Eduardo Saverin, TRAITOR.
What a shameless weasel!
First of all, let me begin by saying that I am very-anti tax. I can not stand the fact that the money that is taken out of my paycheck is being used to give food-stamps to someone who will use it to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. That is a generalization, but you know where I am going with that.
BUT, for me U.S. Citizenship is the most valuable thing in the world. Sad to say, I am not a U.S. Citizen yet, but I will become one in a few years. Needless to say, no amount of taxes will ever make me give up my American Passport. The point is, I would not have gotten the opportunities that I have had if I stayed back home or in any other country. In no other country could I have come in and felt right at home in a week. Some things you can't put a price on, and being American is that for me.
Saverin could not have gone to Harvard in Brazil or Singapore. He would not have met Mark Zuckerberg there. In short, it would not have been possible to earn that billions that he is now worth if was not in the United States. (I am well aware of the fact that you can become a billionaire in Singapore or Brazil. But not in the way it is possible in the United States)
I am more than disgusted.
I hope he gets caught chewing gum and sentenced to the mandatory lashes in Singapore. Were he to get caught with some drugs and get the mandatory death sentence in Singapore for drug related offences, I would probably celebrate with a drink.
For some perspective, here is a list of our guys who have made the ultimate the sacrifice in Afghanistan in the past few weeks. Please take a look. Look at the names, the ages, the hometowns, and the different backgrounds. You'll find a lot of thankful immigrants like me who have sacrificed. All they would want from us is a little bit of remembrance.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/table.afghanistan.html?sortb…
Fix your fucking signature dude I can't even read your post because of it.
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/facebook-co-founder-renounces-us-…
Fixed. I saw that, but it did not address what is relevant.
Cliffnotes:
.....murika
Being an American citizen serves him no purpose, why be upset if he no longer wants it?
I'm sure people have pride in all nations; you coming on here saying how much you love the U.S. doesn't have any bearing on Saverin. People do what's in their best interests.
Chill dude.
Yeah I agree with that, although I believe that NOT being a US citizen to evade some tax is a really bad idea. Uncle Sam can always get that money if the gov thinks it's good time to make an example.
Giving up one's U.S. Citizenship (for tax reasons) usually means a lifetime ban from entering the United States. I hope they slap that on him as well.
Not sure the country you are originally from, but since I was born an American citizen, I'll probably never understand your point of view. Imo I see all "western" countries pretty equal. What more does American citizenship give you over Canadian, Australian, or the like?
Hedge on tail events.
Actually forfeiting U.S citizenship for tax purposes indeed makes one inadmissible into the U.S. However, this particular law has never been enforced in practice.
I do not believe Saverin is giving up his U.S citizenship for tax reason thou. For one thing, he still needs to pay a hefty exit tax on capital gains his facebook shares which can easily amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. He is giving up his citizenship so that he won't have to deal with the hassles created by the heinous FATCA legislation. FATCA, in its current form, makes expat Americans into PARIAHS as foreign financial institutions refuse to do business with them for fear of being anal probed by the IRS.
Eduardo invests in a lot of foreign businesses, because of his U.S citizenships, the companies he own will have difficulty accessing financings from local institutions. In addition, any VC or angel investment fund that Eduardo is partner of is subject to extremely onerous reporting, compliance and disclosure requirements with the SEC per Dodd-Frank. All these inconveniences make it worthwhile for him to part way with his U.S passport.
That high profile American expats like Eduardo are giving up their U.S citizenship should be a wake up call to U.S politicians to drastically scale back FATCA , Dodd-Frank and related legislations before they do any further damages.
Wake up bro. No government gives a toss about dead soldiers. Regardless of who or what they think they're fighting for.
Also chill a bit bro, you say USA citizenship is priceless -that is preposterous assumption. What's priceless? How much would you have to get offered not to become citizen? 1 million? 10 million? Billion?
Priceless is if you get kidnapped by Iran or North Korea, diplomats from your country actually try to do something.
Who gives a fuck? He can do whatever the hell he wants with his citizenship as far as I'm concerned. OP you're retarded.
OK, this is pointless explaining to people who were born in America and take being American for granted. Price? There is no price. I did not dream of becoming a billionaire when I was growing up, I dreamt of going to America and becoming an American someday.
You're pathetic and have the IQ of a pinata.
Ah. Again, I get the sense that the people here who most appreciate US citizenship are the ones who've tasted something else. Grass is greener and all that jazz, perhaps?
Brandon St Randy: You must be kidding yourself if you think he's dropping US citizenship for any other reason than to avoid taxes on his stake in FB. Doing it now saves him hundreds of millions of dollars, as his exit tax is estimated to be much less than the taxes he'd have to pay on FB's IPO.
Saverin's been living in Singapore for a few years, now. Why drop his citizenship right now?
This may come as a surprise to you, but there is actually a LONG backlog of U.S expats all over the world who are waiting in line to give up their U.S citizenships. This process is quite time consuming and can easily take several years.
Eduardo's application was just approved now and his name disclosed by the State Department, which means that he filed his application for forfeiture a while back. He certainly did not just decide to drop his citizenship now.
Also ever since FATCA came into effect, the number of expat Americans giving up citizenship has increased six fold. This is no coincidence.
Here is a Bloomberg article that provides more background information on this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/wealthy-americans-queue-to-giv…
He's obviously dropping his citizenship for a number of reasons:
1) avoid taxes
2) ease of doing business in foreign countries
3) he lives in Singapore
Why the hell do you care what he does with his citizenship? If he doesn't want to be American, so be it. And as someone born here, I have absolutely no problem with it. I'm even tempted to renounce mine when I get financially stable for a number of reasons. I won't go into all of them, but the biggest reason is the disparity between what the US was meant to be versus what it actually is and where it is going. I'd much rather live in a country like Norway or Sweden (both damn near socialist) because they don't lie to themselves about what their country actually stands for.
This country doesn't stand for freedom anymore, now we stand for keeping everybody safe.
The worst thing with FATCA is that it punishes not only wealthy Americans but also regular middle class folks who are working overseas because they cant get good jobs at home due to the recession.
Now these regular, hard-working Americans find themselves unable to open bank accounts, denied access to investment products and having difficulties conducting basic day to day businesses because of FATCA. And then there are also many Americans who married foreigners and have been living abroad in their spouses' home countries. Because of FATCA, they too are now facing the grim prospect of having to choose between renouncing their U.S citizenships or living as pariahs in their countries of residency.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023035924045773620506707380…
LOL come on dude get a grip. You think he's the only one?
1.) We need to charge ten years of income tax upon expatriation. 2.) This needs to be enforced upon the nation's highest earners by our diplomats and our control of the grain export market in addition to the IRS. 3.) Regardless, Saverin's US-sourced income, including dividends from facebook and any sales on the US market, are taxed in the US.
I am with James Hetfield on this. If you expatriate for financial reasons, it should happen on the US's terms.
You're just going to create a bunch of fugitives.
And no, not all US sourced income gets taxed in the US...what are you talking about? There are exempt forms for this specifically for non-us citizens and residents that qualify. He'll have his broker fill this form out for him, assuming he'll establish residency in a country with treaties with the US: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw8ben.pdf
I really don't understand the concept of paying penalty for denouncing citizenship and moving somewhere else. Its not like he's going to get the benefits of a US taxpayer? It also doesn't mean that he is going to defraud the IRS (he probably paid all the taxes owed).
