Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO 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.'"
sucks for his kids (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
fair enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
when $3.84 billion just isn't enough...
I hope they ban his ass (Score:3, Interesting)
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:How do you plan on getting to that ER? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because that's the only possible way transportation would be handled in a free society...
Re:I hope they ban his ass (Score:0, Interesting)
I hope they bar your ignorant ass.
You obviously know shit about the rest of the world, and how it rolls. IT DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE US. Jackass.
You would do the same, or worse, if you had the scratch and the chance.
Quit acting all Holier Than Thou - I (a former soldier) am tired of your racist, elitist, ignorant bullshit. Go suck Romney's cock, asshat. Maybe you'll get his tax rate, since you pay dividends. /endrant
~Snagz
Re:Try some numbers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Federal spending in 1990 was $1.1 trilion. Source [usgovernmentspending.com]. Federal spending is currently $3.8 trillion. Source [usgovernmentspending.com]. These figures are a combination of "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending.
The individual income tax for this year is $1.359 trillion, and the corporate is $0.358 trillion. Source [wikipedia.org].
( 1.359 + 0.348 ) / 3.809 = 0.449 = 44.9%
If you remove the $1.707 trillion that represents the income tax from the total Federal revenues of $2.902 trillion, you are left with $1.195 trillion of revenues. $1.195 trillion is bigger than $1.1 trillion, hence current federal revenues, minus the income tax, could pay for the 1990 budget.
Ron Paul states that:
Ron Paul is telling the truth. His 45% figure is accurate; his assertion that current Federal revenues sans income tax could pay for the 1990 budget, is accurate. You, however, are trying to confound the issue by bringing up irrelevant statistics, conflating statements I made with Ron Paul's statements, and outright lying when you say that Paul is doing so.
Re:Vaya con Dios (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I guess the only thing less respectable than a successful thief is an unsuccessful one.
Now I know there's a bunch of people that think, for some reason, that it's moral and right to build up a fantasy society on someone else's dime. We see here one of the many unintended consequences of that effort, namely that the money and the jobs run to places that don't treat them as an everfull bag of money to steal from whenever some feelgood public project comes around.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:4, Interesting)
When was this? If you're thinking of the U.S. in the late 1800s, which is what most people think libertarians mean by a free-market society, you are deeply mistaken: This was an incredibly anti--free market time period, with all sorts of government laws and regulations favorable to large, well-connected industrial corporations. The government supported outright monopolies, gave massive subsidies to corporations, forcibly intervened on behalf of the companies in labor disputes, eliminated all common-law protections against pollution in the name of "progress," and so on. Laissez-faire didn't mean free market; it meant "let the industrialists do anything they want."
Since then, the government has simply, and only to some extent, "switched sides" as to whom it benefits with its legislating, taxing, and regulating power. In the twentieth century, they had to break up monopolies of their own creation. They had to legislate in favor of trade unions only after their attacks on such had allowed corporations to get away with so much. They had to create consumer protection laws, environmental regulation, securities regulation, banking regulations, &c., against depredations they allowed. They had to redistribute wealth to help the poor that they (effectively) created. And so on.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Interesting)
"Going Galt" is a breaking of the social contract after having benefited from it...
"Going Galt" is abandoning a government and leaders that abandoned their duties to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and thus have broken their oaths of office, and hence the "contract" that gives them their authority.
They have taken an oath as servants of the people, but instead, seek to rule over them as their masters and confiscate/limit the fruits of their labor and give them to those who have not earned it in exchange for political favor, and try to control what private citizens spend their own money on, while limiting the amount of success someone is allowed to attain.
There IS no more contract. Those in government over the last ~60-80 years who are and have been anxious to progress past the limitations on government scope & power set on it by the Constitution broke it long ago. It hasn't existed for many decades. It's now, and has been for some time, the Rule of Men, not the Rule of Law.
