ERICOPOLY Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 But just think of what his chances of inventing Facebook if he was born in ethiopia or some other 3rd world country and never having a chance to immigrate to the U.S. Or East L.A... Or Detroit... More than anything I believe the family determines the child's future success. Do they stress education at home? Etc... His father was already fabulously wealthy when he brought the family to Miami. Reason why he left his native land? His father discovered that his son was on a kidnapping list (the kind where they take your child and hold him for ransom). He is now a grown up... is the protection of the US still necessary? Anyhow, the US will be taxing the Facebook corporate profits. I personally believe that a corporation should be taxed wherever it does business and an individual should pay tax wherever he is resident. He "gives back" to the US through his pro-rata share of Facebook corporate tax, and he "gives back" to his country of residence through his income tax (if any, but that's their choice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motownsf Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 He is allowed to do what he wants and it's allowed under the rules. Yes, he became fabulously wealthy as a result of some skill, foresight and a lot of luck. A lot of that is a result of the system in place here in the US. However, this is his decision. It always amazes me how angry people get about how much everyone pays in taxes, how much money they make, etc. If you are a shareholder in that person's company, it's a legitimate concern. Otherwise, people do not work hard, take risk, etc for the sole purpose of giving their money to the government, particularly a government that is chronically irresponsible. I am sure Saverin is not going to sit back and not give back. He will probably donate a lot to charity, etc, which is a heck of a lot more impactful than sending it to Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmitz Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I believe he did it solely for the money. Good for him. I would have done the exact same thing. I believe he owes the US the very minimum he can possibly pay. Facebook could have been invented and developed in any number of countries. Whats unique about Facebook are the inventors, of which Saverin is one. The US gov't did not supply the ingenuity to invent Facebook. In essence The US is a silent, passive partner, or in other words "dumb money". It should be thrilled with any crumbs it gets. Say "hi" to Ayn Rand for me. Absolutely rediculous. Allow me to elaborate--Facebook is hardly a particularly innovative application. This particular person didn't even have much to do with any of the actual incremental "innovation". I do think that there is value in the *effort* to bring that innovation to reality, but the idea is hardly original in itself. And without the *society* of the US, this would have gone no where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biaggio Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 But just think of what his chances of inventing Facebook if he was born in ethiopia or some other 3rd world country and never having a chance to immigrate to the U.S. Or East L.A... Or Detroit... More than anything I believe the family determines the child's future success. Do they stress education at home? Etc... His father was already fabulously wealthy when he brought the family to Miami. Reason why he left his native land? His father discovered that his son was on a kidnapping list (the kind where they take your child and hold him for ransom). He is now a grown up... is the protection of the US still necessary? Anyhow, the US will be taxing the Facebook corporate profits. I personally believe that a corporation should be taxed wherever it does business and an individual should pay tax wherever he is resident. He "gives back" to the US through his pro-rata share of Facebook corporate tax, and he "gives back" to his country of residence through his income tax (if any, but that's their choice). Agree + Makes sense. If you re born in Detroit or East LA at least you have the opportunity to do what these guys did- unlike the 3rd world living that occurs outside the U.S. Great point on corporate vs personal tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I don't see what the big fuss is. He is just tax planning in order to pay the least amount possible. I think that almost everyone does that, albeit with much smaller sums. If you don't like the tax law, blame Congress, not the taxpayer. I even feel the same way about carried interest. I think that it is a completely fucked up tax law, but if a hedge fund manager took advantage of it, I would never blame him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I think that it is a completely fucked up tax law, but if a hedge fund manager took advantage of it, I would never blame him. I agree, unless he is actively involved (and not all are of course) in making up laws to suit his own needs: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/private-equity-lobbying-protected-romney-s-tax-benefit-of-carried-interest.html That's otherwise known as corruption, but it's legal corruption because it's not illegal to hire a lobbyist and to make campaign contributions. Only the rich can do it. So while this Facebook guy gets a nasty headline, the specific individuals organizing these lobbies to change tax laws in their own favor do not get their personal names smeared. And isn't it worse to be changing the laws to suit your own needs, using your power and influence, than it is to be just avoiding taxes by playing under the rules as they already are set? The Facebook guy could organize a lobby to have that law changed, and then nobody would be pissed at him because there would be not tax to be dodged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I think that it is a completely fucked up tax law, but if a hedge fund manager took advantage of it, I would never blame him. I agree, unless he is actively involved (and not all are of course) in making up laws to suit his own needs: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/private-equity-lobbying-protected-romney-s-tax-benefit-of-carried-interest.html