Over at OTB, we find Doug opining: [1]
Two Democratic Senators have introduced legislation that seems designed solely to punish people like Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin: [2]
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin recently relinquished his U.S. citizenship just ahead of Facebook’s massive initial public offering. But if Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer has anything to do with it, as the senator said today, “Mr. Saverin’s social network is about to get a lot smaller.”
The 30-year-old entrepreneur, whose shares in Facebook are expected to be worth around $3 billion after the social network goes public on Friday, is now residing in Singapore. Conveniently, Singapore does not have capital gains taxes, so his move could save Saverin anywhere from $67 million to $100 million in U.S. taxes.
Presuming that Saverin moved to avoid paying taxes, Schumer and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania on Thursday unveiled legislation to stop what they called a “despicable trend.”
Under their legislation, any American who renounces his or her citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes will be punished in two ways: They will be barred from re-entering the U.S., and their future investments in the U.S. will be taxed at a 30 percent rate.
Taking advantage of every Facebook one-liner available, Schumer said of Saverin, “Sen. Casey and I have a status update for him: Pay your taxes in full, or don’t ever try to visit the U.S. again.”
(…)
Current law says that a person who renounces his U.S. citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes can be barred from re-entering the country, as Talking Points Memo pointed out this week, but Schumer said there have been problems enforcing the law.
Under Schumer and Casey’s bill, if an American with a net worth of $2 million or a tax liability of $148,000 renounces his or her citizenship, the IRS will presume that person is moving in order to avoid paying taxes. The person in question will be responsible for proving otherwise.
If a former citizen wants to return to the U.S., Schumer said, he could pay all the taxes he owes in order to return.
[3]
OTB's Doug Mataconis
Call it Eduardo’s law, I suppose. Before I get around to discussing what is so horribly stupid about this idea from Schumer and Casey, it’s worth noting that this bill is unlikely to ever see the light of day. For one thing, it’s not going to get past the Senate thanks both to the filibuster, and it’s likely that there will be more than a few Democratic Senators who aren’t going to be too eager to support this kind of legislation. Even if it did somehow make it through the Senate, it won’t ever pass a Republican-controlled House. And if Mitt Romney is President next year, he’s not going to sign it into law. If we ever get to the point where Congress and whoever is in the White House are talking about comprehensive fiscal reform, it may be on the table as a bargaining chip for the Democrats, but it’s likely to be sacrificed in negotiations far sooner than the Buffett Rule would be. What we’re looking at, then, is pure politics on the part of Schumer and Casey meant to take advantage of all the publicity this week about Facebook’s Initial Public Offering.This proposed law has nothing to do with fixing any problems involving our tax code, and everything to do with using Eduardo Saverin, who has likely contributed more to the American economy than Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey combined, as a convenient whipping boy.
In short, the socialist left is doubling down on the class warfare rhetoric, since it’s all they have to go with in the next election. But more;
Leaving that aside, though, there are several serious problems with the proposal that Casey and Schumer are making. Right off the bat, the fact that the law creates the presumption that someone has renounced their citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes constitutes a near-unprecedented modification of the burden of proof. Ordinarily in such situations, it is the government that has the burden of establishing that the act was done for an improper purpose, but this bill would create a different burden of proof for people based solely on their income level, something that should be profoundly disturbing to anyone concerned with civil liberties.
[4]True enough, but precisely the response to expect from a group of people who figures that “social justice” is the end all and be all, and of greater worth than freedom. We had a revolution over taxes, and the freedoms eliminated in the way of maintaining their flow to an ever larger government. The Senator, apparently, has forgotten. Perhaps more likley, he never knew, or doesn’t believe in those freedoms.
You see, even assuming that Schumer is legally correct, in that the reason the gentleman left was because of taxes, it should be noted that something obvious is going missing here. Of course, the obvious answer that will never occur to the likes of the appropriately rat- faced Schumer is to adjust things so that such money stays in the country. IE; Lower taxes. Thereby, providing jobs here as opposed to elsewhere.
Ol Chuckles is in a snit because he thinks that’s money HE’S entitled to. He wants to erect a wall, to keep people in. I seem to recall Ronald Reagan telling Premier Gorbachev to tear down his wall, also designed to keep people in. And for the same reasons.
Perhaps a worthy comparison, would be people leaving particular states for the same reason. Consider, for example, the plight of California. This is a plight of their own making….Their tax and spend policies.. the growth of government… are what is You leading to people flee the state in droves.
As goes California yeah, so goes the country.
And the same with Maryland, where the moronic Democrat governor there, has decided to play into the class warfare business as well. [5]in their case, the people are leaving for places like Florida. So bad was the exodus, that the tax increase the governor signed into law on the idea that it was going to raise revenue by a certain amount actually lost twice that amount from people leaving.
And the left, still hasn’t gotten the message. I suppose the assumption is that when there’s a one-world government in place, there will be no place left to escape to.
Perhaps the more important message here, is that this is the kind of anti freedom, pro socialist, dictatorial, and totalitarian nonsense that one can expect so long as Democrats remain in any position of power…. down to and inclusive the position of dog-catcher.