Senators To Unveil the 'Ex-Patriot Act' To Respond To Facebook's Saverin 716
An anonymous reader writes "Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again." See this earlier story on Saverin's plan to make the leap out of the U.S. tax system.
Why is the solution to every problem (Score:4, Insightful)
A) More government/laws
B) More Taxes
C) More War
D) All of the above
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a reason why Texas' legislature only meets every other year (excepting emergency sessions)
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Texas is far less oppressive compared to more liberal states.
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:4, Informative)
Others might call it being driven from your home by a system they have little to no power to influence.
Are people in refugee camps merely voting with their feet? Sure I'm exagerrating to make a point, but whether you a fleeing a murderous warlord, or fleeing from tax laws you don't like, a lot of people do certainly object to being forced from their homes.
Don't smoke... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't smoke, don't feed the homeless, don't pick which lightbulb you like, etc., etc.
Your own food is too fatty, salty, etc.
Liberals don't believe in a right to privacy except for the sexual sphere of life. They are busybodies par excellance.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't smoke, don't feed the homeless, don't pick which lightbulb you like, etc., etc.
Your own food is too fatty, salty, etc.
Liberals don't believe in a right to privacy except for the sexual sphere of life. They are busybodies par excellance.
Both main USA political parties seem to be very well politicians with all the traits of Tyrannical Authoritarian Kleptocrats. Look at who keeps "cheer-leading" for more wars overseas, and then look at who keeps legislating for a more repressive "national security" surveillance police state on the brink of martial law domestically ---- both parties are well-represented in those TAK categories.
Disclaimer: I am all for more personal rights and liberties, rather than bigger government holding all the libertie
Re:Don't smoke... (Score:5, Insightful)
The words "liberal" and "conservative" represent a false dichotomy, promoted by your masters in the news media, and parroted by clueless morons such as yourself who are baffled by the idea that the world does not exist in black and white, but only shades of gray.
In other words, you're a tool.
Re: (Score:3)
That was Louisiana, dipshit! In Texas the Asian kid has to put at least one foot part way through your mantle before you can legally blow them to Kingdom Come.
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of whom you are asking. When you ask the government to solve your problem, the government can only offer solutions it can implement - the ones in its job description. That job includes passing laws, collecting taxes, and maintaining the military. So why are you surprized when the help it offers you includes doing its job?
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't ask for the government's help.
I dunno. I could believe that if you don't use government-provided roads, depend on government-provided police to keep the burglars away while you sleep, depend on the government to keep the [insert latest boogieman country here] from invading, depend on corporations that only exist because of government charters, use government to protect you from the most egregious abuses and thefts of those corporations, provide a money supply so you don't have to pay your ISP with cabbages and eggs, keep the mining company just uphill from you from building crappy earthen dams that will maybe collapse and wipe you off of your land, and depend on the government to keep melamine out of the milk you buy. And don't depend on government to allow you to "own" the patch of gawdforsaken land on the mountaintop that you live on and never leave.
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:5, Informative)
Wake up America, the Democrats are NOT the Dems of yesteryear.
Sure they are! [wikipedia.org]
Seems to me, the problem is that at some point people got this crazy notion that certain groups of politicians aren't selfish dicks...
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The other guys?
It wasn't Bush was asked Congress to add 2 sentences to the NDAA giving the executive branch power to arrest and detain Americans w/o a right to trial. That was Obama. And with 60% (house) and 90% (Senate) of democrats voting for it (House).
Let's face it..... both parties are pricks. It's about time the Republicans and Democrats merge into one party (since they act basically alike), and a new 2nd party arise so we can have some real choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:4)
You need to provide a citation for that one. From all I have read, Obama signed the NDAA under protest because of those two lines, and did not want them in there. Why would he have previously "asked" for them?
