Schumer Ex-Pat Tax Bill Would Banish Facebook Founder Saverin From U.S. Forever

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Recently Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship in a bid to prevent the mass theft of his capital gains from the IPO of Facebook. Saverin decided he would rather live in Singapore than fund the U.S. government with money that is taken from him by force.

Saverin's move did not sit well with a few of the kleptocrats in Washington, who view Saverin's money as their own. In response to Saverin's expatriation, Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) have proposed a bill that would bar expats from ever returning to the U.S. again. Of course, the bill would also require that expats pony up taxes on their income even if they do renounce their citizenship.

ABC News reports:


The senators will call Saverin’s move an “outrage” and will outline their plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Their proposal would also impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.

The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.


Because freedom isn't free; therefore you must pay.

Now imagine if you are a high-rolling international businessman with millions, or perhaps even billions, at your disposal. Is it any real problem for you to pick up your assets and move out of the country? Clearly it's a thousand times easier for a millionaire to flee the country than it is for the average working stiff. So, what would be your reaction to a bill being proposed such as this? Might it be to get the hell out of dodge now before the thing actually passes?

Historically, the act of capital and expatriation controls by a state is the domain of failing banana republics and fascist/communist states. Failing states enact laws and erect walls to keep people trapped within them in order to prevent a phenomena called "brain drain." Brain drain occurs when highly skilled people realize that they can have a better quality of life in a foreign state. Since highly skilled people usually have a lot of resources at their disposal which makes it easy for them to move, and because they are very desirable for other states to have as citizens, a situation arises where the skilled workforce of a failing state flees, leaving behind the low skilled labor force to fend for themselves.

This makes Schumer's bill all the more ridiculous. Schumer is telegraphing the state's intention to engage in capital/expatriation controls, but rather than preventing people from fleeing through the use of walls/mine fields/barbed wire, Schumer is threatening them with a permanent ban from ever returning.

If Schumer thinks his bill is going to keep high-skilled people from fleeing the country, he is grossly mistaken. In fact, it will have the exact opposite effect. While fewer than 2,000 people renounced their U.S. citizenship last year, we will probably see those numbers increase given the threats being put forth by Schumer. The handwriting is on the wall. It is only a matter of time before they move from a ban on returns to a ban on leaving.

I personally know at least one highly skilled friend of mine who has fled the country, and I know of several very well-to-do businessmen who have already fled as well. Saverin isn't the first, and he most certainly will not be the last. Soon the U.S. government will finally get serious about border controls, but they aren't going to be concerning themselves with people trying to get in. Indeed, more people are fleeing to Mexico than are trying to get in right now!

As the failing U.S. state increases its taxes and capital controls, more and more highly skilled people are going to seek better opportunities, along with more freedom, abroad. And just like the failed Soviet Union and East Germany, the state will take drastic steps to prevent that from happening.



This article first appeared on PolicyMic. I am Michael Suede, the author of this article. This article is licensed under the Public Domain, and is free of any copyright controls.



edit on 5/17/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Just to play devil's advocate, what about the argument that the US and all of its tax-funded benefits like education were the reason this guy was able to make his money in the first place, and it's exactly that kind of money-before-country mindset that has fleeced small Americans of the returns they are due for their investment in the very infrastructure that made Facebook possible? How is it fair that this guy gets to go to school for over a decade on the backs of little guys, then has the opportunity to go to a really good college and take advantage of the amazing business opportunities this country has to offer, but gets to take all of his profits built on that foundation and screw the rest of us out of the EXACT POINT of why we invest in tax-funded programs in the first place? We don't invest in education so that we can make mediocre tax gains from those kids' salaries, we fund it so that we create a few millionaires who will one day give back what they received with interest. If we planned on taxes just from middle-class future workers, we'd have been broke a hundred years ago. Millionaires benefit from the system, and they should give back to the system, not take their ball and go home once the rules kick in.

He knew the capital gains laws when he started the company, so if he didn't like them he should have gone to Singapore to start Facebook and tried his luck there. It would be a flash in the pan if he had.
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


None of that matters, so it is pointless to comment on it.

You can stomp your feet and demand that the rich fork over their cash, but that isn't going to stop them from leaving.




edit on 5/17/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


LOL, highly intelligent response.




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
Just to play devil's advocate, what about the argument that the US and all of its tax-funded benefits like education were the reason this guy was able to make his money in the first place, and it's exactly that kind of money-before-country mindset that has fleeced small Americans of the returns they are due for their investment in the very infrastructure that made Facebook possible?


Are you suggesting that the taxes that he paid while making his wealth were not meant for any 'services' he may have utilized? Because he became successful you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the issue; regardless of your disclaimer of "devil's advocate".


