backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by jazzwitherspoo.. on May 21 at 5:00 AM


Eduardo Saverin  (Source: trbimg.com)
Bloomberg reached this number by adding the 15 percent U.S. capital gains rate to the $448 million difference between September's $2.44 billion and today's $2.89 billion

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin could see about $67 million in savings on federal income taxes after eliminating his U.S. citizenship.

Saverin, who was part of Facebook's Harvard-born beginnings, owns about 4 percent of the company. He dropped his American citizenship around September 2011, and now lives in Singapore.

Facebook, which is launching its $104 billion initial public offering (IPO) this week and will be trading under the ticker "FB," plans to sell shares for as high as $38 apiece this week.

In September 2011, Saverin's stake was worth about $2.44 billion. Now, based on Facebook's 1.898 billion shares total, his stake may be worth around $2.89 billion.

According to Bloomberg, Saverin could save $67 million in federal income taxes by letting go of his U.S. citizenship. Bloomberg reached this number by adding the 15 percent U.S. capital gains rate to the $448 million difference between September's $2.44 billion and today's $2.89 billion.

Saverin will now be able to receive a profit from future appreciation of his Facebook stock without worrying about capital gains tax because he let go of his U.S. citizenship, and the fact that Singapore does not have the tax.

In addition, as Facebook's shares increase, Saverin's savings will also continue growing.

However, Saverin will have to pay an exit tax on the estimated capital gains from his stock holdings at the time that he renounced his U.S. citizenship. This means the Saverin will have to pay $365 million.

Last month, The New York Times accused Apple of dodging billions in taxes worldwide. Last year, the tech giant paid about $3.3 billion in taxes around the globe on its profits of $34.2 billion at a tax rate of 9.8 percent.

Apple got out of paying more on taxes through a few different methods, including putting an office in Reno, which allows Apple to escape California's 8.84 percent tax rate for Nevada's 0 percent; selling digital content, which can be sold from low-tax countries anywhere around the world, and the "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," which allows Apple to cut taxes by directing profits through low-cost Irish subsidiaries, the Netherlands and the Caribbean.

Source: Bloomberg





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

just goes to show
By kleinma on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By Mitch101 on 5/17/2012 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 5
Im glad you specified Facebook for a second I thought you were talking about Apple.


RE: just goes to show
By Initium on 5/19/2012 5:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
If Apple can pay less than 10% tax on $30+ billion good on them. Just wish I could pay less than 10% too.


RE: just goes to show
By Arsynic on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By NellyFromMA on 5/17/2012 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, he does owe; It's called taxes. You know, the thing EVERY productive citizen owes their country more often than not.

And, he is paying some, as the article states. He is making a move that saves him money evidentally, and he was free to make this choice. I have no issues with it personally, he gave something up. That's a lot more fair than what the likes of GE are up to.

Apple on the other hand, ugh... I'm not even going to ge tinto it. Corporate exploitation of tax laws are one of the biggest reasons why the average American could care less about the 'super-rich'.


RE: just goes to show
By Amedean on 5/17/2012 1:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree.

It is a slap in the face for people to benefit greatly from this country to then stick their middle finger at the system and run away with bags of American money. Duche bags the lot of them! I am proud to pay my taxes, but I do want it spent wisely.


RE: just goes to show
By StevoLincolnite on 5/17/2012 1:53:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I am proud to pay my taxes, but I do want it spent wisely.


I don't think any Government (Especially large ones...) knows how to spend money wisely...


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/17/2012 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree with you guys. I think that in a free country you should feel free to leave whenever you want with whatever you own. I know you are not proposing it, but you guys make it sound like he should never be able to leave because he is so rich and should be so thankful for the opportunity he had to be here.

Not to bring the Nazis into this so early in the game... but I watched the movie Sophie Scholl: The Final Daysand it really got me when she was on trial for treason and the prosecutors all were sickened by the fact that she could oppose the gov't given the fact that they were the ones who provided her education.

The reason to stay in the US should not be because of a sense of gratitude. Your sense of gratitude should show by the way you value freedom.

The US should stand on its own merits as the most attractive place to be and not because its citizens are indebted to it. Being in debt is the opposite of freedom.

And if someone doesn't like paying the taxes to fund the invasion of Iraq, planned parenthood, Wall St. bailouts, bloated politicians, etc. then more power to them.

Read On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. In his case, he didn't like paying taxes to support slavery and the MexAm war, but the principle is the same. So given my opposition to much of what the feds do here in my home country I am frankly relieved that Fast Eddie here kept his money from them. You guys should be more positive about the situation.


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/17/2012 3:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason to stay in the US should not be because of a sense of gratitude. Your sense of gratitude should show by the way you value freedom.

The US should stand on its own merits as the most attractive place to be and not because its citizens are indebted to it. Being in debt is the opposite of freedom.
Well said.


RE: just goes to show
By kleinma on 5/17/2012 3:29:15 PM , Rating: 1
Freedom ain't free last time I checked. Costs a lot of money to run the "most attractive place to be"...


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
We were more free when the government was spending far less money.


RE: just goes to show
By Ringold on 5/17/2012 7:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Most the budget doesn't go to some "renew eternal freedom" fund. Most is government control and transfer payments within the economy. Further, and thank god, even some Republican "freedom aint free" politicians are waking up to the idea that our defense budget is paying for far more then just protecting our freedom, but rather it's paying for the role of global hegemon when, unlike for most of the 1900s, we're no longer the beneficiary of global stability. Europeans and Asians are free-riding leeches, and should stump up more coin.

So, yes, you're 100% right.


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/18/2012 2:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Costs a lot of money to run the "most attractive place to be"...
If you are Eduardo the cost is high and the country is obviously not that attractive since he is leaving. If you are one of the MANY who pay little to negative taxes and can sit there benefiting from the taxpayers ('rich' or otherwise) it obviously is the "most attractive place to be".

To find out how attractive the country really is you would have to ask this question: How many people would want to leave the country if they all bore the costs with the same percentage of their money?

I was speaking about ALL people. Rich or poor. I believe in the individual freedom of all.


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/18/2012 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well said
Hmm...apparently. Arsynic said essentially the same thing and got rated down. I guess I missed his concise comment since he was silenced by the Hitlerjugend ;-)


RE: just goes to show
By Initium on 5/19/2012 5:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I believe it was Adam Smith who said everybody should act in their own self-interest. We built a whole world on his ideas and now we are going to complain because people actually follow the rules? Crazy.


