Getty Images
I suspect most have heard about Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's decision to renounce his American citizenship, a move that will save Saverin from having to pay federal capital gains taxes just as Facebook's IPO reaps a windfall.
Though he denies the move is related to tax avoidance, Saverin's announcement has not been well received. Indeed, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) unveiled the Ex-PATRIOT Act -- "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy" Act -- yesterday, which would not only hit folks like Saverin with a hefty new tax burden, and may prevent reentrance into the United States.
Schumer told reporters yesterday, "Senator Casey and I have a status update for him: pay your taxes, or don't set foot in the United States ever again."
As it turns out, however, some on the right are rallying to Saverin's defense. Forbes magazine ran a piece lauding him as a "hero," while Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-Utah) office yesterday argued the tax code is the problem, not Saverin's willingness to abandon the country.
Hatch's spokeswoman, Antonia Ferrier, chastened Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) for seeking to punish the wealthy co-founder of Facebook for renounced his U.S. citizenship just a few months before he stood to gain millions in the social networking site's initial public offering.
"You'd be hard pressed to find anyone applauding someone renouncing of his American citizenship to avoid his tax bill," Ferrier said in a statement. "But as usual, the response from the other side of the aisle is a talking point rather than a real solution."
A "real solution," in this case, would mean reducing the "massive tax burden" Saverin and those at his income level currently have to pay.
There are a couple of important problems with this.
First, Saverin and other members of the 1% don't have a "massive tax burden." As a share of the national economy, taxes in the Obama era have reached their lowest levels in more than a half-century, and specifically on capital gains, taxes are "at a historically low rate, and even proposals to increase [the capital gains tax rate] slightly would still fall well short of approaching the rate during the 1970s."
And second, since when do conservatives -- up until recently, the self-appointed arbiters of patriotism -- celebrate those who renounce their American citizenship as "heroes," as the Forbes piece did?
Farhad Manjoo had a very good piece this week on the role America has played in creating opportunities for Saverin.
Would it be too much to say that America saved Eduardo Saverin? Probably. Maybe that's just too overwrought. The Saverins were just another in a long line of immigrants who'd come to America for the opportunity it affords -- the opportunity, among other things, to not have to worry that your child will be kidnapped just because you've become wealthy.
Just because his parents moved here doesn't mean Eduardo Saverin owes America anything, right?
Yet if you study the trajectory of Saverin's life -- the path that took him from being an immigrant kid to a Harvard student to an instant billionaire to the subject of an Oscar-winning motion picture -- it emerges as a uniquely American story. At just about every step between his landing in Miami and his becoming a co-founder of Facebook, you find American institutions and inventions playing a significant part in his success.
Those American institutions exist because Americans pay taxes -- taxes Saverin won't pay as he gives up on the country that helped him succeed.
Republicans defending him and making excuses for him seems like an inexplicable mistake.
Leave a Comment:
Shorter Republican version . If you pay capital gains tax -yer a chump.
If god had intended good Uber wealthy Americans to pay taxes he wouldn't have created ferign counties and off shore tax shelters.
hey, these are republicans you're talking about. you, know, the bumper sticker, lapel pin, 'freedom fries' kind of guys who had "other priorities" or deferments to spend 3 years bicycling across france while nam was raging. its natural they'd rally to a shirk. taxes and bleeding is for the little people, don't ya know?
Republican mistake? No, think John Galt. Some where else the question was raised about how well Conservatives understand liberalism. I replied that Sen Schumer's plan to exact revenge on a tax exile tells conservatives everything they need to know.
Sure does. Dems punish tax dodgers. Repubs punish vaginas.
@Shooter - not for nothing, but there's the conservative mindset in a nutshell: "...exact revenge on a tax exile." Voluntarily renouncing citizenship and leaving the country is not the definition of being in exile. "Holding a tax dodger accountable" is a more fitting description. Look, Saverin is getting the heck out of dodge in order to avoid paying taxes which would be legitimately due. Nothing illegal about it, as has been said elsewhere, but nothing honorable either. Pretty sleazy, actually.
Sleazy? Maybe from the POV of an outstretched palm, but to us taxpayers, he's brilliant.
Hey Shooter: I'm a tax payer too. Speak for yourself.
"Sleazy? Maybe from the POV of an outstretched palm, but to us taxpayers, he's brilliant."
