Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the my-country-right-or-holy-moley-look-at-this-bill dept.

Facebook 911

parallel_prankster writes "Bloomberg reports that Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook, has renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill. From the article: 'Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion through the IPO, the biggest in history for an Internet company. Saverin's stake is about 4 percent, according to the website Who Owns Facebook. At the high end of the IPO valuation, that would be worth about $3.84 billion. Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in that country. Saverin won't escape all U.S. taxes. Americans who give up their citizenship owe what is effectively an exit tax on the capital gains from their stock holdings, even if they don't sell the shares, said Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan's law school. For tax purposes, the IRS treats the stock as if it has been sold.'"

cancel ×

911 comments

Good for him (-1, Troll)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975321)

And another person "goes galt" and escapes the looters.

Unfair taxes ! (-1, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975339)

It all boils down to too much government spendings, especially on welfare, to raise the kids of those who just stay at home, making babies and taking drugs

If the government doesn't have to pay for all these, the tax rate wouldn't be so damn high, and people wouldn't have to renounce their citizenships

Re:Unfair taxes ! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975369)

Actually the tax is quite low - 50 years ago, the tax was a lot higher.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975433)

And the loopholes enabled people to still pay around 25% net.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (3, Informative)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975463)

And when they created it in 1913, it was 1%, and only on incomes over $3,000 ($65,331.57 in 2010 dollars). There was a single 6% "surtax" on incomes over $500,000 ($10,888,594.79).

Re:Unfair taxes ! (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975491)

You forgot to mention that in 1913 wages and salaries were not included in "income". It was more of a capital gains tax than an income tax. That was a major selling point -- that they were only going to tax the rich.

See how well that worked out?

Re:Unfair taxes ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975553)

Thanks for the incomplete picture, now please, tell us about the OTHER taxes being paid, and the ACTUAL spending of the budget.

For example, the military was a lot smaller and cheaper, there was no interstate highway system, and if you got sick, you were still somewhat more likely to die in the hospital than be kept alive by machines despite your vegetative state and express wishes to the contrary.

Not that I'm pretending to give an exhaustive review of how society has changed, mind you, but just pointing out how your one data-point is entirely misleading.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (3, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975651)

You are correct. Society has changed in that the U.S. Government, having duped people into paying an income tax, turned itself into a global empire with its bloated military spending funded through confiscatory taxation (income tax increased to 77% during WWI), and then created myriad other things that were best left to the free market, all in order to justify the perceived "necessity" of the existence of such a big and bloated government.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975643)

Which tax?

Re:Unfair taxes ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975679)

Tax rates were higher, but deductions were aplenty. For example, there was only one type of income to cover everything. A dentist with a good salary could offset that earned income with paper real estate losses, so the high rate was on a tiny portion of his income. Now, it's all segregated and those paper losses cannot offset earned income, and the result is higher taxes. You think they net-net reduced taxes in 1987? Wrong!

Re:Unfair taxes ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975377)

That's a pathetic attempt at trolling. You're not even really trying to be remotely relevant or subtle, it's just plain lazy. I bet you bought that low UID just to troll, too.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975387)

That's some high-quality calculation, right there. Maybe if the spending were expressed in terms of a taco chart, instead of a pie chart, you'd be able to understand it.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975449)

That's some high-quality calculation, right there. Maybe if the spending were expressed in terms of a taco chart, instead of a pie chart, you'd be able to understand it.

Wouldn't a taco chart just be the top half of a pie chart?

Re:Unfair taxes ! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975517)

All this tax talk is making me hungry.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (5, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975389)

And too many people don't understand that the government has no money of it's own. It must confiscate it from the citizenry.

The fabled Robin Hood is often mis-characterized. He wasn't robbing the rich to give to the poor. He was robbing the government (Sheriff of Nottingham) to give the people back their own tax money the Sheriff mercilessly demanded by force.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975429)

Uhm, yes, in the Disney version he did.

