Facebook's Severin renounces US citizenship to lower taxes

[Abraxas]

You make it sound as if individuals in the US owe government for their very existence. This is nothing more but pure collectivist rational that allows for the confiscation of wealth by a torch and pitch fork wielding mob. This person came to the US and became a US citizen, established himself, paid into 'the system' while he was a US citizen and via his own effort created more wealth for himself and others then you, I or anyone else on this board could of or will ever likely create in our lifetimes.

His success isn't due to some bureaucrat signing off on papers but based on his work and the work of his partners whose innovative ideas were encouraged by the realization that they could and would generate large sums of wealth if they themselves followed through on these ideas and were willing to take risks others would not.

For their existence? Perhaps not. For the level of luxury and technology we enjoy and the things that make ecommerce possible? It sounds like it because it is true. Do you honestly think he would have been able to create his wealth if, for example, DARPA had not taken the moves that led to the creation of the internet? Do you think we as a society would have ever made it as far as we did without public education or public roadways? Their success comes from the groundwork done by the global everyman in producing the institutions that were necessary for those ideas to even be possible.

And that demand is only realized in the private sector where the ability to take risk and earn rewards is allowed without the fear of others coming in to take a large cut without putting in any risk. In addition who is to say someone else would of taken the same risks as this guy? That is a pretty presumptuous position to assume that others would "step in" to fill a demand without actually knowing the risk they took or the work they put into this business.

Is it more presumptuous to say he was the only person on the planet who could possibly be a CFO in an internet start up or that in a country of hundreds of millions, a large number of which were in the right time and place for said start up (Harvard when Facebook was created) one of them might have been able to fill the role adequately, or, that had that not been the case, that another person in a giant business world trying to make money who understands the internet and the commerce behind it would have stepped in and created a comparable product? It is simple, high exit taxes only come into play when someone leaves the country, and, unless they are planning on renouncing citizenship, they should have no effect on the person anyway. If they are planning on renouncing citizenship, eating at Restaraunt America and skipping out on the check, screw them. Leave the position open for someone who isn't.

You again make it sound as if his success and resulting wealth was ordained and approved by a governmental bureaucrat. What is worse is that you completely over look the taxes already generated by FB and its employees which includes the 900-1,000 millionaires it created and the taxes he paid when he was a US citizen prior to facebook taking off and becoming a huge success.

Only because partisanship is coloring your reading of my post. Nothing I said implies it was "ordained" or "approved", only that a sufficient level of social, infrastructural, and technological development must be achieved before things like Facebook become possible and that the American taxpayer, now and historically, made it possible for this to happen in America. I overlook those things because they aren't relevant. Those other tax payers aren't skipping out to avoid paying their fair share, he is, so he is the issue of discussion,

What you are arguing for is to take away wealth generated by an indivdual in law abiding manner because you feel upset that he renounced his citizenship because you feel entitled to take from others without any clear reasoning as to why you are owed his money.

Well, if you read my post, my reasons are pretty clear. The reason you might not think so has more to do with you than it does with me. Yes, he is law abiding. And if we raise the exit tax for America no laws were broken so there was absolutely no reason to mention "law abiding". He deserves to lose some of his wealth because he used he infrastructure of America to fuel his rise to wealth and then left the car with an empty gas tank when he returned it. America needs gas money, and those who get the most mileage out of it need to pay their portion of the bill.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

For their existence? Perhaps not. For the level of luxury and technology we enjoy and the things that make ecommerce possible? It sounds like it because it is true. Do you honestly think he would have been able to create his wealth if, for example, DARPA had not taken the moves that led to the creation of the internet? Do you think we as a society would have ever made it as far as we did without public education or public roadways? Their success comes from the groundwork done by the global everyman in producing the institutions that were necessary for those ideas to even be possible.

