81–90 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the article he still has to pay the exit tax.
I read the article. You mean the exit tax that "trapped" him in the USA, from which he just expatriated? I must have missed that part.
He's going to regret this down the road. Yes taxing on Worldwide income is absurd but not more absurd than giving up your right to live in the US. There will come a day, probably not too far in the future, where being young and rich on a tiny island isn't fun anymore and he's going to want to do something with his life. He's going to be quite sad when doing it in the United States is no longer an option.
this has got to be one of the most insular things I've seen on hn in a while. sure, the us is a wonderful place in which to "do something with your life"; in fact it's where I've currently chosen to do something with mine, so I'm certainly not bashing it. but the world is full of places in which billions of people are doing fascinating things with their lives; to say that someone who made the considered decision to g…
US citizenship is a nasty trap from which it is extremely difficult to escape. The US is one of a very small number of countries which will happily tax its citizens on income earned overseas, thus causing them to pay double taxes on everything they earn. This has seriously bad consequences for US competitiveness, in particular: 1. It discourages competent foreign citizens from seeking US citizenship (a greencard is s…
You're missing a key aspect here: Social Security. While the US does indeed have tax treaties with many countries, it doesn't have treaties with everyone regarding social security. I live in Israel, which does have an income tax treaty with the US. Still, for many types of employment and contracting scenarios, I must pay social security "twice"—once for each country. That's a hefty amount of double taxation. Regardle…
As for as the "double" part, can you not then collect from both countries when you retire?
The lack of social responsibility is what erks me the most about Saverin's decision. Saverin takes full advantage of the investments and sacrifices made by countless Americans and then when the country asks for him to uphold his obligation as a citizen, he leaves to save a few percentage points. This is a tactic for small thinkers.
Quite so. Good riddance Mr. Saverin.
30 years old. He'll have to do his National Service in the Singaporean army. Edit: Correction. His children would be eligible. Also, Singapore doesn't allow dual-citizenship, so he'll have to give up his Brazilian citizenship (if he had it).
The article doesn't say he's establishing citizenship in Singapore; just residency. He presumably will remain a citizen of Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Brazil
"While de jure all males are required to serve, numerous exceptions mean military service is de facto limited mostly to volunteers, with an average of between 5 and 10% of those reporting for duty actually being inducted"
Brazilian law says that he should have lost his Brazilian citizenship for voluntarily acquiring the US citizenship (which also requires that you renounce all others). But I guess with so much cash it won't be a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing a key aspect here: Social Security. While the US does indeed have tax treaties with many countries, it doesn't have treaties with everyone regarding social security. I live in Israel, which does have an income tax treaty with the US. Still, for many types of employment and contracting scenarios, I must pay social security "twice"—once for each country. That's a hefty amount of double taxation. Regardle…
Social Security is not taxation. You get money back directly to you correlated with what you paid. As for as the "double" part, can you not then collect from both countries when you retire?
Immigrant who only sought US citizenship for financial gain, renounces US citizenship for financial gain. This is not terribly surprising. There is a subset of Immigrants that move to the US, not because they believe in its ideals, but because it is financially advantageous for them to do so. Sometimes it works for the benefit of the US... as in this case. Other times... not so much. On balance, I believe we generall…
Just because one guy is making a financial decision doesn't mean you blame a large group for some perceived lost of ideals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this has got to be one of the most insular things I've seen on hn in a while. sure, the us is a wonderful place in which to "do something with your life"; in fact it's where I've currently chosen to do something with mine, so I'm certainly not bashing it. but the world is full of places in which billions of people are doing fascinating things with their lives; to say that someone who made the considered decision to g…
And yet sadly, most Americans seem to have this myopic view that the USA is the be-all and end-all of everything good, sacred, and worthy. Welcome to America
When people in America have a hard time getting a house loan, or have shitty health care, or are living on food stamps, they simply say "Well, at least we are better off than everyone else".
THAT is extremely scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social Security is not taxation. You get money back directly to you correlated with what you paid. As for as the "double" part, can you not then collect from both countries when you retire?
That's not accurate. SS returns don't scale directly with payments. The more money you make the less you get back from SS (percentage-wise). There are also some other rules regarding marriage. It's redistribution of wealth and is not simply money back in direct relation to what you pay. (I am not taking any ethical or political stance on wealth redistribution. I am just noting that the previous description of SS is n…
While technically true, I wouldn't really call it a redistribution of "wealth", when income is capped at ~110k for the SS calculation. Wealthy people are hardly affected.