Posted on 05/18/2012 3:27:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Eduardo Saverin, one of the original Facebook founders, holds, what, 3% of the company now, still makes him a billionaire. Eduardo Saverin's family fled his native land, I believe that's Brazil, not sure. His family came to the United States to escape oppression wherever they were. Eduardo Saverin goes to Harvard, meets Zuckerberg. They start Facebook. He becomes a billionaire. Eduardo Saverin moves to Singapore. Last week Eduardo Saverin renounced his American citizenship because of taxes. The capital gains tax, when this IPO goes and his share value is actually monetized and not just on paper, will be something like... it's not right in front of me, but I think the tax that Saverin would owe will be something like 64, $68 million.
And Eduardo Saverin said, "To heck with it." He's not a native born American, his family moved here. He's in Singapore, and, by the way, he's a pretty big guy in Singapore. He runs around all the clubs. He's in the gossip columns over there. He's a pretty hot character, likes it, young guy, has the world in the palm of his hand. He doesn't want to pay the tax, so he renounces his citizenship to avoid the taxes. Chuck-U Schumer and the Democrats have decided they're not gonna put up with this, so they are going to pass a law, a bill of attainder essentially, which is gonna punish somebody for actions they've already taken that weren't against the law, and bills of attainder are not legal for the most part. But a big debate has arisen, and I wonder what you think about it.
Is Eduardo Saverin a coward? Is he abandoning his responsibilities as a citizen in avoiding these taxes? Did he stay here long enough to truly remarkably benefit from America and then in the moment of truth, when the time came to pay for it, Eduardo Saverin's out of there, or outta here, and then renouncing his citizenship. From what I read, a lot of blogs where all the people think they're really smart, Eduardo Saverin's taking it pretty hard, taking a lot of hits. People are not approving of what he's doing, walking out on his country, abandoning his country, particularly in his country's time of need. The country could really use the $64 million. Other people say, "Ah, ah, ah, ah, Eduardo Saverin is just a microcosm of American business." Moving out of country, establishing overseas operations to avoid high taxes. Got the highest corporate tax rate in the world now at 35%.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, had a meeting with Boehner this week. Nobody knows what it was about, but everybody's guessing that Cook went in there and said, (paraphrasing) "Look, we need your help in supporting a tax holiday. We'd love to repatriate our foreign funds, but we don't want to pay these exorbitant taxes in the process. So we'd be happy to bring that money back and put it into circulation here in the US economy, but not at the current tax rates." And people are dumping all over Apple and a number of other US corporations for doing this. So the question becomes, as far as I can tell, or as far as I'm concerned, the question is, is Eduardo Saverin and all these other US corporations, are they guilty of poor citizenship, or are they simply reacting entirely normal to tax policy?
It is clear that it is tax policies, and these tax policies, high taxes on the rich, on millionaires, that Joe Biden says, "Oh, no, we believe in capitalism. God, man, why, it's what built the country." But his president's out there demonizing successful people every day, targeting successful people every day, running a presidential campaign based on class warfare, trying to get the 99% of the country who are not in the top 1% to hate the 1%, to literally despise 'em. It seems to me that it was the tax policy that came first. The tax policy that came first that's chasing people like Eduardo Saverin and other companies out of this country in increasing numbers.
The people who are saying Eduardo Saverin doesn't have the right to do this, he's shirking his responsibility as a citizen, this is a cowardly thing to do. Well, I left New York state for the same reason. Now, I didn't have to renounce citizenship, but I left New York state for the same reason. I moved to a state with no state income tax. I'm sure that people think that I am not a patriotic New Yorker. I spent eight years there. I paid my dues, and they still follow me. Every year I get audited under the premise I'm lying to them about the number of days every year I live and work in New York, which are zero. I have to prove it 14 different ways every day of the year, where I am, where I say I was. And I can tell you, I left New York for tax reasons. I'm the first one to admit it, and I'm not the only one. Talk to Trump. Trump will tell you he knows a lot of other people have done it, too.
So if it's a more favorable tax haven that you can find elsewhere and you go there, why is it automatically that you are unpatriotic? Why is it automatically that you are a coward, that you are not paying your fair share? It's this whole class envy thing rearing its head again. So I just wanted to throw it out there.
END TRANSCRIPT
Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).
The tax is only HALF the story:
LOTS of overseas banks simply refuse to do biz with Americans cuz of what Uncle Sam did to the Swiss —we’re lepers, now, basically.
You gotta wonder WHAT Uncle Sam knew about his financial state of affairs 3 years ago when suddenly he found it sooo important to find out about secret overseas bank accounts.
Did he KNOW about some financial whirlpool that risked to suck him under, and was stretching out to hang onto (and drown) as many other swimmers as possible?
The tax is only HALF the story, here.
He’s really more a Brazilian than an American. He’s free to leave. He’s free to renounce his citizenship and by doing so for tax reasons, he is indicating what he thinks U.S. citizenship is worth (or not worth) to him.
If he wants to visit the U.S., he should be given a visa for as long as he wants - for ten million dollars per day.
He is a cosmopolitan indifferent to the nation state.
He’s a hero. So is Jim Rogers (also in Singapore). I don’t even like Ayn Rand’s rantings or writings, but “go Galt!” De-fund the socialists, and they won’t control you tomorrow.
At last report Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, owed more than $1 billion in back taxes for income earned as far back as 2002.
Buffett didn’t move out of the country and renounce his citizenship to legally avoid paying taxes - he just refuses to pay them, the laws be damned.
Perfectly understandable. This is what happens when you tax the rich in the modern world is that they pack their bags and move. And why not? They can afford to!