Is it more presumptuous to say he was the only person on the planet who could possibly be a CFO in an internet start up or that in a country of hundreds of millions, a large number of which were in the right time and place for said start up (Harvard when Facebook was created) one of them might have been able to fill the role adequately, or, that had that not been the case, that another person in a giant business world trying to make money who understands the internet and the commerce behind it would have stepped in and created a comparable product? It is simple, high exit taxes only come into play when someone leaves the country, and, unless they are planning on renouncing citizenship, they should have no effect on the person anyway. If they are planning on renouncing citizenship, eating at Restaraunt America and skipping out on the check, screw them. Leave the position open for someone who isn't.



Only because partisanship is coloring your reading of my post. Nothing I said implies it was "ordained" or "approved", only that a sufficient level of social, infrastructural, and technological development must be achieved before things like Facebook become possible and that the American taxpayer, now and historically, made it possible for this to happen in America. I overlook those things because they aren't relevant. Those other tax payers aren't skipping out to avoid paying their fair share, he is, so he is the issue of discussion,



Well, if you read my post, my reasons are pretty clear. The reason you might not think so has more to do with you than it does with me. Yes, he is law abiding. And if we raise the exit tax for America no laws were broken so there was absolutely no reason to mention "law abiding". He deserves to lose some of his wealth because he used he infrastructure of America to fuel his rise to wealth and then left the car with an empty gas tank when he returned it. America needs gas money, and those who get the most mileage out of it need to pay their portion of the bill.

So basically your entire premise is based on pretense that the indivdual exists to support the society itself. This is the position you've taken because you continually put fourth rationale to justify why he needs to have a significant portion of his wealth confiscated despite committing no crime whatsoever other then indirectly offending you by renouncing his citizenship regardless of why he might of done so personally.

Furthermore in order to justify this belief you completely ignore his contributions to society itself in order to justify your position to extract more then what is reasonable with the veiled threat of force behind the taxes you want lived on him just because you "Feel" he didn't pay enough or because you "Feel" entitled to put your hand out because he was successful in life and achieved while you were not and thus again assume/assert he did not pay into the "system".

I get it you now. You are a brigand and anyone leaving the gang needs to bleed to sate your feelings and what you believe is owed to you personally.

 

[Abraxas]

So basically your entire premise is based on pretense that the indivdual exists to support the society itself.

No, my premise is those who benefit greatly from society should give back to society.

This is the position you've taken because you continually put fourth rationale to justify why he needs to have a significant portion of his wealth confiscated despite committing no crime whatsoever other then indirectly offending you by renouncing his citizenship regardless of why he might of done so personally.

Taxes are not a punishment and so crime need be committed to be subject to them.

Furthermore in order to justify this belief you completely ignore his contributions to society itself in order to justify your position to extract more then what is reasonable with the veiled threat of force behind the taxes you want lived on him just because you "Feel" he didn't pay enough or because you "Feel" entitled to put your hand out because he was successful in life and achieved while you were not and thus again assume/assert he did not pay into the "system".

I get it you now. You are a brigand and anyone leaving the gang needs to bleed to sate your feelings and what you believe is owed to you personally.

I wish I could argue by making up a bunch of random shit and attributing it to my opponent like you do. That would make debate so much easier.

Of course anyone reading my posts will know I never said anything about taking more than is reasonable, I never said anything about receiving a hand out. That you find these things in my post speaks of a level of blind partisan hackery that views government receiving funding from those who benefit most from civilization in order to function as theft and evil.

I can see you are infected with the Republican Entitlement Complex, the corrosive belief that because money was in the hands of a person they cannot possibly owe it in taxes to the society that raised them up to a level they could receive it in the first place. Taxes are necessary; taxes are how we maintain roads, maintain schools, bring up the next generation to ensure our greatness in the future and that we have skilled workers in engineering, science, computing, and so on. Taxes enable civilization and they only work when everyone, the wealthy included, pay their fair share. Certainly it is unpleasant to be asked to pay them, just like it is unpleasant to be asked to pay your tab at a restaurant but the end result is the same, you are paying what you owe. That you equate that to a mob with torches and pitchforks shows a critically dysfunctional level of understanding of what it means to live as part of society.

