General Discussion

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)

62. Because it's harder to attack people for voting against a number

Fri May 18, 2012, 06:37 PM

May 2012

It's exactly why the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind or any number of similar bills got their names, and the more loaded and emotive a bill's name is the more likely it is to be something on the continuum between kneejerk and ex post facto.

If legislation has to stand on its name rather than its merits - especially for something as absurd as this - then it shouldn't stand in the first place. There's less childish ways to do things.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senators to Unveil the ‘Ex-Patriot Act’ to Respond to Facebook’s Saverin’s Tax ‘Scheme’ [View all] Purveyor May 2012 OP

This gets a like from me. Woody Woodpecker May 2012 #1

So if I decide to retire to France GoneOffShore May 2012 #2

Only if those assets actually are capital gains. drm604 May 2012 #3

why would you bother to renounce your citizenship? KatyMan May 2012 #4

If I get to the point of never wanting to come back to this country GoneOffShore May 2012 #44

Not being obtuse, but I still don't see the point KatyMan May 2012 #59

Yes I think under a certain amount should be exempt... 47of74 May 2012 #21

Plus the bonus of never getting to return HotRodTuna May 2012 #46

You could retire to France without renouncing your citizenship. JDPriestly May 2012 #56

Would serve the little bastard right.... ingac70 May 2012 #5

Not good enough. Congress has the power to impose taxes up to 100%. 26 USC 6672. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #6

What is the definition or meaning of "pay over" as it is used in that law? Trillo May 2012 #10

What's the purpose for the question? How is that related to the fact that Congress has the AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #15

So, you don't know. Trillo May 2012 #19

I think you misunderstood the statute. dairydog91 May 2012 #39

Two reasons why you are wrong: (1) The statute doesn't penalize anyone for tax evasion. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #49

Evasion is mentioned directly in the general rule. dairydog91 May 2012 #50

Make me king and I would impose a 100% tax on all amounts that he was taking out of the country, AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #51

I'd support this move. I'm sick of throwing softballs at rich assholes. nt Comrade_McKenzie May 2012 #65

This is why I don't have a facebook page zzaapp May 2012 #7

Jeez you little friggin weasle, just pay your taxes ! yesphan May 2012 #8

!!! FailureToCommunicate May 2012 #55

Yes! But instead of 30%, it should be at least a 50% tax penalty SunSeeker May 2012 #9

A day late. jp11 May 2012 #11

EXACTLY!! Tax the fuckin' corporations that are offshoring our jobs, but loudsue May 2012 #18

Yes! Misplaced outrage. lutefisk May 2012 #24

That's right Oldtimeralso May 2012 #28

There are people starving, familys homeless, union labor being laid off K.T.M. May 2012 #12

I know that there are some rich people here who will disagree K.T.M. May 2012 #13

+1 L0oniX May 2012 #23

Malicious intruder K.T.M. has been shown the door pinboy3niner May 2012 #25

over $100,000 to the government? tru May 2012 #35

Even Marx would say that the Laffer Curve becomes relevant at 100% marginal. dairydog91 May 2012 #36

It's a good thing you're not king HotRodTuna May 2012 #47

well stated! fascisthunter May 2012 #66

... and let's hope they extend it to other brazillionaires ... Myrina May 2012 #14

I support this in concept BUT.............. Swede Atlanta May 2012 #16

This is BULLSHIT and Chuck Schumer is an asshole! - n/t DeSwiss May 2012 #17

If you're serious, then I kind of agree. SpankMe May 2012 #30

I'd be fine with that if we'd then add to our policies to push companies out of the US jp11 May 2012 #33

I'm serious.... DeSwiss May 2012 #52

Please look in the mirror..... Swede Atlanta May 2012 #31

Well, I think that after ditching habeas corpus..... DeSwiss May 2012 #53

This would be kind of unconstitutional, wouldn't it? Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #20

May not be able to do anything about him. 47of74 May 2012 #22

Wow, he's going to make about 4 billion dollars and is upset he would have to pay out $67 million LynneSin May 2012 #26

He basically won the friendship lottery.. girl gone mad May 2012 #42

Saverin denied doing this for tax purposes. ieoeja May 2012 #27

What burns me about this little ass is...... Swede Atlanta May 2012 #29

On the grounds that he is a big fat poopie head? whistler162 May 2012 #34

The proposal is unsupportable,... SpankMe May 2012 #32

Law that is wholly punitive in nature and meant to extract vengeance is *fun* law. dairydog91 May 2012 #45

Just do a version of the estate tax a2liberal May 2012 #37

Eduardo Saverin is Stupid erpowers May 2012 #38

Probably more than that. dairydog91 May 2012 #40

Saverin paid over $365 million in US exit taxes. stockholmer May 2012 #60

Why not just stash the money in the Cayman Islands like Mittens does? Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #41

Because Eduardo would rather avoid capital gains taxes entirely. dairydog91 May 2012 #43

From the movie, it would seem as though Eduardo learned his lesson on how not to get screwed HotRodTuna May 2012 #48

I kinda reflexively hate any bill with an awkwardly emotive name. (nt) Posteritatis May 2012 #54

Really... MattSh May 2012 #57

Because it's harder to attack people for voting against a number Posteritatis May 2012 #62

What is totally absurd about this whole discussion avebury May 2012 #58

It's a reaction to it happening to a mediagenic target, pretty much. Posteritatis May 2012 #63

some problems I see stockholmer May 2012 #61

How about an ‘Ex-Patriot Act’ to undo the abominable Patriot Act instead? Vidar May 2012 #64