Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Given he's a naturalised citizen whose arse we saved from gangs by him seeking the US not the other way around, we're expecting people who wish to become permanent residents and become citizens to do things like learn English, register for selective service, vote, appear for jury duty, participate and perform community services, obey the laws, etc, and then signal that an 'American hero' is one who throws us into the trash to avoid paying taxes here? C'mon. And our laws certainly when it comes to cases and situations like this should address it very seriously. You just don't look at the US as a place to exploit and dispose as would a locust. That includes concerning our people, our institutions, our obligations, etc.
And there's certain things where it's not just about 'encouragement'. There are bottom cellars of minimum conduct that must be expected or face consequences. That's why we have penal codes and other codes sanctioning certain kinds of misconduct. The fact is that some people on some or most aspects won't observe minimum standards of conduct that cause unacceptable harms and therefore we use the law to inflict punishment for deterrence and retribution as well as seek restitution for the harms done.
Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 05-16-2012 at 05:51 PM.
Back to Facebook...
Question: are you alleging that Saverin, in any way, broke the law?
If so, then I am in complete agreement... he should be brought to account.
(Let us pause for a moment and ponder the legal advice Saverin received concerning this, and the billable hours thereof)
Moving on once again...
The real question I have, and have been thinking of a thread on this very subject is this: How much of all this is 'ours'?
Saverin's 1 billion is not worth the trouble... it's the other 99 billion.
100 billion dollars taken from the American people, mostly from our impressionable youth, and for what?
Why not take it all O'Sullivan?
He's totally worth it. Not only is he walking away from his tax obligations, he's walking away from all his obligations by renouncing citizenship after getting what he wanted off us. And tolerating this sets a precedent for others to do it. That's a huge drain at the public's expense that helped him (and others who would do likewise) get to be rich beyond dreams and never threatened to take that status away from him. We punish the small fish all the time. Yet, we don't go after the big MoFo thieves and locusts who screw us to tunes and damages that city sized pools of small fish couldn't do in total sum. It's time we do.
Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 05-17-2012 at 12:16 AM.
Sound like a good bit more than "shaming them into it" to me....that's where I'd like the government to focus upon to tar and feather the POS and set examples for egregious situations such as him.
You have one thing I agree with. At some point you will run into a person that will fuck you over no matter how much you do for them but if we gear our laws in such a way that everyone will be subject to penalty for the failings of a few outliers then we are surely fucking ourselves over.
This guy, to the best of my knowledge, has complied with the laws of this nation and functioned as a proper citizen for the time he has spent here. His work has benefited him but it has also benefited others who have worked with him and invested their time and ability in common endeavors. It is now his choice to move on. So be it.
I would hope that you have some level of agreement that ex post facto laws are not desirable in this country and should be prohibited. To level some kind of penalty against this guy would be a direct violation of this principle, right? Now, if we were to introduce some kind of reactionary legislation that didn't effect Saverin but did effect anyone else who chose the same path it might well be Constitutional but would it serve this nation in the best ways possible? Would it be a law of which we could be proud? Would it be a law which served the purpose of expanding liberty or would it merely serve state interests? In short, would it serve to encourage more participation in our economy and our culture or would it discourage people from making a living here in favor of making that living elsewhere?
Moreover on the subject of laws, doing what is legal is not the same as doing what is right, and it's not something one usually deserves any credit. As Chris Rock aptly put it to paraphrase him, you don't get credit for doing what's expected of you: "Well I've never been in jail." "Motherfucker you aren't supposed to be in jail! What do you want, a cookie?" Are the Westboro Baptist Church assholes worthy of praise because they follow the law in their picketing? Or the Klan in following parade permits and other laws when preaching their bile? Or the peadophile who saw a loophole in MA law and others that allowed him to send obscene text messages to minors? No, on the latter, we condemned the SOB and quickly passed laws closing that loophole in states that used the 1960s Model Penal Code definition that was never updated to include the new texting technology.
It's not just about him, though. It's also about how Forbes and others reacted to his conduct. It's also about straightening out any idea that this is something good and healthy for the country and reminding people what's actually valuable to this nation's survival, maintenance and support. It's also about deterring this conduct for those who lack the character to want to do so if tolerated.
Here's the deal, this guy is exhibiting signs that he has no interest in working any more. He made his pile and now he wants to piss it away on champagne and hookers. That's not a decision I would make and I don't think that it's a particularly good decision but the upshot is that it's his decision. Now, if we were interested in him pissing that fortune away here we could have easily set up the law in such a way that it would encourage him to stay here. Instead of that, though, we are in the process of bumping cap gains from 15% to 20% and probably screwing away other tax benefits so I can totally see why he's getting out of dodge. The political climate here over the past few years has been one of "It's all the State's money and you should be fucking ecstatic that we let you keep some of it" rather than one of "We want you to be as prosperous as you can be and enjoy the fruits of your labor".
As a guy who gives tax advice on a pretty regular basis I can't really say that his decision is a bad one. It allows him to reap the most benefit from what he has earned. Now, if Singapore starts to look at the situation and says to themselves "Hey, we've got this mope in the basket. Drop the hammer on him!" that's their prerogative but I'm going to hazard a guess that instead of doing that they'll look at his decision as an opportunity to attract even more successful people to head their way and piss away their piles in that country as well.
Also you are making this to be a moral issue... okay by me. But I thought "legislating morality" is a bad thing. You say renouncing one's citizenship is bad... I say butt fucking is bad (there do seem to be some similarities) but both are legal.
Who gets to say one is bad and the other isn't?