RE: just goes to show
By jazzwitherspoon on 5/21/2012 5:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why on earth would I want to fund the nameless Empire once known as the USA?

If my "representatives" want to detain me indefinitely without trial (re: 2012 NDAA) and are working on being able to revoke my citizenship (re: Enemy Expatriation Act), why don't I just beat them to the punch and just get the hell out of a country that seems bent on entrapping me in its draconian tax laws.


RE: just goes to show
By Ammohunt on 5/17/2012 10:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
he is trying to avoid the highest corporate tax in the world! the problem is not him but the insane tax rates on capital gains. America citizenship doesn't mean anything anymore since non-citizen get better benefits than citizens its not a big loss for him


RE: just goes to show
By Fritzr on 5/17/2012 11:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Corporate tax rates do not apply to purchase/sale of stocks.

No income tax was paid at any time on the value of the shares of a corporation.

Capital Gains/Capital Losses are the change in value of possessions. The only relation to income is that others may be willing to pay more if the possessions generate an income.

He is taking advantage of the clause in the tax law that fixes the share price at the sale price on the day he renounces citizenship as set by US law.

As the story notes, this move pays him $62m based on the current stock price. He is still required to pay capital gains tax at 15% of the gain in value from the date he acquired the stock to the date the IRS rules say he renounced citizenship. He appears ready to pay that tax bill.


RE: just goes to show
By Ammohunt on 5/18/2012 11:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
Either way he is still a dumbass that should be barred from entering the United States.


RE: just goes to show
By Arsynic on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By bah12 on 5/17/2012 2:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, he does owe; It's called taxes.
Actually he doesn't. Look I don't know what the hell people like you and Mick are smoking, but send some my way. What they are doing is 100% within the law. I am so sick of this tax evasion BS here on DT, as clearly neither you, Mick or any of his cronies has a clue what tax dodging/evasion really is.

If you want to argue that the tax code is clearly f'ck up, then I'd be right there in line with you. But Apple, GE, and this guy none of them are "dodging" sh!t what they are doing is legal. Quit throwing them under the bus for it, and start directing that anger toward the government, they are the cluster of a-holes that legalized this.

So if Mick wants to write an article illustrating the flaws in our tax code, GO FOR IT! But quit blaming the wrong people, and start blaming who is responsible.


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/17/2012 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if Mick wants to write an article illustrating the flaws in our tax code, GO FOR IT!
+6
In fact, I propose that rather than reporting on Apple fluff he puts that energy into this. At that rate, good ol' uncle Ron will still have a chance to be president in 2012 lol.


RE: just goes to show
By bah12 on 5/17/2012 4:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
+6 Yah right not on DT. Thanks but the liberal tards on this site will always blame the big bad rich folks instead of taking responsibility for voting the morons in office that are clearly bought and paid for.


RE: just goes to show
By mcnabney on 5/17/2012 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
You do understand that businesses and lobbying groups are generally the ones who WRITE the laws, right?

They create the law to help themselves and hand it off to the political hack that they bought and paid for. The political hack and his/her party pass the law - usually without even reading the damn thing - and the company/industry gets the tax code adjusted to favor them.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:12:39 PM , Rating: 4
Sure, until society collapses just like our already crumbling infrastructure, and we return to the dark ages. No thanks.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
So how did we ever survive from 1792 to 1913 without taxes on income?

How did we have roads before 1913, where did the infrastructure come from?


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:25:59 PM , Rating: 4
Uh, you do know that the U.S. interstate system was authorized for construction in 1956? And getting across states, let alone the country, was not an easy thing to do prior to that.


RE: just goes to show
By Ringold on 5/17/2012 7:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
You do know we fleshed out a continent-spanning railroad system long before that, no? You're right, it was real hard getting around in the 1800s, what with the LACK OF CARS. We also funded, largely through debt, printing money and admittedly an unconstitutional income tax, one of the most fearsome wars man has ever seen, our Civil War, which mobilized and killed a greater percentage of our men then any other war has.

His point stands: the country grew to super-power status without an income tax for the vast majority of the time it spend in ascendency.

To further buttress his point, some homework: Look up the poverty rates from the 60s, pre-welfare state. Add up the trillions spent on welfare since Johnson. Look up current poverty rates. Worth it?


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 9:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
While the railroads were no doubt important for opening up the frontier, I would not equate that with the national highway and interstate system. It's not like railroads go to every town. But between federal and state funded roads, one can get to just about any place by automobile.

I'm not arguing for or against social welfare, or government intervention into every aspect of our lives. I'm merely pointing out that, despite the current popularity of blaming the government for all of the problems, it has made it possible for people like Mitt Romney to become enormously wealthy.


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/18/2012 5:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it has made it possible for people like Mitt Romney to become enormously wealthy.
Isn't that his critics' problem with him: money? You want more "gov't sponsored" Romneys?
What about the 99%?!! I'm not an anti-1%er but I don't think the gov't should sponsor more of them!! ;-P
quote:
While the railroads were no doubt important for opening up the frontier, I would not equate that with the national highway and interstate system. It's not like railroads go to every town. But between federal and state funded roads, one can get to just about any place by automobile.
I actually think that we would be in a better place if we had not gone with the Interstate system. I actually believe that we would have a successful rail system in at least part of its place. I might not be opposed to the whole thing but I think it was certainly too big and too much bet on the future of cars. And here we are now trying to get off of cars and into high-speed rail. It is an impossible thing to actually ascertain what might have been without gov't intervention. My thought is that it is necessarily worse that the gov't got involved, but that it definitely is not worth it in most cases.


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/17/2012 3:15:00 PM , Rating: 3
The author is irrelevant. If a sucky bill becomes law, the buck stops at the elected officials who passed it. We're still the ones who vote those goons in/out of office.


RE: just goes to show
By zephyrprime on 5/17/2012 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think the gov writes so many tax laws into the system? It's because of guys like this and the likes of GE giving donations to the politicians. Don't say that the politicians are the only ones responsible because the pols are just doing what their masters tell them too.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 3:10:01 PM , Rating: 1
Let me fix it for you.

Actually, he does owe; It's called taxes. You know, the money the government steals from EVERY productive citizen in their country.


