8 ms·
Senators want to block Facebook’s Saverin from reentering the U.S
- mindcrime 14y agoA better idea would be to deport the Senators to Somalia or Turkmenistan or somewhere, and block them from re-entering the U.S.
- cluda01 14y agoHow would this help anything?
- mindcrime 14y agoIt would be a start. Our government is totally evil, corrupt, and invasive. Anything that takes away from their ability to interfere with things is a Good Thing. Deport all the Senators, then the House Reps, then all of the judges, the President, Vice President, and then start on the rank-and-file bureaucrats... Oh, how I long for that day.
- nirvana 14y agoSure, lets keep foreign born past citizens who helped create $100B companies from coming back to the USA. That will show them! I really don't think we could survive another attack on the order of Facebook!
- kemiller 14y agoI don't think Saverin's contributions are really proportionate to his windfall. But even that aside, yes, it's great that people come to this country to build things. But this country also offers a lot that makes that possible (there's a reason they come here, after all), not least the enforcement of laws and a relatively level playing field, and part of the bargain is that you pay some back when you win. You could argue that what he's doing now amounts to insider trading.
- nirvana 14y agoYou seem to be arguing that he didn't "pay some back when you win". However, as part of the renunciation process you have to be up to date on your taxes, and you have to pay a tax on any money you move out of the USA. Thus he's already paid his taxes. Now he's a citizen and resident of singapore. He's got a couple investments there. But your claim that he owes the US taxes on what he built in the USA would seem to no longer apply, right? Since he's building the next thing in singapore, wouldn't he owe singaporean taxes? If he didn't renounce, the US government would be taxing him on the money he makes in Singapore on a singapore business as well. Even though he's no longer benefiting from the "services" provided by the US government. The US is unusual in the fact that it taxes citizens on their worldwide income. Further, it imposes fairly onerous reporting requirements that make it difficult for US citizens who live outside the USA to conduct business. Just because he spent 10 years here, doesn't mean the US really deserves a cut of everything he makes for the rest of his life. This is why there's a renunciation process, and he has gone thru that process legally.
- kemiller 14y agoI think the way the US claims taxes on foreign income is wrong. But this is clearly not foreign income, and he's leaving with clear foreknowledge of a likely future windfall. I don't think anyone is claiming he has not complied with the law. They're saying that if he wants to renounce citizenship, he must also renounce the benefits of being in the US. If that's truly his intention anyway, then he has nothing to worry about, right? I'm sure that even if this happens he's not going to shed many tears. If he wants to see his family, they can just meet somewhere else.
- nirvana 14y agoEither he sold his Facebook stock before leaving, in which case he already paid taxes on it. Or he didn't, and since FB is an american company listed on an american exchange, when he sells any of it he'll still be subjected to long term capital gains, as any other non-US citizen who owns stock on a US exchange is. Thus the only thing to be upset about is that we have a person who has the ability to produce a high income for himself that the USA can no longer tax.
- cantankerous 14y agoI think U.S. citizens have, at least, some warranted sense of righteous indignation here. The guy came to the U.S., jumped onboard a company that really couldn't have made it this big anywhere else (at least at the time), takes the money and runs. I think people are generally well within reason to dislike his choices and reform the system to prevent he and others from repeating.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoIf a Brazilian interviewed the founders of a company remotely, made a remote angel investment, and the company became a success in the US, should the Brazilian also be obligated to pay individual US income taxes? If not, what difference does it make that the Brazilian resided in the US for some period of time? Note that the corporation is still paying US taxes by virtue of being physically located in the US. The issue is whether the investor should pay additional individual income tax on top of that.
- cantankerous 14y agoYour first remark is irrelevant because he didn't just reside in the US. He is/was a US citizen. This is not an issue of whether or not the investor should pay income taxes on top of it or not. This is a tangential issue that is not what's being debated, though it is a reason that a lot of people get upset.
- victork2 14y agoWhy not, after all actions must have consequences. If he wants to avoid taxes and it's legal by all means he should do it. But there should be consequences to his actions, this proposition seems like a possible one (quite extreme though). I would like to remind all the wannabe rich on HN who believe that one day they will be in his shoes, nobody succeeds alone and your success has a price for the country. For example in the case of Facebook there are more infrastructure costs for the whole internet, additional regulations have to be passed, etc... PS: Ghostery on Venturebeat: 17 spying widgets found... Not going on that website ever again.
- mvkel 14y agoIsn't this completely backwards? Why would you be able to punish someone for doing something completely legal? Do we punish profitable corporations who pay no tax? Of course not; they're abiding by the laws. If you want to prevent this stuff from happening, change the law.
- yashchandra 14y agoexactly. could not agree more
- ArtB 14y ago> If you want to prevent this stuff from happening, change the law. Isn't that what they are trying to do?
