He Gave Up His U.S. Citizenship

[SMR 368]

Obviously I can't speak for Eduardo Saverin but it's true that many banks are refusing to open accounts for Americans overseas as they have to report to the IRS and the requirements are becoming increasingly stringent and difficult. While it may not be a huge issue, if you don't plan on living in the US, having US citizenship may be more trouble than it is worth, especially for someone with a lot of money. I don't say that just because of the tax issues but because if you have enough money, a lot of the advantages of US citizenship like protection, the ability to travel, and the ability to be in the US are not really advantages anyways since you can work those things out for the right price.

[Leatherneck 693]

You know that?!! You wouldn't just be spouting off with uninformed rhetoric that has a semblance of 'truthiness' would you? Because I actually know what I think and care about and you obviously don't! It further calls into question whether you just pull all your other 'facts' from the same repository you pulled this one from!

All of that gibberish to defend your lack of knowledge regarding the "bozos" in D.C. working for us. You often comment here, now you pretend it isn't known what you think and care about? Have you been posting what you think or did those comments originate between your gluteus maximus then spewed forth by your sphincters?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

All of that gibberish ...

Right. Gibberish. That's all you got, buddy. You still haven't answered a very simple question I asked you twice. You can't, can you? So, carry on with that gibberish of your.

[james&olya 1,121]

Right. Gibberish. That's all you got, buddy. You still haven't answered a very simple question I asked you twice. You can't, can you? So, carry on with that gibberish of your.

He cannot answer without proving he doesn't know what he is talking about. So he retreats to this sort of thing. Sad.

[Leatherneck 693]

Right. Gibberish. That's all you got, buddy. You still haven't answered a very simple question I asked you twice. You can't, can you? So, carry on with that gibberish of your.

First of all, I decide what questions I will or will not answer. Second, your question was obviously rhetorical, and as such, not worthy of a reply. If you had been asked, 'were any liberals and progressives members of the 110th Congress?' You'd feel such a question was both silly and rhetorical. So make your point.

[mawilson 2,133]

Of couse he would say that. Nobody's actually going to say they renounced for tax reasons.

Not only that, but there's a provision in the immigration law to bar entry to any individual

"who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney

General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation

by the United States."

INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

Obviously I can't speak for Eduardo Saverin but it's true that many banks are refusing to open accounts for Americans overseas as they have to report to the IRS and the requirements are becoming increasingly stringent and difficult. While it may not be a huge issue, if you don't plan on living in the US, having US citizenship may be more trouble than it is worth, especially for someone with a lot of money. I don't say that just because of the tax issues but because if you have enough money, a lot of the advantages of US citizenship like protection, the ability to travel, and the ability to be in the US are not really advantages anyways since you can work those things out for the right price.

Yep.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

First of all, I decide what questions I will or will not answer. Second, your question was obviously rhetorical, and as such, not worthy of a reply. If you had been asked, 'were any liberals and progressives members of the 110th Congress?' You'd feel such a question was both silly and rhetorical. So make your point.

The question was not rhetorical. It was to help you see just how off the chart your comments are.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Not only that, but there's a provision in the immigration law to bar entry to any individual

"who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney

General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation

by the United States."

Exactly. With his money and investments, he would have no problem coming back to the US on an E visa whenever he wants. Unless he does something dumb like make himself inadmissible.

My guess is he wants to keep the door open - just in case.

[Leatherneck 693]

The question was not rhetorical. It was to help you see just how off the chart your comments are.

My comments are below, one or both prompted your question, exactly what is "off the chart" about either comment?

Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?

Leave = you get the Exit Tax

Die = you get the Estate Tax

Keep living = keep paying until you die.

As usual, you missed the point, so no surprise here. The key word was "progressives," you do know they sit on both sides of the aisle or is that news to you? Kind of hard for you to admit you're aware of that now -- that would make you and your ("But hey, why worry about reality when fiction makes for better much outrage?") comment look rather silly. A progressive with an 'R' or a 'D' after his/her name is still a progressive.

I could care less who votes for or causes the grab bag of confiscatory taxes to be sustained so the clowns in D.C. can continue to piss the money away, the results are the same.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My comments are below, one or both prompted your question, exactly what is "off the chart" about either comment?

Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?

The bolded part. I explained why that's off the chart earlier.

[Leatherneck 693]

Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?

The bolded part. I explained why that's off the chart earlier.

"Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?"

Ok, you mentioned the 110th Congress, who drafted, who co-sponsored this tax and voted for this tax? Like I said, progressives have both R's and D's after their names.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?"

Ok, you mentioned the 110th Congress, who drafted, who co-sponsored this tax and voted for this tax? Like I said, progressives have both R's and D's after their names.

And you have yet to answer whether you believe that there was any conservative in the 110th Congress. Like I said, there wasn't a single vote of opposition to the expansion of the exit tax. Not one. Not in the House and not in the Senate. So, unless you're saying that there wasn't a single conservative in the 110th Congress, it stands to reason that conservatives supported this legislation just as much as progressives did.

[mawilson 2,133]

And you have yet to answer whether you believe that there was any conservative in the 110th Congress.

I thought we just had one Congress, we have 110 of them? Damn!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought we just had one Congress, we have 110 of them? Damn!

Actually, I think we're on the 112th now.

[Leatherneck 693]

And you have yet to answer whether you believe that there was any conservative in the 110th Congress. Like I said, there wasn't a single vote of opposition to the expansion of the exit tax. Not one. Not in the House and not in the Senate. So, unless you're saying that there wasn't a single conservative in the 110th Congress, it stands to reason that conservatives supported this legislation just as much as progressives did.

It's an appropriate opportunity to add some context here (s) and reiterate my original comment.

1. The bill was over whelming passed/supported without any Nays, maybe because no one wanted a scarlet letter for not supporting tax relief and financial help to veterans and those serving in the armed services. With a name like "Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008" (HEART ACT) but as usual with bills, there was bit of dog poop mixed with the good intent, a provision providing for the very first real 'Exit' tax was included. Good ole Charlie Rangel killed two birds with one stone, he finally really screwed the expats he hates so much and proposed to pay for the HEART ACT with said funds. You come off as if the first real 'exit tax' was a stand alone bill, it was not -- what politician would vote against tax and financial relief for members of the military?

Upon reading the bill, it's obvious why conservatives supported (HEART ACT) the bill as much as why Democrats and progressives did so -- no mystery here.

2. Just to clarify, the HEART ACT did not expand any exit tax, there was no actual exit tax prior to 2008, just taxation after expatriation. The act did completely change what had been 10 years of continued taxation on those that renounced their citizenship to a Mark-to-market tax, an exit tax on the "deemed sale" of all assets and treated as if all assets were sold on the day before the expatriation date.

3. My original statement, "Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?" The HEART ACT was Charlie Rangel's baby -- no conservative by any stretch of the imagination and no moderate Democrat either.

You have yet to state exactly what is "off the chart" about "Is there a tax the progressives have not thought of... Exit Tax?" Considering a progressive thought of/introduced the bill which became Pub. Law 110-245.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Leatherneck