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

Change the tax code: domestic employers pay taxes on employees.

Problem solved.

However, that means employees aren't responsible for filing income tax.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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?

Why are you so caught up in my sincerity of the "devil's advocate" comment? It makes no difference what my motivation is; you're attempting to set up an ad hominem attack. Argue against my points, not my motivation.

1 >> Should he not also enjoy the fruits of the taxes he has paid and continued to pay?

He's the one preventing himself from doing so by leaving the country; no one is preventing him from enjoying the tax benefits he paid for. Perhaps you're not conveying your question clearly enough.

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!

Upon further investigation, he went to private school---mea culpa. However, he still benefited from the tax-funded safety of this country from powerful mafias that were after his father in Brazil, benefited from the other well-educated employees that *did* go to public school and helped make his company a success, benefited from tax-funded grants and even tax breaks (covered by our personal taxes) that helped fuel the explosive technology sector in this country without which his company never would have been possible. You're right, he is a success story, but he's supposed to be an *American* success story---and like I said, he knew the rules when he got into the become-a-millionaire game, and if he didn't like them then, he should have left before he ever started his company. Just because he doesn't like the "take" as much as the "give" doesn't mean it's cool for him to pull the plug right when it's time for the tax-funded-loan that is the American Opportunity to be called back in with interest. If he doesn't like it, he should protest it and get other people to agree with him and change the rules, not desert the country that made his fortune possible in the first place. Like I said, he thinks Singapore is more fair? He should have started Facebook there.

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?

That depends on if you only see taxes as punishment when it's your turn to pay them. That "punishment" is prescribed by the Constitution. I agree that it's been misused and abused, and that there's way too many taxes. But you don't use the system to your advantage right up until the point that you have to give back, and then screw the pooch by totally abandoning your *supposed* country just so you can save some money. We can debate all day long about how fair the corporate tax structure is in this country, that's fine, that's the American way to do things----debate them until a consensus or compromise is reached. What he has done is traitorous, it's cheating, and it's tacky as all hell. If that's the kind of business he wants to do, America doesn't need him. Let him leave with his stash, but I agree with Schumer on this one----if he get gone, he stay gone.

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

Again, why all the personal attacks? My initial post was completely on-topic, but you've taken it far off-topic with this line of argument. Let it go.

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.

I was throwing your "chip on your shoulder" argument back at you. See how it feels to have your argument thrown back with some silly accusation?

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.

I actually agree with this. We're not on such separate sides concerning government, but rather on what is fair and respectable to do about one's grievances with the government. I cannot support the soldier who leaves his comrades in battle, no matter how much he deserves to leave. He's taking the p*ssy way out.

The consequences of this:


US citizens now one step closer to becoming permanent tax slaves

reply to post by TheBandit795


Two things wrong with that article: first, it's equating a law that makes sure those who renounce their citizenship stay GONE with people who are KEPT beyond their control---expats are not slaves in any way from this bill. They're like slaves buying their freedom---those of us who are left, and unaffected by this bill, are the real tax slaves. How does banishing someone make them a slave?

Second, it assumes that the rising level of expatriation has anything to do with rich people wanting to take their money and run-----with absolutely no factual support to back that up. What about people getting fed up with the lack of civil liberties, or equal marriage rights, or increasing partisanship?

Please, this is partially a joke:

If they'd ban ex-patriots, then maybe we'd be rid of Obama. (Reference to what usually happens when you are adopted by someone who is NOT an American.)

reply to post by 00nunya00

Two things wrong with that article: first, it's equating a law that makes sure those who renounce their citizenship stay GONE with people who are KEPT beyond their control---expats are not slaves in any way from this bill. They're like slaves buying their freedom---those of us who are left, and unaffected by this bill, are the real tax slaves. How does banishing someone make them a slave?

The law is made to deter other expats from renouncing their U.S. citizenship. Blocking them from seeing dying relatives for example.

What about people getting fed up with the lack of civil liberties, or equal marriage rights, or increasing partisanship?

The whole site is about civil liberties (freedom) and escaping that increasing partisanship.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
The law is made to deter other expats from renouncing their U.S. citizenship. Blocking them from seeing dying relatives for example.

