San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

I don't see that as a big deal. Those American citizens live abroad already. Permanent US residents do pay income taxes, the same as US citizens.

What this shows is that a US passport is not as essential as it used to be. Passports of the European Union, and developed Asian nations such as Singapore allow holders to travel just about anywhere without visas. And if you live within ASEAN, then an ASEAN passport is better than a US passport for doing business in the region.

I think of this as no different than foreign nationals coming to America to set roots and becoming American citizens.

The title may lead many to believe the article is about Zuckerberg, who is "the" founder that comes to mind, and who is also US born.

Saverin is Brazilian, so he's just giving back his US citizenship, which many people apply for mostly for convenience. It would be a real scandal if he were US born.

I don't see why this would be a scandal if he were US born.

Americans are so neurotic about their identity that then can't fathom anyone not wanting to be American. Wow, surprise!

Billionaires and celebrities move to America and become US citizens (Murdock for example). In a globalized world, it's normal to have a give and take. We are drawing more immigrants than we lose, so it's still a net gain for us.

Sounds like dodging taxes to me...

The guy doesn't live in America. Why does he need to remain an American citizen and pay US taxes?

What he did makes perfect sense to me.

I'm sure millions of foreign nationals who have become US citizens have given up their original citizenships to avoid ties and taxes to their home countries.

What could be more patriotic than that these days?

He's on his own if he gets sentenced to caning for possession of chewing gum.

He co founded an american company on american soil, no?
And if his net worth is $4billion. What's the deal with paying extra taxes... What happened to all this rhetoric on taxing the rich????

Ah yes, because we really don't want to tax "those rich". We really just want to tax rich as defined to be gross W2 income above $250k.... Yeah, makes perfect sense to me...

Actually possession is not illegal in Singapore. The import and sale of gum is illegal.

Chewing gum is a nasty, filthy habit. I would like a ban in America. Look at how dirty our streets are because of gum. Some filthy person stuck gum on my building elevator.

In America this begins in elementary school. Look under the students' desks. Disgusting uncivilized habit!

I also don't see this as a big deal. I think it would be a bigger deal if the guy was actually born here but even then probably not if he doesn't plan to live in the USA for the foreseeable future.

Sounds like a smart move to me.

Many American companies will take as many legal steps necessary to avoid paying taxes in the USA. And you know what? It's wise to take advantage of as many legal steps possible. Now if they are breaking the law it's one thing. But it would be foolish not to take advantage of paying the least amount of taxes as they can get away with.

There is nothing cool or patriotic about paying lots of taxes.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/...

Yup. Tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is a Constitutionally guaranteed right and if I had that kind of jingle coming my way, I'd be figuring out every angle under the sun on how to reduce my tax burden.

EXACTLY. Legal tax avoidance is just plain wise. It's easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to say they wouldn't do the same thing but I can guarantee you if you were about ready to come into a windfall of money like this.... you wouldn't be thrilled about paying billions of dollars in taxes if you could legally avoid it. There are many other better countries to have a passport from.

He won't get off totally free like the article mentioned. He will still pay a bundle in taxes to the US government.

Hopefully they audit him on his way out. He needed to renounce years ago to really save on his taxes, assuming he doesn't try to cheat.

Huh? Yes, he certainly will save a ton once this stock goes public. It will end up being a few hundreds of millions less. (The stock price will certainly go higher than the expected range). Not chump change. It was smart starting this back in September.

He is still going to pay a fortune in taxes to the US government so I wouldn't feel too sorry for the government.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/05/12/...

Have to disagree with you, flu. The rhetoric from *Washington and the MSM* is all about taxing working people who make over $250K/yr, but most of the people on the street who want "raise taxes on the rich" are talking about taxes on investments, especially ending the preference given to LT cap gains/dividends. Why not tax that at the same rates as earned income?

Here's my take on Eduardo Saverin:

1. From Wikipedia, we learn that he was brought to the US to escape a potential kidnapping plot in Brazil. IOW, they moved here because of our social/legal infrastructure that enables people to live more safely than in other -- something I often mention in the "anti-tax" types of threads.

"By 1993, Saverin's father had become wealthy, and in 1993 it was discovered that his son Eduardo´s name had been placed on a list of kidnapping victims by gangs specializing in kidnapping for ransom. As a result, the family moved to Miami to find a safer place to live."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Sav...

2. It looks like the majority of Facebook's advertising revenue comes from the US -- presumably paid for by US consumers. This allows Facebook to offer their initial shares at much higher prices than they would otherwise sell for.

"Facebook also reported that 56% of its advertising revenue comes from the U.S alone, it also reported that 12% of its revenue comes from zynga the popular social network game development company. Payments and other fees were $557 million up from $106 million the previous year.[69]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

3. Facebook's intellectual property was protected by the legal system paid for by US taxpayers.

Additionally, when Saverin attempted to sue Zuckerberg (settled out of court), he was using our legal system to enforce his rights to his share in the company.