Here's a C-SPAN feed discussing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuFu-XyC1iw [youtube.com]
Re:Why is the solution to every problem (Score:4, Informative)
When the President wants to "protest" a bill, he does something known, in laymans terms, as "Veto".
Its one of the minor powers that comes from being president.
Re: (Score:3)
I apologize if my comment offended you.
Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they're not. Stop the nonsense false equivocation and handwavy accusations at "politicians" as an anonymous but easily vilified class.
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of them are lawyers. There's an entire field of law dedicated to tax avoidance. Gaming the rules is what they do. Whining that someone else is doing the same is remarkably disengenuous.
it's envy (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they're pissed off because it's the most uncomplicated way (and fully legal) of avoiding taxes. You don't even need to hire expensive lawyers or anything, like many of them senators probably have, in order to evade taxes. It's ENVY!
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a quick one
John Kerry
http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/20100723senator_skipper_skips_town_on_sails_tax [bostonherald.com]
Re: (Score:3)
(I'm not going to let the fact that they paid for it by buying Heinz ketchup derail my rant. It's too much fun. Actually, I suppose that also means the British People paid for his yacht. Have you ever been to England? They eat that shit up. They bring a whole tray with a bunch of different little packets to your table. I wish they did that here.)
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
doesn't work like that (Score:3)
A simple tax code, without flexibility in interpretation (which means that IRS just says "no you can't do that" even though there isn't any specific justification in the code), means giant loopholes and tax evasion in practice.
A substantial fraction of the tax code is the way it is because they are patches done to attempt to preclude diversions of income which were not intended by the simple code.
All sorts of very simple appearing programs in fact have egregious security bugs in the corner cases.
Re: (Score:3)
A substantial fraction of the tax code is the way it is because they are patches done to attempt to preclude diversions of income which were not intended by the simple code.
Because a complicated tax system is working so well for us now. It doesn't matter what the system is. As long as there are those that want to avoid taxes and have enough resources to do so, the system will be gamed. If the system is going to be gamed regardless, it might as well be simple.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Interesting)
My very Republican, very stalwart conservative father in law went on an unexpected rant last weekend, regarding day traders of all things. He feels that taxes on stocks kept less than 24 hours should be 90% of profits, dropping to 50% after a week, and then back down to standard capital gains after one year. I'd never thought I'd hear such words fall from his lips, but then again he is a player in the long game of the stock markets.
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Insightful)
I definitely agree our tax system is junk and should not have so many loopholes that are exploitable by huge corporations and the wealthy but I really can't fault anyone for doing whatever they can as long as they are acting within the rules.
Re:Not Just Saverin (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not familiar with all the details of this particular case, but there is a difference between paying as little tax as possible (everyone should be attempting to do this...) and committing tax fraud.
In this particular case, the person was born in Brazil, and living in Singapore, and plans to continue to live in Singapore indefinitely. Sounds like the most rational reasons for forfeiting his US citizenship to me.
And from a legal standpoint, as long as he holds citizenship of some recognized country then he is entirely free to do so. However, individuals who reside in the US, and have no other citizenships anywhere else cannot just renounce their citizenship to dodge taxes, because international law does not provide for the existence of individuals without a citizenship. So, one can only renounce ones citizenship if one already has another citizenship. (US Courts have also held that a US citizen cannot lose their citizenship without willful revocation of it, since the Constitution guarantees your citizenship. So, no act of Congress or other legislative body can dismiss a person's citizenship against their will.)
Re: (Score:3)
As it is, I'm pretty much guaranteed to be paying 30% or so. Besides, I don't really want to have to play t
Tax avoidance is not tax evasion (Score:3, Informative)
Why target only those evade their taxes by renouncing their citizenship? Shouldn't these politicians take a good look at themselves? How many of them use every loophole (or sneaky, illegal tactic) they can find to evade their taxes? These people are not above reproach. Most, if not all, are just as guilty of evading their taxes.
Tax avoidance is NOT tax evasion. There is a big difference between the two.