That's not slavery. That's like saying the South Koreans are slaves of the North because they can't go back to see their relatives. No one forces these people to make the kind of money where they would actually consider renouncing their homeland to save a little of it, and no one forces them to stay here if their money is worth more than their country, countrymen and family. They make the decision to leave instead of staying and changing the system they don't like. They can hire lobbyists like the rest of the bajillionaires, but instead they just choose to leave. There's nothing even close to slavery in that, and it's insulting and disgusting that someone would try to co-opt the very REAL pain and suffering of slavery to make a financial and political score.

The whole site is about civil liberties (freedom) and escaping that increasing partisanship.

Missed the point. THE ARTICLE does not consider that the expats are leaving for those reasons, yet it claims the rising number of them purely for tax reasons. Fallacy.

reply to post by 00nunya00


What I meant was; they are being pressured to remain as U.S. citizens, being pressured into having to pay U.S. taxes for the rest of their lives. Not being able to return to the U.S. again is just a measure to force them to rethink their decision to give up their U.S. citizenship.

If they can't visit their relatives in the U.S. again (for EXAMPLE), they will be a lot less likely to give up their U.S. passport.


And the reason why I mentioned the rest of the site, is because that article didn't specifically mention what you are talking about.

reply to post by TheBandit795


Sure, pressured----there's pressure from a lot of things in life, that doesn't make it slavery. It's giving people a tough choice: if you want to continue to enjoy the benefits of this country, you cannot abandon it for money; if your money is more important to you than your country, and you want to see your family, move them along with you. That's a whole lot different than "stay on this plantation or I'll kill you, and if you escape, I'll kill your family." A lot different than "work all day every day for no money at all, for the rest of your life."

The headline of that article would correctly be titled "US gives tax-evaders tough choice."

reply to post by 00nunya00


How about: "if your money is more important to you than your country, and you want to see your family, move them along with you. Pay pay a 30% capital gains tax to the United States government on ALL future investment gains derived from the US, and if you left your country less than 10 years ago, you now will have to pay more new taxes...

But anyway, this is now just a discussion on semantics...

Serious question here for you scholars of state & politics:

Is there any financial advantage (via tax credits/breaks/writeoffs) for being dual-citizen? If so, is it based on the duality? For example: Do Israel-US citizens gain a break or advantage that..say..a Swiss-US citizen would not?

I'm working towards establishing if there's a double-standard at work here. Nothing else

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Very nicely put. I agree with you 100%. This plan is completely idiotic, but when has that ever stopped our Presidents, Senators and Congressmen? Just a couple of hours ago I presented an article to ATS titled "Ferrari Crackdown: Italy Declaring War on Tax Cheats" which happens to reflect as much intelligence as Chuck Schumer's proposal.

This war on rich people is going to get us nowhere really fast, and all the Socialists in this world completely fail to see it. I really want to say that their hearts are in the right place, but I'm beginning to believe more and more that many (though definitely not all) want reverse-slavery. They want the prized thoroughbreds to pull their plows.

Some people will misinterpret this statement. They'll swear I'm siding with the evil-doers of this world and I'd like nothing more than to eliminate the poor, but that's not the case at all. When I say thoroughbred, I am trying to imply that they are a breed of people who are suited for a certain type of task. They are idea people. Not everyone is an idea person, and even if some people are idea people, they're not the type to get down to business and make things happen. You can't force an idea person to work everyone out of their misery. Their ideas and hard work will help a lot of people around them, but Socialists want to milk that cow to the point of destruction. They demand the cow feed 50 people when in reality that cow can only feed 20. I'll stop with my analogies now, but I hope I've at least somewhat conveyed my point.

reply to post by TheBandit795


Yes, EXACTLY! They hate America so much, but they want to continue making money off it? Are you serious?

reply to post by 00nunya00


What are you talking about???

Saverin is not the only expat. There are many more who are not as well off as he is. They left because the cost of living is lower in Asian countries. Many of them live on less than a hundred dollars a month. It is not fair to punish them just to punish Saverin. Many expats just cannot afford to live here on their limited incomes.

