Thread: Facebook's Saverin...'American Hero' or Scumbag?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

facebook,
Where you go to post when you don't have to back it up.

I thought that was U.S. Politics Online.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I thought that was U.S. Politics Online.

Do we really let anyone get away with it?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Yeah... I get to tell a client on Friday that the property he's buying for a fitness center is under a conditional use permit and because this town doesn't sunset CUPs when the original use closes, we have to go through the 3 month process to amend the CUP.

Yeek. Won't be a pleasantly received conversation.

Originally Posted by tsquare

While you did say 100% is not good, you didn't say how much you would take. 50%? 75%

His current rate if he retained his citizenship was more than reasonable hence why given his wealth and his rate I find it especially unacceptable. The Clinton rate or 20% if dealing with exorbitant income on capital gains using that slightly progressive rate is far from abusive. When it gets to people taking near, half or more, that's where I get more concerned where the more taken the more concern I have.

Originally Posted by tsquare

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?

It's not a moral issue for me. When I think of morality, it has a religious basis. That's not a reducible reason for action as it comes purely on leaps of faith and is not testable for veracity. It's sort of like arguing taste, e.g., is it right or wrong to like ketchup on your burger or not? For me, when dealing with legal policy rather than my personal conduct based on faith or taste, etc, it focuses on secular and reducible considerations. In this situation, IMO there's plenty reasons founded in secular and reducible considerations as to why I think what's going on here is sufficiently harmful and touched upon some of those reasons. As a society, we have to have to debate what we believe is in the country's best interests. How the outcomes wind up is obviously case specific, but it's also one we can't avoid if we want a functional and productive society.

Originally Posted by lutherf

I have no intention of praising the guy for his decision but I'll be damned if I see fit to punish him for it.

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.

Oh I'd punish guys like him big time as you know.

In your situation as a tax adviser, you have a professional obligation to give competent tax advice to your clients. You can be sued for giving poor and incomplete advice based on things other than your duty to him/her. It's the same with me too in a professional capacity with clients.

That said, outside that relationship as private citizens, it's a different matter. For example, I was a wizard at breaking down our criminal drunk driving and related driver licensing laws....exceptionally successful enough that the PA legislature often cited my cases as a reason to totally overhaul those codes to remove my methods of escaping drunk drivers from accountability, right down to even keeping recidivist offenders without ignition interlocks. That was in performance of my sworn duty as a professional and even my obligation to the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution to do so as counsel to the accused and convicted.

Likewise, people will always need tax advice just as they need legal advice. We just tell them what the laws are and how best to manage them. Whether those laws are good or bad, though, from a citizen standpoint, is another matter for other resolution.

That said, I never sympathised with these gimmicks and loopholes in my private citizen capacity and wanted them closed because they were harmful from a citizen standpoint. I was glad in all senses other than my pocketbook that they were mostly closed with the reforms. And it made our highways safer from the harms of drunk drivers. My bottom line doesn't add up to toss by putting more lives at risk by opposing the closing of those holes. What prices are there on the lives of dead motorists? I'm sure I'll survive without that extra cash and more will simply survive by getting another day in life alive.

Likewise, I agree that if he wants to spend his money on booze and hookers until he drops, that's his call. It doesn't say much for 'trickle down' economics, but it's his call. What shouldn't be his call, though, is pulling the stunt he did to avoid his obligations to this nation given his facts and circumstances. What he did to us on 'trickle down' was take a giant piss on us. That's what needs addressing IMO.

Here, the big issue I think you're missing the the harm posed by renouncing citizenship to pull this stunt. The US is not the YMCA. It's a nation and citizenship has an obvious purpose offering benefits and obligations. This guy was not a green card holder or other non-citizen. Non-citizens are permissive guests whom we set the terms as we feel and do not owe or offer key benefits, nor in return do they owe certain key obligations in return as non-citizens. He availed himself of citizenship, a big difference. If we treat that whimsically where the abusers disrespect and take advantage of it, that's a real problem IMO. It's worse when others cheer that attitude that was done for the shallowest of reasons and against not only themselves but this country's welfare.

As for Singapore, small principality nations are classic for being such tax havens. It's a topic where it's likely in our national interest as well as a matter of fairness to allow small fries to play some games to get in the game with the big fellas. That said, allowing them to unduly undercut us with such gimmicks is also in need of addressing. It's the same with shady unfair trade practices from types like China and others. I'm not interested in a race to the bottom by bottom feeders or allowing others to beat us with below the belt punches. That's where the big cats like the US, Canada, EU and others could and should work on keeping underminers from doing just that to our way of life. That means targeting them when they're playing unfair and unjustly. I'm not interested in being nice to people trying to fuck us over not fair and square.

Originally Posted by michael h

Some of us haven't renounced our citizenship out of convenience.

Bingo. That's such a key difference here to me as you know. He was not here on a green card or visa as a guest. He became a US citizen and availed himself of its benefits and then pissed on its obligations.