RE: just goes to show
By Initium on 5/19/2012 5:14:18 AM , Rating: 1
Just so. Nobody wants to pay tax. Everybody tries to minimize tax. But has Mr. Saverin actually said he wanted to do this? Seems to me this was nothing more than an intellectual exercise by some journalists. How does it become a Mr. Saverin bashing exercise? He has done nothing.


By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 5/17/2012 12:42:40 PM , Rating: 3
another example of what will happen more and more if the government continues to raise taxes. Their revenue will continue to fall and more and more programs will go bankrupt.

If the American people object to Facebook, they can exercise their own free will and stop using it.

Be content with what you have and stop being jealous of other people's things. If you want something yourself, put in the work to get it.


RE: just goes to show
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: just goes to show
By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 12:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's 15%, which it likely would be whether there was a flat tax or whatever the hell clusterfuck tax code we have now.

If everyone paid $25,000, we would go back to the days of indentured servitude.


RE: just goes to show
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 1:02:06 PM , Rating: 1
It's 15% ON TOP of the 40% he already paid in capital gains!! I'm sorry but to believe the Government has the right to over 50% of someones' income just because they are rich is immoral.

Damn right what he's doing makes sense. Especially since Obama might win again. There's never been a better time to leave!


RE: just goes to show
By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 1:05:58 PM , Rating: 3
No, he didn't pay 40% in capital gains tax. Nobody does. 35% is the absolute maximum for short term capital gains, and much of that can be deferred. 2003-2012 has been a period where people pay the least in capital gains in recent history. Long term capital gains are taxed at a rate of 20% at cap, and 5 year is taxed at 18%. There are also many many ways to avoid the bulk of these taxes.

Both you and I are taxed at virtually the same rate (or more), most likely.


RE: just goes to show
By tayb on 5/17/2012 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
He's not paying anywhere near 50% so stop with the sensationalism, it's pure nonsense. The cap is at 35% and when you have as much money as this guy does you know where the loopholes are and how to use them. I would be shocked if he paid more than 15-20%. Do you think Warren Buffett pays 50%? Hell no. No one does.


RE: just goes to show
By rubbahbandman on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/17/2012 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think it's that big of a deal to pay over 50% in tax when you rake it in
Compared to the rest of the world you are raking it in. Fork it over.


RE: just goes to show
By rubbahbandman on 5/17/2012 4:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Um so you're agreeing with me right? I guess I should have added, I don't think it's a big deal to pay over 50% in tax because you are raking it in.


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/18/2012 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with your point that people should not be greedy. The problem is that greed is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I don't think I am greedy. In fact I think I am pretty to very generous based on the % of my time/income that I impart to my fellow beings. Now if the gov't said that they wanted to take 50% of my stuff? Uh-uh. Even if I was giving out 50% voluntarily in the first place.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world...
What I meant by my comment is that if you are ok with pretty much everyone in the US giving up 50% of their income to donate to the impoverished nations of the world then you would have a point (I would disagree with it but it would be a valid point). But I take it you are proposing that the 1% of the US pay for the 99% of the US a.k.a. spoiled brats in the eyes of the impoverished peoples of the world. And no I'm not saying that I think they are spoiled brats, it is just that is what they are in the grand scheme of things. Myself included (though I try not to be spoiled lol).

And last I heard, Singapore (or Brazil) need money more than the US. So I guess I should be happy to see that money go to an economy that needs it more than ours. Making him fork it over here would be selfish.


RE: just goes to show
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's 15% ON TOP of the 40% he already paid in capital gains!! I'm sorry but to believe the Government has the right to over 50% of someones' income just because they are rich is immoral.


Who do you think benefits the MOST from the government, it's agencies, and the security it provides via foreign policy, the military, the building of nationwide infrastructure??

You won't get it right, so I guess..... People with the most to lose if any of that fails!!

And guess what, B2's, nuclear weapons, air craft carriers, foreign embassies, people manning all that.. whooo. That there is darn expensive.


RE: just goes to show
By Fritzr on 5/17/2012 11:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
No income tax was paid at any time on the value of the shares of a corporation.

Capital Gains/Capital Losses are the change in value of possessions. The only relation to income is that others may be willing to pay more if the possessions generate an income.


RE: just goes to show
By tayb on 5/17/2012 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 1
Outlandish theft? $60 million for this guy is less than 3% of his overall wealth. I pay 20% on my income. It's criminal that billionaires pay a smaller percentage than I do.


RE: just goes to show
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 1:48:41 PM , Rating: 4
It would be class warfare if everyone paid the same dollar amount. Percentages are the only way to handle it if you want to avoid serfdom.


RE: just goes to show
By tayb on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: just goes to show
By kleinma on 5/17/2012 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Please.. I would love to have to pay 60 million in taxes every year based on my income... that means I am filthy rich and paying that 60 million just means I can't buy my 4th tropical island for another 2 years. Oh wait yes I can because I am filthy friggin rich...


RE: just goes to show
By tayb on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 2:37:46 PM , Rating: 1
I would say, that 60M would help with paying for the security the U.S. affords filthy rich people. We have B2's and Aircraft Carriers to prevent random people/countries from coming here and taking their piles of gold from their money bins.

Heck, with the cost of a B2 being around $2B per plane. I would say 60M is a steal.

Cause honestly, I really don't need B2 bombers to protect my $150K house and couple cars. No one wants that stuff.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 3:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
0%


RE: just goes to show
By erple2 on 5/17/2012 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 3
What amount, then isn't theft? Do you believe that zero taxes constitutes no theft? I suppose that's an argument that you can make (but will quickly realize that it doesn't work). Who pays for Police to make sure you get to keep that 2.5 billion in cash? Should they all be paid security guards out of private funds?

How do we support a military? Would that be purely voluntary, including not only service but costs associated with capital? Who buys the guns? Or the tanks? Or rents the servers to help protect against virtual invasions? Would that also be donation-only? I have a used Volvo that the military can have, if they want.

If you decide that zero taxes isn't theft, then what dollar amount is? $5000? $25000? What if you don't make enough money to pay 25k in taxes? I suppose you could try to find another job that makes enough money to pay 25k in taxes. What happens if you can't? Where do you put those people? And who would put them there? How much does it cost to pay people to put them wherever they go? And do those people pay taxes?

If 65 million is theft, but $1 isn't theft, then where do you draw the line from theft to not theft? Or is there no line? Is it done on a case by case basis? And what facts weigh in on that decision?


