; you can even leave homosexuality out of the discussion - the question is only "Is an occurrence rate of less than 10% enough to satisfy the assertion of 'this is a normal occurence' or not?"

      That's the only question - is a 10% rate of occurrence enough to call a characteristic normal?

      You answer "yes". I answer "no".

      (PS. Your answer leads to the assertion that child-molesters, rapists, sociopaths, psychopaths, mental illness sufferers (plus a range of other characteristics) are all "normal". Most people would not agree with your assertion that rapists are normal)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    21. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Hmm, seems like they're giving out extra mod points to bigots today. In no way is this a troll.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal

      Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)

      Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

      Utter tosh. "Normal" does not mean "at least half the population share that characteristic". For example, it is perfectly normal for someone to have red hair.

      It's playing with words, you're really wanting to say that homosexuals are "abnormal".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc.

      But the opposite of normal (abnormal) is derogatory, whereas the opposite of common (uncommon or rare) is not. "Normal" is a somewhat loaded term, that's all.

      No one is saying that half the world is homosexual, but the fact that it's (say) 5% is irrelevant.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He lives there most of the time and has quite a nice house there.

      Most countries have residence rules. The Isle of Man has to act legit since it's British, even though technically it's not in the UK.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal

      Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)

      Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

      Utter tosh. "Normal" does not mean "at least half the population share that characteristic". For example, it is perfectly normal for someone to have red hair.

      It's playing with words, you're really wanting to say that homosexuals are "abnormal".

      Look at my posting history, you blithering idiot. I'm in full support of gay rights. Calling something that is unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal" is incorrect. You can also say "it's perfectly normal for someone to act on the urge to kill", considering that there are more attempted murders per population than there are homosexuals. You can't really say "$foo, which is $y% of the population, is normal but $bar, which is also $y % of the population is not normal".

      (PS. There's a difference between not normal and abnormal. Look it up. I never called homosexuality abnormal.)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  2. Once a government has your money, no give backs by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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"
    1. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.

    2. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Desler · · Score: 1

      So tax refunds don't exist in your bizarro world? The IRS has never once given my tax refund to anyone but me.

    3. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      You and your silly "facts". How dare you try to bring those into his narrative.

    4. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      This is South Africa. Feel free to hire an army to take the money back.

    5. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      willingly? so you forget all that business about tax returns, turbo tax, accountants. That's not willing.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    6. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      willingly?

      Yep. I've never once had the IRS do anything but send my tax return even faster than their estimated time after filing my return.

      so you forget all that business about tax returns, turbo tax, accountants. That's not willing.

      So because you have to file a tax return that means they don't willingly give you the refund? That logic doesn't follow.

    7. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Obviously that should have been tax *refund*.

    8. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes, the IRS is more than willingly to give you a refund after filing a tax return that shows that you paid more than you owed. It's pretty much codified in the tax code that they have to do that.

    9. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop and think about that for a second. A tax refund implies they are taxing you beyond what you owe, up front, and keeping the money as long as possible. Depending on your filing timing, some of that money could have been held by the government for nearly 18 months before you get money the government shouldn't have taken back.

      And they don't just "give it back" -- YOU have to follow their rules and their forms and justify to them that you deserve to get the money back.

      The system is really "we'll take this money from you now, a year later you can use our forms and tables to figure out if we've taken too much, and then we'll give it back, based on our criteria".

      You can't use the IRS tax refunds as a sign of the gentle benevolence of the government.

    10. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.

      Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is THE ONLY goverment organization that after interacting with it i did not felt as raped - and it was about taking money from them... PLUS: i am a Greek - that i had to do some of my interactions with them by phone (i am terrible with writen English, and even worse when speaking them - they even offered me live translation services if i ever needed it!).

      As a Greek Nationalist, i now must ask from you: please stand up for the national anthem!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    11. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can't use the IRS tax refunds as a sign of the gentle benevolence of the government.

      The words "gentle" and "benevolence" and "government" have NO business in the same sentence... Especially when you're talking about the IRS.. The IRS belongs back in the old USSR, not what passes for a "free" country..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    12. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The IRS has never once given my tax refund to anyone but me.

      You are lucky. The IRS does very little checking of address changes, or even bank account numbers. You can file a fake tax return for someone else, claim a large refund, and request it to be transferred directly to your bank account. Later, when the victim files their "real" tax return, they are told it is a double filing, and that they already received their refund, which, by the way, was excessive and they are now indebted to the treasury.

    13. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      having dealt with the IRS multiple times on paperwork bullshit, I can still attest there's nothing "willing" about it.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    14. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Should five per cent appear too small
      Be thankful I don't take it all
      'Cause I'm the taxman
      Yeah, I'm the taxman

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    15. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's overpayment of taxes. in other words, the government helped itself to your money that it had to right to have, and had use of it without interest. In your bizarro world a government that does such things is not a thieving grubbing evil entity.

    16. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      One year instead of getting my ~$500 refund in the mail, I got a letter saying "Sorry we're SUPER busy, we'll get you your check in six weeks." I wanted my $500 (I was a lot poorer back then, but still, $500 is $500) but I waited patiently. Six weeks and two days later (I know exactly because I really wanted that $500) I got a letter that said "Yo, peep this, we need another six weeks. See ya."

      WTF SRSLY?! I know I can 'file an extension' but I never have and could I just keep filing them over and over forever? If you're super busy then just cut to the chase and give me my money already.

      I wrote a fake-angry letter to my Senator and Senators LOVE to help constituents with stupid stuff like this. The IRS looked through their stack, pulled me up to the top, and issued my refund lickety split. I was happy to have my money and to have annoyed my Senator but I felt a little bad for everyone else in line who I skipped past.