So like the Soviet Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the Soviet Union where you can't leave?
Or like Nazi Germany, where you can leave, but not bring any of your valuables?
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much the opposite:
You can leave, and you can take all of your valuables out of the jurisdiction of the United States, and give up your obligations and rights as a citizen, but once you do, you can't come back or bring any of the valuables back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not seeing a distinction there. That's just a mealy mouthed way of saying "we want to take all your shit, and we got guns so pay up".
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is method of saying you used the things our taxes paid for to get rich now pay it back or GTFO and don't come back.
Do you think a welfare recipient who wins the lottery should be able to avoid paying back what they took by leaving?
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as welfare is a handout and not a loan, I think welfare recipients should be under no obligation to "pay back" what they "took", even if they later make a lot of money in some way that you seem to find unjust yet legal. Their benefits aren't tied to some formula of taxes paid before going on welfare, and their taxes afterward shouldn't be tied to some formula dependent on how much they were paid by welfare.
"Passive-agressive tax system" isn't really the phrase I'm looking for, but there seems to me something morally wrong about holding someone in debt to society for a handout (not a government loan).
Perhaps there should be, in addition to welfare, a system of zero-interest government loans for people in need. However, I think it's a step backwards to turn welfare into a loan system.
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you really think the solution to "rich people want to leave for somewhere more friendly" is "lets go after these guys"?
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about preventing people from leaving, it's about preventing people from leaving solely because they're doing it as a way to cheat the system that is partially responsible for where they are in the first place.
That sounds familiar. When Soviet Union was preventing [wikipedia.org] Soviet Jews from leaving the country for US or Israel, the most popular argument was that those Jews have enjoyed all the benefits of the socialist society, most notably free university education (but also healthcare etc), and therefore they "owe" it to the state to repay by their work.
Eventually, USSR has enacted a law where emigrants who had university education, had to compensate the state for it before they were allowed to it. US responded by enacting the Jackson-Vanik amendment [wikipedia.org] (which, by the way, is still in force today).
Re:So like the Soviet Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
We should be targeting the unemployed, for not paying the employment and income taxes they would be paying if they had jobs.
Sure - take nothing from nothing, and what do you get?
Seriously, though, what are you suggesting?
For that matter, we should target the nearly 50% of the American public that does not pay income taxes at all (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html).
You ever stop to ask yourself why so many people "don't pay income taxes?" Hint: It's not because they're sheltering their income in off-shore accounts.
Tax rates (Score:3)
The move was likely a financial one, as he owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make $4 billion when the company goes public. ...
Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”
You're telling me he only has to pay 1.6% on $4 billion? Goddamn the rich have it good.
Re:Tax rates (Score:4, Informative)
Reduce taxes by $67 million != only pay $67 million.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
"Investment income" is another way of saying "income you don't have to work for". To me, it seems that "getting free money without having to work for it" is enough of an incentive to invest, without also requiring a lower tax rate.
What America needs is an incentive to work. Let's make sure earned income is taxed at no more than half the rate of unearned income. Let's find whatever rates we need to, to pay for government, and also incentivize working for a paycheck.
Re:Tax rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Investment income is the reward you get by risking your money by investing in a business. Investing in a business gives them capital to buy assets and hire employees.
It is not something that should be discouraged, unless your myopia extends to economics.
Re:Tax rates (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a matter of not giving investors incentives. It's a matter of giving them reasonable incentives, then them turning around, giving you the middle finger, and not paying their fair share after being giving major tax breaks and government protection.
Just because you're wealthy or a large corporation doesn't mean you get to skimp on your share of the check when it's your turn to pay up.
Re: (Score:3)
Investment income is the reward you get by risking your money by investing in a business ... It is not something that should be discouraged
Agreed. Similarly, having an income-earning job should not be discouraged. However, we tax both types of income, so the fact is that we are discouraging both, in order to fund our government. We can all agree we should cut spending, and in the meantime we have to pay our bills, so we will have to tax things. It is just a question of which things we tax and how we balance
Re:Tax rates (Score:4, Insightful)
Investment income is the reward you get by risking your money by investing in a business. Investing in a business gives them capital to buy assets and hire employees.