‘60 Minutes’ did a story sometime back on the ‘special’ tax that Maryland levied on their 3,000 wealthiest citizens in 2007 and one of the reults was that a year later 2,000 of them had packed their bags and left. Many simply decamped to their second homes in Florida and made those homes their primary addresses.
One fellow interviewed said that while it was not a huge part of his income the fact was that living in Maryland cost him an additional $18,000 per month with the new tax. So he moved away. $18,000 per month is a lot of money to give away if you don’t have to.
For this FB boy he seems to prefer Singapore anyway so the tax thing was just enough for him to cut his ties. Good for him. And if the IRS goes to Singapore to bother him he can count on the police to flog the JBTs and send them back whence they came.
The problem is not this boy leaving the USA, the problem is a system that makes it better for him to leave than to stay.
We need to fix the system.
But we won’t. Sooner or later we’ll see exhorbitant taxes levied on anyone with a job and Singapore won’t look so bad after all.
Yes he is and he has been living in the Philippines or Singapore, or wherever he lives for several years. Shumer has no right to forbid him to come and visit if he wants to
When a Republican is president and somebody leaves or talks about leaving the response is don't let the door hit your rear end you contemptible ingrate.
The rules work in the opposite fashion on a site like DU. Back in the Bush presidency many of these current America lovers were talking about running out to Canada.
The way I see it, anybody so willing to abandon our great nation so quickly, on either side of the political divide, is an ingrate. Good luck in Singapore, Mr. Playboy. Just remember that your safety in Singapore is maintained by the American military, paid for by the American taxpayer. If we run out of money to defend the world, no place in the world is a safe partyland.
Mr. Saverin has simply provided new guards - Singapore - for his future security.
The money is HIS. He is free to chose his country of residence. Schumer simply wants to take Mr. Saverin’s money because he thinks he can. Basically, Schumer is a thief.
So he is a hero to some for starving the beasts (US and Cali). To me, he is a poster child for what is wrong with our government and its tax policy.
Is it patriotic to pay taxes? Judge Learned Hand (see post #2) didn't think so, and neither do I. But the Dems have been running that jive past us, saying it is patriotic to pay their fair share. If we have to lose our ultra-rich to get the point across to the rest of the country, it will be an unfortunate lesson. Perhaps there will be change for the better before then.
Firstly, he still has to pay capital gains taxes on wealth created before his renunciation. The IPO simply established a market value for his gain. The IRS is still going to get their money.
Secondly, the guy was born in Brazil, he’s still a Brazilian and he’s a now a permanent resident of Singapore living there full time. If he doesn’t want to pay taxes in three countries, that’s understandable. If the guy was born here and then defected just for cash, I might have more of an issue.
he’s already been queued up to pay $600m when he monetizes his shares
the extra $68m is an update to their value
so the dems want to tax him retroactively, sieze accounts to get the money, and ban hm from the US.
ok.... sounds great.
therefore we should expect them to go after the $21 BILLION sent annually to Mexico by illegals. that would be AT LEAST $2 BILLION in annual tax revenues
Title III - Revenue Provisions
Section 301 - Sets forth additional rules for the tax treatment of high-income individuals who relinquish U.S. citizenship or residency to avoid U.S. taxation (expatriates). Treats all property of expatriates as sold for fair market value on the day before the expatriation date and includes gain (over $600,000) or loss from such sale in their gross income. Allows expatriates to elect to defer payment of any tax resulting from expatriation if adequate security for payment of such tax is given.
Requires 30% withholding of tax for certain items of deferred compensation payable to expatriates.
Imposes a separate tax on gifts and bequests from expatriates exceeding $10,000, payable by the recipient of such gift or bequest.
This already exists! It treats one who expatriates as if they had died and requires the payment of the equivalent of the estate tax as a penalty for leaving the country. IT ALREADY EXISTS AS A LAW!
I disagree. His family moved here, his family paid for a college education here. Then he did everything else.
Did the US government give him a huge subsidy to create FB?
No.
Did he pay all his taxes while he was earning income in the US?
Yes.
But, he no longer even lives in the US. He lives in Singapore. So as far as things go, he is more than break even in giving back to the US, for what he has gotten from the US.
So if he wants to again visit the US, he should be treated no differently than any other tourist. And given his lifestyle, instead of somebody *charging* him $10m a day, if he wants to spend $10m a day buying stuff, more power to him. But he owes the US little or nothing.
Nor do I blame him for not wanting to be used as a cash cow by a nation run by greedy politicians.
There is a lot that government does that is counterproductive and/or wrong, but national defense and law and order, which are legitimate governmental functions, are also provided for through tax dollars. The American taxpayer paid for the stable and safe world where he made his millions and even now the suffering Americans are providing for the bulk of the safety he enjoys in Singapore. Freedom isn't free. The citizen who pays his taxes is doing his patriotic duty in providing for the common defense.
Either way, I hold no negative opinion of him at this point.
He appears to have lived and worked in this country legally.
So he is free to leave, stay and/or legally change his citizenship status for any reason he chooses.
I don't think it's appropriate for anyone, but especially the likes of Chuck Shumer, to use their government position to denounce the lawfull personal decisions of a legal private resident of the USA.
And to threaten to punish him financially for something that is not a crime?
Fine. He paid his taxes while he was a citizen, and will still pay the exit tax ALREADY in place from the '90s. And now he is no longer a citizen of the US. That's his choice and the US should have no additional claim on his wealth.
Also, it is not patriotic to pay any more tax than the minimum under the law for any citizen. No more is required than that.
No there not...He renounced last year and foreigners pay virtually no capital gains taxes. I guess he saved about $1B in taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.