That is a bizarre interpretation of what it means to be brilliant. Saverin was fine when the money was flowing one way - in his direction - but as soon as he needs to pay out what is legitimately due, he takes a hike - leaving U.S. taxpayers in general to make up for what he's cutting-and-running with - brilliant? Brilliant in the sense that Romney's Swiss accounts are also "brilliant."
The Republican obsession with money is a lot like bulemia. It's more poisoning than nurturing.
Well Dan, If you don't have profitable business, you get no jobs or taxes. It also strikes me that the left is much more concerned with money. Other people's money.
It sounds to me, Shooter, that you would welcome the bulk of the tax burden being shuffled from the wealthy onto those who can hardly afford actual 'crushing taxation'. That is what we would get if such 'patriotic' Americans like Paul Ryan had their way and got what they wanted. It will shift the actual tax burden of the country and place it squarely on the shoulders of hard working citizens, who don't have the luxury of being able to hide their money in tax shelters or move overseas to skip out on taxation.
If so, I have to ask, why?
You're making incorrect assumptions based on headlines. The wealthy would be very happy if current tax rates were kept. The next best scenario is that ALL the Bush rates go back to Clinton rates. As it is, the wealthy (1%) pay double what they make in percentage terms.
Now given all that they have to wonder why half the country pays not one penny in income tax. It's a fair question. How is it we ended up with half the country freeloading on the Federal system? Is five dollars a week too much? How about ten? Either way it's hard for some people to be sympathetic when the left says 'gimmee more.'
you are so simplistic and think you're SMARTER than the average person and so you don't have to EXPLAIN the actual taxes people pay. The burden of state and local taxes fall disproportionately on those you denigrate as 'not paying one dime in income tax'. True they don't pay 'income taxes' but they ARE keeping the states alive while the Republicans rail that the WEALTHY are getting 'screwed' and then cutting off aid to the states because they KNOW who is keeping them afloat.
1. Romeny doesn't pay 24.01% That rate is for suckers (i.e., "ordinary" americans).
2. Love that you are defending a tax dodger, shooter. That's some real patriotism you got going on.
1) That rate is for all the 1% which means a lot of them pay more than 24%. Actually, denigrating an entire group of people because of a few hedgies is bigotry. Not nice.
2) As a Supreme court judge said, tax avoidance is proper, tax evasion is a crime. Meanwhile, since half the country pays no income tax are they traitors?
Shooter242 - No income tax?? Wow, that is the MOST tired republican talking point EVER!!! No, they are not traitors.. they are poor!!
Yes, you are right... they pay no "income tax" because they earn next to nothing. They do however pay other taxes like Medicare, SS, and others. So now that we have put that lame tired talking point out of the way; if you think you are going to balance the budget on that you are mistaken.
When 400 people have as much money as 1/2 the US population you can't expect those at the bottom can actually make a difference. You could tax the bottom half at 50% of their income and STILL not make up for the Bush tax cuts!!
Well actually 50% of the AGI of the low half of earners is around $500 billion. Or about double the Bush cuts.
Whats really interesting is that the deficit is more than what the bottom 50% made in 2009.
Again logical fallacies do not put you in a situation of pointing out hypocrisy, eap. The tax policies we have been under have ensured that a large portion of the country cannot contribute to income tax, but instead can only contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes at the federal level. If your belief system that lowering taxation would lead to higher paying jobs were true then this would mean that more people would be paying into the system and not less. The problem is that people having jobs =/= people having above liveable wage jobs. If you want more people to pay income tax then their wages need to go up. And that requires more investments into things like education and high paying jobs. If the job creators are wondering why their taxes are so high as opposed to everyone else's then they need simply only to pay their workers more thereby increasing the amount their workers contribute in taxes. If a job creator doesn't want to pay his workers more that is his choice, but then he does not get to whine when his workers do not pay income tax. This is called personal responsibility. A common theme w/ you eap is that you are perfectly fine w/ lack of responsibility when it comes to people you perceive to be wealthy, but then you whine about responsibility when it comes to everyone else. Sorry, but either you want people to own up to their own actions or you do not. If job creators want to fix this problem and if businesses really are such socially and economically responsible entities as you claim then this problem can be easily remedied and what is more it can be remedied w/o governmental interference. Asking the government to intervene would be, by your own logic, communist, lazy, and a limitation on the free market. The fact that the market doesn't correct this problem on it's own when it can and there are no laws impeding it from doing so suggests that the market truly doesn't care. And that suggests that your entire premise is a lie.