My take on it is the following. Pay the taxes you are legally obliged to pay. US wants to wager a war on their citizens that are defrauding the IRS? so be it. However if an individual decides that he is no longer going to enjoy the social and economic benefits of being a US citizen, he has all the right to pay his outstanding bill, pack his bags and go somewhere else.
also, don't forget that estate tax is going back to 55% next year. This is also an incentive for super old family scions to renounce their citizenship so their heirs don't get 45% of the estate.
As for fugitives, we managed to find OBL. If we could find him, we can find anyone, especially someone living a Billionaire lifestyle. I'm not even saying we should or need to use the military on this; we control the world's supply of grain and can make life exceptionally difficult for any country that won't play ball with us. ESPECIALLY Singapore.
He got the benefits of being a US taxpayer when he became a billionaire. Now he's trying to avoid taxes on US-originated income. Absolutely. But (1) he's not taking US-sourced income out of the country without paying US taxes on it and (2) if you start a business that benefits from US geopolitical stability, you're going to pay US taxes on that business.We have the world's largest military. Frankly, I think tax havens owe us 10-15% of their GNP for the services we provide them. Does anyone honestly think Switzerland or Lichtenstein or Singapore or Hong Kong would have survived the past 100 years had it not been for US involvement? Time to pay up.
This is ridiculous. I lost a lot of respect for you.
Do you even know what the US government means by "geopolitical stability"? One word, "obedience". The rest of the world doesn't owe America anything. We're talking about people who don't want to be part of your USA anymore.
Stick to your finance / Gini coefficient rants please, or make sense.
Let me get this straight.
You come to the US.
You go to Harvard.
You do a startup that makes billions of dollars benefitting from a technology that would never exist without tens of billions worth of government-funded military research.
All of this was made possible by the fact that the US has spent trillions on its military over the past 100 years.
Then, in order to avoid taxes to help continue paying for that military, you decide to leave for low-tax Singapore, instead, which would have to surrender in 48 hours if it were invaded by Malaysia.
Absurd/Ridiculous is receiving a service that you avoid paying for. It's like walking into a fine restaurant, eating a huge dinner, and then wandering out, telling a guy at a food stand you bought a chicken stick from him and giving him $4 before the bill shows up. The cost of the US's stability and the opportunities that provides is 35% of your income. Freedom isn't free; pay your bill, THEN leave. At the very least, the US should be demanding 35% of Saverin's ownership of Facebook and holding it until the IPO.
You guys may disagree with me, but it is utterly unsustainable for us to let people benefit from US citizenship and then let them leave for other countries before they have a chance to pay their full tax amount. If we don't have at least SOME nationalism in this country, the restaurant will go bankrupt because everyone will bolt before their bill comes. And I also don't think you can really be consistent and oppose illegal immigration while also being a hoo-rah supporter of expatriation for billionaires who think their tax bills are too high. If we're going to go bankrupt paying for illegal immigrants, we're going to go bankrupt losing billionaires who benefitted from the US.
At the very least, we need to stop Saverin from arbitraging the IRS on his expatriation. If he claims Facebook is worth less than $100 Billion, we should demand equity rather than cash.
Whether he decides to live in Singapore, or fly to whatever country would take him (I'm sure most won't mind billionaires living in their borders) is irrelevant to whether or not he should pay your military or government anything. If you want to extort Singapore or other countries for US "protection / hegemony" then I'm sure there are more direct ways of doing so that your politicians are capable of pursuing.
Why tax Saverin based on the post IPO price, i.e. the future? Surely he should sort out his position based on when he applied / current tax position, not some theoretical future price, or holding on until you can steal his future income.
You had also suggested charging 10 years of income tax upon expatriation. What is your rationale for this? That as citizens you own your government an unrecorded debt? This is absurd. I didn't realise American's were born into slavery.
Yes, he created something. Yes, he deserves to largely keep it. But freedom isn't free, and you can't pick and choose tax jurisdictions. If you developed something and became a billionaire in the US, it shouldn't be easy to switch tax jurisdictions when it's convenient for you.
Which, honestly, we need to start having a discussion about. Liberalism or Conservativism without at least a bit of nationalism simply to keep the system sustainable is going to bankrupt the country. Indeed, the US's debt tripled while Saverin made his billions.We bailed out Europe and Southeast Asia in WWII. We protected them from the Soviet Union. We decided to play fair and nice afterwards. They repay us by stealing our research and encouraging our billionaires to expatriate rather than investing in research and development and investing in their own militaries. Something isn't working here, and there needs to be a conversation about the US response. One option is to increase the value of geopolitical stability or at least start getting the tax havens to talk about a price. We don't even need to use the military; every other major grain exporting country charges higher taxes and probably has the same billionaire expatriation problem as us, tax havens like Singapore and the Caymans are food importers, and food is the only weapon we need.
When Singapore, Hong Kong, the Bahamas, and the Caymans are facing bread riots, they'll either come to the bargaining table or the Saverins of the world will come crawling back to the US, offering their fortunes for citizenship in a stable capitalist country, less $10 million for a nice life. And maybe if we're feeling nice, we'll take their offer.
Nationalism isn't the prettiest route to take, but the alternative is even uglier. The alternative in the '40s would have been speaking German. The alternative in 30 years may be a totalitarian Islamic state.
We're not taxing him based on the IPO price. We're taking our 15% LTCG and investing it in Facebook by having him sell to us at the price he claims it's worth. If he wants to pay out dividends or sell his stock prior to IPO, he can do that. But no, we're not letting him claim Facebook is worth $50 Billion when everyone is talking about a $100 Billion IPO. If he does that, we should take our tax payment in stock rather than cash.That's a very statist point of view. It seems as if you want American's and non-Americans to be slaves of your military just because you won the 2nd world war. Sorry mate, but I don't buy into your totalitarian dream. It seems Saverin doesn't want to be part of it either.
Unfortunately, you have to be a little bit of a thug to enforce a system where people pay for a military that ensures the biggest thug doesn't rule, but mild thuggery sure as heck beats the alternative. The libertarian utopia of $0 military spending where everyone gets to keep what they earn simply does not exist. Singapore likes to pretend it does and that it's sustainable, but it's only sustainable for so long as the US plays policeman. Maybe we should stop, and maybe we should quietly encourage an acceleration back to the world where the US didn't do anything. If we were to tell Malaysia and Singapore that we were cutting off food exports until Singapore raised its taxes on billionaires to the median of grain exporting countries (Australia, US, Canada, Russia, Argentina), Singapore would fix things pretty quickly, and if they didn't, Malaysia would probably help them. They can keep the taxes. We just need to stop the tax arbitrage.
Freedom isn't free. Stop trying to avoid paying for it, asshole. (This is directed at Saverin, not at his defenders)
illiniprogrammer does not know understand the concept of possitive externalities......
so illini, how much do I owe to the inventors of agriculture, and writing????? I mean I've benefited from what they gave us all my life and I want to give back.
But really, the ideal system is one where Singapore, Hong Kong, and the other tax havens charge roughly the same tax rate as the rest of the western world. If you want to move to Singapore, fine, but we need to enforce a system that reduces tax arbitrage.
You do owe grain producers $2/loaf for bread. Unless you live in a tax haven, in which case, we can demand $100/loaf and probably get it.
LOL, you don't understand the concept of public goods.Freedom isn't free. If we can't collect tax bills from people who make it in this country, the biggest thug will eventually have all the money, instead. And it won't be Saverin.
