Werthless wrote:

Youseff wrote:Nothing dictatorial about it whatsoever. The guy is renouncing his citizenship solely for the purpose of skirting taxes that is owed to our broke ass country. That we're at least exploring ideas for creating consequences is reassuring.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... stpop_read

Whatever Mr. Saverin's motivation, the more important point is that it is his decision, however misguided. America was built on millions of similar individual decisions to come to our shores. It is precisely that ability to decide for oneself that has made America such a magnet for two centuries.

The way to continue to be a magnet for the best and brightest is not to impose Soviet-style exit taxes to punish people who want to leave the country. That is what oppressive and demagogic regimes do, and it's humiliating to see U.S. Senators posture in such fashion. The way to punish Mr. Saverin is to make the U.S. so appealing and dynamic again that he'll be sorry he ever left.

well, if it's important enough for the Wall Street Journal to weigh in, that settles it



ffs

should of countered with a huff po link, doc

drsmooth wrote:
well, if it's important enough for the Wall Street Journal to weigh in, that settles it



ffs

FFS - weighing your stance on the opinion pages of the WSJ is pretty sad. That is opinion, not journalistic work. The opinion pages, you know where jerks write what they want and it might get read by the masses, is not a place to get your news, but it is not reporting either. The Journal is right leaning (outside of opinion), and NPR is left leaning, but neither are the voice of the right or left like the other (fringe) wants it to be.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So we aren't allowed to criticize legislation when we think it'd be an awful law because it's unlikely ever to be passed by Congress? The third ranking Democrat in the Senate proposed a bill that elicited positive and negative reactions from other people in this thread before I posted my thoughts on the policy. It was one of the main stories in national politics yesterday.

You're allowed to do whatever silly thing strikes your fancy, binky

Make yourself look dopey, what do I care. Do you know how much idiotic "legislation" is cobbled up by legislators of all ideological stripes in any given term (I think you do)? Are you promising us you'll share your thoughts on every single one of those items (I believe you won't)?

I guess the part about this that makes me feel the most dopey is I never knew that you weren't supposed to discuss political items being debated in the news if they didn't have a good chance of becoming law unless you were willing to opine on every piece of legislation that is offered. I feel pretty terrible that I've misunderstood the Internet and purpose of message boards so badly for this many years.

Werthless wrote:

America was built on millions of similar individual decisions to come to our shores.

Wait, what?

So how do you solve of the problem of someone renouncing their citizenship, but continuing to live and work in the US, solely for the purpose of reducing their tax responsibilities?

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess the part about this that makes me feel the most dopey is I never knew that you weren't supposed to discuss political items being debated in the news if they didn't have a good chance of becoming law unless you were willing to opine on every piece of legislation that is offered. I feel pretty terrible that I've misunderstood the Internet and purpose of message boards so badly for this many years.

you're young, that's how you're supposed to feel a lot of the time (fwiw,, the frequency doesn't drop over the years, but the intensity does)

but seriously, you weren't "discussing" the "legislative proposal" you were condemning it, apparently in all sincerity, as if the "proposal" was itself sincere.

Where's your healthy cynicism, man?


oh, plus that story may have raised lots of hair around the fox newsroom, but not anywhere that anyone recognizes real news, as far as I'm aware. It wasn't a big enough deal to get all armageddon-y about ("dictatorship!" etc)

Youseff wrote:So how do you solve of the problem of someone renouncing their citizenship, but continuing to live and work in the US, solely for the purpose of reducing their tax responsibilities?

self-deportaxation sounds about right

I don't see a problem with someone denouncing their citizenship for whatever reason. At the same time I don't think it would be a bad idea to make it hard for them to come back to the United States, even visiting. I think that's a much simpler solution rather than attempting to tax them. You want to leave to keep 15% of your money? Fine. But don't expect to be able to swing by NYC whenever you want.

Youseff wrote:

Werthless wrote:

America was built on millions of similar individual decisions to come to our shores.

Wait, what?

I'm guessing it is a reference to early immigrants leaving behind their homelands for a better life in America.

Werthless wrote:

Youseff wrote:

Werthless wrote:

America was built on millions of similar individual decisions to come to our shores.

Wait, what?

I'm guessing it is a reference to early immigrants leaving behind their homelands for a better life in America.

I remember all those rich Irish farmers cashing in on the potato famine and moving to the US to avoid paying insanely high potato taxes. Brings a tear to my eye.

Oh wait, it's not remotely similar to poor immigrants looking for a better life. (I know it's not you saying it)

Youseff wrote:So how do you solve of the problem of someone renouncing their citizenship, but continuing to live and work in the US, solely for the purpose of reducing their tax responsibilities?

At that point you would be an illegal alien, correct? Then when you try to deport, because the person has no country of citizenship you arrest him and seize his assets to cover the cost of imprisonment. When those funds run out what do you do? Over dose him?

Is Cory Booker going rogue about Bain Capital a secret White House plan to make Democrats look friendly to private equity, or do they have a loose cannon on their hands?

Is Booker naive enough to think Romney's experience in the public sector isn't going to be campaign fodder? It's not like we're talking about the Obama camp insinuating Mitt's a Mexican polygamist or something.

Booker was naive enough to think that he could tell the truth without getting whipped back into line I guess

And, unrelated, the fact that this Elizabeth Warren/Cherokee story is still a thing is amazing. Probably my favorite political story since the John Edwards baby daddy bit.

he didnt lay down any 'truth'. he is, apparently, not a progressive, and is instead seeking more wall street donors. i've lost interest in him after he exposed himself here. he's not interested in anything of value.

he might be a good mayor, but he's not going to be any sort of hero for anything. but this means he's going to be a senator probably. he'll get all sorts of money, he's proven he can be mr. establishment and play ball and change nothing about the system.

big win for booker, big loss for me and people who don't think 'in wall street we trust'. if his goal was to be the republican's and joe scarborough's favorite democrat, have at it i guess.

wall street has both parties in their pocket. the #1 donator to romney is wall street. the #1 donator to president obama is wall street. it's just romney is going to shine their shoes. i'm sick of it.

I'm right with you, pac.

jerseyhoya wrote:Booker was naive enough to think that he could tell the truth without getting whipped back into line I guess

And, unrelated, the fact that this Elizabeth Warren/Cherokee story is still a thing is amazing. Probably my favorite political story since the John Edwards baby daddy bit.

But he didn't tell "the truth" of course. He said something self-serving, and did it clumsily.

Do you really not recognize that simplistically going along with reactionary soundbites that stupidly allege a sitting US President is against capitalism" , "free markets", etc reflects poorly on you, on your intelligence? Because it's a profoundly stupid notion

jerseyhoya wrote:..... the fact that this Elizabeth Warren/Cherokee story is still a thing is amazing. Probably my favorite political story since the John Edwards baby daddy bit.

what makes it your "favorite" story?

/werthlessed

Stop it. Booker was trying to be honest - attacking Romney and private equity is a loser statement meant to divide us. We need private equity. We do. We need banks like JP Morgan. Should they be better regulated? Yes. Should they be quite as obscenely paid? No.

But Booker was right and he's pretty great. We need more politicians like him, not fewer.