- yashchandra 14y ago"Isn't that what they are trying to do?" No they are not. They are trying to skim money out of someone who worked his ass off and when it is time to get paid, he is being shortchanged.
- rprasad 14y agoThe only thing he provided was the angel funding for Facebook. He literally hasn't done any work to earn the increase in the value of Facebook's stock since he got fired a few months after Facebook launched. This guy is practically the reason for founder vesting cliffs. He's not being shortchanged; he's done nothing to earn this money.
- seiji 14y agoDoes this mean we can stop Arrington from reentering California too?
- boonez123 14y agoLots of Rich people pay less income tax than the middle working class or even the lower working class. Should we kick them out of the country too, for being intelligent? Don't we all want to pay less tax? If there was a legal loophole would you do it?
- wpietri 14y agoI don't particularly want to pay less tax. I just want to pay my fair share. Having lived in places with much shoddier governments, I think I get pretty good value on my dollar. So when somebody is trying to dodge their fair sahre, I don't like it.
- yashchandra 14y agoI do not understand the fuss about this. If Saverin gave up his US citizenship legally, plans to live outside the US for many years, who cares what taxes is he avoiding? These senators need to get their acts together and fix the tax code instead.
- kemiller 14y agoIf he truly intends to live outside the country and not return here, then what's proposed has no teeth. But it's more likely that he's doing what many wealthy people have done before him, namely renouncing citizenship officially, but continuing to spend as much time as they please in the US. It actually seems pretty reasonable to deny reentry to someone who has left and had a nice windfall as a result. (Perhaps cleaner: demand repatriation of any capital gains as a condition of visa issuance. Assets acquired after the renunciation are of course exempt.)
- ABS 14y agohe's been living and working in Singapore since 2009 and there is no way for a non citizen "to spend as much time as they please in the US". You'd need a Visa that is linked to work and in that case work would be of course taxed in US.
- mindcrime 14y agoIt actually seems pretty reasonable to deny reentry to someone who has left and had a nice windfall as a result. How is it reasonable? What exactly is the USA gaining by this action? How is this making life better for the citizens of the United States? This is just political bullshit, nothing more, nothing less. The Senators involved are far more harmful to the USA than Eduardo Saverin ever will be.
- cantankerous 14y agoI don't get why people keep saying Saverin filing his paperwork in January 2011 makes it completely obvious that he was not doing this to avoid paying taxes. Facebook was going to have an IPO and the guy was clearly preparing for it. It may not be illegal, but it sure is disgusting.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- wpietri 14y agoMy understanding is that the rule blocking reentry from people who drop citizenship for tax reasons is longstanding. I'm entirely in favor of both the rule and the application in this case. This goes on frequently within the US, too. A friend of friends made north of $100m in the dot-com bubble on a company that later collapsed. He made his money in SF, but bought a house in Nevada so that he could dodge the California taxes. It may be legal, but it was a douchebag move, the moral equivalent of going out for a meal with a big group and sneaking out before the check arrives.
- yashchandra 14y ago"the moral equivalent of going out for a meal with a big group and sneaking out before the check arrives." Not quite. Saverin played a major part in cooking the meal (using your analogy) and deserves his fair share of sneaking out before the check arrives. Heck, he should be paid for making the meal and a thank you!!
- wpietri 14y agoPlease. The fellow played a modest early role and was then forced out because he wasn't competent to handle the rest. His was a minor role in a major startup, and he is basically a lottery winner. For which I say: congrats! Also, you misunderstand restaurants in the same way you misunderstand economies. The guy who chops the vegetables in the 3 months after the restaurant opens should certainly be paid and thanked. But his job only exists because of heavy investment by the restaurateur. And that sous chef should still pay his taxes just like everybody else, because restaurants are heavily dependent on civic infrastructure.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoAnd that sous chef should still pay his taxes just like everybody else, because restaurants are heavily dependent on civic infrastructure. The issue in question is whether the sous chef, after leaving the US permanently and renouncing his citizenship, should pay taxes to the US on his investments above and beyond what any foreign investor would pay. Saverin did pay his taxes just like everybody else. The question is whether he should now pay taxes above and beyond what other Singaporeans are obligated to pay.
- cft 14y agoCalifornia is 20% illegal immigrants, paying no tax at all. Those ones they do not block from entering...
- cantankerous 14y agoWell they probably pay sales taxes, just saying....
- Bud 14y agoThis doesn't pass the laugh test, even if you had a source, which you don't. Have you heard of the sales tax? You might have come across mention of it somewhere. I'll give you a hint. It's around 9% in CA, depending on where you live.
- J3L2404 14y agoMost illegal aliens actually pay taxes, as businesses are mostly worried about the IRS not the INS, but aliens can't collect S.S. so it is a net win in that sense. But not a sensible way to run a country.