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by TheBandit795

 

Yes, EXACTLY! They hate America so much, but they want to continue making money off it? Are you serious?

edit on 23-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

Why should it be about hating America instead of hating its' Government's policies? For example I love America and what the Constitution stands for, but I hate the people who pervert the Constitution and use their power to intimidate American citizens. I loved my former country where I was born and I still do, but I don't like what the people in power did to that country and it's citizens. Sometimes when you're one in a million who sees a problem developing and you're willing to make a change but can't because there's not enough of you, best thing you can do is get the hell out of dodge. Maybe you can work behind the scenes to make a change from a safe distance and return when the rest of the population has finally woken up to the abuse and is ready to fight for it's freedoms. Just because somebody chooses to leave the U.S. doesn't mean that person hates America, it just means they can't see eye to eye with the current administration. What's wrong with that? Supposedly we're free and should be able to pick up and go wherever we want without anyone holding us by a leash.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by 00nunya00

 

What are you talking about???

What part is over your head? You added to my post that the people who desert will have to pay 30% tax on any future profits made *in America*. And I said (in a roundabout way) that if they hate America enough to expatriate to keep some money, they should have no problem keeping their money out of it altogether, and if they want to continue profiting off the country they abandoned they need to pay for it. What's so hard for you to understand about that?

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by TheBandit795

 

Yes, EXACTLY! They hate America so much, but they want to continue making money off it? Are you serious?

edit on 23-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

Why should it be about hating America instead of hating its' Government's policies? For example I love America and what the Constitution stands for, but I hate the people who pervert the Constitution and use their power to intimidate American citizens. I loved my former country where I was born and I still do, but I don't like what the people in power did to that country and it's citizens. Sometimes when you're one in a million who sees a problem developing and you're willing to make a change but can't because there's not enough of you, best thing you can do is get the hell out of dodge. Maybe you can work behind the scenes to make a change from a safe distance and return when the rest of the population has finally woken up to the abuse and is ready to fight for it's freedoms. Just because somebody chooses to leave the U.S. doesn't mean that person hates America, it just means they can't see eye to eye with the current administration. What's wrong with that? Supposedly we're free and should be able to pick up and go wherever we want without anyone holding us by a leash.

I absolutely understand about loving America but hating the current powers----that's why we work to change things, take to the streets if needed, because our country is worth fighting for. People who would rather just abandon it and give up and move somewhere else *and relinquish their citizenship* forfeit their right to suckle off its economic teat. You can leave all you want, live elsewhere for the rest of your life. That's fine. Renouncing your citizenship is a whole different level.

reply to post by 00nunya00


A few questions for you:

1. Do you have to hate a country to be an expat? Or to give up your nationality?
   
2. In the case you own stocks in a foreign based corporation, do you have to pay profit taxes in the country the corporation is based in, the country you reside in? Or both?
   

Let's say I'm an expat (Just an example... I'm not though I'm born Dutch).

I've been living several years outside of the U.S.. I pay income tax in the country I reside in, AND on top of that U.S. income tax because I still hold a U.S. passport.

I relinquish my U.S. citizenship because IMO it's unreasonable to for me to be paying a double tax. Something which only the U.S. and Eritrea force upon their citizens. No other country in the world besides these two force you to pay income tax if you are living abroad (at least 1 whole calendar year). Another reason for relinquishing is business opportunities, more and more banking institutions and other industries refuse to do business with U.S. citizens because of their complex and invasive regulations such as FATCA.

Lets say several months or years after I've relinquished my U.S. citizenship, and have become a citizen of another country. And I see a corporation, start up, ETF, I would like to invest in, but it's based in the U.S., I shouldn't be able to do so? I have no right to legally purchase a property (whether on paper or physical) that is based in the U.S. because I've relinquished U.S. citizenship? Do I have to pay U.S. income taxes if I profit from those assets??? I'm talking about merely being a shareholder. Not being an executive within a corporation.

Another way to put it:
Do I have to pay Chinese income taxes if I profit from stocks in China? Is it fair?
Do I have to pay Nigerian income taxes if I profit form stocks in Nigeria? Is it fair?

Or do I pay them in the country I live in? The taxation systems are diverse, so there will definitely be different laws varying by country.

reply to post by TheBandit795


I agree 100% with what you said. It is stupid and unfair to punish somebody for wanting to live somewhere else in the world. If a country provides a lucrative and fair environment, people will not want to leave. When a country starts enforcing draconian laws, people don't want to stay anymore and the smarter ones will figure out sooner that things won't end well. I liken it to an obsessive relationship where one person just can't help but snoop on the other person and impose silly rules, thinking this will keep them around longer. It does exactly the opposite.