In the fable, he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.

In reality, he robbed from the rich - who robs from the poor? They don't have any fucking money.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (4, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975497)

In reality, he robbed from the rich - who robs from the poor? They don't have any fucking money.

No, but they have their labor. It's gone by different terms, and with varying levels of severity---slavery, serfdom, peonage, taxation---but it's what governments have done since the dawn of civilization: Steal from the poor.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975417)

It's the old people, the old sick people, and the old paranoid people who want to invade other countries that spend *ten times what the hoodrats get. Yes, I don't like them very much either, but they aren't the big problem. I don't like giving billions of dollars to oil companies who are making record profits. There are a lot of paper pushers in government that could be replaced with a simple shell script.

And how much do we spend in interest on the national debt?

*may be more than ten times

Re:Unfair taxes ! (5, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975419)

I'd tackle the discretionary spending in the defense budget first. The government is spending $666.2 BILLION there, as opposed to $80.6 billion on "health and human services" of which welfare is a part. Source [wikipedia.org] .

If we reduced the U.S. Government (as a whole, not just defense) to the size it was in the 1990s you could do away with the income tax completely. Source [ronpaul.com] . And think of how big the government was in the 1990s. What taxes could we eliminate if we reduced the government to the size it was before LBJ's "Great Society" (1965), the "New Deal" (1933), or even the income tax itself (1913)?

You could go even further back (4, Funny)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975543)

What if you reduced the government back to its size in 1776? Imagine how much money you'd save personally if you didn't buy food!

Try some numbers... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975711)

Let's look at personnel. In 1990, the US government had 3 million employees, 2.1 in the military. In 2010, there were 2.8 million, and 1.6 million in the military.

So where are we going to find people to cut? How many more citizens have we added, that are served less by fewer people?

Or is your problem with the spending? Wait, wait, you're probably thinking it's gone up and up. I know you are. Then you factor out Social Security and other such non-discretionary spending, and control for inflation. Can you do that, or will you just take the budget gross as a given?

It's even worse if you go back to your LBJ days, we'd have to eliminate all spending and personnel involved in the Internet, while 1933 would eliminate the Interstate Highway system. And Social Security. That'll go well, won't it? At least in LBJ's days, NASA was a bit larger. Still not the 10% of the budget people think it is though.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd be happy going back to the days when passenger rail was an option, it'd reduce pollution considerably, and enable us to very quickly transition off fossil fuel dependency, but somehow I don't see you going along with that idea.

I'm sure you LOVE your platitudes, your blanket statements, but the reality ain't so pretty. Ron Paul wants you to believe it'd be easy, and practical, and a cure for what ails you.

He's not being honest with you, and I can only hope he's lying to himself as well. Otherwise he's an actual conman, not just a foolish optimist who offers grand ideals, but is only separated from a huckster by a sincere belief in what he has to offer.

Re:Unfair taxes ! (0)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975441)

Yes, lets forget about the wars.... You sir, are an idiot. But a really good one.

True: Unfair Taxes (2, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975555)

It all boils down to too much government spendings, especially on welfare, to raise the kids of those who just stay at home, making babies and taking drugs

Idiot. The vast majority of Federal spending goes to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Frankly, the major constituents for all of these are core Republican voters. The drugs are mostly for blood pressure, gas, and diabetes. So sure, screw 'em.

If the government doesn't have to pay for all these, the tax rate wouldn't be so damn high, and people wouldn't have to renounce their citizenships

They don't have to do anything, kid. 35% percent - before deductions and shelters - is high? Pffft! Anybody in Eduardo's position who's actually paying 35% is using form 1040EZ to do their taxes.

Re:True: Unfair Taxes (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975689)

Idiot. The vast majority of Federal spending goes to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Frankly, the major constituents for all of these are core Republican voters. The drugs are mostly for blood pressure, gas, and diabetes. So sure, screw 'em.

