And I thought everyone wanted to move here and succeed!?

That's true. But I didn't bring my narrative into it, did I, torture boy? Maybe I agree with this tax thing, in whole or in part. You don't know what I think about it, torture boy. You are simply pleased to assume that you do.

The correct answer here is that the assertion that American taxes are too high and that rich people are abandoning the country because of this has been, at least for me, talked to death already. If that's where you and your pals want to take this, fine. But I'm bored with that road and I don't see it as particularly serious discussion minus data and context. So knock yourself out with this one. If you must have my company you'll have to look for me on another thread.

 

I think you need to reread that " born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-mouth billionaire" part again.

 

From the article you linked:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the term "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" refers to the condition of being born into wealth.

I have a question for you: Was it wrong for young men to leave the US during the Viet Nam War in an effort to avoid the draft? A simple yes or no would suffice. The question bears directly on this issue, and I think you can understand why, but if not, just humor me.

 

You can just tell that Romney paying less than 14% tax is just killing him. He can't wait to leave. Hey Mitt! Go live in France and see what kind of tax rate you get there. The greedy wealthy are just takers and do not want to give anything back to the country that made them wealthy. They make me ill. Enough is never enough for them.

 

You aren't going to like it, but I will give you 2 answers. Yes and no. If you got drafted and fled to prevent reporting, you broke the law. However, if you renounced your citizenship and then got drafted, good for you. The problem with you analogy is that I do not seem to remember people renouncing their citizenship. Maybe my memory is off a bit (I was overseas for most of that time), but renounce just does not ring a bell.

 

That's a reasonable answer. You must be aware that many of those young men did become Canadian citizens.

Now, they left the country because they valued their lives above loyalty to the US, or because they valued their ideals above loyalty to the US. This extremely wealthy individual values a fraction of his money (the taxes he might eventually have to pay) above loyalty to the US. They were wrong, and he is right, in your opinion?

 

Now, just who did I say was wrong? - only those who broke the law And I never said that anyone was right.

And, BTW, the reasoning for doing something may not make it completely right, but it sure goes a long way. Shooting someone may not ever be right, but if it is self defense, it is not really against the law either.

 

So why should we care that this person has chosen to leave the US? What was your point in creating this thread?

 

Because now we have to pay more in taxes to cover for him and the other 399 who have already left. And, when BO gets his Obamacare/taxes/wealth distribution in place, I stronly feel there will be many more following.

 

I see now where I've made my mistake. I neglected to take into account the fact that all should be blamed on President Obama, especially in an election year. The selfishness and greed of this billionaire and people like him cannot be acknowledged because that might interfere with your ideological agenda. You didn't answer my question regarding what should be done about this situation, but I guess I should just take it as read that taxes on wealthy individuals should indeed be lowered some more. How tedious and uninteresting this has turned out to be. I should have listened to Takiji. Instead, I foolishly hoped for a reasonable discussion. I will learn sooner or later.

 

You only have 4 wrong assumptions in there. Care to try for more? Probably most importantly (to your thinking, anyway), unlike the liberals here, I do not feel the Republicans do everything right. I believe BO is the worst thing in several centuries, but Bush's spending was far from what it should have been. And, FWIW, this is not the first time I have stated that nor am I the first of the right to state that.

 

You accuse me of "4 wrong assumptions," then immediately address something which I never accused you of. I did not say that I think that you believe that "the Republicans do everything right." You neglect to elucidate regarding the supposed "4 wrong assumptions" beyond that.

 

Add me to the list. I don't think Republicans do everything right either....or pretty much anything for that matter. See, we agree again.

BTW "Several centuries"??? Where do you think you're living anyway?

 

Hmm? Maybe I misunderstood this, but I think you pretty much said I believe BO "should be blamed" for everything. Would you care to educate me?

Here are 2 more of your assumptions. I will let you figure out the other.

BTW, for being such a tedious and uninteresting discussion, you sure have spent enough time here.

 

Yes, by all means gracelessly pass over the misrepresentation you made, as quoted above: I never accused you of saying anything like that. Such tactics seem to be par for the course here, and I am becoming inured to it.

