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.'"
Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? When was the last time you were in a housing project? Did you take ANY time to get to know the poor? Or are you making blanket assumptions based on lame and uninformed propaganda?
Your statement positively oozes contempt for people you quite obviously have no clue about. In my mind, anyone who sneers at a human being because of their poverty is worse than a card-carrying KKK neo-nazi. It's every bit as prejudiced as the belief that a person's color has anything to do with their character.
I spent years working with the poor; I spent more time in the projects than many of the residents. I took the time to get to know them as human beings.
In my experience, their situation has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to work. I get so sick of hearing ignorant pricks say some lame line like "work at McDonalds." There is no unlimited supply of jobs available anywhere. The poor want jobs - badly. They want to work, and do so when they can.
But you know what? The kinds of hours they have to work isn't sustainable by the human body. The body inevitably breaks down from the strain, and they eventually cannot physically go to work. I've regularly seen people work to the point they pass out, after which they are fired. I know because I paid for college by working at such a job. Naturally, the corporation provides no health care coverage, so there is no treatment or physical therapy to get them back into the work force. Workman's comp? Are you joking? You haven't seen corporate america at work.
I'm convinced those who are constantly whining about 'the lazy poor' understand a lot less about economics than the teenage dropouts they demonize.
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:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That's because they know what being fucked without lube leads to... no upward mobility in your social status. Maybe if the minimum wage would keep up with inflation you'd see people a little more motivated. Young black men aren't interested in the game because of the health benefits, motherfucker. They're into it because they don't see any other way out when someone can work two fucking jobs and still not be able to pay the rent and feed a couple of kids. And god forbid if they should have some kind of medical problem, which the establishment will use to summon satan all over their credit report.
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.
...before you learn that most poor people aren't really lazy, and that most rich people really are undeserving because they take advantage of others. Take a look at what's going on with the Clif company to see what it's like when someone rich is deserving.
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Informative)
Um, Singapore has a massive welfare program, even though the conventional wisdom (even there!) is that it's all free market.
First all, over 80% of all housing in Singapore is government housing. They build it, then sell it at below market rates (significantly below market rate) to families. This is a massive redistribution of wealth. After 5 years you can sell your gov't condo on the free market and make a bundle (millions in too many cases to count).
All Singaporeans are required to contribute 36% of their income to the Central Provident Fund. They use this for retirement, healthcare expenses, and purchasing homes. What people don't realize is that there are massive gov't subsidies into the healthcare system which to help people pay for healthcare. A poor Singaporean may only be paying 20% of their healthcare expenses out of their CPF account, with the gov't kicking in 80%. Yet everyone is still convinced that it's 100% free market. Same thing happens with housing. You can use your CPF fund to buy housing, but the gov't will also kick in $50k+. That's another massive redistribution of wealth.
Singapore has a massive welfare state. It's just doesn't seem like it because their redistribution model is different than that used in the USA and Europe, and there's less poverty because the economy does so well (thanks in no small part to drawing in rich billionaires, which jack up property prices, which inures to your average Singaporean because of the gov'ts housing policies).
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Informative)
I would mod you up, but here are a few choice quotes from Wikipedia:
So we have limitations on public freedom of speech (including government registration of all speakers), a compulsory government education system, an extensive social safety net, and mandatory government required healthcare savings.
And somehow Slashdot "libertarians" believe moving from the USA to Singapore is "going Galt"?
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:5, Insightful)
The government of Singapore builds flats for its people not because the government of Singapore likes to, but it had to
Tell that to people like us who live in Hong Kong. Honestly we're dying to have that kind of government "subsidy" (even if the government there makes money from it).
Geographically Hong Kong is pretty much like Singapore -- limited land mass, large population, and basically an "island state" by being administratively separated from mainland China.
Here, the government basically colludes with property developers to push up the price of housing beyond the means of the average citizen. Government officials routinely retire to become a "consultant" of land developers. The economic policy of the current administration is to keep the economy afloat by producing and maintaining a massive housing bubble.
The government terminated their subsidized housing program about a decade ago, basically because the property developers and speculators were "not earning enough" or that they'd been badly burnt by the housing bubble of 1997 (of course they'd never admit to this). Instead of allowing the average citizen to get a share of the pie when property prices are high, the government and the large property developers are reaping all the profits and all we get are unaffordable housing at inflated price that is basically shit. Heck, I come from a relatively wealthy family living in an apartment with a market price of USD$1million+, but honestly you probably wouldn't want to live in my home.