Right. The best way to buck up business is for them to make less money. Brilliant.
Then you need to redact this statement, eap:
Job creator pays his employees 9$/hr knowing that someone making 9$/hr will not pay federal income tax. Eap's argument is that the job creator isn't whiny and immature when he then complains that his employees aren't being required to pay federal income tax and that the job creator is then left scratching his head wondering why it is that he is the only one paying.
Eap has just unknowingly confirmed the liberal argument.
FTR: taxing your lower wage employees more = less wages (by your own argument below) = less purchasing power = less demand. Taxing wealthy individuals more = less burden that the lower class has to carry = more demand = more wealth.
So by your own logic, again, you're contradicting yourself.
If only the hoi polloi knew their history!
Saverin's actions are reflective of the late 18th century anti-federalists who disparaged a national authority in favor of their own "pursuit of happiness." Tea Partyers and their new found allies in the Republican party are making the argument they possess the true American spirit, are the true champions of Constitutionalism, and then, work to shout down their political rivals with "free speech" money.
As I witness the defense of Saverin, I see the 1% reneging on their part of the social compact; an extreme cognitive dissonance where "champions" of Constitutionalism want to amend the document whenever they desire; and radical plans to Richettize the 2012 election cycle.
Pay attention America, the crazies are trying to rule the roost! -Kevo
As for the role America has played in creating opportunities for Saverin. Well then, why hasn't everyone made billions?
As for his contribution, he paid the same as everyone else. Sales tax, gas tax, car registration, property tax, etc just like those folks that don't pay income tax. No, this guy was smart, worked hard and got lucky, so Schumer has his hand out saying gimmee, or something bad will happen to you. Tsk.
Yes, but could he have done it in Brazil? A lot of people work hard and are smart. Seems to me opportunities in America were the difference along with luck. And luck is nothing more than being the right place at the right time. The right place being America, the right time being during an online/digital/tech revolution in a new century. I wonder if he would have done so well if his folks had gone to Africa? Or Europe? Or Indonesia? Or even, Australia?
Yeah, just like every other tax payer. If you want to avoid taxes by renouncing your citizenship, fine. But you can't have the benefits, too. Your argument seems to be that the government should pay Saverin for hiring people, which he wouldn't do unless it was profitable in and of itself.
Believe it or not, there are billionaires in Africa, Indonesia, Europe and Australia. Obviously there are opportunities everywhere and the US is not unique.
???? He's a citizen right up until the moment he isn't. So he's making his pile and taking it with him. As is his right. Of course if he comes back as an illegal, it's a different story.
???? This sounds suspiciously like the meme if someone doesn't pay a tax, Govt paid him. Really? As in the Govt sends him a check? Tsk.
Amazing. You want simple? OK. Saverin made tons of money in America. He has paid taxes on it at a LOWER RATE than most Americans but that is the code right now. He stands to make a ton more when the IPO opens. He renounced his citizenship so he won't have to pay taxes on that money. Fine. Nothing illegal. BUT because he so transparently played this game, he will not be allowed back in the US...to do it again.
I think he's OK with that.
Heh.
Make lots of money by using the US social system and then leave w/o paying back into that system = patriotism
Ask the top 10% of income earners to pay more =/= tyranny!
Good to know. Ya know by this logic why don't all the millionaires and billionaires leave? If this is such a terrible country and if our tax laws are so unbearable why not just go? You've got the money to leave and you clearly have no loyalty to the US so why bother staying? That would solve the taxation issue and prove conservatives correct, so why aren't conservatives imploring rich people to do this? A mass tax exodus for the wealthy.
What are Forbes,Hatch etal saying when they endorse what Saverin is doing? They're saying "Goddamn America".The same as Romney's grandfather said when he ran out on the country because he did'nt like our law's.
People like Eduardo Saverin who simply want to live OFF of America should not be allowed to live IN America.
To make bazillions of dollars off of our economic system and then not reinvest in the process which makes it possible for him to make bazillions of dollars is also cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Sooner or later there will be no money left in America for Vulture Capitalists like Saverin to make even a dollar, let alone a bazillion dollars.