- bking 14y agoI find it funny that the US is acting like a scathed lover when in actuality it was her own restrictive propensities that push him away. GG USA for scaring away another great BF.
- mseebach 14y agoThe visa rules already say this, as was pointed out by pretty much all news stories at the time. Is there any way this isn't just grandstanding and cheap point-scoring? http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/22CFR/HTML/22CFR/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-55/0-0-0-441.html http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/22CFR/HTML/22CFR/0-0-0-1/...
- nirvana 14y agoThere's no evidence he qualifies under that clause. He didn't renounce to avoid taxation, quite the opposite: He was paid up on his taxes and paid an "exit tax" according to the quote in an article I read last night. The USA requires you to get permission before renouncing. Part of the process of getting that permission is being audited by the IRS to make sure you're up to date on your taxes, and paying an excise tax on the money you're taking out of the country. The clause you're referring to is for people who sneak money out of the country and then trick the US into "letting" them renounce where the US thinks they are up to date on their taxes but they aren't because they hid the money. There's no evidence he has hid any money, and no evidence that he has renounced to avoid paying taxes. Unlike most countries, the USA taxes citizens on their worldwide income, no matter where it is earned or where they live. This means that unless you want to be paying taxes to the USA for money earned outside the USA for businesses outside the USA, you have to renounce.
- analyst74 14y agoWhat about the hoards of riches who invest in foreign countries? I mean, they made their money in the US, not just do they use the infrastructure, but also take money from American people directly. Now they want to send the money out, and help other countries to start businesses and create jobs?! They might as well live in those 3rd world countries themselves, forever!
- ABS 14y agoif they are US citizens they pay taxes in the US even if they do live in those "3rd world countries" 9after having paid whatever taxes they owe to the "3rd world countries"...)
- untog 14y agoWe shouldn't punish people who take advantage of the US tax code, we should change the codes they take advantage of. But that involves actual work- reaching across the aisle, discussing, drafting and agreeing on law. I'm not in any way surprised that the Senate would prefer to do anything else. Quasi-related tax rant: I am not a US citizen, but I live here. I want to get a green card (the process for that is another rant entirely). If I get one, I will owe tax on my earnings in any country. Earn £20,000 in the UK? Well, the UK gets a tax cut of that. Oh, and so does the US, for reasons unknown. America is the only country that does this, as far as I know.
- Bud 14y ago"Reaching across the aisle"? Hee. You must not have read much about Republicans in Congress lately. It takes quite a bit more than a little elbow grease and "reaching across the aisle" to get anything real passed these days.
- clarky07 14y agoAs if the democrats are any better. They still haven't passed a budget in the Senate since Obama has been in office. Both parties suck.
- Bud 14y agoIncorrect on both counts. Democrats in Congress do not have anything remotely resembling the record of consistent obstructionism for its own sake that the GOP has. Nor do Democrats sign ideologically-required Grover Norquist "pledges" before taking office. Nor do they filibuster any and all appointees to anything close to the extent that the GOP has in recent years. And lastly, the Senate has, of course, passed budgets yearly during Obama's term...no thanks to the Republicans.
- clarky07 14y agoPlease show me the budgets they passed.
- 14y ago
- Jabbles 14y agoWouldn't this be a retroactive law? Surely it wouldn't apply to him as he renounced his citizenship before the law was made?
- rprasad 14y agoNo, the restriction only applies to criminal laws. Also, having renounced his citizenship and already given up his U.S. residency, he is no longer subject to the protections of the U.S. constitution.
- ABS 14y agoA Brazilian who got US citizenship, helped create thousands of jobs in the US, moved to Singapore in 2009 and effectively lives and works there since then, applied to drop his US citizenship in January 2011 and will pay the exit tax for it will now potentially be subjected to an illegal (re constitution) retroactive law to "punish" him when the main reason (I speculate) he decided to do so is the crazy American legislation that wants expats to pay their taxes twice (abroad and at home) even if they really live and work abroad? Ah..it's election year
- clarky07 14y agoThis is political BS aimed at making rich people look bad in an election year and nothing else. As if 60 million means anything at all to our budget. Less than 2k people left last year. At most we are talking about a few billion in a multiple trillion budget. It just doesn't matter. The negatives of not having intelligent businessmen ever come back far outweighs the few bucks we could have taken from them. I'm just going out on a limb, but I suspect facebook has generated more than 60 million for the government so far.
- dougb 14y agoI just sent a letter to Sen Casey, one of my senators. I want to know why he is wasting his time on this crap. I can think of a lot of other issues that he should be spending his time on.
- kamaal 14y agoNon US citizen here. I think the senators are taking this personally. More than 'He didn't pay the tax' this is about 'Does US no longer matter that people are renouncing citizenship?' The fact is rest of world thinks they don't need US or go to US to do big things, anymore. That is something for the Senators to think about.