And what does the government say in response to these hardships (that they artificially created by restricting the use of land)? "Just work harder, you'll be rich someday" or "the purpose in life is not to buy an apartment", that sort of crap (yes, that's what they really say, literally).
In reality, people are forced to rent "beds" (not apartments, not rooms) for exorbitant prices. "How many poor Hong Kong people can you fit into a tiny apartment?" The answer could surprise you. I think a hundred miles north in some foxxconn factory the living conditions are probably better (I'm not kidding).
I'm "lucky" to have a room of my own with a bed and a desk. That's what you call luxury around the area.
*Still* think the Singaporean government had to build houses? The puppets in our government beg to differ. You'd be surprised how much of a shitty job they can get away with. Singapore, for all its anal restrictions about free speech and chewing bubble gum, are actually doing more than is "necessary" in welfare.
(Sorry for the rant.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:4, Insightful)
How about just goofy.
In a competitive society, those that lose ie it is competitive and people lose. The failures end up out of work and with no means of support. That is the nature of capitalism. Singapore is a city and basically relies upon a controlled population and in affect exile to surrounding Malaysia and exploitation of Malaysian labour to create a stable wealthy 'city' society.
Where full countries are involved, you must deal with the failures who can not effectively cope with a competitive society. These individuals left in those circumstance obviously resort to crimes and the rest of society becomes the victims of those crimes. Unemployment at 8% represents millions of people.
So you believe in punishing the children of the poor for what, hmm, being born. The children are at fault for the action of their parents. You believe in trying to arrest them after they have resorted to crime to survive, tough luck for the victims, you believe in slum areas where the pathetic losers should contained and their betters can go for bargains, cheap sex and to mock them.
You believe in turning first world nations into second world nations with rampant crime and, corruption because you don't want to pay tax. You also believe in lies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_in_Japan [wikipedia.org]. Japan the jobs for life country hardly compares to US disposable labour and the social disruption it generates.
Obviously pointing at China means, you just like your tiny minority of psychopaths believes everyone but you should be getting paid around fifty cents an hour and be grateful for that pittance as they kiss your feet, and grovel for crumbs. So Chinese autocracy is better because they get to execute the bothersome poor who clamour for democracy.
Re:Requirements for Citizenship in Singapore (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans are a social species, we do not compete individually unless we are sociopaths, we compete collectively. Go run screaming into the wild, naked, absent of language and with no tools and see if you really are a lion or some wimp short haired monkey with delusions of grandeur that completely, utterly and totally cease to exist outside of protection via the group, via 'society', via social cooperation. That a minority using the tools of mass media the psychopaths and their minions the narcissist have distorted the reality and requirement of human social cooperation, does not make it real.
Mr. Lion eat, or be eaten, that's the law of the nature, you so funny (I can see you now butt naked screaming trying to chase down bison, all teeth and fingernails, no tools their design came from cooperative effort). PS don't be a dick with line spacing, it's really rude to try flood slashdot pages like that, grow up.
Wimp (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
It's the same dodge Walt Disney's been up to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wimp (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to popular belief, there is no death tax. It's an inheritance tax. With proper estate planning, if you give all of your assets when you die to a charitable trust instead of trying to give it to your heirs, there is essentially no tax to you (you are dead) and the charity gets the full benefit of your estate. There is effectively only a tax to give the money to someone who generally would owe income tax (say like your kids who are still alive or a company). Of course when you are alive, and you give a substantial amount of money (above the gift limit) to someone who owes tax they have to pay tax on that windfall (although the income tax rate they would pay would generally be lower than the 55% estate tax rate).
One rationale of an estate tax is to effectively "withhold" the taxes from the deceased (kinda like how a casino or lottery needs to withhold taxes from prizes even though technically they would otherwize be able to give all the money to the receipent as the recipent owes the taxes, not the payer of the prize), the government knows that the recipient may spend all the money and then not be able to pay the taxes and they can't get blood (taxes) out of a (broke) turnip...
The other rationale of estate tax is to prevent the creation of dynasties of wealth like royalty that never have to work.
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.
Re:sucks for his kids (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously?
1) Singapore citizenship is as useful as US/EU citizenship. Some countries actually overcharge or reject visa's for US regularly. US certainly isn't a best choice for travel.
2) Getting US citizenship is just $500. Peanuts for these people.
3) Like most US citizens you probably missed out on the new that the US is no longer the greatest nation on the planet.
Re:sucks for his kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you mean:
How horrible is the Singapore military for the son of a billionaire?
Re: (Score:3)
fair enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
when $3.84 billion just isn't enough...
Not a very graceful move (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a very graceful move (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (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 works if shares go up after IPO (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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! ;)
Vaya con Dios (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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.
That's because it isn't usually done (Score:5, Informative)
The US makes it very easy to keep a US citizenship. To renounce it you have to do so in front of a US consular officer, and with the full intent of renouncing your citizenship. Any other way isn't valid. So if another country as part of their immigration process say "Give us your passport and say you renounce your US citizenship," you can do so and it doesn't matter. You can go to the US embassy and get a new passport later. The US doesn't consider their ceremony valid, they consider you still a citizen. Of course when it comes to US citizenship, the only opinion that matters is that of the US.
Also other than taxes, there aren't really any burdens of staying a US citizen. They don't require you to show up twice a year to praise the president or something. You can have the citizenship and it is just something you have. Taxes also aren't a problem, if you aren't trying to get out of them. If you live in another country, work there, and pay taxes there, you are fine. The US is a-ok with that, they don't want a cut.
They only go after taxes when people are clearly trying to dodge taxes that they'd otherwise owe. They don't want rich people to make a ton of money in the US but technically live in Barbados and not pay any taxes.
So really the only reason to formally and actually renounce a Us citizenship are:
1) If a country you are immigrating to actually makes you do it properly, to a US council. Of course even then who knows because that would be done in the presence of the US council and they might decide it was bullshit since you were forced.
2) If you really dislike the US so much that as a statement or personal moral matter you just can't keep your citizenship. Fair enough, but of course then you'd better be sure.
3) To evade taxes. In that case, fuck you.
Otherwise, people keep it. My parents moved to Canada like 5 years ago. Mom is from there, so Canadian of course, but got her US citizenship when she lived here. Dad was born in the US, and recently got his citizenship up in Canada. Neither renounced their US citizenship and neither are going to. Why would they? Nor a I renouncing my Canadian citizenship, though I live in the US. I can keep both and it is no big deal.
Re:That's because it isn't usually done (Score:5, Insightful)
If you live in another country, work there, and pay taxes there, you are fine. The US is a-ok with that, they don't want a cut.
You are mistaken. US in one of the few countries, that taxes income earned in other countries. They dont care if you have paid tax in the country you had earned it, they need their cut. This is one of the reason US citizenship is not that popular.
Re:That's because it isn't usually done (Score:5, Informative)
If you are a U.S. citizen who lives and works in a foreign country, you are required to file a Form 2555 with your federal income tax return. You only claim income after foreign taxes. The exclusion for single filers is $92,900 in 2011, for married couples it is around 190,000. There are additional deductions for housing expenses, etc. Then you get the standard deductions for yourself and dependents. In my case, I would need to be pulling in well over 200K after foreign taxes per year to owe the IRS. Most normal Americans who work in foreign countries probably won't owe the IRS any taxes.
Another thing to consider, is if you renounce your citizenship it will not be possible to return to live in the U.S. If it's about saving some money on a tax bill now, it's probably short sighted. Make sure the country you have chosen to immigrate to respects individual property rights. If they don't, you might end up getting disenfranchised after the next popular revolution and don't expect the U.S. to be any help. Most countries that do respect individual property rights, e.g. western Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. have equivalent or higher tax rates than the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil Society feeds Entrepreneurship (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I hope they ban his ass (Score:5, Informative)
He was born in Brazil and lived there until he was 9. He has not lived in the US since 2010. He renounced his citizenship in September 2011 long before the IPO was announced, although I am sure he knew the direction.
He is still a Brazillian citizen. If he has to pay US taxes based upon his citizenship wouldn't he also need to pay Brazillian taxes based upon his citizenship as well?
Re:I hope they ban his ass (Score:5, Informative)
Probably not, unless Brazil is as fucked up as the US with regards to taxing non-domiciled citizens. Ironic and hypocritical [wikipedia.org] concerning the how the country came about.
Going Galt (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, society and the taxes that run it are a form of looting. I don't think he minded the looting that paid for the infrastructure he depended on every fucking day, and the teachers who educated the people he relied on to get work done, and the military that made sure he wasn't too busy doing the ole Sig Heil to bother with anything else and courts that and system of laws and enforcement of those laws that provided him with the legal framework he needed to make his money or the EPA who made sure he wasn't dead from dioxin exposure or all the other myriad of governmental services ..."looters" ... who made civilization possible and carry it forward on civil servant wages and the promise of a government pension at the end of a lifetime of service.
This guy is a poster boy for the problems when people become so much more wealthy than the average person. They become selfish, uncompassionate and basically sociopathic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/rich-people-compassion-mean-money_n_1416091.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Permitting these monsters to also hold influence proportionate to their wealth is where most of America's political and social problems come from. I don't give a fuck how tired you are of anything to do with anything "1%", what we have in America is an oligarchyy-kleptocracy being run into the ground economically, environmentally and morally by the scum who could give a shit about anyone or anything so long as he's got access to an all you can eat buffet of his favorite vices.
The super-wealthy twist and distort the system so it works only for them and at everyone else's expense. That's a fact and anyone denying it is just living in a fantasy world in which they're in line to be the next billionaire.
"I got mine, now watch me fuck you all. I don't need you,. and you can't touch me."
That's about the most dangerous thinking process a member of society can develop.
And yes, I do understand that programming and technology are areas that attract a higher than average number of such types. Let the mod down begin.
Fuck you. Read history.
Facebook may be a gigantic spy machine that induces the hapless and naive to surrender bit by bit most intimate details which are then assembled into a dossier to be used to suppress their own political, employment and economic opportunities so the rich can stay rich and keep the poor poor, but it's not going to save the rich from what comes when the system collapses in ecological and economic devastation . They'll share the same fate that all the past and present kings who thought of themselves as "untouchable"- and had better reason to consider themselves so- shared .
How soon until we read about some vet-who-can't-get-treated-by-a-tax-starved-VA taking a six dollar .50 BMG from two klicks away and exploding this fucking narcissistic panty-boy-billionaire's head like a two dollar melon?
Not soon enough. Ayn Rand's Galt character was just the (cardboard character, cartoonish) embodiment of the desire to have no obligations placed upon by society whatsoever, while of course being permitted
Re:Going Galt (Score:4, Funny)
I love the way you throw around the word productive a though it meant anything other than rich. I love the way Ayn Randers equate productive with "reaching the apex of a money-making hierarchy" as though that had a god fucking thing to do with being "productive".
What a fucking joke,. If being well positioned in society were in any way related to "being productive" then every woman in Africa would be a millionaire, a point that was made here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers [guardian.co.uk]
If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.
The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves â" that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive â" are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren't responsible.
Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.
The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves.
He discovered that their apparent success is a cognitive illusion. For example, he studied the results achieved by 25 wealth advisers across eight years.
He found that the consistency of their performance was zero.
"The results resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest, not a game of skill."
Those who received the biggest bonuses had simply got lucky.
Such results have been widely replicated. They show that traders and fund managers throughout Wall Street receive their massive remuneration for doing no better than would a chimpanzee flipping a coin. When Kahneman tried to point this out, they blanked him.
"The illusion of skill ⦠is deeply ingrained in their culture."
The CEO f my company made 86 million a year I made 86k. That means his labor was 1000 times more productive than my own. Since I worked not less than 12 hours a day, it's hard to imagine how it could be true. Obviously such people could recreate the last 1000 years of human progress in just one year. Well, at least they think so.
The idea that some cokehead " Hey, I made a yearbook-on-the-internet" "genius" is somehow one of society's "most productive members" is such a joke that we just have to say that anyone who seriously entertains the idea is irremediably idiotic.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Good riddance indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yes, those evil Koch brothers. We need to get rid of those good for nothing bastards as soon as possible. Just look at the stuff they've done!
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
He is a major patron of the arts and had contributed to several charities, including Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering, a fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.[8] The New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, home of the New York City Opera and New York City Ballet was renamed the David H. Koch Theater in 2008 following a gift of 100 million dollars for the renovation of the theater. Condé Nast Portfolio described him as "one of the most generous but low-key philanthropists in America" ...
Koch contributed $7 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova,[30] and is a contributor to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., including a $20 million gift to the American Museum of Natural History, creating the David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing and a contribution of $15 million to the National Museum of Natural History to create the new David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opened on the museum's 100th anniversary of its location on the National Mall on March 17, 2010.[31] In 2012, Koch contributed US&35 million to the Smithsonian to build a new dinosaur exhibition hall at the National Museum of Natural History.
Guess you need to stop watching Nova. Hope you don't plan on visiting any museums or taking in a show in NY.
Re: (Score:3)
They also mightily contributed to corruption of the U.S. political system, bringing it much close to oligarchy. This alone beats any money they gave to charities, likely tax-deductible in whole or in part, which is pocket change to them.
Re:Good riddance indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, those evil Koch brothers. We need to get rid of those good for nothing bastards as soon as possible. Just look at the stuff they've done!
Oh, well that changes everything.
Wait, am I supposed to be impressed that they made some donations to personal charities? I'd be more impressed if they stopped being assholes.
The idea that giving away money somehow redeems a persons other faults is ridiculous. Amassing a mountain of wealth through questionable means is not immediately redeemed just because you give some percentage of that wealth away. We don't forgive bank robbers for donating 50% of the stolen funds to charity, I don't see why robber barons deserve such a consideration.
I'm sorry, are you saying that the Koch brother's are assholes or bank robbers? I can't be sure because you gave no examples or cited no sources to prove anything they've done wrong.
Now granted, I don't know jack about the Koch brothers except that they are rich and conservative. To liberals, that's reason enough to hate them so those are the only real attacks I've seen leveled against them. They are rich and they've supported some conservative causes.
Well, I've showed how they are charitable, pay the highest taxes in the country and even support one of our favorite shows, Nova. You've called them assholes and insinuated that they've attained their money illegally, but gave no support to your accusations.
So tell me, what have they done that is worthy of the pure, unadulterated hatred that you and others have towards these guys?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Good riddance indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that the $666.2 billion defense budget I mentioned earlier played such a huge role in the rise of Facebook.
Wait a second, is that literal or tongue-in-cheek? You do realize, of course, that the defense budget did in fact play an essential role in the rise of Facebook, seeing as how defense dollars built the internet?
Facebook built a tech empire, but DarpaNet (government) led the way.
Railroads tamed the west, but they were following Lewis & Clark (government).
The pilgrims were industrious folks, but they were using maps made by Columbus (government).
SpaceShipOne might be the way regular folks visit space, but NASA (government) paid for all of our rocketry knowledge.
Not just in American history, but industry has followed trails blazed with public dollars since literally the dawn of civilization.
Re:Good riddance indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 riddance indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering America is the spiritual home of "money = moral", I'd say he's doing exactly what the country taught him...
Re: (Score:3)
It is possible to evolve beyond citizenship.
Citizenship is supposed to offer exclusive benefits in return for allegiance. When the costs exceed the benefits, it may be wise to change flags.
Most immigrants TO the US come here for economic opportunity, and I don't scorn them for that.
Re: (Score:3)
You do understand that just because government has certain policies, that it doesn't mean it's what America "stands for".
You do realize that any given nearly any policy you can name, about half (at minimum) of the country is against, right?
Or is it hard for you to keep these competing ideas in your head?
Do you think that we stood for McCarthyism years ago? Reganomics? Slavery?
This country has done some fairly rotten shit. Every nation does. But there is a system in place that puts the people in the driv
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well point us to an example where the private industry has built a system of roads even remotely matching the public highway system and you might have a case. Until then you have nothing but hypothetical claims.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (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:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Please show me where I consented to this contract.
Your parents consented to it for you when they either gave birth to you in the US or brought you here. Presumably you are now of legal age. If you wish to no longer be bound by that contract, I suggest you leave the country, forfeit the priveleges of the civilized society that has already given you countless advantages and protections without which you would likely be destitute or dead, and find some place else in the world to hang out with other 'rugged individualists'. Good luck with that.
PS I used to be a Randroid too, and once upon a time I would have agreed with you. Then I grew up, attained some sophistication, discovered empathy, and got a clue.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wish to no longer be bound by that contract, I suggest you leave the country, forfeit the priveleges of the civilized society
Are you sure it is the US that you are in? I can think of many adjectives to describe our sad republic, but "civilized" is not among them. Go do a "police brutality" search on youtube and then come back and boast about how civilized we are.
More like a country of poorly educated, spoiled, rich people who think we are much, much smarter than we really are or ever will be. [wikipedia.org] We are a country with no shortage of self-esteem or confidence, but a huge shortage of real ability and intelligence. This discussion is a perfect example of that sort of empty arrogant nationalism with nothing at all behind it. We are a country that is great only in our own minds. Perhaps that is what really makes us unique. Nothing will ever convince us of our own ineptness and incompetence because we are so very certain of our inherent superiority and greatness. We are a country that renounces and hates the very thing we once stood for. The one thing that really did make us special. What could be more sad and pathetic than that?
Instead of being the place where you were free to do pretty much anything you wanted we are now just known as the neighborhood bully. And like most bullies we are cowards at heart. Unwilling to start any fight that would be even remotely fair, and yet still boasting to ourselves about how tough we are. As tough as those cops were who were beating Rodney King. So tough that the unexpected demolition of a couple of tall buildings is enough to change our entire way of life. If anything has ever proven the inherent cowardice of America it was 9/11. It has demonstrated our true character and we don't even have the insight to realize how pathetic it all is. The rest of the world is laughing, and they are not laughing with us.
Good Ridance To Him (Score:5, Insightful)
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 Ridance To Him (Score:5, Insightful)
and put 'em on a no-fly list
You sir are a true American. The New American. When the rest of the world thinks of Americans you are the kind of person they are thinking of.
Re: (Score:3)
Before you can go Galt, you have to be Galt, and this guy isn't, unless he knows how to generate power from static atmospheric electricity (or some other way), or something like that. If Facebook went belly up, the US economy would go along just fine.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the tax is quite low - 50 years ago, the tax was a lot higher.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:4, Informative)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, back then, you worked till the day you died, since there was no Social Security. And that would be quite soon if you got sick and didn't happen to be wealthy, since there was no Medicare or Medicaid. And let's not forget that there were no food stamps or WIC checks, so if you were poor, you were liable to starve. That is, if you didn't rob or kill to get your food.
And there were no battered women shelters, or protections of any sort for abuse victims. And there were no regulations to stop companies from dumping all sorts of nasty shit into your air or water, or outright putting it into your food as filler. And of course your employer could force you to work 12 hours a day, with no weekends, and no overtime -- not that it mattered, since they could also pay you in scrip which was only good in the company store.
I don't see why you glorify that time period. The workers of the time hated it so much that they fought like hell to get us unions and social safety nets. Why are you so eager to throw away everything they worked for?
I'll tell you what. If you don't like paying to live in a civilized society, then you are welcome to get the fuck out. We'll be better off without you.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
We were still in building-a-superpower mode long after the institution of the income tax and the New Deal, and probably even after the Great Society. The downfall didn't start until the 80s, with its massive tax cuts, deregulation, explosion of Wall Street gambling, and culture of greed. Yes, all that stuff probably made us a bit richer in the short term, and it made some people a lot richer. But in the long run, it's destabilized the markets and encouraged businesses to focus on quarterly profits at the expense of long term planning.
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.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
See, the Social Security measure was supposed to be like the Welfare program; it was a catchall for the people who got old, who were unlucky in life, and meant primarily as a feel good measure about society. ... it was supposed to be something only a handful would even consider using; the vast majority of future retirees were supposed to still use a Savings account.
The first half of that is true, the second half is false. I suspect that's a talking point you heard somewhere, cleverly designed to mislead with a grain of truth.
Yes, it is true that Social Security was designed as a sort of welfare program to protect the poor, and that it wasn't supposed to support those who could get by without it. But what you're missing is the fact that at the time of its passage, the vast majority of seniors were living in poverty. And remember... this is the 1930s definition of poverty! (Technically, it also was designed to exclude vast swaths of the population, primarily women and black people. Hopefully no one advocates a return to that.)
Now, if you want to talk about going back to the idea of not giving Social Security to those who don't need it (roughly the top 20-30%), then that's something I might be able to get on board with. But "returning" to a past that never was, in which only a relative handful collect benefits, would leave huge numbers of elderly out in the streets.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe....the income tax started out as a tax on the wealthy, who didn't like it, but who needed large government services--like, say, a large global military presence to protect their overseas investments. (You don't think our military is spread all over the world because we feel like it, do you?)
Maybe those same people who BUY AND PAY FOR LAWS managed, over the course of a few decades, to get the laws shifted so that the tax burden now falls on working people instead of the wealthy, who benefit the most from very expensive things like armed ships, planes, and troops protecting their assets, lavish and ever expanding international airports, transcontinental transportation systems, diplomatic missions that seem rather preoccupied with protecting the rights of wealthy corporations and individuals overseas, an educated workforce, police to keep the educated workforce in line and compliant, and of course a huge spying apparatus that most likely illegally snoops on US citizens looking for people with wrong thoughts and almost certainly is engaged in industrial espionage on a massive scale?
Kinda depends on how you look at it, huh?
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is mostly correct, although there are plenty of wealthy people out there that don't become such parasites.
Not understanding this is one of the reasons why no amount of government interventionism ever seems to help the poor or middle class in the long run. The wealthy parasites in and behind government (bankers, financiers, and similar assorted rent-seekers---all non-productive types) steal from the poor and middle class. When the people finally get sick of it, their anger and envy is directed toward "the rich"---which inevitably falls on the productive rich (entrepreneurs, businessmen, upper middle class), not the parasites who are truly responsible for the mess.
New laws are passed, new regulations are created, taxes are increased---all of which impact the poor, the middle class, the small businessmen, and other productive people. The parasites already know how to work around such laws and taxes because they wrote them---and wrote in the loopholes! So the end result is more people are pushed down into poverty while the parasites get richer.
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: (Score:3)
Actually the tax is quite low - 50 years ago, the tax was a lot higher.
Why stopped at just 50 years ago?
Before there was any tax, there was none.
One of the root cause of America'ss independence was that the Brits were taxing too much on too many things.
Including tea - hence, "Boston Tea Party"
Re: (Score:3)
And by "suck even worse" you mean that their was booming economic expansion, the debt to GDP ratio was plummeting, and real income was rising at a rate in one decade that hasn't been matched percentage wise even over the last 30 years? Then, yes, things really did "suck".
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Informative)
Whereas today, 3% net. Or, if you are GE, zero net, plus billions back. What's your point again?
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if taxes cause companies to move away, then why aren't all corporations based in Afghanistan? Why are't all billionaires citizens of Singapore?
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.
Maybe not only Saverin, but all of Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook's reputation in the mainstream media is rapidly getting worse. Facebook is getting a bad reputation partly because of articles like these:
Worst company: Facebook was a semi-finalist in the April 2012 competition [consumerist.com] to be voted the worst company in the United States
Facebook follows its business rules? Not always. The April 7, 2012 Wall Street Journal story, Selling You on Facebook [wsj.com], says:
"Facebook requires apps [mobile phone software applications] to ask permission before accessing a user's personal details. However, a user's friends aren't notified if information about them is used by a friend's app. An examination of the apps' activities also suggests that Facebook occasionally isn't enforcing its own rules on data privacy."
There's more like that in the article.
Facebook tracks every web page you visit that has a Facebook button (using Javascript). For example, if you visit the Oregonian Newspaper web site [oregonlive.com], Facebook tracks every story you visit, even if you don't click on the "Like" button. There are ways to prevent that (using Firefox [mozilla.org] with the NoScript [mozilla.org] add-on), but most people don't know about them.
Companies pay people to click on Facebook "Like" buttons. The number of Facebook "Likes" doesn't give any indication of popularity.
On December 9, 2011 it was necessary to click on a Facebook "Like" button to be allowed to see Fry's Electronics ads.
Do 86,688 people (on April 9, 2012) really like Firestone Complete Auto Care [facebook.com], or did the company offer something to be "liked"?
A few problems with Facebook: Richard Stallman wrote a short list of things wrong with Facebook. [stallman.org]
How much information does Facebook keep? Read the December 13, 2011 article, Twenty Something Asks Facebook For His File And Gets It - All 1,200 Pages [threatpost.com].
What do people in other countries think? The May 14, 2010 article, Facebook is not your friend [guardian.co.uk] gives one idea.
The June 15, 2011 article, The End of Facebook [forbes.com], and the June 14, 2011 article, Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook? [telegraph.co.uk] give others.
Most people don't understand the problems that may occur. For example, consider the March 28, 2012 article, Teacher's aide says 'no access' to her Facebook; now legal battle with school [southbendtribune.com].