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/17/2012 3:35:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What amount, then isn't theft? Do you believe that zero taxes constitutes no theft?
The amount that isn't theft is the amount that I voluntarily choose to pay. I willingly purchase grass seed from Home Depot knowing full well I'll pay 7% sales tax to my state. And I accept that.

I have no such choice with income. I make money, and it's forcibly taken from me.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 3:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid taxes (of all kinds) are a necessary evil for a modern, civilized society. Unless you don't need education, defense, highways, fair (or maybe a less unfair) legal system, etc.


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/17/2012 4:09:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm afraid taxes (of all kinds) are a necessary evil for a modern, civilized society.
That's patently false. There are several states, for example, that have no income taxes. Several that have no sales taxes. 2 that have neither. There's no magical rule that says we must subject ourselves to every possible form of taxation we can imagine.

If you read my reply, my objection wasn't to taxation. It was to the way in which I'm taxed.

quote:
Unless you don't need education, defense, highways, fair (or maybe a less unfair) legal system, etc.
All of those things could be paid for in user fees.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Like Texas? Much of the state outside of wealthy urban areas like Austin are in terrible condition.

We're all collectively better off having public services like education. I don't see "user fees" as being feasible, and that seems very un-American, unless you want to prevent upward mobility.


RE: just goes to show
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/17/2012 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
So because we have different opinions and advocate different solutions to a problem, you bring out the personal attacks. Nice. Not sure when you became the arbitrator of what is and isn't "American".

I think we're done here.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 9:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
I never attacked you; I'm sorry it came across that way. But your idea for "user fees" hardly seems fair. What if a firefighter or teacher with family, who is just scraping by as it is, cannot afford "user fees" to send their children to a decent school for an education? They're just out of luck?


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/18/2012 10:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but know that most people don't take kindly to being told they, or their ideas, are un-American.

And I would argue that user fees are the most fair option. It allows you and I to pay for the services we want and need, yet it doesn't force us to subsidize others who we may not agree with.

quote:
What if a firefighter or teacher with family, who is just scraping by as it is, cannot afford "user fees" to send their children to a decent school for an education? They're just out of luck?
I'll only mention in passing that public sector workers generally have a fairly decent gig going, and that firefighters/teachers who can barely scrape by are likely living beyond their means. But onto the bulk of your question. First, if there were no income taxes individuals would have more money right off the bat. So while you may have to actually write a check for K-12 tuition, that check is coming out of a larger pool of money now. Second, and this is the biggest factor for me, don't have children you can't afford!!! If you can't afford to send your child to school, to feed him/her, to clothe him/her, etc. you have no business having children. And to make the rest of society pay for it, is wrong. You're subsidizing and encouraging bad behavior which inevitably will result in more of that behavior.

If a large bank makes stupid decisions and the feds bail them out, there's no incentive whatsoever for them to make different decisions in the future. They get all the benefit when things turn out well, and someone else gets to deal with it when things turn out poorly. We all agree that this sucks for the taxpayer, however this scenario is no different on a personal level.

In short, yes, they are "just out of luck" if they refuse to take responsibility for their decisions and put forth whatever effort is necessary to take care of themselves and their families.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/18/2012 11:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I would argue that user fees are the most fair option. It allows you and I to pay for the services we want and need, yet it doesn't force us to subsidize others who we may not agree with.


I don't know...we're definitely better off as a society if people are at least somewhat educated. And chances are pretty good that at some point in one's life, they will require public services such as emergency response. Now, if you want to go after things like the ridiculous vehicle emissions testing & fees we have in Colorado, I'd be all for it. I've concluded that it is just another revenue stream for the state since the pollution limits are so high, I could drive a WWII era steam-powered battleship if it had wheels.

I will agree with you that some (but not all) public sector employees have pretty good gigs. But teachers and firefighters are not in that group. My wife is a teacher; they don't get paid nearly enough considering the amount of work they put in and what they have to deal with day in and day out. And I've known several firefighters that would sacrifice their own life to save another's; yet they all had second jobs so that they could support a family. That doesn't really seem fair considering how important a service they provide.

I will agree with you on subsidizing poor decisions, like having too many kids, is a bad practice. But this isn't usually an issue caused by mainstream working folks. Neither party would go for eliminating child credits or instituting a maximum child limit. Democrats rely on voters receiving government handouts, while Republicans seem to be completely against family planning and education. I find it especially ironic that conservatives denounce planned parenthood and other family planning services, but then they turn around and complain about people having too many kids and whatnot.


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/18/2012 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know...we're definitely better off as a society if people are at least somewhat educated.
Agreed. Which is why I will pay for my child's K-12 education. And why my child will probably pay for his/her own further education after that.
quote:
And chances are pretty good that at some point in one's life, they will require public services such as emergency response.
Agreed. And I'm completely comfortable paying for the fire dept to come to my house. Or an ambulance to take me to the hospital.
quote:
Now, if you want to go after things like the ridiculous vehicle emissions testing & fees we have in Colorado, I'd be all for it.
I say go for all of the above.
quote:
But teachers and firefighters are not in that group.
Though they still choose to work in those professions. So it's not all bad news for them. Something keeps them coming back.
quote:
I will agree with you on subsidizing poor decisions, like having too many kids, is a bad practice. But this isn't usually an issue caused by mainstream working folks.
It's not just too many kids though. Our tax system is ripe with government trying to pick winners and losers, good behaviors and bad. That is absolutely the opposite of freedom, and that's why I vehemently object to it.
quote:
Neither party would go for eliminating child credits or instituting a maximum child limit.
Both parties are interested in maintaining/gaining power. You have a few true "public servants" in the mix, but the vast majority are just looking out for themselves and their team. Again, the tax code is a huge way in which they exert and maintain power. If we take that away, we'll all be better off.
quote:
I find it especially ironic that conservatives denounce planned parenthood and other family planning services, but then they turn around and complain about people having too many kids and whatnot.
I can't speak for anyone but myself. To me, it seems the objection is to abortions. And regardless of my opinion on that matter, I think reasonable people can disagree on the issue.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Education is not something that should be handled at the Federal level.

We are not paying for defense now, we are paying for military adventurism and empire building.

Roads, once again not something that needs to be be handled by the federal government.