This is part of the taxpayer-funded legal infrastructure that I often talk about in the anti-tax threads.

-------------

This goes back to the ideas discussed on the "Self-Made Myth" thread. Where would Saverin be without the U.S.? IMHO, the benefits he received from our country and our taxpayers are what enabled him to make this money. He is a filthy, greedy tax evader, and he should lose EVERYTHING if he tries to avoid paying taxes on the wealth he earned almost exclusively because of the legal/social/business environment found in the U.S.

He found a solution to his problem. But after finding a solution to his problem he forgot
to ask himself if his solution is right. He would have been more a significant person if he just paid his taxes.

Facebook is a worldwide company not just an American company.

AIG and HSBC were founded in China. Chiquita built its business thanks to Latin America. GM sells more cars in China.

Facebook, the corporation pays taxes. Remember, the corporation is separate from the shareholders.

If you own shares of Toyota, should you pay Japanese taxes? I don't think so.

I see it a bit differently than that, Brian.

If we were talking about dividend taxes on existing shares, one might not want to pay "foreign income taxes" on those dividends, especially after the corporate taxes have been paid.

This is different, IMHO. We're talking about capital gains on IPO shares. Facebook itself hasn't generated enough taxable earnings to pay anywhere near what insiders would owe on gains made through the IPO.

I plan on living abroad in the near future. If I find it more beneficial to renounce my U.S. citizenship, I will. I have no conviction to any one country. Those who think that the U.S. is the best place in the world to live have not traveled much thus they have a myopic view of the world.

Even if you live abroad many years you might want to really think twice about renouncing your US citizenship. I lived abroad for almost a decade and I never even thought of giving up my US citizenship.

I've lived in several different countries and travel extensively (over 100+ days a year). We have residences in several countries as well. We also have permanent residency status in several countries besides the USA. Our kids hold 3 passports.

Although I side with this guy in this case, I personally wouldn't give up US Citizenship unless I was in some situation like this guy and I happened to really like Singapore or Hong Kong or wherever I was living.

Although I have enjoyed living in other countries I will agree that the US is the best place in the world to live in when you look at the total overall quality of life issues, efficiency, safety, efficiency, ease and affordability of buying goods, etc.

The USA is one of the greatest countries in the world. Both of my children were born abroad but they instantly got USA citizenship because I'm American.

Definitely take advantage of the legal tax structures to minimize your legal taxes. For example, if you are living the entire year (or in the USA less than 30 days a year) in the foreign country you can take the first $92,900 you make in that country and it is tax free in the USA. Also, if you are married, your spouse can also take the $92,900 per year tax free credit. Potentially $185,800 per year tax free. (Check out IRS Form 2555 or Form 2555-EZ). And with inflation, those amounts have been steadily increasing each year.

Of course you will most likely pay taxes in the country you are living in. And in the case you make quite a bit of money, you will be paying taxes in both that country and the USA on any income above those amounts. It can really suck if there is no tax treaty between countries.

But the point is you should NOT pay anymore taxes than you are legally obligated to pay. I don't fault this guy at all. And he still will be paying plenty of taxes to the USA government on the departure tax.

It's just silly and ignorant to pay more taxes than you are legally obligated to pay when living abroad.

And for the arguments that the USA gave this guy the means to build his company, etc. Sure, and you can also argue that because of this guy, an entity like Facebook came into fruition. You could argue without him, that Facebook might not have never happened. It could have ended up being Harvard Connection and then just failing.

Certainly the USA will make unimaginable amounts of money because he came to the USA. Thousands of jobs in the USA will be created (which these people will pay taxes on), the company will pay incredible amounts of taxes on. And all of these people will pay capital gains taxes on their instant wealth as well as buy properties that they will pay property taxes on.

So try to look at it from the standpoint that the USA has benefited more from Saverin entering the USA. Tremendous amounts of tax revenue will enter the federal government as well as the state of California because they allowed this guy to come to the USA and get citizenship. Look at it objectively.

But it's HIS money. This is not a communist country where the money an individual makes belongs to the state. You, the government, police, pensions, unions, politicians, and hell even wall street is not entitled to the money that HE made beyond what is legally required according to the laws of the United States. And he did the follow the law.

We could encourage people like him to stay and spend, invest, and donate his money here but why should he? He and all those other companies hoarding money overseas could have built a new business here, invested, spent money here, but the press, the government, you call them greedy tax evaders and you want them tarred and feathered. For working hard and investing money, they are demonized. For benefiting the world with facebook, he is cast as a person of ill repute.

For all your excitations, you want to _raise_ taxes on him and his "ilk". If you do, don't be surprised if this happens more often.

Look at the other side of the coin. Sinapore has NO capital gains taxes. They now get the benefit of that money that he brings to their economy. He will go there, invest, build, and spend HIS money.

So riddle me this economic genius, if we want more money in our economy, which model should we follow? The one where we get more money into our economy? Or the one where we get more money exiting our economy?