How is it fair that this guy gets to go to school for over a decade on the backs of little guys, then has the opportunity to go to a really good college and take advantage of the amazing business opportunities this country has to offer, but gets to take all of his profits built on that foundation and screw the rest of us out of the EXACT POINT of why we invest in tax-funded programs in the first place?


What? Do you know how he received his education? But playing "devil's advocate" here, should he have to remain in an economic condition that isn't in his best interest because it would be "fair"? He should be punished for being successful and be forced to remain a slave to a failing State!


He knew the capital gains laws when he started the company, so if he didn't like them he should have gone to Singapore to start Facebook and tried his luck there. It would be a flash in the pan if he had.
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)


The same capital gains that increased recently? The same economic conditions that are being manipulated from the top-down in a supposed "free-market" economy and leaves uncertainty?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Saverin has lived in Singapore since 2009


He hasn't live in the states for a couple of years now anyways, and I heard somewhere that his fiance lives in Singapore.
I'm sure his family could visit him, so for him to not be allowed back, isn't really much of a punishment. That's what the news anchors are trying to make it sound like, a punishment


He's rich enough to live/visit anywhere else he wants to.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


LOL, highly intelligent response.




I think my response is more intelligent than the bill in question.

The free market is the engine of economic prosperity that gives the state its power. The state is a violent institution that seizes the wealth created by the market for itself. Eventually the state's greed will destroy the engine of prosperity that fuels itself, leading to a collapse of the state itself.

Even if the U.S. state could successfully entrap every rich businessman in America, it wouldn't stop the ultimate demise of the U.S. state. Since the goal of the state is to prevent skilled people from retaining the fruits of their own labor, private businessmen will not have the necessary resources to build and expand their private enterprises that serve their fellow man.

I look forward to the collapse of the state, as it will return our society to a more free condition. Thank god that the economic laws that govern the market cannot be overturned by psychopaths with printing presses.

edit on 5/17/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Your argument applies to all of the bankers and Wall St traders that made millions and billions doing things that were *technically* legal because no one had any idea what was going on. They were successful, how they made their money be damned, so they're saints as well and should be jetted off to another country; they can simply loot our pockets and run. Yay for the bankers and CDO traders, they're just protecting their own self-interest!

Hey, if that's the side of the argument you want to be on, be my guest. And you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about paying any taxes at all, or admitting that this country is great partially because we all pooled our resources and worked together. But if you want to push your Ayn Rand BS, go ahead.
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Your argument applies to all of the bankers and Wall St traders that made millions and billions doing things that were *technically* legal because no one had any idea what was going on. They were successful, how they made their money be damned, so they're saints as well and should be jetted off to another country; they can simply loot our pockets and run. Yay for the bankers and CDO traders, they're just protecting their own self-interest!

Hey, if that's the side of the argument you want to be on, be my guest.


They would all be bankrupt if it wasn't for the state.

So blame the state, not the market.

Further, they never would have been able to do what they did without fiat money and the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. A 100% reserve gold standard would have prevented all of this.



edit on 5/17/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Just goes to show the only thing leftists give a crap about is other peoples money and they don't like it

then they turn to this crap so much for "liberalism".



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Just goes to show the only thing leftists give a crap about is other peoples money and they don't like it

then they turn to this crap so much for "liberalism".


Indeed.

How many times have I heard a liberal say "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!"

Funny how they react when people start taking them up on the offer.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
LOL, okay, let's encourage more people to immigrate to this country, take advantage of our tax-funded system, make hundreds of millions of dollars from our citizens and then move all of that money out of the country.

Great solution, the market really works. I guess you support all of the illegal immigration that does the same thing because hey, it's just the state that says they shouldn't be here. A free market keeps them coming.


And it's funny how I heard the right say for 8 years "you don't like it, elect your own guy." And then when the left did, and he started doing things they elected him to do, the right starts bellyaching about it like a bunch of babies.
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
And besides, your golden boy will avoid exit taxes because he renounced his citizenship before the IPO was announced. So if he and every other rich a-hole like him really hates this country so much, then you should have no problem with this bill, because why would he want to come back to a country he hates enough to renounce?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
LOL, okay, let's encourage more people to immigrate to this country, take advantage of our tax-funded system, make hundreds of millions of dollars from our citizens and then move all of that money out of the country.

Great solution, the market really works. I guess you support all of the illegal immigration that does the same thing because hey, it's just the state that says they shouldn't be here. A free market keeps them coming.