Tax havens aren't worth a war, but they are worth economic and diplomatic action.
If you want to expatriate to Singapore, that's great, but please do it before you become a billionaire in another country.
People who made their first hundred million before expatriating to Singapore should have to pay at least a 30% tax rate on their income. They can pay it to the government of Singapore- that's fine, but we need to eliminate the tax arbitrage.
If Singapore can afford to charge expatriate billionaires a 15% tax rate, they can probably also afford to pay the US and other grain exporters a $50/bushel excise tax on grain imports.
And the nice thing about being a US citizen is that if you ever get kidnapped, if you ever get caught in a civil war, you have the world's largest military and diplomatic corps coming to your rescue. That's what the global 35% tax rate pays for. When you think about it, it's not a terrible deal. Even 45% taxes aren't bad.
I would understand folks expatriating if tax rates went up to 70% on a permanent basis, but 40% top marginal tax rates are a cost of doing business in a modern country with the rule of law.
The irony here is that if the US military gets out of Southeast Asia, Singapore will become more totalitarian than the US on its own. Some totalitarian neighbor will invade it for the billionaires. 35% taxes and expecting people to pay them before they leave isn't really all that totalitarian. Public canings for people who spit out their gum on sidewalks? THAT'S totalitarian.
As long as he gets taxed for US sourced income and pays appropriate tax rates for his FB investment/work then he's good.
That's largely my view, too. But I think that if your principal job is VC and you are an active investor, your tax rate on the gains should be more like 35%- just like we charge musicians 35% on the sale of intellectual property. I also think that if you try to claim Facebook is worth $50 Billion, the IRS should require payment in the form of stock rather than cash.
Geopolitically, the US also needs to hammer something out with Singapore or at least start charging an export tax on grain and price discriminating on it. Grain prices are still way too cheap globally and are not really reflective of the political stability required to grow them. Countries with low taxes and lots of billionaires can obviously afford to pay more for their grain imports, and we should charge what the market will bear.
And as far as Saverin, I'm filing taxes as an expat this year and I can't say it's any fun. But I wouldn't say it's worth renouncing my citizenship for.
ITT: goes off the deep end.
Hardly. I'm simply stating that it's unsustainable for us to provide geopolitical stability in the form of a huge military to all of these other countries and then have them pick off our billionaires.
The only reason Singapore, Hong Kong, The Cayman Islands, and the Bahamas haven't gotten invaded over the past 50 years is that the UK and later the US had a huge Navy. Take the US military or US food exports out of the picture and watch how long Singapore lasts.
Freedom isn't free, and in order to avoid dealing with the true thugs of the world, we have to put up with some mild thuggery on taxes. If you think about it, you get to keep 65% of your income in this country. That's a pretty reasonable deal compared to the alternative.
Regardless, if you're still in college and you don't pay taxes, you have no right to complain about taxes or call folks crazy for disliking tax arbitrage. Start paying taxes, THEN call me crazy. Obviously Relinquis is exempt; I give him a few years to realize why it's unsustainable for one country with 35% taxes to be funding geopolitical stability for low-tax havens with no natural resources of their own that everyone is leaving for.
But yes, I'm a Malthusian and a little bit of a mercantilist/nationalist when other countries are engaging in mercantilism. It is very good news for the average American if we can jack up the global price of food. Other countries exploit their control over various global markets- OPEC does it for oil, China does it for rare earth elements, and other countries engage in mercantilism by trying to attract billionaires and domestic manufacturing.
We don't do any of that, but we control the world's most precious and valuable resource- food. And we willingly give it away while other countries try to hit us for all we're worth on the mercantilism game. Let's have one regime for countries that don't engage in mercantilism and another regime for countries that do. If you can afford to give billionaires 15% tax rates, if you can afford to restrict oil production and nationalize US oil companies, if you can afford to restrict the export of rare earth elements, maybe you can afford to pay $50/bushel for wheat.
Some smugglers will get rich off of this, but we can maintain aid to the poorest of the poor countries- we have always had systems in place to prevent diversions- and countries that are able to enforce our intellectual property rights will be able to keep their grain quotas from slipping out of the country.
OPEC pulled the same thing with the oil embargo in the '70s. Some free-market capitalist countries got oil, but the US didn't. We weren't able to smuggle it in. The law of one price is powerful but hardly absolute, and a bunch of third world countries were able to enforce a system that didn't abide by it. One would think that the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, and other grain exporters could enforce a system at least as effective as the oil embargo if we got fed up enough with Asian mercantilism.
It is interesting that people favor increased income inequality on this site but then we bring out starving African children when something might threaten that.
IP: Singapore and Hong Kong have been under British protection, not American, for a good portion of the last few decades. No comment on everything else.
You don't know what you're talking about dude. You're delusional if you think all the food exported to Africa is given for free. Why do you think cash crops are so important to African countries? So they can afford to import food.
As far as playing the mercantilist game, you're grossly overestimating the pricing power of OPEC, who has never jacked up prices in concert for political reasons and no longer has spare capacity. The rare earth issue isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be. The real travesty, is that we've let China depress their currency since the days of Reagan for the sake of cheap imports, letting them fund our huge external deficit and leaving our manufacturing sector to rot. The tide is starting to turn but a whole lot of damage has been done.
We can't sell wheat for 100$ a bushel because it's a more or less freely traded commodity. Argentina and Brazil would make a killing before we sold one bushel. What are you going to do then? Call them out for dumping? If Nixon couldn't get the Soviets to shave a penny off the price of oil when they were starving, why do you think this time will be any different?
We send a lot of food aid to Africa, especially during droughts and crop failures. Many economists believe that this artificially increases African populations rather than letting nature take its course in a famine, and others worry that some of the food gets diverted, but the point is that we DO send aid and that we already have controls in place to make sure food gets to hungry people rather than smuggled out of the country. I'm not arguing anywhere that we should get rid of that aid.
We are the world's most capitalist food producer in terms of tax rates, and most of the food exporters suffer from Asian mercantilism as much as we do. We can't do it on our own, but if we get together with Canada, Australia, the UK, and Russia, that's 80% of the world's grain exports. Given that the US makes up most of the grain export market, we should be taking the lead on this and talking things over with Canada, Australia, the UK, and Russia. The Saudis have about 2-3 mmbpd of spare capacity.http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudis-have-2-5m-barrels-spare-oil-capac…
Completely agree with you on China's currency. What about their control of rare earth elements and subsidies for all sorts of industry, though?
The US and other grain exporting countries should not have to engage in some mercantilist race to the bottom on manufacturing costs and tax rates, and we can use our control of the food supply to enforce that.
I don't agree with IP in regards to grain taxation and all that other crap - but we should probably deal with tax havens differently. Places like Singapore/Switzerland/UAE that act as an ultrawealthy expat paradise could probably be treated differently with zero ill effects.
My main issue is seemingly ungrateful nature of Saverin's stay within the US. He comes to the US because he was on a list of potential kidnap victims in Brazil. Then chooses to become a citizen willingly. Went to Harvard - then acts as the moneyman to Zuckerberg. Gets stupendously wealthy based on the US economy. He relinquishes citizenship as soon as it becomes 'too hard' for him? It just seems a bit ungrateful - especially for someone who is a naturalized citizen.
What exactly would forming a grain cartel accomplish? For one, your 50$-100$ numbers are insane. Jacking up the rates on grain much past 2008 levels would be counterproductive. People will starve and the countries who can actually pay up (China, OPEC) will rape us on other products (Oil, all those 'Made in China' things).