Because you can moan and groan about how unfair it is that people are walking out the U.S. with their money but it doesn't change the fact that it is human nature to only want to keep what you have and protect it from people like you who think that it should be taken away.

You're missing the entire point, surveyor.

If not for the legal, social, physical, and military infrastructure that is paid for by US taxpayers, he (and most other wealthy US citizens/companies who avoid paying taxes in this country) probably wouldn't have made "his" money.

Personally, I don't like Facebook, and think it will end up being a significant privacy/security problem down the road for those who have accounts with FB. If it had never existed, I don't think anyone would have suffered for it.

If we want more money in this country, we need to support businesses in intelligent ways that don't harm our workforce or our environment. I have no problem with low/no interest loans, tax credits, subsidies, streamlined/reasonable regulatory proceedures, etc. It's also imperative that the entities who make money from our system repay the government for the benefits they've received.

We need to rework the tax and trade policies that encourage businesses to offshore our jobs and hide money overseas. If they want to be Chinese (or whatever nationality) companies, let them rely on China to protect their intellectual property, guard their sea lanes, fight for their rights if those countries should choose to "nationalize" the companies, etc. If they want to sell in the US, they need to pay fees/taxes for the use of our ports and distribution infrastructure in this country.

Too many people think that they, alone, are the reason for their success. Nine times out of ten, that is not the case.

BTW, Saverin did not work for this money; he was an investor.

No, you're missing the point CAR.

Where did he get the money that he used to invest? Did it appear magically from somewhere else? Odds are that he worked for it and then invested it.

It's still his money. The united states may be the parent that provided the environment for a successful child, but the parent has no right to the future income of the child when that child is an adult.

If the child wishes to give money back to the parent, then that is his choice but it is not for the parents to arbitrarily decide that it belongs to them.

What you constantly don't understand is that the vast majority of these people bring value, jobs, money to the United States. Do you think increasing taxes, regulations, and transaction fees will support businesses and make them successful? Do you think demonizing businesses and putting them on blacklists will result in more businesses or less? Because these are the things you have advocated for.

So who's missing the point again?

No, it's unlikely he worked for the money he invested since he was just a college kid at the time. Chances are it came from his father.

The parent-child relationship is totally different because it typically isn't reciprocal (at least, not in our society, unfortunately). Parents tend to give to their children because they love them unconditionally. The reason for their giving is emotional, not practical. This is 100% different from the relationship between private and public entities.

What you constantly fail to understand is the importance of the social, legal, physical, military, etc. infrastructure that government provides. Without this, it doesn't matter how "hard" one works, the chance of really "making it big" are greatly diminished.

Here is another good piece on why Saverin isn't "self-made" (can't believe I had forgotten the role of the internet in his success -- another government invention):

http://pandodaily.com/2012/05/12/what-ed...

Again, you've missed the point. Do you think that increasing taxes, regulations, and transaction fees will create more businesses and opportunity or will it destroy businesses? Do you think that demonizing businesses, taking away their assets, and putting them on blacklists will create more businesses or decrease the amount of business?

These are things that you've specifically advocated. Some of them right here in this discussion.

Saverin is a very good example of how your policies would work. He took HIS money and took it out of the U.S. If you want him to stay here, it has to be attractive for his to stay. It wasn't. And nothing you have advocated would change that. In fact, they would make it worse.

At some point you're going to have to realize that it is precisely the social, legal, physical, military infrastructure and people with your attitude that this government currently provides that is forcing businesses and people like him out of the U.S. Why should they stay? So that they can lose money?

They're not stupid you know.

If FB is the best the US can do in terms of creating new companies, our day is done. Companies like FB don't create very many jobs, and those that they do create are highly centralized in already overdeveloped areas like SV. We don't need any new FBs or MySpaces or GeoCities, etc... These things come and go like dandelions. Now that FB has IPOed and everyone's grandmother is on it, it has reached its apogee and will be systematically looted by those who got in at the early stages of the Ponzi scheme. Look for it to be purchased by NBC for $1B in about 5 years.

What we need is a new GM, a new Apple, or a new IBM. We won't get those however since they are all being created overseas.

The flip side is the harvesting of human resources from all around the world for the benefit of the US economy. Plucking a Nigerian nurse from a village where she's taking care of dozens of children and placing her in a retirement home in suburban Chicago to take care of few oldtimers offloaded by their baby-boomer children causes irreparable damage. Or not as dramatic, but still 'unfair' transfer of taxpayers money when a graduate from Germany or a PhD from Ukraine takes a job at an American university.

What? Are you telling me that if I just "like" a few million people, it won't allow me to retire? Really? I swear I was told by a lot of young lads, that's all they wanted to do as job!

Speaking of GM... GM pulls out of facebook as an advertising medium...

GM says Facebook ads not effective, pulls campaign ahead of IPO

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/16/gm-sa...