To borrow an example, there's a soccer spat between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland going on. Since the ROI has a much better team than NI, and players in NI are eligible to play for either team, there are players who are using NI youth training squads to train themselves on NI's soccer association's time and dime and, once ready for the full senior NI team, they're instead bolting to play for the ROI. Here's how a top NI player reacted to the latest defection:

David Healy on James McClean decision (8/8/11) - YouTube

He nails it IMO..."Don't abuse the shirt." He has no problem with the choice to play for NI or the ROI, but whatever you do, just "don't abuse the shirt" by choosing to milk the NI programme and then bolt for the ROI after you've gotten what you wanted from it insofar as investment and preparation.

It's a similar rationale here. This guy "abused our shirt" here.

Regardless of how we feel about his decision, I would hope that we can all agree that no punishment should be meted out to people who choose to leave the United States. Some immigration activists complain about our wall on the border being reminiscent of the Berlin Wall. But since it's designed to keep people out, the only resemblance is that they are both walls. Forcing people to stay in the country is truly erecting a Berlin Wall. That's the biggest difference between us and totalitarian countries. If you had to name just one thing and only one thing it would be that free countries let people leave if they don't like the way things are going, and totalitarian countries make them stay.

So fucking what. I've lived in Singapore and believe me, it's generally a very nice place, especially if you're wealthy. BUT if Saverin or anyone else reading Forbes truly thinks either he or his money are going to be safer there than in the USA he needs only wait until the Singaporean government decides they want more of it. In the USA they raise your taxes, in Singapore you're arrested for the charge du jour and lucky if you're ever seen again.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Bingo. That's such a key difference here to me as you know. He was not here on a green card or visa as a guest. He became a US citizen and availed himself of its benefits and then pissed on its obligations.

To borrow an example, there's a soccer spat between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland going on. Since the ROI has a much better team than NI, and players in NI are eligible to play for either team, there are players who are using NI youth training squads to train themselves on NI's soccer association's time and dime and, once ready for the full senior NI team, they're instead bolting to play for the ROI. Here's how a top NI player reacted to the latest defection:

David Healy on James McClean decision (8/8/11) - YouTube

He nails it IMO..."Don't abuse the shirt." He has no problem with the choice to play for NI or the ROI, but whatever you do, just "don't abuse the shirt" by choosing to milk the NI programme and then bolt for the ROI after you've gotten what you wanted from it insofar as investment and preparation.

It's a similar rationale here. This guy "abused our shirt" here.

When this clown needed the US ... it was here for him at his convenience. Now hes scores ... time to conveniently step away.

My step dad never got his citizenship ... WTF ... he stayed in the US till he died and earned a good living here. If your not an American Indian ... your an immigrant or a recent immigrant. America is a decent country and a big market for people to earn a living ... if you can take the countries / markets dime, you can pay your taxes. And for those that bitch ... f%$#kem we know what really high taxes were on the wealthy in the US and UK when we were young. Prior warning ... barf bag ... I was raised Mormon and nationalistic. I don't think we are the only decent country on this planet, but its a damn good one.

Originally Posted by John Drake

So fucking what. I've lived in Singapore and believe me, it's generally a very nice place, especially if you're wealthy. BUT if Saverin or anyone else reading Forbes truly thinks either he or his money are going to be safer there than in the USA he needs only wait until the Singaporean government decides they want more of it. In the USA they raise your taxes, in Singapore you're arrested for the charge du jour and lucky if you're ever seen again.

Are they not the ones that like to cane your ass?

Originally Posted by michael h

Are they not the ones that like to cane your ass?

That's for spitting in the street. ... Seriously, they are one of the world's few examples of a truly benign dictatorship....so far. I believe the reason for that is that their present leader is a wise man, who has rightly observed that benevolence, particularly to the wealthy, pays, and it will continue to....., until it doesn't (pay, that is). Then Mr Saverin may wish for an American courtroom instead of a Singaporean jail cell.

John is making a great point. Singaporeans have a great deal of liberty, but they aren't entitled to it by nature according to their government. A new government could take power and turn the place into China anytime they want. There are no constitutional limits there.

So this guy is taking his chances, and if he comes crawling back, there won't be any sympathy.

Although really, this whole problem could be solved by not taxing expatriates. People should pay taxes where they live and only where they live. If there's some kind of government service that they take advantage of regardless of whether they are in the US or not, then a fee can be charged or a tiny surtax that covers those small services. I also don't believe expatriates should be allowed to vote in our elections. Again, they don't live here, it's absolutely retarded that they get to vote for Congressmen in districts they don't live in and never intend to return to.

Originally Posted by John Drake

So fucking what. I've lived in Singapore and believe me, it's generally a very nice place, especially if you're wealthy. BUT if Saverin or anyone else reading Forbes truly thinks either he or his money are going to be safer there than in the USA he needs only wait until the Singaporean government decides they want more of it. In the USA they raise your taxes, in Singapore you're arrested for the charge du jour and lucky if you're ever seen again.

Don't get used to this but....you're right.

In renouncing his citizenship Saverin has also given up a whole slew of benefits which protect him (and his money) from many forms of abuse including what you mention.

So it looks like the IRS will still go after an Individual's taxes if they renounce their citizenship.
I wonder how much of an effort the IRS makes to go after Corporate money parked (hidden)
in off shore tax havens?
Senators target Facebook co-founder for giving up citizenship, seek to impose taxes | Fox News

sorry for the typo