It is not something that should be discouraged, unless your myopia extends to economics.
But the real engine for progress is work, not investment money. Capital by itself doesn't do anything without somebody to use it. However, the people actually doing the work are taxed more on their income than the people who provide the capital, even though they're the actual real creators.
Nobody denies investment is necessary. I don't however think it's economically or morally superior to live from investments rather that do good honest work. That's why I think taxing income from investment less than income from work is a bad moral choice, and provides all the wrong incentives for society. I mean, what would happen if capital income would be taxed equally to income from work, or perhaps even more? Would the rich stop investing, would they be, as you say, "discouraged"? This won't happen, or they'll lose their capital to inflation. What will happen is more money would go to the real creators, who would then be able to create more - or maybe some of the formerly idle rich would have to enter the work market themselves and actually become productive. Either way the society would be better off, so I can't really see where the bad part is.
Re:Tax rates (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is that $64.0 mil should be enough taxes for any government?
Re: (Score:3)
The move was likely a financial one, as he owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make $4 billion when the company goes public. ...
Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”
You're telling me he only has to pay 1.6% on $4 billion? Goddamn the rich have it good.
No... he will still have to pay taxes on the price of Facebook PRE-IPO. But after that, as long as he has citizenship elsewhere, his capital gains are income to his new government, and no longer the US government.
Why doesn't it read... (Score:5, Insightful)
Senators to drastically simplify the tax system and eliminate loopholes?
Instead, these two people are going to overreact to the publicity received by this particular individual and create a bill to address him and the people like him (I believe under a couple thousand people over the last few years). It will do little to impact the nation as a whole.
Imagine if they were to put their effort into fixing the root of the problem...
I have to ask (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sour Grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Capital gains are already due when you renounce your citizenship. Placing the burden of proof on someone to prove they aren't renouncing for tax purposes is ridiculous, and possibly unconstitutional. Why would I need a "valid" reason to renounce my citizenship? And adding a clause to bar the person from reentry for life is just petty. Blaming people for leaving when we have laws and policies they disagree with is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Either we don't want those people here anyway, or else we're the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The capital gains due when he renounced his citizenship were based on the valuation of his assets at the time of his renunciation last Fall, as opposed to their value following the IPO. Since most people seem to be of the impression that Facebook's stock will increase in value, that means he stands to gain quite a bit since he won't have to pay any taxes based on the increase. I saw one estimate saying that if Facebook's stock doubles before he decides to sell, he'll be saving $600 million in taxes.
That sai
Re: (Score:3)
Placing the burden of proof on someone to prove they aren't renouncing for tax purposes is ridiculous, and possibly unconstitutional.
Not disagreeing with you, but you have to admit it'd be hilariously ironic for someone wanting to renounce their citizenship- and hence the protection and rights offered by the US constitution- to be relying on that same constitution to do so. :-)
Re:Sour Grapes (Score:4, Interesting)
someone wanting to renounce their citizenship- and hence the protection and rights offered by the US constitution
The protection and rights offered by the US Constitution apply to all people in US jurisdiction, not just citizens, except where otherwise specified. E.g I'm not a citizen, just a resident; but the courts have ruled that my First and even Second Amendment rights are protected just as much as yours. There's a reason why it says "The right of People"...
I have nothing but contempt for tax cheats but (Score:5, Insightful)
Expatriates from every country have family, friends, and historical ties to the country they came from. Denying visitation for that reason is morally wrong. Moreover I'm universally opposed to bills of attainder and ex-post-facto laws. They were stupid and contemptible back during the ACORN stupidity, and they're still an unreasonable abuse of legislative power now. If this act applies in any way to Saverin, it would be an undermining of the rule of law.