All you seem to "get" is more hysterical and irrational the longer you press on. Are you posting while drinking? That never ends well.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No, my premise is those who benefit greatly from society should give back to society. Taxes are not a punishment and so crime need be committed to be subject to them.
I wish I could argue by making up a bunch of random shit and attributing it to my opponent like you do. That would make debate so much easier.

Of course anyone reading my posts will know I never said anything about taking more than is reasonable, I never said anything about receiving a hand out. That you find these things in my post speaks of a level of blind partisan hackery that views government receiving funding from those who benefit most from civilization in order to function as theft and evil.

You want to up his taxes for no other reason other then that you "feel" he did not contribute enough to society. Your attempts to state that you do not want to take beyond that which is reasonably owed is false. Thus you indeed want more taken from him because you have deemed that according to your measure of worth he "owes society in this nation" as if he did not contribute anything to up the value and standard of living of those around him or did not pay taxes while he was a US citizen. You feel slighted that you/government will no longer be able to access his wealth for your own satisfaction.

I can see you are infected with the Republican Entitlement Complex, the corrosive belief that because money was in the hands of a person they cannot possibly owe it in taxes to the society that raised them up to a level they could receive it in the first place. Taxes are necessary; taxes are how we maintain roads, maintain schools, bring up the next generation to ensure our greatness in the future and that we have skilled workers in engineering, science, computing, and so on. Taxes enable civilization and they only work when everyone, the wealthy included, pay their fair share. Certainly it is unpleasant to be asked to pay them, just like it is unpleasant to be asked to pay your tab at a restaurant but the end result is the same, you are paying what you owe. That you equate that to a mob with torches and pitchforks shows a critically dysfunctional level of understanding of what it means to live as part of society.

This debate isn't about whether he should of paid taxes (clearly he did pay taxes while he was a citizen of this nation and when he was investing and creating wealth for himself and others in the US and abroad) this debate is about your belief that he should be made to pay more taxes and thus indirectly locked into being a US citizen against his will because you feel that via the proxy of government you are entitled to his wealth. It basically boils down that you believe that he was a net drain on society itself due to his success and desire to renounce his citizenship.

 

[Abraxas]

You want up his taxes for no other reason other then that you "feel" he did not contribute enough to society. To state that you do not want to take beyond that which is reasonable is to show that you are not being honest with yourself or anyone else in this post. You indeed want more taken from him because you have deem that according to your measure of worth he "owes society" as if he did not contribute anything to up the value of those around him or did not pay taxes while he was a US citizen. You feel slighted that you/government will no longer be able to access his wealth for your own satisfaction.

See, here is the thing, you keep putting "feel" in quotes even though I never said "feel" with one exception referring to you. That you keep attributing to me things I do not say in order to press your argument shows how weak it is. That you do so while calling me the dishonest one says even more. You keep trying to get inside my head, trying to define my position, trying to make this about feelings and entitlements instead of remaining focused on the point. You keep want to make this about me instead of the guy who skipped out of the country in order to avoid paying taxes. He made billions of dollars using the American system, he then took those billions of dollars out of the system when the bill came due. This is about him, and if you are not willing to discuss him, there are plenty of other threads on plenty of other topics conveniently located in this very forum to choose from.

This debate isn't about whether he should of paid taxes (clearly he did pay taxes while he was a citizen of this nation and when he was investing and creating wealth for himself and others in the US and abroad) this debate is about your belief that he should be made to pay more taxes and thus indirectly locked into being a US citizen against his will because you feel that via the proxy of government you are entitled to his wealth as it basically boils down that you believe that he was a net drain on society itself due to his success and desire to renounce his citizenship.