      But yeah, if you're poor (bottom 98.5% of earners) then you generally get your refund pretty quickly.

    17. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's silly. You have the ability to decide how much is withheld from your pay during the year. If you under-withhold too much, there can be penalties. But choosing to overpay and then get a refund is indeed a choice.

      *Barring some situation where your expected tax liability for a year suddenly drops towards the end of the year.

    18. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by carlos92 · · Score: 1

      You are lucky to live in a 1st world country. Here in Argentina, AFIP will never send you a cheque, even when they *know* you paid twice. In some cases, you can apply overpayments to future payments, in most cases you can't.

    19. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Ormy · · Score: 1

      There aren't royals "walking around", there's less than a dozen of them really. They constitute less of our population than prolific serial killers constitute of yours. I know which I'd prefer. If you want to talk about useless financial burdens on the taxpayer, start with the big fish (miltary industrial complex much?) of which both our nations have plenty. The royal family certainly is not a big fish, especially if you count the significant tourism they bring here from.... oh look at that, it's America, who'd have thought?

    20. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by carlos92 · · Score: 1

      Here in Argentina, if you forget to make a payment, or if AFIP (our tax office) believes you under-withheld more than just a tiny bit, they might FREEZE ALL YOUR ASSETS countrywide without any warning, including your personal *and* business accounts, credit cards, etc. That is their way of letting you know that you forgot to make a payment - they treat you like you were a first-class criminal. Be grateful you live in a country where the government shows a little respect for its citizens.

    21. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Garfong · · Score: 2

      Don't pretend people aren't born into privilege in the US too. As far as I can tell (as a Canadian) the difference between Prince William and Paris Hilton is Prince William has class.

    22. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      The IRS gives money back on corrections pretty quickly, I should know, I work on them on a quarterly basis. As a matter of fact, they surprisingly also give you interest money on those corrections.

    23. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1
      It's surely a deep American point of view (that i respect very much - i am Greek, you Yankees are more Greek than what you may think!), plus i know that little thing between British and Americans (very recently i made a little joke about that "thing" with my -a bit rough- Greek humor that didn't went so well!), but i am a Greek ethnicaly and citizen (i have been in UK -for business and/or pleasure- just a few times, and totaly not more than few months), so that "majesty" from me was only a "recognition" to British people that she represents and i love so much.

      Also: i am a racist/sexist Greek Nationalist! There is an -almost real, even if fake- "Greek" guy in the British royal family that... lets say that he says few things in an "un-diplomatic" way - so, yes, as long as real British (and/or almost real, even if fake "Greeks"!) exist in that family: God Save The Queen/King!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    24. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      I always get Greece and Turkey confused. I think that's because they are mostly the same except that Greece is Muslim and Turkey is Christian and that's why they hate each other.

      Even if our only difference between us Greeks and the Turks was that we are Christians and they are Muslims, i think you should try something that will clear up your "confusion" because you may end up like all those fellow Greek Christians (and Armenians/Assyrians/Kurds/etc) murdered by Turkish Muslims - a friendly advise from a Christian Greek Nationalist, for your own safety dear "confused anonymous".

      There's also the fact that John Travolta starred in both Greece (with Olivia Newton John) and a turkey (Battlefield Earth).

      Good jokes are good jokes, even when they are from assholes... and that was a realy good one!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    25. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get it, it's not an actual large extant problem for the average Brit on the average day, but still, you have no problem walking around with the thought in your head that some people are born into titles of nobility, they are legally superior people to you for no good reason. I don't know it just seems totally crazy. How can it persist in this day and age? And it's not just the Brits it's half of Europe. Hell even Canada puts the royals on their money.

    26. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      The words "gentle" and "benevolence" and "government" have NO business in the same sentence...

      In your country maybe. I just had some big issues with my eye. Red, blurred vision, bleeding and all sorts of crazy shit like a vampire. Went to the doctor for free, got prescribed some antibiotics and a referral to an optometrist. Optometrist performed a Slit Lamp exam for free and advised to rest and keep the eye clean. After a few days it wasn't improving so went back to the doctor for free for another check, got the all clear and advised to rest. A few days later all clear back to normal, total cost $10 for some eye drops.
      In most western countries other then the US, the govt are benevolent to the people, but that's evil socialism for you...

    27. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      In Russia, it's actually possible to be fined for paying too much taxes - I have personally witnessed that (naturally, they didn't return anything, either - the fine was on top of that).

    28. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by phil.swansborough · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't work in a job that is contact with HMRC. Just because you've had good luck doesn't mean it's the norm. We have clients that have had to sit and wait months for refunds. Also, the centre the adjudicates on whether a refund is accepted is a black box that front line people inside HMRC can't directly be in contact with and can't get word out from. TL:DR It's a shambles

  3. The fundamental problem is wealth redistribution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  4. True irony by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    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.

  5. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    It's on Slashdot because the editor decided to post it.

  6. oh yeah by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    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.
  7. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by carlos92 · · Score: 1

    This is important for startups, tech or otherwise. You'll probably not see news about Spanish startups in the future because there won't be any, due to a exit tax similar to this one.

  8. Re:The fundamental problem is wealth redistributio by Ormy · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. Re:The fundamental problem is wealth redistributio by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    If Peter robbed Paul first, it seems fine by me.

  10. How the Wealthy Hide Assets by nickweller · · Score: 1

    How the Wealthy Hide Assets - How to Hide Financial Assets

  11. Economist: nothing about economics. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    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

  12. Re:The fundamental problem is wealth redistributio by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Is it better if Paul robs Peter then fucks him in the ass? What is this Fox News?

  13. As a matter of interest by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    How much of a chunk out of his fortune was $20m?

    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