Arbitrators can replace the government judicial system in most cases.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:39:50 PM , Rating: 1
If education isn't handled at the federal level, then you have backwater states like Texas deciding that evolution is an invalid theory, and there are idiots out there that would like to replace science curriculum with religious dogma.

I'll agree with on military (mis)adventures over the past decade. Although, there is also plenty of blame which can be assigned to defense contractors and the congress folks they have in their pockets.

You say that roads don't need to be handled by the federal government, but the interstate system did not exist before federal involvement.

Who will select these "impartial" arbitrators? What about criminal cases?


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
So you've just made an argument for school choice, if you don't agree with the curriculum in one state then you have the option of moving to another, or enrolling in a private school that teaches a curriculum that you agree with.

Military misadventures have been going on far longer than just this past decade, W wasn't the first or last to waste blood and treasure on a war that wasn't in our benefit.

And what they should have done is charge a usage fee to pay for them and to maintain them. Or better yet sell or lease them to private companies who can then charge a toll or usage fee, but then they are responsible for maintaining the roads.

I said most not all. Civil cases could easily be handled by arbitrators. Most local judiciaries are elected, while on the Federal Level they are appointed, the local judges can be held to account for their rulings, whereas the Federal ones are not.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Moving to another state because of the educational system is predicated upon finding suitable employment and housing, among other things. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Agree with you again on foreign military involvement.

Semi-privately owned/operated tollways sound like a great idea, but all too often, they overcharge for usage and the road conditions are worse than public freeways. This is not always the case, but I've found this to be so more often than not.

I see your point regarding elected vs appointed judges, but I also don't believe for a second that means you will automatically get a better judicial system. The legislative branch is elected, and yet they're doing a terrible job at all levels. I'm convinced that most politicians are incompetent morons that couldn't do anything else productive for society.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 5:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is perfect the trick is finding the correct balance, if there is a way for money to be made someone will find it.

You wont automatically get a better system, but once they start seeing others being replaced and learn they cant get away with everything you'll start to see change.

Congress only focuses on the next election not the health of the nation.


RE: just goes to show
By Fritzr on 5/17/2012 11:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
You have no choice about paying the 7% sales tax on all purchases you make at an in-state retailer. You do have a choice on the purchases you make from an out of state source. Of course if you do not declare the purchases and pay the state the same 7% tax then you are a tax evader. The state honestly believes that the only choice is to pay the tax on all non-exempt purchases no matter where you bought. Most people choose to be tax evaders and not file the declaration, but that is not what is happening with this case of using the law to reduce the tax bite by $62m

Cigarettes and liquor are other popular products for tax evaders who buy on Indian reservations (tobacco) or in a state with lower taxes (tobacco & liquor both). It is illegal to possess tobacco or liquor without the proper tax stamps, but it remains a popular form of tax evasion.


RE: just goes to show
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 1
I count literally 22 questions in this post. Am I supposed to answer all those? Man this must be a record.

Income taxes are theft because, quite simply, they treat as common property that which individuals create through their own labor. An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent.

Did you know that Plank #2 of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto called for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” ?

America did just fine without a Federal income tax for 126 years. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

quote:
How do we support a military?


Sigh...

Even today personal income taxes account for only about 1/3 'rd of federal revenues. The problem isn't that we need federal income taxes to have a military and other functions, it's that the Government is too big!


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 3:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
Police isn't even a valid argument in this case, we are discussing taxes on a federal level, police is handled on a state and local level, and the state or local municipalities can choose to fund these how they see fit.

If you refer to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution it lays out how the Federal Government is supposed to make money to fund itself.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Also if you go back and read your history books there were also these things called War Bonds.

Then further down in Article 1 Section 9 you had this.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Until 1913 then the 16th Amendment was passed and the language was changed to
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


RE: just goes to show
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
Are you really this uneducated?? REALLLY?


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 3:43:49 PM , Rating: 1
Misinformed, might be a better descriptor. Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Congress-persons, and their corporate backers, all pay far less (as a percentage) in taxes than those of us in the middle class.


RE: just goes to show
By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 2:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Outlandish theft? $60 million for this guy is less than 3% of his overall wealth. I pay 20% on my income. It's criminal that billionaires pay a smaller percentage than I do.


I can sense the jealously seething in you. He doesn't pay a smaller percentage than you. He pays capital gains which has already been taxed at the near 40% corporate rate before he even gets a dime. Then on top of that he gets charged 15%.

You sound like an Obama drone. I'm surprised you didn't change "millionaires and billionaires".


RE: just goes to show
By mcnabney on 5/17/2012 2:44:23 PM , Rating: 1
You are a dumbass. Corporate tax rates are only applied to earnings. What is taxed as a capital gain is the value increase of this guy's equity holding in Facebook. That money isn't coming from Facebook at all. It is coming from every dipshiat that buys Facebook shares that he is selling.


RE: just goes to show
By Fritzr on 5/17/2012 11:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify what McNabney said...

No income tax was paid at any time on the value of the shares of a corporation.

Capital Gains/Capital Losses are the change in value of possessions. The only relation to income is that others may be willing to pay more if the possessions generate an income.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 3:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
Income != Wealth


RE: just goes to show
By ebakke on 5/17/2012 3:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see someone else noticed that.


RE: just goes to show
By zixin on 5/17/2012 2:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
so if the guys makes a billions, it wouldn't be okay to ask him to pay 60 million in taxes? The percentage stays the same regardless if you make $2 or $2 billion. The only reason it sounds ridicules is because he made a ridicules amount of money.


RE: just goes to show
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2012 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'd disagree. I have no problem with the 15% capital gains tax regardless of whether that results in $100 in taxes or $100 million in taxes.

If you managed to make the money required to pay that tax its not unfair to pay the tax rate. Now I do have a problem with saying that they should have to pay some ridiculous percentage of that the money earned.

I'll be a happy camper when we have a fair tax in this country with no deductions, writeoffs, etc. You only pay taxes based on economic activity. Which means the rich will pay far more in taxes than the rest of us. And those who will poor will pay none since the prebate will cover the miniscule taxes they pay on food and what not. But Democrats will never support it because it doesn't allow them to give money back to people who never paid it in in the first place. No more $10,000 refunds when you only paid $2000 into the system.


RE: just goes to show
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 2:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. I'd never thought I'd agree with you on anything.


RE: just goes to show
By The Raven on 5/17/2012 2:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you managed to make the money required to pay that tax its not unfair to pay the tax rate.
Yeah especially since a guy who only has a dollar to his name invested making a return gets the same rate and the guy who does it with a billion.