The problem with Saverin is that he looks like he 'used' America. His family fled to America because of repression in Brazil. They were wealthy so let's not make the mistake that he was another immigrant that landed in America with $5 in his pocket. He went to our schools and ended up in Harvard. He was lucky to be roommates with Zuckerberg and helped to fund the launch of FACEBOOK. NOW he wants to live in Singapore. Yes, to avoid the massive tax burden that will follow with the IPO. The problem is that Saverin learned EXACTLY what the Republicans wanted him to. USE America and when you have to pay 'your fair share' complain that you did it all yourself and you don't owe America anything. We no longer teach American history. We no longer teach pride in America. We now teach use it, grab it and outsource it.
C'mon, this guy just wants his 15 minutes of fame. Give him a break.
Plain and simple the GOP in applauding Savarin for renouncing his citizenship have just sent a tacit message to the elite - give up your citizenship and keep your money! Wow! I hope that everyone voting for the GOP realize that these people really don't give a dayum about working Americans or this nation!
I'd also like to thank Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey for at least attempting to correct this situation. Not only should Savarin not be allowed back into this country even to visit - but there ought to be a way to claw back some of the money he's about to make off with!
I'd also like for both the GOP and 1% to explain clearly why they feel that they are overburdened with "taxes" when as a share of their income they pay pennies on their millions? Also, as they enjoy these lowered tax rates - WHERE ARE THE JOBS FOR AMERICANS?
We should encourage the emerging view on the right that renouncing citizenship is an act of patriotism. All wingers should follow in the footsteps of their new hero as quickly as possible.
Perhaps he will move to Columbia, next door to the drug cartel kingpins who live off Americans by poisoning their bodies. No doubt they have a lot in common, but he will need to buy his own army.
This guy really pushed me over the top. I have worked since I was 15 yrs old. We were always dirt poor yet because of a "socialist" public school I did get a diploma. Never had the money for college, but I managed to raise kids, and try to live the "dream". I worked hard in the mines until my body gave out, and now I am currently paying federal income taxes on my disability checks at the standard rate. I paid my dues to MY country, followed the laws, and PAID ALL OF MY TAXES. I didn't complain too much because....I believe in civic responsibility. I'm the one who needs tax relief, and the rest of the people who are not doing so well are the ones who deserve tax relief.
This whole republican argument about job creators is bull....And as for Saverin, I say congrats on the large pile of money and don't come back.
When was the last time a poor person gave you job?
Poor people bought the product he mined - I'm guessing coal.
Shooter, you ignorant turd. My husband owns a business which employs people. There are weeks that he doesn't get a paycheck at all, especially during very down times, the times we have seen a lot of in the last couple of years. Yet he always pays his employees (and suppliers, which is why he can't take a paycheck).
Small businesses, the kind that employ a handful of people, are the backbone of our country, NOT the mega companies such as Facebook or Google who employ thousands.
And there is no way we would be considered wealthy in any way. I would venture to say that our employees are richer than we are.
So take your ignorance and stuff it.
Poor people bought the product he mined - I'm guessing coal.
And where, pray tell, did they get the the money to buy coal? A job perhaps?
Whoa, easy there lady. Been there, done that, sales tax agents came calling. I'm sticking up for you and your husband. Most people have no idea how products arrive, or that business is the only institution that creates wealth, or that business is really, really hard. I'm convinced most people actually believe elves make cookies.
Sadly most people only see only the successes, not the failures or the small business guys. When I say, when was the last time a poor person gave you a job I mean jobs do not come from consumers with demands. Jobs come from people who stick their neck out, risk their savings, and work twice as hard as the people whose wage they guarantee.
I'd like to see you post comments when the people here assume all people in business smoke cigars and count coins.
Jobs absolutely DO come from consumers with demands (or in our case, other businesses with demand, and our customers demand comes from consumer demand).
Demand begets demand. If you have consumers needing washing machines, washing machine manufacturers will increase production. Workers at the washing machine plants will then have money to spend on other products, which in turn begets another job. It is a cycle. And that cycle begins with demand.
Americans need disposable income to be able to shop. That shopping is what creates jobs (these days often in China, unfortunately).
As far as people in business smoking cigars and counting coins, I have never seen such a comment. But there is no reason why a CEO needs to or should be making 1000x what the producers are making. It is lopsided and does nothing to increase jobs or the US economy. Economic basics: The more people who have disposable income, the better the economy. The stronger the middle class, the better the economy. A handful of uber wealthy people do not and can not support the US economy. A large number of people who make enough money not just to survive, but to thrive (meaning disposable income to buy stuff) is what drives a successful economy.