Funny, I don't see myself or my beliefs mentioned in the OP at all. If this thread was supposed to be about my feelings on the issue, it is very poorly marked. However, your refusal to debate the actual topic at hand, whether people should be able to generate large sums of wealth using American infrastructure and then vacate the country to avoid paying the taxes on the investment of that wealth, and by extension whether larger exit taxes should be imposed on those who do without attempting to twist the topic to those you debate against speaks of your inability to adequately defend the position you emotionally want to. I suspect if you were capable of putting together a remotely coherent defense of the idea people who use tax funded services to become rich should not pay taxes, that is what you would be doing as opposed to yammering on about me like a crushing school girl.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

See, here is the thing, you keep putting "feel" in quotes even though I never said "feel" with one exception referring to you. That you keep attributing to me things I do not say in order to press your argument shows how weak it is. That you do so while calling me the dishonest one says even more. You keep trying to get inside my head, trying to define my position, trying to make this about feelings and entitlements instead of remaining focused on the point. You keep want to make this about me instead of the guy who skipped out of the country in order to avoid paying taxes. He made billions of dollars using the American system, he then took those billions of dollars out of the system when the bill came due. This is about him, and if you are not willing to discuss him, there are plenty of other threads on plenty of other topics conveniently located in this very forum to choose from.

Funny, I don't see myself or my beliefs mentioned in the OP at all. If this thread was supposed to be about my feelings on the issue, it is very poorly marked. However, your refusal to debate the actual topic at hand, whether people should be able to generate large sums of wealth using American infrastructure and then vacate the country to avoid paying the taxes on the investment of that wealth, and by extension whether larger exit taxes should be imposed on those who do without attempting to twist the topic to those you debate against speaks of your inability to adequately defend the position you emotionally want to. I suspect if you were capable of putting together a remotely coherent defense of the idea people who use tax funded services to become rich should not pay taxes, that is what you would be doing as opposed to yammering on about me like a crushing school girl.

Your point is that he "Owes society for using our roads, telephone services, etc" However this ignores that he was indeed paying taxes while he was a US citizen even while residing in Singapore prior to renouncing his citizenship and creating wealth and jobs for others in this nation which generated additional taxes. Taxes which you admit are designed to pay for those services. So once this is taken into consideration your point is proven to be moot and one can only view your opinion as attempting to paint this man as a net drain on society justify bleeding him dry of his wealth because he dared to renounce his citizenship.

Also he didn't renounce his citizenship to avoid paying taxes. This is entirely your assumption. The article mentions that as a result of him renouncing his citizenship he would be exempt form paying certain taxes such as capital gains, not that he did so in order to avoid paying all taxes. In addition Severin had already renounced his citizenship in 2011 (months prior to FB's IPO) to become a citizen of Singapore. In addition Singapore does not allow dual citizenship for adults beyond 22 years of age hence why this is another reason why he felt compelled to choose Singapore as his home nation and renounce his US citizenship.

 

[Abraxas]

Your point is that he "Owes society for using our roads, telephone services, etc" However this ignores that he was indeed paying taxes while he was a US citizen even while residing in Singapore prior to renouncing his citizenship and creating wealth and jobs for others in this nation which generated additional taxes. Taxes which you admit are designed to pay for those services. So once this is taken into consideration your point is proven to be moot and one can only view your opinion as attempting to paint this man as a net drain on society.

I never said he was a net drain either. As the right is so fond of pointing out, economics is not a zero sum game. He can both be a net positive and still not pay what he owes. The point is that the money is still going to be invested in the same international market it would have been otherwise, all that has changed is one the wealth was generated he moved it somewhere with zero capital gains taxes to avoid paying taxes back into the system he otherwise would have. That shortfall is going to have to be made up by either cutting services or increasing taxes on those who remain behind. His seeming greed and unwillingness to pay into the society that allowed him to become wealthy will burden that society in the future to an extent greater than it otherwise would have been.

Also he didn't renounce his citizenship to avoid paying taxes. This is entirely your assumption. The article mentions that as a result of him renouncing his citizenship he would be exempt form paying certain taxes such as capital gains, not that he did so in order to avoid paying all taxes. In addition Severin had already renounced his citizenship in 2011 (months prior to FB's IPO) to become a citizen of Singapore. In addition Singapore does not allow dual citizenship for adults beyond 22 years of age hence why this is another reason why he felt compelled to choose Singapore as his home nation and renounce his US citizenship.