The low rate is applicable to all so there is no reason for anyone to be crying that it is unfair.

If they want the same 15% rate and you can live on $20,000/yr all you would need to have (not earn annually) is $230,000 and invest it with a 10% yield. They would then be able to sit at home trolling the internet and staging protests at Zuccotti Park instead of wasting their time at a job.

Of course the 10% thing is the tricky part and therein is the value: picking things that benefit the populous.


RE: just goes to show
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
I mostly agree with you, except that not only is it the people at the bottom of the income scale, but the top as well, that aren't paying their fair share. Neither party wants a fair, simple tax system.


RE: just goes to show
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
Its hard to win elections when you have nothing to give away to the masses.


I Don't Blame Him
By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 12:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
The U.S. Tax code punishes success and rewards failure. His wealth was already taxed at the corporate rate and he doesn't want it to be taxed again. If I could do this, I definitely would.




RE: I Don't Blame Him
By MrBlastman on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: I Don't Blame Him
By NellyFromMA on 5/17/2012 12:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
Every where in the world other than the US isn't exactly the way you describe. Sure, there are plenty of third or i guess 'second' world countries that are like that, but seeing as how he is quite rich at this point I have a feeling he WONT be living his life out in one of those places. Just a hunch -_-


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By MrBlastman on 5/17/2012 1:34:24 PM , Rating: 1
I still wouldn't renounce my citizenship for a bit more money--2.3% to be exact. You can make that up in dividends in only a few months if you know what you're doing.

American Citizenship, though, you can't exactly get _that_ back in a few months. To me, it seems like a bum trade, not worth it.

Call me foolish but I still believe in my Country, no matter how badly it has been fooked up by the icehole in Washington and our pathetic Congress.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 2:12:05 PM , Rating: 1
Neither would I. But as far as a statement goes, he's making a damn good one. And I support it.

I think rich people are more aware of what's coming than the average liberal moron watching MSNBC drinking Obama's Kool-Aid. The looming debt and inflation crisis is coming, there's no stopping it, and now is the time to bunker down and try to weather the storm. Spewing hate and vitriol against the rich might help his reelection campaign, but it's not going to help this country.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By mcnabney on 5/17/2012 2:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
You do understand that 'hunkering down' actually slows the rate of spending and shrinks the economy. What you are saying is a self-inflicting prophesy.

Think of it this way. A business owner runs a popular restaurant and bar. He makes great money and has a loyal customer base. The idiot listens to Fox News and thinks a huge economic dip is coming. So he decides to 'tighten his belt' and cut costs to ride out the anticipated downturn. He stops hiring a local band as entertainment on weekends, reduces the wait-staff, cuts back on advertising, and stops a couple promotions. So now he is spending less money so he can better survive a downturn. Well, here is the problem. Fewer waiters means slower service, and the regulars don't like that much. The thriftier patrons don't show up anymore because the free kids meal with adult purchase promo is gone. The 20-somethings stop coming to drink on Friday and Saturday nights because the bands are gone. And new customers aren't being attracted because the radio ads aren't running. A few months go by and he is only making half of what he used to. He fires even more staff just to stay in the black. By the end of the year he closes the restaurant. Naturally he wants to blame the recession, but thankfully he was the only dumbass that started cutting back. The other businesses kept doing what worked or even tried new things and now they have taken most of his customers. So the recession didn't happen. Now if you convince a lot of people to do this, you can actually cause a recession. So don't be an idiot.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 3:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if you believe in Keynes Economic Theories. If you believe in the Austrian Theory then you know that you need Capital to grow, and Capital comes from SAVINGS. Since there is very little REAL Capital in the market the FED is making up for it by INFLATING the money supply, which devalues the money already in circulation. This also creates a bubble, due to bad investments from the CHEAP Credit created by the FED. When the bubble bursts, the market tries to correct itself, and that is called a recession. Bad debt needs to be liquidated from the market. But the FED will not allow this too happen, by setting interest rates ridiculously low and creating more FIAT money to try and keep prices elevated, thereby trying to create another bubble.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By BansheeX on 5/17/2012 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
You're a doofus if you think borrowing money to spend it on already produced goods is what "grows" an economy. Anybody can borrow and spend money, that's ridiculous. It's saving money that is hard to do. Just spending a loan is self-destructive and does nothing but grow debt without creating a way to actually pay it off. Our economy is run like a global ponzi scheme where new debt is taken to pay off old debt until creditors stop doing it.

Let's make this simple: Two people have shovels. They both get loans from a local saver. Person A spends it on a bulldozer and now has the means to pay the loan back with his increased production. Once the loan is paid off, all that extra production will be his to spend, loan out, or invest. Person B spends the loan on a house and a plasma television. Person B has no increased production with which to pay off the loan, he still has a shovel. For a short time, it looks like person B is better off than person A, but in the long run person A's investment will generate far more wealth than the initial loan amount that person B merely spent on luxury items.

This is why, when interest rates are set by the market and not by a central bank, consumer credit is practically non-existent. Because loans/savings/capital, whatever you want to call it, is a scarce resource and producers will always be able to outbid consumers for its use. By PRICE FIXING interest rates at 1%, our central bank is not allowing that bidding process. The whole dang economy has been misallocated into the service sector via this manipulation. The correction that is now needed would be so severely painful that the Fed is basically trying to defy gravity.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 12:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
$67 million in taxes? Do you know what that could buy you in some countries? You could literally become a king or dictator lol.

With that kind of money, and my vast experience from watching Scarface like fifty times, I could live large in South America!


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 1:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You'd give up your American citizenship; the most valuable possession on Earth? All the money in the world can't save you when some despot decides to throw you in prison and seize all your assets. Just ask some of the oil barons in Russia. They lost everything due a whim by Putin and now they rot in Jail.


What prevents that from happening in America? Just read this thread. We have folks that think it's okay for the government to seize half a person's assets just because they are rich. Listen to Obama. Just get all of Hitler's speeches and replace the word "Jews" with "millionaires and billionaires" and you have an Obama speech.

The top 1% already pay 30% of the taxes in the country while the bottom 50% pay none. The country is $16 trillion in debt and Obama can't wait to keep swiping the China Express card. How much of rich people's income is enough? The poor and middle class are sacred cows and the "millionaires and billionaires" can afford it so why not take 60% or 70% or 80%? Once you get to 90% tax revenue actually decreases because by then folks are looking for ways to evade taxes.

