Considering that he hasn't worked at Facebook for a while, he must have been doing something to draw an income. Given his standing in the technology world, I highly doubt that he was working for free and he seems to have no problem coming up with the cash to live a jet-set lifestyle. Might he be taking a nominal salary at his start-ups? Maybe, but he comes across as the kind of guy who likes to have some coin in his pocket, so I doubt he's earned less than $250K/year since leaving Harvard. On top of that, apparently, he's liquidated some $250 million in Facebook equity and already paid taxes on that, so I'd say the guy's made more than his fair share of a contribution to the moochers who depend on the government teat for succor. And how does the tax code "subsidize" start-ups? By not forcing them to pay corporate income tax until they are profitable? That rule applies to any company. Nor are there any special "start-up-only" accounting rules, with the obvious exception that start-ups don't necessarily have to file anything that any other non-public company doesn't have to file. Have you ever gotten a fact right in your life?
could you be this clueless about the us tax code. i suppose given your "logic" on some other positions. the us tax code is very generous to new business of all kinds. there are all kinds of special perks for small business from special depreciation to nol rules to writeoffs for losses. this all comes at a cost to other taxpayers. try to educate yourself on tax law. it might come in useful someday.
Refugees viz Albert Einstein & H1Bs viz Linus Torvalds contributed to the prosperity of America. Americans should now emigrate and contribute to the rest of the world.
Wow, and for every rule that "subsidizes" a startup, there are 100 rules that an established business can exploit. Do you really think that "special depreciation" is solely available to startups? Or "writeoffs for losses"? Yes, the actual section of the code may be different, but the principles behind the code are the same for startups and established businesses. Seriously, I can't possibly be the first (nor will I be the last) to say that you are just completely out of your depth on just about any topic discussed here. Perhaps there's a website devoted to eating your own boogers that would be more your speed.
I still have not heard what a fairer way would be for him to renounce his citizenship, cash in his chips and go on to the next casino. As far as i can tell he is doing things by the book. Renouncing and paying his exit taxes... Appears he is acting within his legal rights. The issue appears to be some expected moral obligation in the court of public opinion... Propaganda driven jealousy... unjust enrichment.. or plain resentment. If you feel we are being raped and pillaged of tax revenues by one persons sole decision to renounce you really need to examine all the foreign investments and tax schemes available to non us citizens. I'm much more concerned about this: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...ilent-on-chinese-takeover-of-us-bank-branches FDIC insurance covering dollar denominated accounts held in China state owned banks. What do you guys think of this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act
The other thing to consider is that this guy's a lot younger than I would think most of his critics are. He probably sees the ass-raping he'd be subjected to over the next 3 decades as Federal deficits go parabolic with the coming retirement of the Baby Boomers and says "no thanks".
that doesnt change the fact that he could easily have gone from startup to a billion net worth without paying income tax. just as i said. now that he has it made he wants to escape without any cost. hardly fair to the other taxpayers. our system is set up so you dont have to contripute to the cost of maintaining a civilized society while you are building a business and not yet making any money. its not unreasonable to expect that those who hit it big give some back. does logic easape you?
Oh geez. I am not disputing logic_man in his factual argument, it's probably true. Actually, I don't even care if it's true. Who knows anyway? We're talking about this man's character, not whether or not he paid up in the past, nor the legality of what he's doing. I'm not surprised y'all keep bringing that up, but that's not what I'm debating. Saying he paid his taxes in the past is like saying he breathed. There's no merit in it, it's just something he did because he had to. Either the guy feels some residual loyalty to the place where he made his fortune, or he doesn't. In the latter case, he's (obviously to most not on planet ET) an ass who should be inconvenienced in every way possible if he tries to get back in, even for a visit. So yeah, he paid his taxes. Maybe. So what? That doesn't at all make him immune for being judged on this decision. The former was a requirement of his being a citizen; the latter is an exercise in free will. All of us are free to judge that, and bringing up his prior payments has exactly nothing to do with how we should judge his entirely voluntary action in renouncing his citizenship. As for the sanity of people who think the eehvul gov't is going to seize everything, I leave that for the reader to decide.
So, A guy exercises his right to emigrate and he is a traitor? Like the type that sell state secrets or plots against the govt. The guy is naturalized even..not a birth citizen, which is merely an accident and or luck anyways. He was Brazilian born and also holds Singapore citizenship. Fucking loons...all of you. So atlas starts to shrug and you all freak out cause the freebie party is coming to a slow end?
The situation is somewhat more complicated than it appears. The US is in a 30-year ponzi scheme. This allowed the US to have low import taxes and lots of offshoring and bending the rules and tax loopholes didn't matter, there was enough money and wealth to go around, at the beginning of a ponzi-scheme all is well. Because let's face it, this guy is simply exploiting a legal loophole. Now that the ponzi-scheme is collapsing the USA has a problem. If the ponzi-scheme was absent there would be a bigger recession decades ago which would have led to smarter and higher taxes, out of necessity.