Saudi has 'spare capacity' that's probably somewhat above their optimal rate of production (they were completely tapped out back in Summer '08) but messing with prices is not in their interest. The rare earths thing is completely our fault for abandoning our mining projects in the sector.
I think you're grossly overestimating what we can do with our food supply in this day and age. The concessions we got back when we had absurd surpluses back in the 60s were fleeting and now that things are tighter and globalization is that much further along, it's not a realistic diplomatic weapon at all.
$10/bushel for wheat, where it currently is, is very cheap. That's 8000 calories per dollar. Oil was $4/barrel in 1973; it jumped to $12/barrel in 1974 and eventually hit $40 by 1981.
Don't get mad at this guy, get even. Let's charge Singapore's 5 million residents an extra three dollars a day, each, for food until they stop being a magnet for rich expats trying to mitigate their LTCG tax. The 18% taxes they're collecting should easily be able to cover that, and if it won't, they can always jack up taxes on rich guys like Saverin to help pay for it.
Your plan is completely unfeasible. If you selectively charge Asian importers rates above market, the mother of all trade wars will start and someone in the cartel will cave (no country would ever play along with this to be honest). And if the market rate shoots up, so do the subsidies for 'good importers.'
And this talk about getting even is ridiculous. The US is the only country in the world that taxes its citizens no matter where they earn their money. I think some tax reform which addresses why Saverin is bouncing might be a little more effective in the long-run than annihilating any goodwill with what is soon to be the world's dominant economic bloc.
IP, am I reading this correctly?
Are you seriously advocating the US coerce other countries to conform to "your view" of what is an appropriate tax rate for their jurisdictions and citizens? Wow... As an aside, I wonder if you would apply the same thought process to corporations that avoid taxes, or incorporate abroad.
I have a better idea. Why not just invade the rest of the world and turn it into another version of 'murika? Sure, you'll kill a few billion "foreigners" who like to have a say in how they organise their societies but what does that matter as long as you feel ideologically satisfied. Eventually you can turn the global population into American citizens so no one can escape being a servant of your government / military... Oh wait, that would give former foreigners a say in your country... never mind. Lets keep things as they are...
The guy rejected your country. It happens to every country. Don't take it personally. Leave him be.
They are a problem not just for the US but also other grain producing countries like Australia, UK, Canada, and Russia.
We should get together and discuss what we should do about the fact that Singapore, the UAE, and the Cayman Islands are being used to avoid paying taxes on income made in countries like the UK and US and the benefits/services received from the UK/US. We also need to discuss better ways to price discriminate on food.
The thing is that he still needs our food, though. So he hasn't really rejected our country at all.He escaped Brazil for the US because he was at risk of getting kidnapped. We took him into a country that doesn't have kidnapping because of police funded by taxes.
He went to Harvard here. He learned about business and capitalism rather than about 1930s German or Japanese ideology because of taxes.
He made money off of a technology developed by our military, paid for by taxes.
He became a billionaire here, paying very little in taxes on his billions.
Now he wants to arb the IRS, claim his business is worth half its real value, and leave for Singapore to avoid taxes. Something doesn't add up.
We have the opportunity to fix this problem. Eduardo Saverin needs to eat food exported by the US and he needs to live in a country where people consume food exported by the US. He hasn't really rejected our country until he rejects our food and resource exports, and the US, UK, and other grain-exporting countries that have taxes need to remind Singapore, the UAE, and Hong Kong of that.
Nobody is talking about invading anybody. There are much more ethical alternatives. Deontologically, Singapore has no right to our food. We don't need to sell it to them and are under no obligation to sell them anything except at whatever terms we would like to sell to them at. As a human being, I don't want to see people go hungry, but if they're helping people evade income tax on US-sourced income, I am OK with using it as a threat. We're playing an economic chess game against Singapore, and all we really need to do is make a successful food embargo a look like a reasonable plausibility to get them to stop helping people evade US income tax.
And yes, I would apply the same rule to corporations that try to evade US taxes. If you are a country that serves as a tax haven for countries to get US-sourced income and avoid US taxes on it, we should apply the same standards. We need to stop this tax arbitrage BS. People get pissed off when they see other people aren't paying their fair share or they think other people are cheating, and then they decide it's ok to cheat, too. Pretty soon everybody is cheating and we wind up like the Roman Republic.
If you buy or start a US company, you should pay US taxes on the capital gains and on the dividend income. It's really that simple.
GoodBread, food follows different rules than other goods. Indians will not go hungry to sell their grain to China just because China bids the price of grain up. The grain will never make it to the docks. Try taking food through hundreds of miles of hungry people and governments and see what happens to it.Heck, oil prices followed different rules 40 years ago. OPEC's export customers wouldn't re-export to us. They knew their economies would grind to a halt if OPEC cut off their oil supply because they failed to limit re-exports. Imagine that, but with food. The law of one price is very strong when it comes to a boring commodity like wood, but it weakens with strategic economic goods like oil and weakens further with necessities like food.
We control more of the grain export market than OPEC did of oil 40 years ago. Tack on the UK, Australia, and Canada, and you're looking at more like 60% vs. OPEC's 40% in the 1970s, and we have fewer countries involved.
I don't think it would be so tough. And the goal isn't really to starve Singapore and the tax havens; it's to show that we can, and get them to play ball on how and under what terms they take expats from our four countries.
If you start a company in the US, if that company's principal business is in the US, you should be paying US income taxes on dividends and US LTCG when you sell it regardless of whether you expatriate or not. We really need to get people to sign a document stating as such when they incorporate. If you incorporate in the US, and you incorporate while a US citizen or permanent resident, there should be no way to avoid paying US taxes on that business as long as you own it and the principal business remains in the US.
Does anyone really want to argue that people should be allowed to avoid paying US taxes on their US incomes because they fall into a special class of startup investor that can leave the country before they sell? We're all in the same $16 Trillion debt boat and we all need to pay our taxes from our US-sourced income. Startup billionaires should not be exempt by using some expatriation loophole. It's really that simple.
I'm sure Saverin can live off of Sushi. You can keep your grains mate...
Hypothetically, would you have as much of an issue if Saverin had moved to France, Germany or some other country that wasn't a tax haven? Just not the USA.
So, I would have a problem if they left for anywhere and we gave up the right to tax their US-sourced LTCG. But it is particularly irritating with Singapore because we send them more billionaires than they send us, and more importantly, they are engaging in tax arbitrage.
We need to close the gate. We are not East Germany, so for the US, the gate is the global food supply.
If we cut off grain exports to Singapore, I'm pretty sure one of the hungry bums outside of Saverin's building will rob the delivery guy of the $500 order for two tuna small rolls. (No salmon, that's mostly sourced from the US.)Nope, just about famines. If you're surrounded by hungry people, you might be a billionaire, but you probably won't get food delivered if things get desperate enough.
Of course, it would never come to that. Singapore would agree to let us tax Saverin's and the other expats' US-sourced LTCG at US rates. It's only fair. If you have assets in another country that are appreciating in value because of US-sourced income that isn't getting paid out in dividends, it makes sense for you to pay capital gains at that country's tax rate when you sell.
I'm not sure this tangent about grain supply means much - but the points on tax arbitrage are very important. The US has far more power than Singapore in negotiations like this. Their economy can be destroyed if the US had the political will to destroy it (simply don't allow Singaporean firms to do trade with the US). We don't need to be nice to them - they need to be nice to us.