What then? You think you're safe in the middle class? Because gawd knows that Mr. Saverin should pay more taxes because Laqueshia needs her "Earned Income" Credit and Manuel feels he needs to claim the three anchor babies living in America and the three still living in Mexico. So they aren't going for the poor. When the rich have had enough of being taxed to death, they're coming after the middle class! Hell, even Bill Clinton suggested that they needed to do this in a comment he made this week.

God forbid anyone actually reform entitlements like Medicare which have trillions in unfunded liabilities.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By tayb on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: I Don't Blame Him
By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 2:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise.

Reading a post by an Obama-drone is like watching The View while driving a nail through my testicles.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 9:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their ilk is like getting a lobotomy and prostate exam simultaneously.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By MrBlastman on 5/17/2012 3:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
The rich these days know NOTHING about being taxed to death. What was the maximum tax rate back in 1960?

91%

Ninety One Percent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigrat...

So before you get on your soapbox about the wealthy being taxed to death, get your facts straight first. For people not in Finance, percentages and dollars make little sense and are taken out of perspective. For us that are, we see through the BS distortion field as to how things really are.

The fact is the real tax rate for wealth, high earning individuals is WAY LOWER than it was many years ago.

If someone can feel smug about renouncing their citizenship to avoid some taxes, great for them. When the world goes to crap and good ole' USA has to bail them out again (assuming anything is left after this stupid printing press has been run from our current d-bag leader), they better not call home for help as their home will reject them.

People DIE for our citizenship. If some a-hole would rather save money in taxes than keep his citizenship, he isn't worthy of it. I can guarantee you he'd never pick up a rifle and fight for our freedom given the choice to do so or not. He'd bury his nobby little head into the ground and run away faster than brave Sir Robin.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By MrBlastman on 5/17/2012 3:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and one other thing, this doesn't even take into account the cesspool of taxation that is Europe. Most executives in Europe are forced to receive the majority of their income through Corporate Expense Accounts and perks rather than personal income.

Why?

Because the Corporate tax rate is so much lower there than the personal one. You think our taxes are bad? Go live there for a while.

With all the stupid amounts of money spent by Obama to bail out these unpunished banks, guess who's going to be paying for it? US!

I hope he never comes back. He doesn't deserve to be a citizen and is not worthy of those that died for his once held right to breathe American air.

If you want to address anything regarding taxation--anything at all, it is the NEED, not possiblity, but NEED to bring INDUSTRY back to our country through tax incentives and breaks. Americans need jobs and if you put more money in their pockets through real jobs, not handouts, they'll end up spending more back into our economy which will push GDP higher every year.

That's how you fix the problem.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope he never comes back. He doesn't deserve to be a citizen and is not worthy of those that died for his once held right to breathe American air.


I think we've been duped here lol. The article makes no mention of his stated intention to do so. But rather a hypothetical analysis of what one COULD save by moving.

DOH!!! Come on Daily Tech!


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By MrBlastman on 5/17/2012 6:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's possible and two senators have come back giving him poop for it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/17/senator...

(blah blah cut the faux news cr@p you haters)


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By NellyFromMA on 5/17/2012 12:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Lol...

You must be assessing this situationally? America's tax code also rewards success and punishes failure at times.

It's in need of revamping for sure, but to think that somehow your statement is true is staggering at best.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By tayb on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: I Don't Blame Him
By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 2:04:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The US tax code punishes the middle class at the expense and reward of the elite upper class and lower class. If you make $50,000 - $150,000 a year you will pay a higher percentage than if you make $10 million a year. The American dream? Escape the middle class, up or down.

False. Stop comparing apples to oranges (income tax vs. capital gains).


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By mcnabney on 5/17/2012 2:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
That is true. A professional athlete, top executive, or actor might have a $10M salary that is taxed as income. However, most wealthy people (like Mitt) get paid through equity so that as long as they hold the investment over a year they will pay between 15-20% instead of the usual rates for income that top-out at 35%.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By tayb on 5/17/2012 2:55:43 PM , Rating: 1
Who cares? We are talking about effective tax rate here which is how much taxes were paid divided by income, regardless of source. I do not care whether the tax is coming from federal income or capital gains. Tax loopholes benefit the rich and the lower class pays small percentages to begin with. The middle class pays the most as a percentage of income.


RE: I Don't Blame Him
By invidious on 5/17/2012 2:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
His company pays the corporate tax just the same every other company, thats not his wealth, that's the company he works for. His wealth is his salary and his stocks. Which he should be required to pay income tax on just like the rest of us.

You shouldn't graduate from having to pay taxes just because you are rich, thats unamerican and in my opinion immoral.


Greed and giving up citizenship
By carigis on 5/17/2012 3:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
Greed.. For those of you who call someone greedy for not "paying their fair share" of millions of dollars shame on you. The majority of people pay no taxes in this country.. The rest pay a pittance in dollar value for their 50k or so income. What your really saying is please mr millionaire pay for me and my neighbors share .. After all you you were successful and made the money.

Why should they fund your life.. Who do you think you are. Percentages mean nothing when 1 percent of their salary is more then you will contribute to society in your whole life. If your so big on stepping up. Make some millions yourself and donate to the govt..instead of saying give me give me give me. Shame on you.

Citizenship. It's my understanding you can't really renounce your citizenship. If you ask for it back.. They have to give it you... It's a birth right even if you renounce it.. Remember Oswald.. He renounced his citizenship and they gave it back..




RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but the supremely wealthy folks have benefited from living in this country where we have a relatively stable, civilized society which afforded them opportunities. Also, without the middle/working class, these multi-millionaires/billionaires would not exist in the first place. So, excuse me for asking folks like Warren Buffet, the Koch brothers, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama to pay their fair share. Like it or not, they do owe society.


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
I still have yet to see someone equate "Fair Share" to an actual numerical value. I think it just generally means "More than what I currently pay"


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
How about a 20% rate for all earnings over the poverty line? That's probably less than what you and I pay now, and more than Romney and Obama currently pay. No exemptions, deductions, etc. And we can get rid of armies of tax evasion, err mitigation, lawyers and accountants in the process.


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 5:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Who would set the "Poverty Line", if its controlled by congress then they will just keep increasing it to buy more votes.
I'm in favor of flattening the rates and eliminating all deductions.