Only one of these is Constitutional. The rest needs to be handed over to the states.

Re:Good for him (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975359)

Yeah... a guy who created a giant marketing scam based on US laws and protections, and is now dodging taxes. Wonderful. You Ayn Randians can have 'em.

Re:Good for him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975385)

Yes, much better if he pays his taxes honestly, so we can go start a few more wars.

Good riddance indeed (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975403)

He wasn't much of an American. He had U.S. citizenship for a grand total of... 14 years. Apparently he wasn't very honest when he took the oath of citizenship in 1998. The U.S. doesn't need more people who lie under oath; we've got quite enough, so one less is an improvement.

In any case, there are a lot of actually productive people who'd love to become American citizens, most of whom won't be so quick to turn their backs on it if it makes them successful. I'd be happy to loosen immigration restrictions and let more of them in. And people who don't like the United States, and want to renounce it? Let them, especially if they're non-productive investor leeches. You don't see real American rich people renouncing citizenship: Steve Jobs didn't go anywhere, Bill Gates isn't going anywhere, even libertarians like Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers aren't going anywhere, because they aren't mercenary traitors.

Re:Good riddance indeed (5, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975519)

You don't see real American rich people renouncing citizenship.

Actually, the number was way up in 2011. A total of 1,780. It may not seem like a lot, but in 2008 it was 235.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/wealthy-americans-queue-to-give-up-passports-in-swiss-capital.html [bloomberg.com]

Re:Good riddance indeed (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975559)

So up from approximately 0% to approximately 0%? I don't see any of the Forbes 400 on that list, either, not even the ultra-libertarian ones.

It's equivalent, proportionally, to approximately 34 Danes getting so angry at their country's high taxes that they renounce citizenship. I think Denmark would probably survive that devastating blow. Now if that were 178,000, we might have an actual phenomenon worth talking about.

But maybe this is a trend worth encouraging anyway. Is there some sort of campaign we can start to convince the Koch brothers to live up to their ideals and "go Galt"?

Re:Good riddance indeed (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975675)

And not even all of them renounce their citizenship just to escape taxes. I know a man who married a Ukrainian woman and moved there. He renounced his US citizenship in 2010 to get Ukrainian citizenship.

Re:Good riddance indeed (2)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975571)

In any case, there are a lot of actually productive people who'd love to become American citizens, most of whom won't be so quick to turn their backs on it if it makes them successful.

Yes, the U.S. Government is what makes tech companies successful. I'm sure that the $666.2 billion defense budget I mentioned earlier played such a huge role in the rise of Facebook. After all, if the U.S. defense budget wasn't "3-4 times larger than the 240 billions of the military budget of China, and [wasn't] more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined" (source [wikipedia.org] ), we'd all be saluting Hitler or Ho Chi Minh now, or something, right? e_e

Steve Jobs didn't go anywhere, Bill Gates isn't going anywhere

No but they've moved an awful lot of their corporations overseas for tax-relief purposes. Weren't there just a bunch of stories on Slashdot about all the tax dodges Apple, Google, Microsoft, and others engage in?

Re:Good riddance indeed (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975595)

There's a difference between opposing the actions of your country, playing corporate tax games, trying to change things, and a whole range of other activity, and--- explicitly renouncing your nation. Bill Gates has never held up his right hand and under oath renounced America. Most Americans wouldn't either, not even very wealthy, very libertarian ones.

I suspect Saverin had no such compunctions because he never really considered himself American in the first place. So to him being in the U.S. for a few years was just a bit of a game, a chance to make a quick buck; he had no loyalty to the country, despite the oath he took. So it was just as easy to recite an empty renunciation as to recite his empty oath of citizenship, all just an accounting game.

Re:Good riddance indeed (5, Insightful)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975667)

You're just jealous. What is a "good" American anyway? Someone who is pro Police State, likes police brutality and an official policy of sexually assaulting all children who wish to travel by air? America certainly doesn't stand for liberty anymore. The last time the majority of Americans were Libertarian was back when horses and gas lanterns were high tech.