Re:I have nothing but contempt for tax cheats but (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why this bill won't go anywhere. Hell, it hasn't even been introduced to committee according to the article. I agree with you that a bill designed as a spiteful measure has no place in our code of laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Expatriates from every country have family, friends, and historical ties to the country they came from. Denying visitation for that reason is morally wrong.
There's a difference between moving to another country and renouncing citizenship. I honestly do think that when you renounce citizenship you should be told to submit in writing the reason you're renouncing citizenship. You should then be banned from entering the country again until the reason you stated no longer applies, at which point you should be allowed to regain it. This rule would allow you to renounce your citizenship for moral reasons (and hell, 'I believe I'm being taxed unfairly' counts, if i
Re:I have nothing but contempt for tax cheats but (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that it IS a bill of attainder. It's specifically targeting one individual a senator disagrees with. I'm extremely liberal and have a huge amount of distaste for this kind of evasion, but choosing to punish a choice after its made is wrong. It's absolutely wrong, regardless of whether it's the revocation of a privilege or assigning of a punishment, it falls into the category of judging via law.
No person should EVER have to fear that a choice they are making will be illegal in the future. One is accountable only to the laws that exist when decisions are made and one's own ethical principles. Saverin has no ethical principles; that's still his choice.
Nation of immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)
As a nation of immigrants, I sometimes wish say China or another major country would try to pull the same thing with their citizens who have emigrated to the U.S. We would hear all kinds of politicians going high and right about human rights and violations of national sovereignty, etc.
One could argue that what FaceBook co-founder Eduardo Saverin did was unethical, but despite all of that, the right to emigrate and ex-patriate is a basic human right that is enshrined in U.S. and in international law. Punishing individuals who exercise a basic human right is by definition tyranny.
I hope he gets away with it (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I sympathize with this slimy tax-dodger, but I hope he gets away with it.
The value of his demonstration on how the rich view the world is worth more to the world (and the American public) than the taxes he owes. I don't want that demonstration stopped.
Seems fair (Score:3)
I don't see why we should ever approve visas to any naturalized citizen who renounces their citizenship.
I don't care about the tax reasons, that's a red herring as far as I'm concerned.
As far as I know, it was US policy in the past to refuse visas to ex-citizens, it's a good policy and we should continue to have it.
It is not a right for foreign nationals to visit the US, and visiting can be regulated with almost no restriction (I can't think of any limitations, maybe for diplomats)
It's not to avoid taxes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Schumer - my senator, unfortunately - is just grandstanding, once again, the pissbag...
Re: (Score:3)
There have been a few articles on ex-pats, and the legal hoops through which people and foreign banks, in particular, have to jump is ridiculous, if not downright onerous. Some foreign banks have simply refused to do business with Americans because of these stupid regs.
You mean the stupid regs that were put into place to stop decades of tax evasion?
I don't understand the kind of thinking that complains about regulations without acknowledging why that regulation exists.
I'll give you a hint: It started with Swiss banks and their active role in helping US clients to evade US taxes.
Our government decided it was about time for their evasion to end and we're making sure it doesn't' happen again.
Hence "these stupid regs"
Isn't this *already* a law? (Score:5, Informative)
From 8 USC 1182 - INADMISSIBLE ALIENS: [cornell.edu]
(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation
Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States is inadmissible.
So, what's the point of the "new" proposed law besides political grandstanding?
A sneaky way to put Halliburton in jail... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in 2007, Halliburton was making so much money off no-bid war-related contracts, it moved headquarters out of America in order to avoid paying taxes on all the money it was making from the US government. [go.com]
Very clever Mr. Schumer!
Beatles (Score:3)
Didn't the Beatles move to the US to avoid The Taxman? I guess it's ok to come to the US to avoid taxes, but you shan't dare leave...