And where did these consumers get the money to spend with you? A job. If they don't have a job, there is no demand, right? So how did you and you husband come to have a business? Did consumers camp outside your door and demand you provide them with something? Or did you spend your time and money setting up a business and hope customers came?
More to the point, if you went out of business tomorrow, your employees would be out of a job. Less demand. Their demand depends on your business, just like everyone else depends on their job. Business first, demand second.
Shooter, you might want to take a few classes in business sometime. Business first, demand later? You have NO idea how the business world works, outside of the tired right-wing talking points you continue to spew.
Demand creates the reason for a business to come into being, therefore, without demand, there IS no business. Anyone who has taken even a single class in Business 101 knows that.
I've actually had a business, and you're missing the point. There is always demand. There is never not demand. Demand is ever present, and persistent. There is no need to stimulate demand, it's the natural state of things.
The problem is how to pay for one's demands. You can demand until the cows come home, but if you don't have the money to pay for it, your demand means nothing.
And no, demand isn't the reason for business. Profit is the reason for business. No new profit, no new jobs, no new taxes. Any questions?
If you actually had run a business, then how could you not know that the reasoning behind why someone starts a business is due to a demand for some type of service. Profit only matters once a business is established.
Demand is ALWAYS the reasoning for a business. If it wasn't then why would anyone bother to start one? If there is no demand, you will make no money. Again, simple Business 101 stuff.
Since there are still a lot of people out of work, there is limited demand for good and services. Therefore it continues to drive demand down, and will do so until more jobs are created. States and the federal government could hire people back if money came from the Federal government to help bring those jobs back. But people would rather we stick with austerity, and continue to shed those public sector jobs. But I'm sure in your mind, public sector jobs aren't 'real' jobs, right?
Demand is always with us. You're thinking more demand, yes? You want a self-sustaining circle of demand increases, yes? That requires optimism. Optimism from business to increase hiring, right?
Consider the boom in North Dakota. Demand is going wild, people are making money. Why? Business has found a way to economically extract great amounts of natural gas. The business needs workers, who need support services, and on it goes.
Most people in ND are optimistic, what's wrong with everyone else? Why is the rest of the country/business pessimistic? Well, you know the right thinks Obama is killing demand by beating up business. I agree. Rules, regs, Obamacare in the Supreme Court, Taxmageddon coming up, arbitrary decision making in general... Anybody risking capital in this environment without a golden guarantee is negligent. The EPA could shut down ND drilling in a heartbeat. And all that demand will fizzle into nothing.
Business first, demand follows.
Eap does not realize that these two statements contradict:
Chickens always exist. Tigers do not need to worry about whether or not there are chickens, just how to cook them. Therefore tigers first, chickens second.
This is the most amazing logical paradox I've ever seen.
My apologies. Sometimes I assume too much.
It should read business first, demand fulfillment follows.
Maybe he should get a Swiss bank account or one in the Caymans.
Y'know, this could all be very neatly dealt with if only there were some sort of constitutional amendment clarifying (for our very daft supreme court) that a corporation is not, in fact, a person... And a few other larger issues looming here.
Until such a time as that, sorry, but I don't feel particularly inclined to join in the cries of, "Rich people are evil! Make a new citizenship law!" You'll just be chasing one loophole after another in a useless effort.
I'm a little confused by this. First, the State Dept can refuse to accept the renunciation -- for any reason. Have they already accepted his renunciation? If so, questions need to be asked of the State Dept. Particularly if it looks like tax avoidance is at play. (If I, as someone how is not a zillionaire, renounced my citizenship, you can bet that I would be fully subject to tax and other laws. Why isn't Mr. Saverin?
Second, if you have property abroad, you have to pay capital gains tax on the property (even if you still own it) as if you have sold it. There are already tax consequences. In 2008, there was an Exit Tax (passed unanimously by Congress) where wealthy "covered expatriates" are subject to the "billionaires tax" in the bill. Why is this not being invoked on Mr. Saverin?
Further, the IRS has the power to audit and file tax avoidance and fraud charges on expatriates if it appears they are renouncing their citizenship for tax reasons. What purpose would the new legislation serve that isn't already covered by existing legislation? Why isn't existing legislation being covered by the media? It seems that Mr. Saverin has been granted special status by both the IRS and State Depts. The question is: why?
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, makes me more nauseous than an ignorant, unreflected ingratitude to what made someone's successes possible, especially when that ingratitude forgets the surrounding contributions to those in the country that are both far removed in time and place.
