17 May 2012

Casey and Schumer Go Full Retard

Hence this bill:

During the 2012 election cycle Democrats are positioning themselves as the “defenders of the middle class,” and Sen. Bob Casey Jr. is honing that message by attacking the top .001 percent of income earners, including Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin.
Along with NY Sen. Chuck Schumer, Casey is introducing a bill that would prevent U.S. citizens from renouncing their citizenship in order to avoid taxes.
The legislation was sparked by Eduardo Saverin, a co-founder of Facebook, who renounced his U.S. citizenship in September to avoid paying $67 million in taxes he would owe when Facebook goes public.

This bill is either nothing more than toothless political grandstanding or its simply more evidence that the US is trying to become the world’s next totalitarian empire.

In the first place, how does anyone expect to enforce this law?  If a billionaire decides to liquidate his domestic assets and then move overseas, he will pretty much be able to avoid taxes, even if he can’t renounce his citizenship.  To do this, he will simply need to never return to the US.  Now, the IRS can continue to tally up his taxes and basically compile back taxes.  However, if the practically expatriated citizen decides to never go back to the US, he will never have to pay those taxes.

In the second place, the government can decide to forcibly bring expatriated billionaires back to the US.  Of course, this means that either the government will have to invade other countries by sending troops or other US agents to go and “collect” the non-paying citizen, or the government will have to flex its muscle to convince other governments to round up the expatriated citizen and turn him back to the US.

Thus, the law is either toothless grandstanding or evidence of the US government’s now cartoonish attempt at becoming the world’s next empire.  And if the US wants to become a totalitarian empire, why doesn’t the government just go ahead and strip all the wealthy of their wealth?  Why bother with the charade of taxes and legislation?  Surely it would be simpler for the government to go up to wealthy and say “all your assets are belong to us.”  If the government really wants to control stuff, then why not just go ahead and get it over with. As the TSA proves every day, citizens of the US have no issue with a totalitarian government.

4 comments:

  1. Matt Strictland18 May, 2012 18:46

    Good article.

    I slightly disagree American's actually have a great deal of loathing for the current state of affairs but can't really figure out what they want in its place.

    The US like most divers Empires is not a state with any sense of its own identity, its much more complex and as such the kind of joint actions you might see in Europe don't make sense.

    You can't get the 3% and the New Black Panthers for example to do anything even to a mutual foe.

    Also we are in a rather unique bind, normal political actions do little to roll anything back and the system is very brittle so that a real push would shatter it.

    Most folks figure its not worth millions dead (I'd guess a real push might leave a by-kill of 50-100 million) possible Chinese Invasion and a civil war probably racial and possibly using nukes, germ warfare and chemical weapons (yes parts of the Federal system are this insane) to roll back the TSA and the rest.

    So we just suck it.

    This is probably better anyway. It gives people ways to find out how to opt out and protect themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Matt- And, practically speaking, this bill is not actually going to do anything to prevent people from opting out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well not allowing them to go to the US ever again is a pretty big disincentive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @spandrell- only if they really US culture. If they're wealthy, they probably have ways of being able to see their friends and family again, even if it is not in the US. Everything else is replaceable.

    ReplyDelete