Aside from violence, stupidity, ignorance, and cruelty, America doesn't stand for very much anymore. Those of us who have spent time living abroad often find ourselves ashamed to admit our nationality. I've often been told that I "seem nice for an American". That's the kind of country we are now. Our country used to stand for something. A philosophy. An ideal. Sort of like Soviet Russia or Cuba. Now we don't stand for anything except brutish ignorance and violence and maybe fascism. When people think of America they think of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Of senseless sadism and torture for its own sake. I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who would jump at the chance to change their nationality from American to something else regardless of their tax bracket. Singapore is a sort of semi-benevolent dictatorship, but in many ways it's a nicer place to live than the U.S.

Re:Good riddance indeed (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975695)

I live abroad too, in a lot more enlightened place than Singapore, and yet I haven't renounced my American citizenship for a quick buck.

If he had changed his citizenship for some kind of moral reasons, that's legitimate. If it's just for money, that's beneath contempt.

Re:Good for him (5, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975457)

Let's just shut down schools, hospitals, and such. The market will provide. I can't wait to go to the Disney Exxon-Mobile ER and pay a fair market price of $5,000 for a visit that formerly cost $75. The security I will feel knowing that the fire department (which will only exist in communities with enough fires to provide demand) will automatically debit my bank account when they come service a fire in my building.

Ayn Rand was a hypocritical fool who shunned the very value of society only to feed off it in her own time of need.

"Going Galt" is a breaking of the social contract after having benefited from it, and deserves no more admiration than that afforded the bully who steals your lunch money to sneak out and stuff his face with McDonalds.

How do you plan on getting to that ER? (4, Insightful)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975585)

Are you going to travel to the ER on privately owned dirt roads? Better hope the bridge owner isn't asleep for the night if you need to cross water.

Re:How do you plan on getting to that ER? (1, Interesting)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975657)

Because that's the only possible way transportation would be handled in a free society...

Re:Good for him (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975587)

"I can't wait to go to the Disney Exxon-Mobile ER and pay a fair market price of $5,000 for a visit that formerly cost $75."

Are you sure it would work out that way? You might plot the price of lasik and related eye surgeries over the last 20 years to see what less-regulated market might do.

Re:Good for him (0, Troll)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975607)

Let's just shut down schools, hospitals, and such.

See my earlier post [slashdot.org] about what the U.S. Government spends its money on, and how little you'd have to reduce the U.S. Government in size in order to completely eliminate the income tax. The words "schools" and "hospitals" appears nowhere in that post.

On the topic of hospitals, here [lewrockwell.com] is what government intervention in what used to be a free market system has accomplished.

"Going Galt" is a breaking of the social contract ...

A contract requires consent. Please show me where I consented to this contract.

Re:Good for him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975671)

If you don't like the social contract you can leave society, we don't want you. Enjoy your shack in the woods.

Re:Good for him (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975707)

You must not live in America. It already costs $5,000 for a visit to the E.R.

Escapes the looters, eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975481)

By becoming one himself.

How nice. It's so funny, the Galt's of the world are so dead certain that they are entirely self-made, that they completely and utterly don't pay attention to all of what came before being the whole reason they can be who they are.

Good Ridance To Him (5, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975501)

Fixed that for you. What would have been really cool is instead of his dad shipping Eduardo to Miami for safeties sake, the boy got his education old school, getting kidnapped for ransom and/or knifed outside a club in Sao Paulo. But no, he got a respite while raking in some unearned income in Brazil from the safety of FL. Next, he won the lottery when one of his few friends at Harvard needed some start up money for a social networking idea.

Now, he flips the bird to the country that gave him the safety, and an environment to make a major move up the SE ladder, because it's all his HIS! Well, screw 'em, and put 'em on a no-fly list as an ingrate of the First Degree, Order of the Asshole.