That's because we're huge and they are very, very small. Same goes with Switzerland/UAE/HK. The past few decades some foreign countries have managed to take quite a lot from us. Our lack of retaliation has led to a carousel of abuse by various countries. IP theft, currency manipulation and various tax arbitrage strategies that governments use can be ended tomorrow if the US government wanted them to be.
Or the U.S can take a cue form true free market economies like Hong kong or Singapore and adopt pro-growth, business-friendly economic policies. This way wealthy individuals will actually have more incentive to invest and produce instead of going "Galt". A good start would be to adopt a flat tax rate a la HK. It would also be a good idea to minimize long term capital gain tax . It is a consensus among mainstream economists that the optimal tax rate on capital gain is below 10 percent, preferably zero.
I don't think Eduardo is renouncing his U.S citizenship to avoid taxes, as he will get hit hard by the exit tax on his entire holding of Facebook shares.
Still, there is no shame in avoiding taxes. As the late Australian media tycoon Kerry Packer put it "of course I am minimizing my tax ... and if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read."
I think the billionaires who emigrate from the US and Canada to Singapore today are going to be kicking themselves in ten years. I think we should be acknowledging the realities of a return to a Malthusian and mercantilist world and try to make sure it's convenient to turn US resources into finished products in the US. I think we need to be rewarding US taxpayers who have been suffering higher tax rates than some foreign countries by giving them more exclusive access to some of our best investment opportunities.
Ultimately that is going to mean taxes on the export of raw materials. Including inputs to labor like food. Outside the desperately poor and hungry parts of the world, $10/bushel wheat is pretty darned cheap. At current grain prices, $1 can either buy you bread for three days, or it can buy a three minute song on ITunes.
So what happens when other countries start growing their own food? You use your weapons to force people to stay American (or take their money)? Find other ways to coerce other countries into doing things the way you want? Imperialism much?
Would make an interesting dystopian film... maybe something to trigger a WWIII or the like?
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen to your economy and capital markets if you expanded FIRPTA to cover other asset classes (not just real estate, etc...). FIRPTA is a law that imposes a tax on non-US folks for the privilege of investing in US real estate.
The US is exceptionally statist when it comes to most areas, but particularly when it comes to taxing it's own citizens. As I understand it, the US is one of the few countries that taxes its citizens on their global income even when they're not resident in the US. This impairs your ability to live abroad as an American for extended periods of time. Basically, Americans are economic prisoners of the US tax system in this respect and are bound to US borders.
The US produces about 25% of the world's grain, for that matter. If we take it off the market, China will try, Singapore will try, Japan will try, but people in those countries will still go hungry. The US has the Great Lakes and some of the most fertile soil in the world. We are a huge anomaly- the closest that you get to this combination of water and good soil anywhere else in the world is Russia. And if we were to work in tandem with Australia, Canada, and the UK, we are now talking about more like 40% of the world's agricultural productivity.
Maybe a famine would. But we are a nuclear power and the ChiComs making the decision will have food and their kids will have food. They will not start a war with us, because it will end in thirty minutes and both sides will lose. If they keep things peaceful, their kids will be ok; they will just have fewer workers and those workers will want more money so they can buy food for their families. Makes sense. I am a huge believer in the notion that everyone should pay taxes. Including folks on welfare. Right now, foreign citizens who have millions, buy stock in US companies, and are into the whole yachting/ global citizen culture pay less taxes than most people on welfare. I don't know why, but I find this infuriating.As an NYC resident, I pay 45% of my marginal income in taxes. Low taxes are always nice, but I consider paying a large tax bill a privilege. A year where I owe a lot in taxes is usually a pretty good year. Then I see people who make more than me gripe about paying a lower tax rate than me and I grit my teeth. And then when I see billionaires expatriate because they're angry about a tax rate that is 1/3 what I am paying, I think we should take some policy action on that.
Low tax rates are an impracticality and an impossibility. And when others see people "cheat" on their taxes and get away with it, it encourages more cheating. Of course, if everyone cheats, we can't pay for the stuff that actually sustains democracy and capitalism and we wind up with a system where the biggest thug wins.
That's true. Most countries do not tax foreign income. Then again, most countries will not send a team of Green Berets in to rescue you in a foreign country if you are kidnapped by guerrilas or held hostage by terrorists. There's a trade-off here, and not having your foreign income taxed is always nice, but so is sleeping soundly at night. There are a lot of horror stories about other people in first world countries getting kidnapped or experiencing other crazy stuff, but this is very rare for Americans. I think the last time for US civilians was with the Somali pirates back in 2009, and it ended with three warships and a team of Navy SEAL sharpshooters 24 hours later.If you're a US citizen respecting the laws and customs of where you are, people know better than to do something that would warrant diplomatic or military attention. Outside of maybe the UK, few foreign citizens enjoy anywhere close to the protections that we do when we are traveling abroad. So if you're a nonresident citizen, yes, you pay US taxes, but you receive a lot of US benefits, too.
I wish Saverin well, but he's already got a bit of a target on his back as a billionaire, and he's giving up a lot of protection if something ever happens to him. And I think Machiavelli would be advising the US that it's not a terrible thing for US sovereignty if we were to turn a blind eye to groups that kidnap or harm billionaire US expatriates who've renounced their citizenships.
Oh well, back to my rusty honda.
From today's WSJ:
"The spokesman said Mr. Saverin's decision to renounce his citizenship was primarily rooted in "business reasons" rather than being tax-related. "U.S. citizens are severely restricted as to what they can invest in and where they can maintain accounts," said Tom Goodman, the spokesman, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. "Many foreign funds and banks won't accept Americans.""
Hence my point that, FACTA, not U.S taxes drives away expat Americans. We need to get rid of this piece of legislation ASAP.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023033605045774079905652324…
Quite the dodge. Also bullshit. It's quite different to deny someone with a net worth of ~40MM from a soda pop fortune vs. the cofounder of Facebook and a net worth of 3 billy.
PetEng, it depends how much they're investing. Many funds aren't going to open up to the IRS for, say, a $50 MM investment. That's 5% of a billionaire's net worth, but only $1MM p.a. in management fees.
Isn't he into Asian girls or was that just a Hollywood dramatisation? Probably factored into his decision.
Yes , Eduardo is the anti-Tiger Woods. That may explain why he choose Singapore as opposed to say, Switzerland but FATCA is the reason he had to let go of his U.S citizenship.
Yes. The problem isn't that he's expatriating or fleeing to a tax haven. It's that:
-He is avoiding taxes on US-sourced income. -The only reason Singapore and the rest of East Asia hasn't been turned into high-tax colonies of China is the US Navy, funded by US tax dollars. If Singapore really had to fund its defense against China and North Korea, they would have merged with Malaysia a long time ago and would be suffering much higher taxes.
Machiavelli would tell Obama to encourage a group of Somali pirates to kidnap Saverin and Jim Rogers. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but it's the Machiavellian/Utilitarian response to expatriation problems. Remind folks that we have the world's biggest Navy/Army and it's worth paying a little more in taxes to sleep well at night.
What in the world do you have against Jim Rogers? Are all Americans supposed to live in the US? You're completely out of your mind dude. There's no avoiding US taxes no matter where you live in the world if you're a US citizen, unless you plan on never coming back.
Nothing against them. Again, the problem is if you're getting capital gains on US assets and not paying them.