Saverin is a complete dick.
The whole argument from the GOP is 'I paid ENOUGH taxes'. It doesn't sink in that you continue to pay taxes. If you want to see a great CEO talk taxes see Nick Hanauer and then you will understand why the GOP tries to supress him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/nick-hanauers-ted-talk-on-taxes/2012/05/17/gIQAXCncWU_blog.html
Let the bum go. And no do not ever let him return. I am sure his money will greatly be appreciated in Singapore. Rich people thrive there.
This is from http://www.bna.com/Business-Operations-Singapore-p7783/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=TM&utm_campaign=1060
Business Operations in Singapore allows you to benefit from:
He looks like James O'Keefe. Creepy!
Actually, I think ALL billionaires should be encouraged to leave the country. Then who would the Republicans get to pay for their campaigns and SuperPacs?
The US gave him safety and opportunity, so tax avoidance seems ungrateful. On the other hand, I don't know how American he considers himself (he was born in Brazil and remains Brazilian; his family moved to Miami when he was about eleven, when his family discovered that he was targeted for kidnapping ). He's been living overseas since 2009, and US tax laws for citizens earning money overseas are a gigantic pain in the rear. I'm not sure that the issue is anywhere near as one-sided as presented in some of the comments above.
Also, don't forget that there is still the H1-B program that, essentially, pays foreign workers to come to America and make their fortune. It also displaces incumbent employees with the full blessings of Federal and State governments. If an H1-B employer targets your job, you have no legal recourse and are lucky to get any separation package at all.
This is fact. Thousands of employees, in technical fields, have been "replaced" by this program. All an employer has to do is declare that there is a "shortage" of certain skilled employees and they can sign-up and start enticing foreign talent to take these jobs. It "was" meant to address these shortages, but the employers quickly found out that they can use the program to replace "highly paid" employees with foreigners who will work for less. Your job is NOT protected, in any way, all quite legal.
Contrary to popular belief, a great deal of these folks end up "going home" with a bundle of money (only partially taxed) -- not to mention training and hands-on experience with our technology- which they also "take home"
Perhaps someone will notice this ....
We have made a policy statement with progressive taxes. This issue was fully litigated when the US passed the income tax. The rich pay more in income taxes because they are paying for the privilege of being able to make millions of dollars. Tax equity is not and should not be based just on dollar amounts or a flat percentage, although this is what some people would like to sell the public. If you make more then you pay more. Many wealthy people do not like this idea despite the fact that their effective tax rate is lower than people who work for a living. Corporations pay a lower effective rate that the actual tax rate. Tax fairness would require the US impose the Buffet rule and then the wealthy would be paying their fair share.
1,788 renunciations in 2011 (mostly ex-pats) is just the tip of the ice berg. More will certainly follow.
The US must repeal "citizenship-based taxation." It is forcing ex-pats to pull the plug on citizenship.
Ex-pats have no representation in congress and receive no services from the government. They don't use US roads, bridges, dams, power grid, schools, hospitals, courts, fire, police etc. They cannot collect unemployment benefits and are not eligible for Medicare.
But Uncle Sam still demands pounds of their flesh and complicates their lives with ever-changing incomprehensible reporting requirements -- with the added bonus of penalties from hell for making any errors.
I seem to recall America's founders fighting a war with Great Britain over this very issue.
Wake up Uncle Sam! Get a grip on your moral compass.
May I thank Thomas Gordon for making the first useful and relevant comment on this topic and realizing that there are much bigger issues than the reactionary and populist soundbites from politicians in an election year.
There are approximately 7 million US citizens abroad, all of whom are expected to file tax returns to US. Why? Whether or not they are a billionaire or not there are multiple onerous returns. The IRS regulations concerning overseas Americans is over 7,000 pages and 668 forms - this is according to the IRS' own Tax Advocate. These people are not traitors who have abandoned the US, but people who have mostly for family reasons chosen to live abroad. By further complicating tax laws, all politicians are doing is forcing US citizens abroad in to impossible positions. For example, FATCA legislation is making it difficult for American citizens to even open Bank accounts as European Banks can't be bothered to deal with the reporting legislation that the IRS imposes on foreign jurisdictions.
I find this all deeply ironic as the american revolution claimed the slogan "no taxation with representation" in response to paying taxes to a Government thousands of miles away. I struggle to understand how the US can believe it is fair and just to tax citizens who have chosen to make their homes in other countries.