And it's funny how I heard the right say for 8 years "you don't like it, elect your own guy." And then when the left did, and he started doing things they elected him to do, the right starts bellyaching about it like a bunch of babies.
edit on 17-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)


Because heaven forbid we simply not take people's money in the first place and allow them to buy their own education, health care, roads, etc.. etc.. It's better that we erect walls around ourselves to trap people here as tax slaves like East Germany.

I love how you manage to blame the market for an East German style law.

Don't worry 00nunya00, you'll get exactly what you want, and what you deserve, soon enough.


edit on 5/17/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yep Greece is all the evidence of that anyone needs.

Second.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Saverin is just a scapegoat.

More and more people are choosing to walk away from their citizenship for all kinds of reasons, most very principled.

I think this is really just in preparation for the many, more that will do it in the near future. With the coming election especially - liberals are disgusted by Romney, conservatives are apoplectic about Obama and every one abhors the Police State and its drones.

Who wouldn't leave if they could afford it?
edit on 18-5-2012 by KillerQueen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
It is said that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Sen. Chuck Schumer and a television camera. I don’t like the guy. Not because he is from New York or that he claims to be a Democrat. What I don’t like is that he jumps on every hot button issue with a proposed new law, knowing that the shallow news media will give him some face-time.

In reaction to Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (born in Brazil) renouncing his U.S. citizenship and continuing to live in Singapore, Schumer is proposing to tax expats. The legislation has one of those cutesy and convoluted acronyms that spells out Ex-Patriot.

Schumer, like nearly all of his Congressional colleagues, will absolutely not address the larger issue of U.S. banks and other corporations sitting on more than a trillion dollars being held in foreign banks — just so they don’t have to pay U.S. taxes if the money were rightfully re-patriated.

Some friends have asked me why I care about taxing billionaires. I’m not even a millionaire and barely a thousandaire. But, I see a possibility that the tightening of capital controls could some day impact those of us whose income is mostly from Social Security. It hasn’t happened yet, but it could develop that the debit card from a U.S. bank will no longer be recognized by the ATM in a foreign country.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
FYI - Saverin didn't leave the U.S. over taxes according to him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


LOL, hilarious. Do you know who had the idea of making sure the populace was well-educated? THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They knew a democracy can only be established and maintained by people educated enough to vote on issues instead of just selling their vote. You know what old TJ had to say about it?




By... [selecting] the youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to avail the State of those talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use if not sought for and cultivated. --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


Checkmate.

ETA: here's some more of his thoughts on the subject if that first one isn't good enough for you:




Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.


and




The mass of our citizens may be divided into two classes -- the laboring and the learned. The laboring will need the first grade of education to qualify them for their pursuits and duties; the learned will need it as a foundation for further acquirements.

edit on 18-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
Your argument applies to all of the bankers and Wall St traders that made millions and billions doing things that were *technically* legal because no one had any idea what was going on. They were successful, how they made their money be damned, so they're saints as well and should be jetted off to another country; they can simply loot our pockets and run. Yay for the bankers and CDO traders, they're just protecting their own self-interest!


It seems, you were not merely "playing devil's advocate" as you so stated in your entrance to this thread -- rather used it as a guise to push your argument. I wonder where you got all the above quoted response in my couple of paragraphs arguing your stance?

Here is a run down of what I was contending (and you stretched into a long tirade about bankers):

1 >> Should he not also enjoy the fruits of the taxes he has paid and continued to pay?
2 >> How do you know his parents didn't pay his education? His parents paid taxes and it benefited their son, I would say that is a success story!
3 >> Since the Government has increasing been an active player in market manipulation for over a century and is increasing its pace in the last couple of decades, wouldn't it be prudent to say that a successful person sees the writing on the wall that stable business cannot be had here and you will be punished if you do become successful?

My guess, you are not interested in discussing the issue but rather using this thread to play "devil's advocate" about your stance.


Hey, if that's the side of the argument you want to be on, be my guest. And you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about paying any taxes at all, or admitting that this country is great partially because we all pooled our resources and worked together. But if you want to push your Ayn Rand BS, go ahead.


Show me where I presented this argument in my initial response to your post. Heck, even dig deeper and see what else I wrote about. I do not despise taxes that are fundamental functions of Government -- I do despise taxes that are taxes to just be taxes to fill the coffers of government.

Pooling of resources is great on the smaller levels -- as intended by a Republican form of government (contrary to your later assertion that the Founding Fathers were pursuing a Democracy) and achieve the best outcome. At larger scales, with a diverse and expansive country, you cannot pool the resources of 50 States and 300+ million and please everyone. This is what the Government is trying to achieve and their top-down economic model of controlling the People from Washington leaves them as the pickers of winners and losers.





top topics
 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join