This turning-away from the Rule of Law is one of the central underlying problems (though not nearly the only one) with the US. The US will never equal the achievements of individual freedom and wealth of it's past for it's present & future citizens until this is corrected and the Rule of Law is once again supreme.
Strat
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Interesting)
The downfall didn't start until the 80s, with its massive tax cuts, deregulation, explosion of Wall Street gambling, and culture of greed.
The middle class has always carried the majority of the tax burden, but they haven't been paid their fair share.
It started in the 70s when workers' productivity vs wages started to diverge. [google.com]
It didn't help that Reagan decided to drastically cut tax rates, but the long term problem has not been lower taxes,
it's been that workers aren't being payed enough & therefore, the government's tax revenues haven't kept pace.
This wouldn't be an issue if the individuals who were accumulating 40 years worth of profits were paying the top tax rate.
But they didn't. For 40 years. So we're boned.
Very simple solution, tariffs (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply put a 200% tariff on any product and service from a company that has left the US. Bam, instantly every company the ran for a tax heaven has to come back or see its product unable to compete with new local offerings.
As for "essential" products? Simply remove US protection from foreign products. See how MS likes it if it no longer is protected by the US copyright laws.
People forget that we created governments to be powerful opposition to the rich. Government is the one who can answer the question: "You and what army".
Capitalists like the wheeny above seem to think that companies and the rich can do whatever they want and the government and the people just have to sit back and take it. That is only the case if you let weenies run the country.
Re:Not a very graceful move (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not necessarily always people trying to make a quick buck.
My wife is American but hasn't lived there since we were married (which was quite a while ago). She is considering giving up her US citizenship because once she makes more than a certain amount per year, she no longer falls under the foreign-earned income exemption and can actually end up getting double taxed (i.e. she pays her full local income tax, and then also has to pay income tax to the US on whatever she earns above the foreign-earned exemption limit. That is ridiculous, I'm sorry. Why would we do that if we didn't have to?
America is the only country I know of (there may be some others, but not that I've come across) that tax you based on your citizenship, rather than your residency. If you're a US citizen, you have to file a tax return and potentially pay tax, even if you've not set foot inside the country in 50 years and have no financial affairs there whatsoever. That needs to change if they want to stop people randomly giving up citizenship for financial reasons.
This is it (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Dutch Web Developer I have had jobs and job offers with foreign companies and... they are not what they seemed. In Holland, we get a lot of extra's on top of our salaries. A 100% refund on public transport for instance that isn't (yet) taxed. 370 euro's is the max, for a small country, you can travel quite far with that and of course a subscription also allows you to travel for free on non-work trips. Since the price of a subscription goes down the further you travel, the point where you just buy a free travel pass for the entire country is easily reached and I have had one for years. Remember, that in Socialist Russia, public transport is somewhat usable (well except since the capitalist came into power, 2 years of VVD rules and more breakdowns then in the previous 100 years).
A Dutch salary also includes contributions to unemployment programs, pension, healthcare etc etc. So, if a Dutch person says he get 5k, that is NOT all the money flowing out of the employers bank account to benefit him and society. This is constantly changing because Dutch governments fall down quite a lot and we have had to have coalition governments for decades but it means that a job offer from a US based company and native Dutch one needs careful consideration. It gets especially interesting if the person making the offer hasn't got any experience with the Dutch labor market.
You need to take even more care if as a Dutch person you are thinking of working in the US. Be REALLY careful how the money is going to flow. It is not the same for all US states or even cities but simple things like if you get a house, how is garbage collected? Who pairs for public transport (often doesn't even exist), car, fuel, road charges? How is medical covered? No dutch job advertises with medical coverage because that is standardized. How many paid holidays do you get? How many mandatory holidays? How do you get paid if the company goes bellyup (hint, IN holland your pay is ensured with no fuss, no hazzle, you get your full salaray). How quickly can you be fired (Holland 1 months notice and there are a lot of safeguards for dismissal, not just unfair ones, just saying, we don't need him anymore is not enough).