But from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, the US benefits from billionaires believing it's worthwhile to live in a country that spends about 10% of its GDP on the military. The last time a US citizen got kidnapped by foreign paramilitaries was three years ago, and it ended 24 hours later with three warships and a team of Navy SEALs. Even now, China is dealing with North Korean kidnappers operating in their territorial waters.
Expatriates give up this kind of benefit. Machiavelli would tell us that it doesn't hurt when folks are reminded of why that benefit is so valuable.
You know American expats still have to pay US taxes right?
Not on US-sourced capital gains after they expatriate. If Saverin holds onto facebook and sells it at $100/share, he pays no LTCG on it beyond his expatriation tax.
But in reality, these are US-sourced gains that the US should be allowed to tax.
I have nothing against Jim Rogers and Eduardo Saverin other than the fact that they think 15% is too much to pay in taxes. Rich people can expatriate, and the US can do many things to make life difficult for expatriates and the countries that make it easy to avoid US tax rates. Somehow, the US's options for response are all deemed unethical by folks here while tax evasion is perfectly acceptable.
But the next step in the chess game is to close off investment opportunities to those who refuse to pay US LTCG. Everybody who benefits from the US should pay US taxes. Including expats and folks from the "yachting" community.
IP, there is a difference between being an expat and renouncing your citizenship. Jim Rogers is an American citizen and has to file for taxes same as every other American. No one here is condoning tax evasion, simply questioning the rationale for being one of the only countries in the world who taxes its citizens on income made anywhere in the world.
I coulda sworn Jim Rogers had renounced, too.
The rationale is that if you get kidnapped, guess who shows up with five helicopters or three warships 24 hours later? No other country can really offer that level of service, and that's why US citizens get left alone while abroad, provided that they abide by local laws and cultural norms.
Heck, the US had journalists sneak into North Korea, and Bill Clinton showed up a week later to negotiate their release. Meanwhile, Chinese fishermen are getting kidnapped in Chinese territorial waters and are now being executed.
That's worth an extra 10% in taxes and it's worth letting the US's fairly low tax rates apply to you while abroad if you reside in a tax haven.
IP, I am as war hawk as anyone, but plenty of people in other countries seem to do fine without this get out of jail free card. Just don't sneak into N. Korea or Iran and you probably will be just fine.
I don't know guys. I am worried less about this guy who is truly a global citizen, leaving the US vs. the US instituting some type of draconian taxation to milk someone dry.
If the US had a lower tax rate, more effective government or less draconian regulation maybe this dude would have stayed.
Plain fact is the US is pushing more and more people away. Look at how many talented and educated people come to the US for school and they go right back home. Look at how much money is held overseas because of the US now having the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Let the guy go. He is already paying a ton of taxes and helped create massive wealth. We have no issue with 50% paying ZERO in taxes, yet we complain because this guy hasn't paid enough? Please.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/facebook-co-founder-turns-30-0…
When you have +$2 Billion dollars you do not renounce citizenship for a $67MM savings. There are many legal ways he could structure things to minimize his tax liability while still retaining citizenship. This guy left because 1) He is a Brazilian by birth 2) US citizen for only 8 years and 3) A Singapore resident.
With all the regulation and the fact that he really never was a life long American why wouldn't he leave this country.
And yeah, the US is tough stuff, but we start acting like a global cock and all the other countries can unify and screw us over also. Lets not forget that we have a service economy with a massive deficit. China keeps our party going and the day they say F U is the day our house of cards crumbles.
ANT, he is paying ~5% while most of us are paying ~45% in NYC earning a few zeroes less than him. Somewhere, I read that Saverin had managed to finagle his tax bill down to $100 million on a $2 Billion gain.
Someone may try to argue that the US wouldn't have gotten anything without Saverin. No, Zuckerberg would have found another investor who'd be paying 15% on his $2 Billion gain.
They can't even grow their own food. $10/bushel for wheat is darned cheap. That's 25 cents per 2000 calories. When grain hits $100/bushel, and it will, we'll be the ones racking up trade surpluses.The mercantilist world we are entering into is all about resources. Thank God the US has the most valuable resource.
1.) Get together with all of the other grain producing countries and cut off exports to the tax havens. 2.) Watch the global scramble for grain start and wheat prices get bid up to ~$50-100/bushel. 3.) Impose an export tax. 4.) China and Japan drain their foreign reserves to pay for grain imports, we pay off our deficit and build a few new aircraft carriers and train a lot more Navy SEALs on top of that. 5.) The middle-class and US workers win big time as foreign labor costs rise while US grain stays cheap due to the export taxes.
Not if you're a Chinese fisherman or are a European who sails along the Somali coast.IP,
You keep mentioning people getting kidnapped. When some of my previous classmates had to visit some of the more conflict ridden West/Central African countries they had contracted security firms and such that would airlift them out of the troubled areas if they needed it. In other areas, they had government escorts (not that kind). This is for a couple of junior/middle level excel jockeys... imagine what kind of security a billionaire could afford... They're opting out of your country. They don't want your protection.
On the trade war, coercing other countries to follow American tax and other rules and other arguments you sound like what politicians call "a useful idiot". Intellectualising a justification for their actions. Non-Americans aren't generally sympathetic to rationalising US imperialism on, quite frankly, flimsy grounds. The US/UK/Whomever protects Singapore, the UAE, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other areas not out of altruism or the common good of humanity, rather out of political self interest. The moment you get a Kissinger type figure in a position of power or if it is politically expedient your government could turn any of these into a low intensity conflict or whatever suits your purposes. So please, give me a break about how foreigners owe you for security, grains or other nonsense.
1) He is paying raw dollars more than many of us do. We CHOOSE to live in certain high tax area.
I left NYS in part because of the rip off taxes. People incorporate in other states because of tax benefits. Moving to Florida would say me 4% PA taxes.
Am I a traitor to NYS? We all make economically beneficial decisions.
2) Yes, China needs our food. US farmers, not the government grow it. Restricting the sale of this food to China would a) be an act of war and b) screw farmers. The government doesn't own the farmers production anymore than the government owns what I earn or make.
3) People in Europe seem to do just fine without worrying about being kidnapped. The US government kills US citizens when it deems necessary so lets not could on Delta Force saving my bacon.
I say good for this guy. This is basically Atlas Shrugged. This conversation also illustrated the core of liberalism. You increase taxes, but eventually people just stop working, or move. So you need to have force to prevent this. The natural extension to liberal policies (ie. Socialism, Communism, Fascism) is slavery and force.
Cut corporate taxes, cut personal taxes, reduce waste and fat, eliminate regulations that do harm instead of good and this wouldn't be an issue with this guy leaving.
As for US farmers, if we get together with Canada, Russia, and Australia, and impose a $5/bushel export charge, demand is extremely inelastic and supply is fairly elastic. So demand will remain the same and 95% of the cost will get eaten by foreign consumers rather than farmers. We can then spend the proceeds on research and development at land grant state schools in grain-growing regions of the country. The average family farm will lose 25 cents/bushel to export taxes and get 50 cents/bushel back in increased economic activity in their part of the country.
You just argued a flat per-capita tax, which means poor people are going to pay a higher tax rate than the rich. 100% taxes on the poor is still socialism, too.40% tax rates are a sign of a fairly capitalist country. If we tax grain exports, nobody will be facing 40% taxes.