It is hardly my assumption, the article from Bloomberg and the one from Forbes both very strongly imply he did it for those reasons, even if they don't come out and say it directly. While I will agree there is no definite proof in the articles that this is the case, in all honesty it doesn't matter because the effect is the same. Even if him jumping country ahead of an IPO that would have cost him millions into a tax haven is a merry little coincidence, the effect on those who remain behind is unchanged and the practicality of the matter, whether that effect should be permissible under US tax law, still requires examination.

Also, as a matter of courtesy, I would like to thank you fro dragging this back on topic. I sincerely appreciate it.

 

[JS80]

You douchebags realize he has to pay tax on the gains he's made so far, even if he doesn't sell? Your fucking thesis about him benefiting from the US gov't sanctioned system but not paying for it fell apart right there.

He's only avoiding paying taxes to the US for investment income he's going to make in the future OUTSIDE of it. This is due to the US being the only country on Earth to tax citizens on income they earn OUTSIDE the US.

In other words, 404 tax evasion not found.

 

[Abraxas]

You douchebags

Does your ignorance fuel your rage or does your rage fuel your ignorance or do they just feed each other into a never ending cycle of your posts getting stupider and angrier?

realize he has to pay tax on the gains he's made so far, even if he doesn't sell? Your fucking thesis about him benefiting from the US gov't sanctioned system but not paying for it fell apart right there.

Ignoring of course that all future gains he makes from his already generated wealth will also be the result of the US system getting him to the base level of 2 Billion to begin with.

He's only avoiding paying taxes to the US for investment income he's going to make in the future OUTSIDE of it. This is due to the US being the only country on Earth to tax citizens on income they earn OUTSIDE the US.

In other words, 404 tax evasion not found.

Other than Canada:

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/faq/income-tax_paiments-impots-eng

Or France:

http://www.lost-in-france.com/living-in-france/finance/810-the-french-tax-system-at-a-glance

Or Russia:

http://www.acg.ru/english/declaring_personal_income_tax_in_the_russian_federation

Or the UK:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/moneytaxandbenefits/taxes/leavingorcomingintotheuk/dg_10027480

Or Italy:

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/italy/italy_tax.asp

Or... you know what, at this point I think it's clear you're full of crap and I don't need to indulge your fantasies any further.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You douchebags realize he has to pay tax on the gains he's made so far, even if he doesn't sell? Your fucking thesis about him benefiting from the US gov't sanctioned system but not paying for it fell apart right there.

He's only avoiding paying taxes to the US for investment income he's going to make in the future OUTSIDE of it. This is due to the US being the only country on Earth to tax citizens on income they earn OUTSIDE the US.

In other words, 404 tax evasion not found.

Their thesis is similar to bullshit view issued by this North Korean labor camp boss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JVas26AFeAs#t=171s

Read carefully his response. The guy basically uses the same spiel about the "Social contract" bullshit to justify his stance on punishment for those defecting to South Korea. The similarity between the rational of arguments being made here are eerie.

 

[JS80]

Thanks for cherry picking individual income tax statutes. Saverin is not a wage earner. He is setting up a family office that is a corporation and the US is the only country which taxes US corporations on income made outside its borders.

The US "let him" get to the $X billion "base level" so he's paying taxes on that gain. Whatever further gains he will get will not as he is making investments abroad. US should have zero claim on that monies.

 

[From Abroad]

If he stay living in the US, he will continue to pay taxes for those services that he will use. That's what I understand, despite the renounce of citizenship.

There are a lot of people living in the US without citizenship and they pay taxes, don't they?

This particular case doesn't represent nothing in general view because it is a specifical case.

 

[Michael]

The USA is not the only nation to tax money made outside its borders. China basically copied that concept and does the same.

Most countries don't tax their citizens on their wages earned abroad and don't tax their corporations on income earned abroad.

In this case, he is not a natural born citizen and he is now living in Singapore (I lived there a few years myself). He has paid taxes on everything he earned as a USA citizen and will on the gains made until he ceased to be a citizen.

Michael

Michael