Why is this a big deal at all? (Score:4, Interesting)
The government is effectively paying him $67M to take $4B and invest it in Singapore instead of the US.
More power to him, so long as the government is insisting on getting paid AMT or capital gains now on unrealized income from an appreciated investment which hasn't been sold.
The problem is that they want their poind of flesh now, rather than waiting for it to turn from an investment into "mall money" (money you can take down to the mall and spend).
I knew, though not well, a Netscape guy who was a paper multimillionaire when the Netscape IPO happened. In order to make it a long instead of a short term capital gain, and thus pay less tax, he did an exercise and hold, rather than a same day sale. Then the .bomb happened and the stock price tanked. So there he was with a couple hundred thousand in share value, and the government wanted their 35% of the $27M they valued it at at the time the options were exercised.
Eventually he killed himself, rather than going to Federal (debtor's) prison for tax evasion, since you can't dismiss taxes owed through bankruptcy.
Capital gains taxes as a matter of public policy are potentially defensible, even though they make you pay taxes on an investment of after-tax income and therefore amount to a surtax, but AMT is just asinine: the government can wait to get its money until I get my money.
-- Terry
Re:Well this is retarded. (Score:5, Funny)
Why are your senators always so mad?
It makes them look busy.
Because they're jealous... (Score:5, Funny)
That someone is successfully abusing the system better than they are.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing it as an individual is novel. However, it is a very common case for companies to do this - take all the benefits of incorporating in one place, then set up shell corporations to book all your profits elsewhere wherever taxes (and services, but it doesn't matter) are minimal. But then when somebody infringes their rights, they come crying to the powerful government where they incorporated (which actually has expensive stuff like courts and diplomats and armies to impose a global Intellectual Property regime... It's especially common among high-tech companies.) So if you include that, it is actually a large issue.
I'm not too comfortable with this particular law for some reason. I think I'd rather see nations work together to close the inter-government loopholes in corporate taxes instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. All the massive companies have their main corporate body elsewhere in a tax havens, and you get bet the main shareholder have their wealth set up in a similar manner.
Perhaps the politicians would be better off serving the public and not setting up laws to facilitate the above for a quick back-hand in their own self interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that why many companies are based in Delaware, but actually use that court district in East Texas to file IP suits?
I think I read once how there is some office building in DE that on paper houses like 200 different companies. Each suite is only like 100 sq ft so it can support a ton of companies to each have their own address, even though they are never used.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes are for the poor and the ignorant. The tax laws are written by wealthy law-degree wielding politicians and their corporate campaign contributors. There are no "accidental" loopholes. If you are middle class, live frugally all your life, you are sooner or later going to be in for a rude awakening. If you are an emerging rap star, athlete, lottery winner, or you inherit your great uncle's farm, you are going to get nailed. But if you come from wealth, or if you come into wealth through scheming, nepotism, and bribery, then you likely know how important it is to have a good wealth management company, tax advisor, and asset protection attorney. This is why you read about rich people declaring bankruptcy and then buying out some multi-million dollar company in just the next year. At some point your wealth grows to such an extreme point that you must protect it from the greedy masses of democratic societies. This is the world where you
incorporate in the Cook Islands
bank in the Cayman Islands
maintain residence in Monaco
maintain citizenship in Switzerland
register your yacht in the Bahamas
spend most of your time traveling the Caribbean and Pacific Islands
It doesn't hurt to befriend a lonely and isolated dictator or two.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it quite bad if the Senate is actually doing this in response to one guy leaving. The constitution offers us 2 key protections that I wouldn't want to live without:
* No ex post facto laws.
* No bills of attainder
In other words, the congress is forbidden from using their power to make laws to punish people they don't like especially after the fact. That leads to the worst sort of tyranny. Any law crafted to target one individual (or a very smal group) is effectively a bill of attainder, even if it doesn't mention them by name.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I understand, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
If a guy leaves because he has to pay $67 million after earning $4 billion then he doesn't deserve citizenship.