On the other hand, thank you for clarifying three of the wrong assumptions which I made. I acknowledge that they were indeed wrong assumptions. Let's see if we can move this conversation forward, using them as a basis:

1. I doubt that any attempt on my part to educate you would meet with even minimal success. However, I can say that it does appear to me that you would rather blame the president than accept that this billionaire may just be a greedy selfish ass who sees the chance to become a little bit more wealthy. It seems that my perception of your position is wrong. Maybe you could make a clear statement of just what it is you're trying to accomplish with this thread, if it isn't pointing a finger at the current administration.

2. I have not once in this thread seen you acknowledge that the wealthy tax-dodger's greed has any bearing on the topic, so I wrongly assumed that you felt it wasn't relevant. Feel free to clearly state to what extent you think his greed was a basis for his renunciation of citizenship, and to what extent you think it is relevant to this topic.

3. I have yet to see any positive statement from you regarding what should be done about this situation, if anything. The Forbes article to which you linked earlier clearly makes a connection between the billionaire renouncing his citizenship and the fact that he will pay substantially less taxes as a result. I foolishly thought I saw a logical progression from this to a desire on your part for lower taxes on the wealthy. Now that you've said that this was a wrong assumption on my part, which I acknowledge, I reiterate my request that you state clearly what you think should be done.

I'm not a mind reader, so if you don't wish to discuss whatever the fourth wrong assumption is, then I guess we'll just have to let it stand.

I wrote that it had turned out to be tedious and uninteresting, but dreamer that I am, I live in hope that redemption is just around the corner.

 

Since you have not further added anything, I guess you really did say what I thought you said.
1. Raising taxes on the rich will result in a decrease in collections. I really thought that was self evident.
2.The "wealthy tax-dodger's greed" is a fact of life and not illegal or criminal. You are not going to legislate against it, you have to work with it.
3. Get rid of the worst president this country has ever seen and get the government spending, regulations, power, etc. totally reined in. I do not want to become the world's largest Greece.

 

Sionce you have added nothing to this, I guess you must agree with my interpolation.

1.Raising taxes will bring in less revenue. I thought that was rather self evident

2. The "wealthy tax-dodger's greed" is a fact of life. You have to live with it. You are not going to legislate against it or criminalize it, but you do not have to add to it. BTW, it has been legislated that a company is required to operate under this mantra. Failing to do so could result in imprisonment.

3. Get BO out of office. This country cannot survive 4 more years of his spending, corruption, regulations, political polarization, etc.

 

Let me ask you a question. Let's just say that the federal government offered Saverin a special deal. They would let him come back to the USA with his citizenship and they would collect absolutely no federal income tax and no capital gains tax. No other strings attached or promises. Assuming that it were legal and ignoring the side effects it would have (on others), would the USA be better off if he stayed in Singapore or if he returned to the USA?

 

Make your interpolation clear, and relate it to my quote, then the discussion can proceed.

"Media Myth That Cutting Taxes Boosts Revenue Revived For 2012"

"Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem?"

Show genuine evidence that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have added revenue, or in fact have done anything positive for the nation as a whole, then you might have a point. It's just that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Asserting that something is "self evident" is a very poor excuse for supporting your position. I've noticed that people on both sides of most discussions here will make arguments regarding issues of fact while bringing no evidence in support of their position. I don't expect that to improve, but I will not accept it from those with whom I engage here.

As far as I can tell, this thread has been about events which have occurred under the current tax regime. Why are you bemoaning the fact that this billionaire renounced his citizenship if you have no solution to offer (such as further reductions in taxes on the wealthy)?

So it's a fact of life. Then why start a thread about the fact that he renounced his citizenship as if it were something that the country could do anything to remedy? He isn't a corporation, and though you may have forgotten that it is a legal fiction by which corporations are viewed under the law as persons, you can't act as if people are required to operate in the same way that corporations do. By the way, pursuit of lawful profit is not the same thing as greed, and the fact that you seem to think that it is says a lot about your values.

So it is President Obama's fault.

 

I don't know, nor do I care. Personally I consider the man a malignant pustule that the nation is well rid of, but that's just my prejudice against selfish greedy parasites showing.