It would be a lot easier to remind folks of the chess pieces we have on the board and then sit down and hammer out an agreement with China on currency reform and the tax havens on tax reform.Bottom line is that the US will benefit big time if the world has more professional kidnappers and pirates. Not saying its ethical for us to encourage it, but not unethical for us to turn a blind eye sometimes.
I know, but you guys are all playing the mercantilist game, and the US ought to, too. Otherwise we may actually turn into Italy and have a bunch of angry protesters in the streets.The US's advantages are food security and the military. Let's exploit that against the countries that engage in economic mercantilism. Italy actually isn't very mercantilist- the problem is East Asia.
1) I am not FOR regressive taxes. I am simply saying he is paying a large amount. You should be complaining about the fact that you pay 40%, not that he should be paying more. Either way this crap about how he hasn't paid enough ignores the fact that the vast majority pay nothing. Yet that is ok.
2) Farmers are free to sell to whomever they want. The minute the government takes over those farms and forces them to work, while using those goods as a weapon against another country is 1) the moment the US dies and 2) an act of war.
3) The only way we would "win" is in a nuclear war and we would lose as much as anyone. In reality it would become an economic war, one where we would lose also. We would also turn the entire world against us which isn't the best thing.
4) There are tons of jobs in low tax southern states. Compare the auto industry in Detroit to those down south.
I will never understand the desire to see others get screwed because I am screwed. This guy did what we all wish we could do or what should all be done. Why the government thinks it has the right to +30% of what I earn is shocking. And yes, I support taxation, but you are lying (not you IP, but everyone) if someone thinks we actually get what we pay for.
Massive waste, pet projects, government interference. Disgusting.
And what do I propose for people who cannot pay regressive taxes? Nothing. They don't pay already. But they aren't my family, they aren't my friends and honestly, there comes a point where I just don't want to pay anymore.
I would happily give 10x what I pay in taxes to help if only I thought it was used properly and asked nicely. Instead I am forced at proverbial gunpoint to pay and yes, I resent it. This is what happens when you force someone.
The one nice thing about having a high marginal tax rate is that it means you had a good year. I would rather have my tax rate go up in a good year and down in a bad year than vice-versa. Lower taxes are the one consolation for the poor.
No, we are taking over the border and imposing a charge on the export of grain. Those farmers are free to stop growing, but in reality, if we charge a $5/bushel export tax, especially with other grain exporting countries, it will be foreigners paying the cost. US farmers will still get $9.75/bushel instead of $10, and foreigners will pay $14.75/bushel. You can't win an economic war without food. Food is a prerequisite for an economy. CC: North Korea, Iran. Without the government we wouldn't be able to keep anything that we earned, because somebody tougher than us would steal it. Low taxes are always nice, and I prefer not paying for poor peoples' cigarettes and booze, but we've also cut out a lot of waste over the past 30 years. Practically to the point that there's not a whole lot left to cut unless the feds are going to completely eliminate medicare. Most of our spending is on entitlements and the military So what I'm suggesting is that we completely eliminate welfare and most social spending besides maybe some food stamps and replace it with requiring that folks who have a certain level of disposeable income give 5-10% of their income to domestic charities of their choice that do not increase income inequality.You think we have a poverty problem? Give to the Salvation Army.
You like NPR and PBS? Fine, contribute.
You like the arts? Give to Lincoln Center or the Met.
You like religion? Give to your church.
Think we have too many people being born to crack addicts? Give to Project Prevention.
I am out, I have to get some dinner, but we both know my stance on taxes. I applaud this guy.
Instead of the US getting draconian maybe they should simply adjust taxation. Yah, that ain't gonna happen.
IP, we will go in circles discussing this because if we follow a zero-sum Machiavellian train of thought at the national level we end up with the US using its military power to coerce or "checkmate" any other single entity.
This is starting to resemble a stoned students residences discussion... when do we start discussing the origin of the universe and that energy cannot be destroyed?
Perhaps you should start considering things from the point of view of people/citizens/humanity as opposed to states. It will help you move away from what is Machiavellian to what is moral in your point of view.
These countries counted on the fact that we would sell them food, then they manipulated their currencies, help folks engage in tax arbitrage against us, engage in dumping, and screw us left and right.
You know what, maybe we won't export food. If your country is doing so well that it can sell steel below the cost of iron to us, maybe you guys can grow your own fricking food or pay an extra $5/bushel for it.
I see things in terms of communities and the injustices directly in front of us. There is a lot of injustice in the world. You can either lose a lot of sleep about all of it, or you can narrow your range of focus to the US. There is a lot of suffering that goes on in New York. Let's take care of that first before we worry about the Chinese. One of the ways we can help boost US competitiveness and help out minimum wage workers is to make grain more expensive for semi-industrialized countries with lower wages like China.At the end of the day, we care a lot more about our cousins and relatives, even the hungry people we see on the street, before we care about people we don't know in a country far far away. And we need to help make sure we set a floor for them. We also need to maximize the gross value of the US's exports. Since food is an inelastic commodity, most barriers to export will get paid for by consumers rather than producers.
In the post-industrial, resource-constrained world, we are actually moving back to mercantilism and more of a zero-sum game. It is ultimately going to come down to resources and raw materials being very expensive, and the spread between resource costs and what consumers pay for finished products will become fairly small.
So yes, on a community level, we need to be human beings to each other. When there's a homeless lady with two hungry kids, we need to take them to KFC. But the thing is that playing the mercantilist game with our resource exports ultimately makes life better for those kids by raising the cost of foreign labor and making it easier for their mom to find a job.
Yes, I feel bad that this makes life more difficult for the Chinese family. But the homeless lady in New York is the one huddled outside of my building. She is the injustice that I see. Let's enact policies that make life better for her.
IP - Firstly you seem to understand very little about the ag markets, Plenty of production in Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Australia, Canada and Europe as well as in Asia. Yes, countries import American grain, because its the cheapest at certain points in the year. This is not, however, the energy market or the metals market where these is a huge barrier to increasing production. The price has to be right to incentivise that production, but you are kidding yourself if you think countries all over the world couldn't feed themselves if they needed to on a short term basis. I also love how you make this assumption that all the other big grain producers in the world would naturally just co-operate with the US on waging a food war on China and other Asian countires...
Also why the riduculous posturing over all the shiny toys the military has, how about this, people are allowed to opt out of wanting any miltary assistance if they get into trouble abroad and they get to pay reduced taxes, sound fair?
There are so many other absurdities in your point of your view, too many to name, but overall it is the statist attitude that you hold that is frankly the most frightening aspect of your world view.
Statism is when the US bans alcohol or when East Germany turns into a police state. It is not when the US uses trade policy to collect capital gains tax on US-sourced income and make things inconvenient for mercantilist countries and tax havens.
Brazil is a huge exporter of ag commodities, only in wheat is the domestic market in net deficit. Add to the above countries Kazakhstan and Ukraine by the way, with Ukraine substantially increasing its exports to China last year. Both of those countries along ith Russia have lower tax rates than the US, not that marginal tax rate really means anything in terms of willingness to export grain...As to your guess that the UK, Canada and Aus would join a food war, it's exactly that just a guess based on zero factual basis. You then contradict yourself by saying Russia/China assume we would honour mutual defesne treaties when previously you wanted Russia to be part of the same cartel! You have a bizarre fixation with grain as a weapon. Your focus instead should be how rising ag prices over time will prove to be a nice catalyst for increasing prosperity for the midwest, that's a good thing, hopefully farmers get to keep that money rather than have it confiscated from them by killing their export markets.