It was the 'system' who allowed him to earn that money in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If a guy leaves because he has to pay $67 million after earning $4 billion then he doesn't deserve citizenship.
The guy in question didn't just "leave" - he has renounced citizenship himself. The bill in question would tax him anyway.
You know the other country that used to charge people money for leaving (if allowed at all)? The USSR. When Jewish immigrants left the country, they had to basically leave all valuables behind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you think allowed Facebook to incorporate in the first place? What do you think allows them to issue stock? What do you think allows private individuals to own property (such as stock)?
Finally, they are not threatening to end his citizenship, HE RENOUNCED IT.
Are you really that stupid?
Re:I understand, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Small government? Small government gave us Love Canal, the Housing Crisis that only took down the entire U.S. economy and gave the world's economy the flu, Enron, the toxic sludge flood in West Virginia from the Martin County Coal Corp., L.A.'s air quality before the EPA forced them to clean it up, etc...the list is quite long.
Small government means no FDA to make sure your prescription isn't ground up beetles. It means no high fund to fix the interstate network's bridges (yep, those states are going to get right on top of that one). No NTSA to do post mortems on plane crashes because you can always trust the airlines with your safety. No SEC to make sure you aren't buying that swamp land masquerading as a gold fund.
Grandma doesn't get her SS check, you know the one, the one that prevents her from having to move in with you. Grandma also won't get her medicare, you'd pick up her medical expenses for her, right? While we're at it, lets turn the mentally ill out of their group homes, you have some extra room in yours, right?
The list goes on. Fucking grow up already.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he gave up his citizenship, he is no longer a citizen of the US and gets none of it's protections. He is not being charged with a crime after the fact, he is just not getting back into the country he renounced.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I'm pretty sure this isn't going anywhere. Republicans, for one, will oppose it just because it comes from Democrats.
Or maybe the fact that it will cost more money to get this law written, debated, passed and enforced than we would see from it. Or is this more about envy because someone is making more money and not paying taxes on it?
Re:I understand, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
don't we have much bigger things to worry about? This isn't a common case....well, it might be if things continue the way they are going.
From the article, "Last year 1,700 people renounced their U.S. citizenship." YES, for a nation of only 313 million, 1,700 people renouncing their citizenship in a single year is a major problem. I for one am glad our Senate is on it.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes they are, if you have ever dealt with the IRS as a expat, or tried to setup banking in another country with the US as your nationality you would do exactly the same thing. No bank wants to deal with you, the IRS requires immense amounts of info on every single account you hold and the fines for making a mistake as unbelievable.
If you don;t plan on returning its actually a decent way out of the IRS system.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Why are they safer in Luxembourg? A typical English football crowd could pwn their army, nick their Porsches and drain their wine cellars in about 15 minutes.
Unless the Belgians came to their aid.
Then it'd only take 10, drrrrrTISH.
Re: (Score:3)
But he is moving to Singapore which has a zero capital gains rate - so unless the U.S. drop's it's capital gain to zero....
On the other hand, it's not like he is not paying his taxes. When he drops U.S. citizenship he has to pay capital gains tax on the FB stock as if he had sold it - so he will be paying taxes. Add to the face that many slashdotters think that FB stocks is going to zero soon it would be in the US interest for him to pay capital gains tax now. What is happening is the US is forgoing potenti
Re:I understand, but... (Score:4, Informative)
You've lost me. An American drop owns something ... somewhere .. that doesn't appear in the sentence. And some unnamed neuter object (perhaps the one that just went missing) has (or is) most excellent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is America... the big melting pot and all that... names are the last thing that tell you where people are from here. I live in the area that Schumer (unfortunately) represents. We have hispanics with Polish names, Russians with English names and blacks with Irish names... and most of them are at least third generation Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
I once worked with a guy named Zoltan. He insisted he was not an exiled king of Mars, but I was on to him!