Frankly, we're not losing much when the likes of him take off: one of many sociopathic money grubbers constantly looking to game the financial system (privatize the profits, socialize the loses), and whose investments know no border no matter where they've bought a condo. If he participates in fucking the banks in Singapore like his kind did in the US, he'll end up in gaol faster than he can whine "class warfare".

Re:Good for him (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975557)

And another person "goes galt" and escapes the looters.

Not for long. I hear the Virginia has been considering annexing Singapore since this story broke (taxes on $3.84 billion ain't chump change... and VA needs it for something or other). What sources tell me, is the plan is to use just the VA Air National Guard... but not quite... just one F-22 and a single hypoxic pilot to take out Singapore's entire military (apparently it has a button for that). So looks like Saverin will be paying taxes after all... as well as state and local taxes to the Commonwealth and its soon to be new county of Singapore.

Re:Good for him (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975619)

Why, after all, should he help support the very civilization - with its legal institutions, stable economy, educational system, communication and transport infrastructures, etc. etc., that made this wonderful windfall possible for him? Surely he could have turned the same trick as a loner in the wilderness, with only stone knives and bearskins.

And I'm sure he'll continue to avail himself of all of the legal and institutional protections he requires to protect and maintain his new wealth, whether or not he feels it his duty to pay for them.

Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (5, Informative)

bobwrit (1232148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975329)

Just to provide a little bit more information to this story, here are the requirements for citizenship in Singapore: http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=132 [ica.gov.sg]

Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (0, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975361)

At least in Singapore, when you pay taxes, you know that your tax money won't go to raising the children who don't want to work, stay at home, making babies and taking drugs

Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975381)

At least in Singapore, when you pay taxes, you know that your tax money won't go to raising the children who don't want to work, stay at home, making babies and taking drugs

You mean funding expeditionary warfare, I think. Of course, racist bigots like yourself dig war.

Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975421)

Pray tell, what exactly was "racist" about the comment? I don't see any mention of "war" either.

Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975541)

not that particular comment.
The AC figures that someone who holds Taco Cowboy's views is likely to hold those other views (which may be bad assumption). Either that, or AC is saying that war expenses are a bigger problem than welfare expenses (fair enough)

Poor guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975335)

To think, he could have had 1/3 of that company if he wasn't such a dumbshit.

I'm sure this move was well planned and will serve him well.

Wimp (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975367)

He should have had his heart stopped prior to the IPO and restarted thereafter! That's right! I'm suggesting that he should have spent the IPO dead! For tax purposes! What a glorious dodge that would have been! Renouncing your citizenship... Pfft!

Of course, now that I think about it, he might have had to spend an entire year dead to realize any tax benefit from it. I'm sure you could manage that sort of thing when you're worth a few billion dollars!

Re:Wimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975399)

And pay the death tax? Surely leaving the country is a better way to go.

Re:Wimp (5, Funny)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975407)

It's the same dodge Walt Disney's been up to.

Re:Wimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975569)

alternatively, he could just die right off and never pay taxes for the rest of his life!

Re:Wimp (2)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975661)

Maybe he could alternate between a medically-induced coma and having his heart stopped, each for as long as it could be safely done before switching. He would alternate between being "brain dead" and "clinically dead" for a whole year and then completely revived to collect his money. Since he's rich, I'm sure the American government would allow it.

Trendsetting (0, Troll)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975395)

I really hope this becomes a trend among CEOs who are presently in the U.S.. It's a brilliant way to get rid of many of our parasites; we just need to find a way to convince our politicians to do it as well and we'll be home-free.

Re:Trendsetting (1)

arfonrg (81735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975477)

It is but instead of giving up citizenship, we're killing off US companies and selling what's left to the chinese... Different method but you get your desired results.

Happy?

Re:Trendsetting (0)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975647)

It is but instead of giving up citizenship, we're killing off US companies and selling what's left to the chinese... Different method but you get your desired results.