Or with a national sales tax like the FairTax.

Either way I'd like to see the percentage rate actually set in stone by a constitution amendment or by requiring a 2/3 Maj in both houses to increase a rate. Simple Majority to lower the rates.

Also a Balanced Budget mechanism needs to be set, or limiting government to a certain % of GDP.


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
The poverty line should be determined by independent economists and tied to inflation/cost of living. I don't trust congress members (of either party).

I don't see sales taxes as being viable or "fair". Sales taxes have a disproportionate impact on people based upon their income. For example, I'm solidly middle-class but I can't choose to go without food, gas for the car, or diapers for the baby. And wealthy folks can only buy and use so many yachts and vacation homes, which I imagine would be subject to said sales tax, but these are very much optional purchases.

I do agree with you on limiting government spending to to a percentage of GDP. And at some point, congress will likely have to do some unpopular things: raise taxes and raise the retirement age.


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By therealgras on 5/17/2012 6:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
The FairTax has a mechanism built in so its not a hit to low income individuals.


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By Fritzr on 5/17/2012 11:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
If it has a mechanism that says "You are exempt because..." it is no longer a Fair Tax, it is another example of the tax code we already have. Each year there will be more "You are exempt because..." rules just like the current income tax laws.


RE: Greed and giving up citizenship
By Fritzr on 5/18/2012 12:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Citizenship. It's my understanding you can't really renounce your citizenship. If you ask for it back.. They have to give it you... It's a birth right even if you renounce it.. Remember Oswald.. He renounced his citizenship and they gave it back..


Your understanding is wrong.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenshi...
quote:
Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that renunciation is irrevocable, except as provided in Section 351 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and cannot be cancelled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. Put another way, renunciation cannot be “taken back”, and it does not merely “suspend” citizenship but irrevocably renounces citizenship. Consequently, renunciation of U.S. citizenship is not a step to be taken lightly. Because renunciation is a serious matter to be undertaken soberly and advisedly, persons contemplating renunciation are advised by U.S. consular officers to consider the matter carefully and, if they chose to proceed, to come back to the U.S. embassy or consulate after a period of reflection.


If he completes the process of renouncing his citizenship, he will need to satisfy the appropriate requirements in naturalization law. In almost all cases he has to qualify for a green card and stay in US as a resident alien for several years. With the kind of money he has he could probably qualify for the Treaty Trader visa which would allow him to regain citizenship after being a permanent resident for 5 years.


By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
His income is basically capital gains which is already taxed at the near 40% corporate rate and then the greedy, insatiable U.S. government wants to tax him again at 15%.

When he's expected to carry most of the weight of the lazy and unmotivated, don't be surprised if Atlas eventually shrugs.




By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 12:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ayn Rand, while an interesting subject, was also a lunatic.

She did nothing to pave her own roads or build her own "public" services, yet used them anyway.


By Arsynic on 5/17/2012 1:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ayn Rand, while an interesting subject, was also a lunatic.

She did nothing to pave her own roads or build her own "public" services, yet used them anyway.


You're an idiot. Since when did Federal taxes go to fixing roads and toward "public services."

If you buy gas and pay local property and sales taxes, you cover all public services.

But the near 50% effective tax rate that the rich have to pay go to fund essential services like defense and the government goodies that politicians dangle in front of old people and poor people to get votes.


By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 2:42:50 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody pays 50% tax rate, at all, ever.

Also, Ayn Rand was for zero taxes and zero infrastructure. My comment had everything to do with that. You can figure it out.


By therealgras on 5/17/2012 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Where is it written that infrastructure must come from government?


By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt that the private sector alone would have stepped in for our benefit if the government had not built national highways and the interstate system.


By therealgras on 5/17/2012 4:39:30 PM , Rating: 3
State and local government and the private sector would have stepped in since it would have been in their personal benefit.

The interstate system wasn't created for our benefit, it was a byproduct of the cold war and designed to be able to quickly move military equipment across the country.

The Federal Gov using "Highway Funding" as a mechanism to control what the states try and do.


By ksuWildcat on 5/17/2012 4:53:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The interstate system wasn't created for our benefit, it was a byproduct of the cold war and designed to be able to quickly move military equipment across the country.


That is a common misconception. Eisenhower realized that such a system could be used in case of national emergency, to move troops and equipment across the country. That was not the primary purpose of the interstate system. As early as the 1930s, government planners realized that new, largely non-toll based, super-highways would be needed to accommodate increased public automobile traffic.


By Fritzr on 5/17/2012 11:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
No income tax was paid at any time on the value of the shares of a corporation.

Capital Gains/Capital Losses are the change in value of possessions. The only relation to income is that others may be willing to pay more if the possessions generate an income.


He moved, why pay?
By Nyu on 5/17/2012 1:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't live in the US anymore, why should he have to pay them any taxes for services he won't be using anymore?




RE: He moved, why pay?
By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 1:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
Because you get taxed for the last year you were a citizen. This is true of every US citizen living abroad.

I'm not against him moving or becoming a citizen of another country. Just pointing out the rules.


If I had $2,000,000,000...
By darkpuppet on 5/17/2012 1:47:41 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't be worried about $65,000,000.

Hell, that leaves me with $1,935,000,000... which is still significantly more than my current earnings which have a hard time passing the 2nd delimiter from the left.

Hell, it'll still take me nearly 700 years to make that much... So what's the bitching about having to pay taxes?




RE: If I had $2,000,000,000...
By laok on 5/17/2012 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
"it'll still take me nearly 700 years to make that much"

That means you make about 2.7 million each year. What are you complaining about?


No longer a citizen?
By JDHack42 on 5/17/2012 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
I hope his work visa goes through.




Greed
By Blackbird1996 on 5/17/2012 3:38:38 PM , Rating: 1
I think it is very sad that someone would renounce their American citizenship in order to not pay taxes. I think it is Un-American and selfish. He is not required to remain a citizen, but as a fellow countryman he should be ashamed. That is the problem with people these days, they have no shame and other people don't shame them for their actions. Why would any decent person who has gained so much from the best of what our country has to offer, slap us all in the face as if we are simply a bank for which to squander money from. He's free to do what he wants but it doesn't say much for his character. I certainly don't have much respect for him. He's probably the type of person who would spy on his own country for cash, or "sell his own mother".




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki