Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again….
At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the “Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy”….
The senators will call Saverin’s move an “outrage” and will outline their plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Their proposal would also impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.
The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.
If I read this correctly, this would be an ex-post facto law (which is unconstitutional … not that these Senators mind). So:
Leaving the country? You’re still taxed, citizen.
Leaving the country and renouncing citizenship? You’re still taxed (citizen), and you’re never to come back- ever.
What could the thought process behind this be? I’m sure that, in addition to getting those dirty, thieving fraudsters like Eduardo Saverin, who have the inside information to keep the US government’s money, this’ll help boost the economy too. If the millionaires and billionaires won’t come to us, we’ll simply prevent them from doing so and tax them if they ever did. That’ll show them.
And we’re to believe that Ron Paul is the isolationist?!
I think the thought process is to keep more people from truly leaving the country (i.e. renouncing their citizenship). If they were to simply make it illegal to renounce one’s citizenship, then there’d certainly be (more of) an uproar - at least I hope there would be. So they’re doing it by degrees.
I had originally thought that the reason as to why there isn’t an uproar is because -maybe- most people who are aware of the legislation (EX-PATRIOT) think that it won’t pass anyway. That was until I saw the comment sections of various MSM outlets posting articles relevent to Saverin’s citizenship status. Most people, on those MSM outlets, are under the impression that Saverin owes them (through the state) money. Some people I know are even calling Saverin’s intentions “fraud,” “insider trading” or an example of what happens with “asymmetric information.”
Saverin has been the CFO of facebook since the beginning- he has helped to create one of the greatest (in terms of number of people using it) inventions of the 12 years that have so far been the 21st century. Facebook is up on the internet and membership of it is absolutely free of cost. I don’t have to pay anything and I can conveniently connect to friends around the world through typed chat, pictures and even video chat (we were just beginning to grasp the technology of mobile phones less than 20 years ago- and they were not convenient to carry either). Does anyone stop to consider how amazing that is? We went from gargled voices on a brick of a “phone” to being able to have a face-to-face conversation with someone on the other side of the world. And these advancements are made because of entrepreneurs like Saverin and Zuckerberg- yet these are the people that the state hates: Saverin and Zuckerberg oweus.
So this legislation seems to be a childish Oh yeah? reaction to a grown up big enough to, metaphorically, walk away from confrontation. Seriously, is Saverin the only person to revoke citizenship so that he isn’t faced with severe taxation? Isn’t such an action the origin of the United States- something similar was done in 1776, no? I mean, am I reading it right when these articles say that Schumer and Casey are trying to lay taxes on people who are no longer citizens? And that EX-PATRIOT will affect those who have already terminated their citizenship? Does any other country do either? Please, someone tell me how this is the “land of the free.”
Doug Casey et. al. have been predicting this clampdown for years. Even if this particular bill fails, it is intended to score brownie points with the electorate which should give you an idea of just what the mentality of the electorate really is. Sooner or later, complete capital controls are going to be imposed. The writing is on the wall, there can be no surprise.
Haha, I just came to Mises to post this story and see that it’s already up.
Here’s a portion of Chuckie’s statement that I really love:
“Saverin has turned his back on the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him, and helped him become a billionaire,” Schumer said at the conference. “This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong."
You hear that kids? If you’re getting a good old-fashioned American education, be prepared to do your time. Haha
So how exactly does the american government even knows how much a person who does not live there is earning? What happens if he gives the government a “fake” number? How do they check that?
I’d imagine there’s a provision that everyone renouncing their citizenship signs some paper so they always have some “government property” in the form of an ID on them (with a number). This number, when reported, will have to be “confirmed” somehow. Perhaps agents of the state come to the house with a warrant to check for the property (maybe they won’t need a warrant). This is all speculation, but if there’s no provision regarding this it won’t necessarily be a problem-- nothing that another law can’t fix!
I guess this means that in a few years, should this bill pass, the US will have an “illegal emigration” problem.
There hasn’t been a surprise since the constitution was signed–what do you get when you have an ultimate-arbitrator/territorial-monopoly-on-the-use-of-aggression in the same agency and giving that agency the final say on what its power is?
I’m not sure if it was you, Clayton, or someone else in one of those political path threads that said that the greatest revelation he had was in realizing that government agents behave according to self-interest, too, but it seems to be becoming more and more apparent with every passing day.
The only thing that could probably make that statement sadder would be if Schumer was a Republican who disagreed with Elizabeth Warren. It’s still pretty pathetic. As for American children–it’s not as if they have a choice is it?
“If Eduardo Saverin did renounce his U.S. citizenship to avoid higher taxes, he should be praised, not criticized. He has only done what millions of Americans do when they move to low-tax states. That potential for outmigration should force politicians to keep taxes low and competitive. And voters can decide if they want to retain those who, like Schumer and Casey, resort to building walls.”
It’s a matter of whether you can freely choose to associate with the citizen identity or it is forced on you. I’m not sure how it is relevant to Saverin because he is retaining his Brazil citizenship. It’s just a gimmicky tax dodge.
But every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and real I.D.s, think that it’s a penalty against the American people, too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital. And there’s capital controls and there’s people control. So, every time you think of a fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.