Traditionally, Asian society rewards diligence, education and hard work. Additionally, their organized crime is at least formalized and maintains certain socially-accepted regulations and standards. Their profit margins are slimmer, and their cultural mindset contains a recognition of honor.

Happy?

Not yet, these guys are still here.

In all seriousness, the image you present is based on conventional, publicly-available information that's in the mainstream at the moment. That's about to shift; the military have gotten their patriot faction together and hold a majority of 95-98%. They're working with Interpol and the U.S. Marshals to rout out networks of corruption within our government, and the information should appear on the mainstream news later this year.

Assisting them? Traditional underground Asian societies, who also want us back on a Constitutionally-based system of governance under the American Common Law. It's just better for all concerned; us, them, and the rest of the world. They're facilitating putting our country through this rehab because we're among their best customers; they've just become tired of exporting their goods to us in exchange for debased paper money, while Rockefeller networks attempt to hack into their own political system in their countries. So this really is the better option. A lot of the "China will 0wnz ur soul" rhetoric is being put out by our corporate news media, whose expiration date has essentially come and gone quite a while ago itself. Give things a few months to resolve themselves: U.S. banks and the Federal Reserve are going by the wayside, and with it the corrupt networks that have relied on the ability to conjure trillions of digital money out of thin air to keep their Ponzi schemes afloat. Things are about to get a lot better.

Re:Trendsetting (1)

csumpi (2258986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975589)

I don't think you understand what's happening here, so let me explain:

Nothing.

This dude will live in the same house, drive the same car, shop at the same supermarket, go to the same pub as yesterday. Just some paperwork and probably a short relaxing vacation in Singapore (on his corporate jet).

Oh, actually, he just got around paying $1bn in taxes. So the roads he'll be using to drive the same car he had yesterday, will be built using your tax dollars.

So I don't see why you want more rich dudes doing this.

Re:Trendsetting (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975715)

Essentially, because I'm aware that how we do things in this country is about to shift massively. If this were a SNES game, we'd be about to restore our game from a Save Point of about 150 years ago, back when the Common Law was better observed and politicians and businessmen couldn't get away with half of what they have been recently. At that point, U.S. citizenship will be something that people will actively want to have again, so the yuk's really on them here. People who squander their citizenship like this are very likely to find their decision being actively enforced. Haven't you noticed the recurring theme from a lot of federal politicians lately about people losing their U.S. citizenship [usjf.net] ? They're elbowing each other discreetly about something they have planned, and I know enough about the overall plan to know it's nothing but good news for once.

Re:Trendsetting (2)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975613)

And what do you have left when all the people who created successful businesses leave?

Re:Trendsetting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975691)

A place where you can start your own business without getting sued into the ground by established interests who've bought politicians?

sucks for his kids (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975425)

On the plus side, they'll have more money. On the negative side, they won't have a very useful citizenship (EU and US citizenships are basically the most favorable ones to hold). And on the even more negative side, they're now required to two two years of military service, plus report once a year for military reserve training up until they reach the age of 40. (Saverin himself is exempt because first-generation immigrants aren't required to do the service; only their children are.)

Personally I'd rather pay some taxes than condemn my kids to years in the military, but perhaps he has other priorities.

Re:sucks for his kids (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975447)

Very useful? For what? Getting disrespected at airports? Getting his privacy invaded by the Government? Having to deal with "omg-eagle-fuck-yeah" retarded americans?

Re:sucks for his kids (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975469)

If you think it's unpleasant to visit places with an EU or US passport, just try visiting with a Singaporean passport and see how you get treated.

Re:sucks for his kids (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975537)

Very well, actually. Singapore passport is essentially the best to carry in terms of treatment and visa requirements, along with some European countries like Sweden and Norway.

Re:sucks for his kids (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975719)

Having to apply for visas to go anywhere. Believe me, it's not fun.