Add it all up and I have turned down many an English over (for some reason, the English speaking world has really bad labor laws) because it just didn't make any sense. They wanted me to take a pay cut for less security while working more hours. How attractive!
But Americans believe in this system, presumable thinking that one day they too will be rich and they don't want to be paying their wage slaves a decent salary then. The American Dream consists of, if I ever become rich, I want to keep it all, even if I have so much I could never ever spend it and got to take it to the grave with me.
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at and eventually became a manager at a company which hired predominantly low-income workers. I got to work with and talk with quite a few of them, as well as interview countless others. The poor run the full gamut. Some want badly to work (the hardest worker I've ever met was poor, and - I later learned - an illegal immigrant). Some are lazy bums who will slack off the moment they don't have any supervision (we had to let one guy go because he was too lazy to even show up for work most days - it took him three weeks to pick up his first and only paycheck despite us calling him every 2-3 days because he was too lazy to drop by).
On average I would say the poor have a weaker work ethic and are harder to manage than middle- and upper-class folks. They are enthusiastic when they talk, and the first few days at work. But as the weeks wear on, their performance starts to drop. You have to micromanage them more (on average). That's partly what keeps them poor. Many of them also suffer from circumstances outside their control which keeps them down - severe allergies, an uncontrollable temper, physical handicaps which limits their ability to get manual labor jobs, kids and the inability to find babysitters, a criminal record from some stupid mistakes fresh out of high school, etc.
So on average I'd say GP is slightly correct. But the poor run the full gamut and it's horribly unfair to pre-judge them all based on the average. You really do have to get to know each individual and their quirks. If they have a good work ethic but are held back by circumstances, once you get to know them you can often match them up with jobs which minimize the impact of their impediment. e.g. The guy who had a bad temper loved animals, so we had him tending horses. He absolutely loved that, and it reduced his contact with other workers thus minimizing opportunity for his temper to become a problem. And many of the younger ones with a poor work ethic can be turned around with some good management and encouragement.
Given Slashdot's political leanings, I'd point out that the exact same thing is true for rich people. You shouldn't sneer at a human being because of their wealth either. Most of the wealthy people and especially the few millionaires I know are some of the hardest working people I've ever met.
It's wrong to assume poor people are lazy, and it's wrong to assume rich people are undeserving fat cats who simply take advantage of others. You really do need to avoid these prejudices and get to know each person individually.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe you need to fucking learn what the word "earn" fucking means.
What part of the government paid for R and D in basic science did you EARN ? What part of the infrastructure whose TIT you suck every goddamn day of your miserable useless life did YOU earn?
Fucking none of it.
So STFU about what you EARNED or this coke snorting degenerate thinks he EARNED because if you were going to EARN it, you'd have to start with studying science then recreating everything society has created and given to you as your fucking silverspoon birthright biotch.
You earned jack. You took an inconceivable amount of goods and know-how that generations have paid for in taxes in time in labor in suffering and in blood and thought of it as "yours" just like this puss filled filth sack did. Then you bitch slap everyone who came before and preen and prance around like you invented it all, paid for it all, created it all and "you don't owe no-nobody nuthin!"
Ayn Rand was an amphetamine addict. The process of being an addict of pharmaceutical stimulants systematically degrades you brain in a known and characteristic way- it turns you into a megalomaniac void of higher order emotional cognition. Thus the character of John Galt. Thus this fucking shit bag who, if the FB movie is to be believed, basically coke-snorted away whatever fucking ganglia it was that was passing for his brain back in the day.
One of the totally legitimate functions of society is to limit - through whatever means are effective- the harm and damage the mentally deranged anti-social psychopaths can inflict on society. I hope this guy dies in the most degrading abasing manner imaginable, preferably at the hands of one of society's most disadvantaged and deprived members, perhaps his drug dealer or one of the whores he has to pay to fuck him