Re:The nerve (Score:4, Insightful)
Because he didn't make any of that money based on Government-subsidized infrastructure, did he? Like, for example, the protocols and research necessary to create the Internet?
This is like someone making shedloads of money with a trucking company, and then doing everything possible to not pay for roads.
Ah Capitalism, How Sweet the Sting (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he didn't make any of that money based on Government-subsidized infrastructure, did he? Like, for example, the protocols and research necessary to create the Internet?
All valid points. However, I am a little bewildered as to why you have stood idly by whilst China conducts massive commerce over the same infrastructure with money actually leaving the USA and no sales tax being paid on those transactions to the American government. Where is your outrage there? Not only is that like a truck drive avoiding paying for roads, it's like a truck driver driving your money away on those same roads. Why is this not outrageous?
This is like someone making shedloads of money with a trucking company, and then doing everything possible to not pay for roads.
Look, my initial reaction to this story is identical to yours. I see this guy go to Harvard, reap the benefits of being in a safe country with tax dollars that create the ecosystem for something like Facebook to flourish and then when it comes to his turn to put back into the system, he kites off. Well, the story isn't that simple, he was born in Sao Paulo [wikipedia.org] and probably is one of the people the US has brain drained from India, Brazil, etc in order to bolster our own economy. On top of that, Facebook is a global phenomena by now with serious activity world-wide. So, you know, I don't feel so bad that now Singapore or where ever he takes up residence has "reverse brain drained" the US in this instance due to "steep" taxes. I'd be more upset if Zuckerberg did it but in the end, this single IPO is probably trivial compared to every company [slashdot.org] maneuvering "sales" to Ireland and the Netherlands to avoid paying billions of dollars to the United States each year. This is a one time thing and I think the "Ex-Patriot Act" is garbage when they should be targeting the systematic avoidance done by almost every company that can claim international sales. Poor poor Eduardo, he was just being an efficient little Capitalist.
With corporate person-hood becoming a major problem, will the "Ex-Patriot Act" apply to these tax evasion strategies of which everyone is guilty?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Man he sure has some nerve for coming to this country and then renouncing his citizenship last year before the IPO was planned. And he really has some nerve paying his exit taxes when he renounced his citizenship and then not paying them after he was already not a citizen. Reading some of the better written articles on the topic today you should know that since he plans to become a citizen of Singapore where he lives and has lived for the past few years you have to renounce your other citizenships, which is
Re:Yeah, the nerve. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Who puts Saverin's house out when it is burning out of control?
Singapore.
>>Who paves the roads and repairs the bridges that Saverin's luxury cars utilize every day?
Singapore.
>>Who delivers the mail that Saverin relies on for his business and home operations?
Singapore.
>>Who manages the pipes and treatment of the shit that Saverin dumps down his toilets every day?
Singapore.
>>Who patrols the streets that Saverin lives and works on, protecting him from crime?
Singapore.
>>Who watches and protects the nation of America when terrorists and other countries seek to destroy Saverin's way of life, property, and business interests?
America, but he lives in Singapore and has for three years so he couldn't care less.
Re: (Score:3)
Except he's not dodging taxes -- he paid what was owed and then he left. (And if he didn't/doesn't pay, you can be sure he'll be extradited.) He's *potentially* avoiding future taxes, but the value of Facebook could crash too. Also, by not living here, he's not enjoying (from a legal sense) the privileges and protections that go along with citizenship, so why should he subsidize those things?
Re: (Score:3)
And somehow the money he paid in taxes while residing here was deemed his fair share at the time, and he should be retroactively taxed more for those service if he later derives some huge benefit from those services? Should every person who gets an education in the U.S. have to pay some tax to the U.S. for the rest of their lives, no mater their citizenship and place of residence?
I'm not comfortable with the idea that he was somehow building up some secret debt while living here and working here, and "pa