Re:sucks for his kids (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975465)

How horrible is the Singapore military?

Re:sucks for his kids (5, Insightful)

csumpi (2258986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975603)

Did you mean:

How horrible is the Singapore military for the son of a billionaire?

fair enough. (4, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975451)

when $3.84 billion just isn't enough...

Around the world (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975473)

Party advisors from rich families, apparatchiks, trusted tribal families, cult members and military flunkies are running with tablets or printouts to their respective superiors.
If we just change our simple tax law here, here and here, tweak citizenship and residency permits here .....
Think of the yachts, airport, housing, medical, banking, legal, security, car boom for our economy paid for by the USA been so .....
"Welcome to your happy new home for a few months a year" ad contracts are rushed to media groups around the USA for discussion.

Not a very graceful move (3, Insightful)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975479)

As an immigrant *to* the US, I feel insulted. My family worked quite hard to *get* US citizenship, and I know exactly why, and why it was worth it. People renouncing it to make a quick buck to me almost feels like selling their souls.

Re:Not a very graceful move (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975579)

Of course you know why and why it was worth it. You likely benefited by attaining US citizenship. If you didn't, you (or your family) likely wouldn't have bothered with the hassle.

Saverin is going to benefit from relinquishing it.

Why you feel insulted, I can't quite fathom.

Re:Not a very graceful move (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975645)

Because Saverin is doing it for money and rightwinnutjob's family probably immigrated for other reasons? Standard of living, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. etc. ? One is considered greedy, the other is not.

This works if shares go up after IPO (3, Informative)

Jeff1946 (944062) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975489)

I looked up Singapore individual tax rates. Max out at 20% and 0% on capital gains. Looks like a good deal for him. I assume Calif will get some tax out of him too before he leaves. I assume he must have another citizenship already. Notice Singpore requires two years residency before you can be a citizen. Of course maybe there is a billonaire's exception.

Re:This works if shares go up after IPO (4, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975625)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Saverin [wikipedia.org] he's lived in Singapore since 2010. That makes it two years, and now he's renouncing his US citizenship. Coincidence? You decide! ;)

IRS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975509)

One thing for sure, the IRS is going to look back at Mr Saverin all previous tax schedules. And no doubt, the IRS will claim that
since Facebook actually trade on secondary market before IPO, that he will owe millions in back pay taxes plus interest.

Vaya con Dios (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975523)

I hope he doesn't live to regret his decision, as it's a hell of a lot easier to drop US citizenship than it is to get it back.

Re:Vaya con Dios (3, Informative)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975575)

I am not sure why you guys refer to it as difficult. You can get a Green Card if you willing to invest half a million in the US (which is pennies for this guy). If you stay in the US for 4 years out of the last 5 years as permanent resident, you can get a citizenship. In fact if you have half a million, US is one of the easiest places to obtain citizenship.

Re:Vaya con Dios (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975621)

half a million in the US (which is pennies for this guy).

For now.

He's young. He has an awfully long time ahead of him to make mistakes.

Re:Vaya con Dios (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975631)

All that's true if you never had U.S. citizenship. If you renounced your U.S. citizenship and then show up again wanting it back, those paths are all closed.

Re:Vaya con Dios (1, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975635)

I hope the same, in an entirely different manner. The man is a thief. He lived and prospered off the public dime, and then ran out on the bill when it was his turn to give back. I hope he has a heart attack waiting to board the plane out, and no one lifts a finger to aid him.

Re:Vaya con Dios (1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975687)

The goverment steals money from the public, so I cannot take issue with someone LEGALLY avoiding their LEGAL theft.

It's not his turn if the law doesn't say it's "his turn".

Re:Vaya con Dios (2)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975673)

If he has over 3 billion dollars, it's not going to stop him from living wherever he wants and doing whatever he wants.