That's otherwise known as corruption, but it's legal corruption because it's not illegal to hire a lobbyist and to make campaign contributions. Only the rich can do it. So while this Facebook guy gets a nasty headline, the specific individuals organizing these lobbies to change tax laws in their own favor do not get their personal names smeared. And isn't it worse to be changing the laws to suit your own needs, using your power and influence, than it is to be just avoiding taxes by playing under the rules as they already are set? The Facebook guy could organize a lobby to have that law changed, and then nobody would be pissed at him because there would be not tax to be dodged. Agreed. I feel that actively lobbying for something so wrong is being a whore for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smathew Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Facebook Co-Founder: America is OK. It’s the Rules That Are a Pain http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-co-founder--america-is-ok--it%E2%80%99s-the-rules-that-are-a-pain.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorsia1 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/facebook-co-founder-turns-30-000-savings-to-3-billion.html People may choose to disbelieve him but he gives his reasons here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/facebook-co-founder-turns-30-000-savings-to-3-billion.html People may choose to disbelieve him but he gives his reasons here. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer proposed legislation yesterday that would impose a capital gains tax on people who renounce their citizenship unless they prove their reasons don’t include avoiding taxes. Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_capital54 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/facebook-co-founder-turns-30-000-savings-to-3-billion.html People may choose to disbelieve him but he gives his reasons here. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer proposed legislation yesterday that would impose a capital gains tax on people who renounce their citizenship unless they prove their reasons don’t include avoiding taxes. Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him? I am very happy with Schumer and am quite surprised to see politicians for once being on top of their game. Saverin should not be allowed back to the US, EVER! and any investments he makes in the future should be taxed @ 30%.. What he did was disgusting and I am shocked the media thinks he only avoided $67mm.. I have it on very good merit that the valuation he used on his exit tax date was $18 per share. The amount is more in the realm of $400-500mm that he circumvented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Now you can complain about this Zuckerberg guy too -- or perhaps you won't, maybe only if he further reduces taxes while leaving the country: Tax specialists are paying attention to something else: how half a dozen of the firm's luminaries, including founder Mark Zuckerberg, appear to be using a perfectly legal maneuver called a grantor-retained annuity trust, or GRAT, to avoid at least $200 million of estate and gift taxes on their own Facebook shares. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577395971333422002.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF14 Meanwhile, ideally, the asset soars in value, and that growth is outside of the grantor's estate. When the GRAT's term ends, the asset goes to the beneficiaries—usually into another trust set up for their benefit. The result: no gift or estate tax on the appreciation, even though it has been transferred. Here is an example, using figures from the Facebook offering document: Messrs. Zuckerberg and Moskovitz each disclosed "annuity trusts" holding 3.4 million and 14.4 million Facebook shares, respectively. The value of each share when the trusts were set up was less than $1.85, according to the prospectus. After contributing their stock to the GRATs, the two founders would, over time, take payments equal to the original value of the gift plus a small return, Mr. Bergner says. What if by some chance Facebook stock tanks? The stock would then be returned to the original owner. One question remains: Neither Mr. Zuckerberg nor Mr. Moskovitz appears to have children. So who are these trusts' beneficiaries? Mr. Bergner says it is possible to name unborn children—as well as future spouses and current friends or relatives—as beneficiaries of a GRAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/facebook-co-founder-turns-30-000-savings-to-3-billion.html People may choose to disbelieve him but he gives his reasons here. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer proposed legislation yesterday that would impose a capital gains tax on people who renounce their citizenship unless they prove their reasons don’t include avoiding taxes. Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him? I am very happy with Schumer and am quite surprised to see politicians for once being on top of their game. Saverin should not be allowed back to the US, EVER! and any investments he makes in the future should be taxed @ 30%.. What he did was disgusting and I am shocked the media thinks he only avoided $67mm.. I have it on very good merit that the valuation he used on his exit tax date was $18 per share. The amount is more in the realm of $400-500mm that he circumvented. I tend to agree. Getting taxed 37% on all US investments in Oz, capital gains are reduced by 50% if its long term. Doing massive tax planning, to plan for having to pay taxes in both countries - but I would never give up my Citizenship. I guess thats easy to say though because my taxable income will be nil due to exclusions. If one does give up his citizenship then its fair, but they shouldnt be allowed back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/facebook-co-founder-turns-30-000-savings-to-3-billion.html People may choose to disbelieve him but he gives his reasons here. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer proposed legislation yesterday that would impose a capital gains tax on people who renounce their citizenship unless they prove their reasons don’t include avoiding taxes. Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him? I am very happy with Schumer and am quite surprised to see politicians for once being on top of their game. Saverin should not be allowed back to the US, EVER! and any investments he makes in the future should be taxed @ 30%.. What he did was disgusting and I am shocked the media thinks he only avoided $67mm.. I have it on very good merit that the valuation he used on his exit tax date was $18 per share. The amount is more in the realm of $400-500mm that he circumvented. I tend to agree. Getting taxed 37% on all US investments in Oz, capital gains are reduced by 50% if its long term. Doing massive tax planning, to plan for having to pay taxes in both countries - but I would never give up my Citizenship. I guess thats easy to say though because my taxable income will be nil due to exclusions. If one does give up his citizenship then its fair, but they shouldnt be allowed back in. The real problem is that the US is taxing residents of other countries. He is just trying to cope with it. I just find it mind boggling. All my life I've been a citizen of Australia residing in the US. I've never paid them a dime of tax on my earnings while living in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I agree but they do have items put in place, Such as a $90k plus income exclusion as well as a housing related exclusion to make it a bit more bearable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 "Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him?" -This is the Age of Television, and Chuck Schumer knows how to get face time! If he was not a politician, what would this guy do for a living? As with all government legislation, beware the unintended consequences!! As to Saverin, he has no power to take from me, he has done no harm to any other citizen, and while I would not leave the United States, I have no ill will towards him, in fact I will probably never think about him again. That $400 million will be DEFINITELY be put to better use, as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates know full well!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmitz Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The real problem is that the US is taxing residents of other countries. He is just trying to cope with it. I just find it mind boggling. All my life I've been a citizen of Australia residing in the US. I've never paid them a dime of tax on my earnings while living in the US. I actually agree with you about being a resident of another country and having real, earned income taxed as if you lived in the US is excessive. It doesn't really make sense. However...why would this apply to an investment he made while here? Think also of people who build whole companies here on this system, working here all along and using the system to build their business. The logical conclusion of your argument is that if you have a significant amount of capital gains, and you head to another country for a full year (meeting the physical presence test), then you could cash out with whatever local capital gains are and not pay a dime. Then you could come back to the US. That doesn't really make sense, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Meanwhile there are no headlines when Donald Trump sells a property with tens of millions of capital gains in it and reinvests the proceeds in another. With no capital gains tax! Yet we are outraged if owner of a common stock is able to sell and reinvest the money without paying capital gains. Whatever. I need more money so I can have a lobby to get some laws changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 "I need more money so I can have a lobby to get some laws changed." -It is funny, the affect that money has on the people elected to be their representatives. It seems like we should give those types of people less authority over a private citizens actions. But that is just CRAZY talk! Saverin/Trump/Romney - they have no control over me or my family Obama/Schumer/Boehner - those are the people I want to keep out of my affairs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 -It is funny, the affect that money has on the people elected to be their representatives. It seems like we should give those types of people less authority over a private citizens actions. But that is just CRAZY talk! Yes, by limiting private and corporate financial support to the political system. Instead we've gone the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Shall we limit union expenditures as well? Shall we institute the fairness doctrine? Shall we apply the fairness doctrine to internet sites? It is amazing the lengths opponents of differing viewpoints will go. Dan Rather's old "fake but accurate" is alive and well! Saverin/Trump/Romney - they have no control over me or my family Obama/Schumer/Boehner - those are the people I want to keep out of my affairs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 Don't worry all of you who think you (or someone, anyone) has a right to this guy's money regardless of where he chooses to reside. Chuck Schumer has the solution in his "Tax Slave Act". US citizens now one step closer to becoming permanent tax slaves I'm sure you're overjoyed that there will soon be no escape. And there is even a nice ex-post-facto provision in there to get everyone who has left in the last decade. You've got to hand it to Chucky. He knows statism. He's got theft down to an artform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 Saverin/Trump/Romney - they have no control over me or my family For now. They want it though. Oh, do they want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 Another excellent article by the same author as the last one I posted. "it’s interesting that, rather than change their ways of doing business and introducing legislation that provides incentives for productive people to come here and stay here, they maintain policies that chase people away, and introduce new ones to lock the door after they’re gone." Regardless of what the propaganda says, this is not how a free society treats people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now