This April 4, 2012 article would be funny if it weren't so sad: Woman arrested for assault based on Facebook photo [thestar.com]. Quotes:
"Aston
Anti-Tax = Anti-Society (Score:5, Insightful)
Your assumptions are incorrect, he is benefiting from all the advantages that being in the US confer that were paid for by you and I. You think that FB could have got of the ground in a country without a government or infrastructure, like Somalia? Who paid for that, in dollars and blood over the last several centuries? The people of the US. You want to be a patriot? Don't try to cheat the system by cutting and running in order to save yourself from paying taxes.
I am not advocating that he pay more than anyone else, just because he has money. I think that he should play only exactly as much as the law says he owes, (without trying to exploit loopholes). He is saying that 2 billion dollars is worth more to him than contributing to the country that gave him a chance to succeed, and fuck the law, he will take is money and run when given the chance.
You say that there shouldn't be taxes, while enjoying all the benefits that the provide you. You are spouting off against taxes ON THE INTERNET, WHICH WAS STARTED WITH GOVERNMENT FUNDS. Show the strength of your conviction. Stop paying taxes, turn off your Internet access, unplug your phones, turn off your water and sewage and tell the police and fire department that you don't ever want or need their help. You and all the small minded fools like you that rail against paying the very modest taxes that are asked of you are short sighted selfish twits. Walk the walk little man, renounce all the blessings that society pays for with taxes. I dare you.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Progressivism [wikipedia.org] is a recognized political concept that advocates deliberate social change in response to other social and non-social changes that occur in the world, whether that be industrialisation, urbanisation, technology etc. Past progressive issues include limiting (and ultimately, banning) child workers, [wikipedia.org] allowing women to participate in the workforce [wikipedia.org], and allowing women [wikipedia.org] and ethnic minorities to vote. [wikipedia.org] More modern movements include outlawing discrimination [wikipedia.org] on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, and age.
At the time of all of these movements that advocated social change, there were opposing social conservative [wikipedia.org] movements, which advocated maintaining the existing social rules and structure. And still, in modern times, there are many people who believe that a return to the social norms of the past would be preferable to modern society, even if that means abandoning or limiting the use of technology. In particular, cell phones, smart phones, and the internet have all prompted social change, whether it be small social change like people talking on the train, changes in sexual behaviour as a result of widespread access to hardcore pornography, or people directly using these devices to communicate and organise larger social change like the Arab Spring. There are social conservatives that oppose all of these things.
In reality, it is very difficult to stop non-social changes from prompting social change, but it is possible - as societies like North Korea and Afghanistan show - if a concerted effort is made to limit the spread of change, and the impact of technological developments.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
So renounce your citizenship and go elsewhere.
By remaining, you are implicitly saying that you can live with this system, or that it is at least better than any other alternatives.
I don't agree with how every cent of my taxes are spent, but that's what comes with representative democracy.
The benefits I net (security, social safety nets, police, fire, EMS, food inspectors, FAA, etc., etc.) far outweigh the things I don't like ("elective" war, eleven carrier groups, corn subsidies, etc.).
Nobody is compelling you to stay.
Re:Unfair taxes ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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!
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:Try some numbers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that the 1990 budget was based on a country that had 50 million less people and wasn't facing the fact that there will be 10s of millions of baby boomers hitting retirement that will leave huge revenue shortfalls.
Re:Try some numbers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Inflation's a bitch.
Your 1990 budget is spending 1990 dollars. Your 2012 budget and income tax figures are in 2012 dollars. Adjust for inflation, and federal spending in 1990 was closer to $2 trillion.
From that point on, your math all falls apart.
True: Unfair Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
And what do you have left when all the people who created successful businesses leave?
Re:Trendsetting (Score:5, Insightful)
A place where you can start your own business without getting sued into the ground by established interests who've bought politicians?
Re:One arguement against taxing rich people (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Rich people don't leave, but their money does. To the Cayman Islands. *grumble grumble mitt romney grumble*
Re:One arguement against taxing rich people (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds more like an argument against having things set such that the very wealthy can just skip town when the taxman comes and toss aside their country when it becomes financially convenient.
Re:One arguement against taxing rich people (Score:5, Insightful)
No, (immoral) rich people will hire accountants and lobbyists so they can pay the absolute minimum.
They'll stick around and use society's benefits while not wanting to pay for them.
Re:When they say they're only going to tax the ric (Score:5, Funny)
Implement a 90% exit tax. Problem solved. If you really hate the country, you're free to leave. But if you're only leaving because you've received the benefits of living here and now want to skip out on the check, well fuck you.