Deport him ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975529)

If you aren't willing to contribute to the nation you live in according to the rules of that nation, you have no right to set foot on their soil ever again. Simply put, tax evasion is being a leech. That's true even uf you put more in than you get out since they are not paying in as much as simularly wealthy people.

One arguement against taxing rich people (0)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975565)

If you tax rich people, they will leave and if you tax poor people, you can't raise any money.

Re:One arguement against taxing rich people (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975637)

In general, rich people don't leave. This is news because it's so unusual for a wealthy American to leave the country. It's more common for wealthy non-Americans to try to move to the US than the reverse.

Re:One arguement against taxing rich people (3, Informative)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975705)

Rich people don't leave, but their money does. To the Cayman Islands. *grumble grumble mitt romney grumble*

Civil Society feeds Entrepreneurship (5, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975567)

What a lot of anti-tax folks don't realize (or choose to ignore) is the fact that a tax regime that creates a civil society (educated, healthy populous, rule of law) in turn creates an environment that allows companies like Facebook to flourish. It's much harder to create wealth in an environment where your employees are illiterate, hungry and sick and corruption is rampant. Sure, you can drill oil wells or mine for gold, but you can't really create companies with IP in those environments. I guarantee you the next Apple or Google is not coming in Nigeria. Why do you think India is working so hard to create institutional change?

Re:Civil Society feeds Entrepreneurship (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975615)

Why do you think India is working so hard to create institutional change?

I have to point out the "recommended" story at the bottom of the page ..

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/12/2332239/indian-man-charged-with-blasphemy-for-exposing-miracle?sdsrc=popbyskidbtmprev [slashdot.org]

When they say they're only going to tax the rich (0)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975577)

They mean only someone that makes more money than they do.
The rich go away
The tax stays.
keep drinking the kool-aid, your next.

I hope they ban his ass (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975583)

Seriously, I have no problem with someone giving up their citizenship if there's a real reason. There's usually not though since the US is perfectly fine with you having another citizenship, if you have a second one (or more) they just only recognize your US citizenship for their purposes. I have a Canadian citizenship, as well as my US citizenship. Also renunciations only count in front of a US council, with the intent to renounce. So a foreign country can make you "renounce" it in their ceremony and it doesn't count as far as the US is concerned and of course they are the only ones who matter for that.

However for people who do it to try and escape from taxes? Fuck them, put them on a permanent travel black list. No reentry to the US, ever. Since they dislike the US and its taxes to much, they are free to stay the fuck out.

Particularly in circumstances like this, it is pure greed. At the level of billions you are not talking about something that makes a big difference in quality of life. 9 billion dollars lets you live basically just an opulent life as 10 billion. It really is the case that the more you make, the less it matters how much more you make. Him paying the taxes wouldn't be the difference between the good life and the poor house, it is the difference between being able to get gold plating on a massive yacht, or just have a massive yacht, to the like.

So I say since he is telling the US he doesn't need them, they could say the same. Bar him entry. Maybe it won't matter, but I'm betting some day he'll want to visit for some reason.

Re:I hope they ban his ass (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975677)

I'd rather be classier than he's being.

Just pay the taxes... (1)

LostCluster2.0 (2637341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975611)

If Facebook makes him money, why can't he just pay the taxes and be done with it?

Talk him out of it... (1)

LostCluster2.0 (2637341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975633)

Just so we can have him covered, what are some of the benefits of US Citizenship>

What a Douche (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975641)

He likely wouldn't have achieved so much without the protection and infrastructure that many tax-paying Americans helped to provide. Now that he has so much money, he feels no sense of duty or obligation to contribute back to that system. Total dick move.

The new math (1)

mapinguari (110030) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975655)

In which 3.84 is 4% of 11.8.

Let me help you out. (0)

Cosgrach (1737088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975663)

Which way did you come in?

Seriously, if the ass hat wants to renounce his citizenship, he should be shown the borders and told not to come back.

What a fucking wanker!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...