The US is not less statist than it has ever been, that's again just factually incorrect, there is a big difference between no Government and what we have right now, there is a balance which can be struck but unfortunately the political class have bought off enough of the population to ensure that the state will keep on growing. You know things are going wrong for a country when they try and do everything they can to make it difficult for people to leave.
OP, do you have any idea where the fucking money from the taxes goes? do you have any idea where our honorable senators and congressmen put that money?
OP, you are going to forfeit your citizenship for US citizenship, then who are you getting mad of him?
says a lot about the US tax system...
regardless his timing was very good, I think he gained like 160M by renouncing.
I am not sure I am understanding this correctly, IP. Because of the "stabilizing" effect that U.S. hegemony has had on the world and apparent ingratitude of countries who have benefited from this public good, you are proposing that the U.S. pursue a coercive economic strategy that would most likely send the fragile world economy into oblivion.
I will not even go into the practicality of your strategy (Russia have not been most cooperative lately). But, I would like to touch upon the general misery your proposed strategy would cause to people who have done nothing wrong. I am disappointed that you take pleasure in inducing famine in countries that have either served as tax havens or otherwise displeased the U.S. It is not only morally disgusting but may also have much unintended geopolitical consequences that will backfire.
In desperate times, one cannot say the leadership of a nation (e.g. China) will act rationally. Domestic anger at what the grain-rich countries are doing and pressure to retaliate may very well precipitate a cycle of brinkmanship and lead to another great war. Opinion of the U.S. is at a low ebb around the world. Much of this negativity arise from the arrogant way in which we conduct our affairs. Using food as a weapon is certainly not representative of what the U.S. should be to the world.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't take pleasure in suggesting we induce famine in these countries. I don't want to do it. Truman did not take pleasure in using nuclear weapons against Russia, but he used them as a chess piece in the game against Russia over Western Germany. We're playing a similar economic chess game against the tax havens today.
But more importantly, as human beings, we care a lot more about the injustices we see every day than the injustices that are thousands of miles away. You can be a moral person and still believe that $30 is better spent helping your next door neighbor get back on her feet than speending $30 to help starving people in a faraway land.
Well, that's part of the reason why we have an anti-ballistic missile system. But let's get back to MAD. The Chinese leaders have kids, and those kids will be well-fed even with a starving country in one instance, and in the other instance, they will be wiped out in 25 short minutes. You don't become a Chinese military general or inner party member by being crazy. China has had famines, wars, civil disturbances, and various conflicts over the past 50 years that they've had nuclear weapons, but they have never really considered using them unless someone else used them first. The closest that we got to a nuclear war with with Russia over a tiny island in the Caribbean, and even then, it was Kennedy's kids and Kruschev's kids that saved us.Refusing to do business with someone is not really using your business or product as a weapon, and we have no duty to export our food to the rest of the world especially when we have hungry people living in this country.
IP, you seem to think that your elite would be better off having an economic war with the rest of the world (and that that war would stay economic). They won't (and it won't). Who do you think those tax shelters help? Your elite, their buddies abroad and other related parties.
Your not making sense. I don't see that what you suggest is likely to happen, is desired by your elite (apart from the rhetoric), or useful to your fellow countrymen.
The rest of the world aren't the cause of your country's problems and we owe you nothing.
Unlike Italy and Germany, the US has a peaceful alternative. We have plenty of natural resources, and we can have a sustainable, larger economy running on just them. If we start limiting those exports, we can bring jobs and industry back and let the rest of the world squabble over what's left and who's to blame for the fact that they have exceeded their environmental carrying capacities.
There won't be a war. The US has the largest Navy in the world, we are geographically isolated, we control 25% of the global economy, we have an ABM shield of dubious efficacy but enough to scare the heck out of Russia and China, we've won two world wars starting with smaller militaries largely due to our vast resources. Nobody is going to start a war with us, and we don't need to start a war with anyone else. We are simply going to stop exporting grain. If a non-nuclear power decides to start a war with us over OUR grain exports, that government and its military will cease to exist in 30 minutes, simply by virtue of our conventional missiles. China and Russia would be different, but Russia BENEFITS from us closing the export window and China knows a war would put them in an even tougher situation.
My plan will make the supply of labor in other countries more expensive, thus driving up wages domestically. Economic nationalism is in the interests of the poor and middle class, and unlike socialism, it's sustainable and it works. I completely agree that you owe us nothing; likewise, we owe you nothing. My view is that given that we are a net exporter of resources and a net importer of finished products, the US is much better off for the median American as a closed system, although it would be even better off as a closed system with very similar economies like the Canada, the UK, and Australia. We do not owe you guys our food or our other resource exports, and we should be actively seeking to increase the GROSS value of US GDP by any peaceful means necessary. A tariff on resource exports would encourage more domestic economic activity.Yeah... your government won't start invading countries and overthrowing their governments the moment they cut off their markets from your non-grain producing companies and the moment they reduce supply of energy and other materials to you guys in retaliation to your "grain wars"... I don't buy it.
You're already waging war with a significant part of the world as is. One guy managed to exit from your system because he likes Asian chicks and you want to go to up the ante on the rest of the world in the name of economic nationalism or some other argument for having a protected US economy, but a servile and open non-US market (on your terms).
I'm glad you're not running the USA. Your countrymen would be worse off. I suppose you could use corn to run your ipads, oh wait, those aren't made in the US either...
I didn't realize you weren't a US resident. I understand why the rest of the world wouldn't like this policy, but I also believe that they would implement it if they were in our shoes, too. Every country implements policies for attracting manufacturing jobs, and the US can do it by getting a better handle over its resource exports.
Yeah. I'm not American (we invest there though despite your tax system), so I don't really see US policy abroad as being altruistic (even when the rhetoric your government uses internally is such).
If your government wants to hoard your grains go ahead, just don't tell us how to run our own countries and how we tax ourselves and fund our governments / services. That's not going to happen. The US always meddles in other countries affairs. The difference is that it uses red herrings to justify it's actions... in this case billionaires renouncing their US citizenships.
As an aside, funny you should mention Iran, the US did overthrow Iran's government in 1953 a couple of years after the oil industry was nationalised... But I don't want to get into that can of worms.
Here's an article with some responses from Saverin on why he is renouncing his citizenship. I doubt it will change your minds, but worth a read.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/facebook-ipo-eduardo-saver…
I'm using Asian mercantilism for manufacturing in general.
Japan gives carmakers an export bonus.
China gives crazy subsidies to manufacturers and allows wholesale pollution despite the protests of residents.
Singapore, Macao, and Hong Kong serve as tax havens.
India has a permanent tax holiday on tech income.
The Arab peninsula subsidizes oil prices domestically.
I guess we do use red herrings, or as we see them, straws that are slowly breaking the camel's back. But eventually people will get pissed off enough and say we need to have our own mercantilist policies- and coordinate them with other developed English-speaking grain exporting countries for maximum benefit.
I didn't realise you had posted as I was editing my post. Sorry for any confusion. Good debating with you. Laters.
Would You Move to Singapore? Facebook's Saverin Has (Originally Posted: 06/23/2012)
My sister moved to Singapore a few months ago for a consulting position at one of the big accounting firms after spending most of her professional life in North America. I didn't think much about Singapore at the time, and she's been trying to convince to me to pursue a career in banking there ever since. It's certainly caught my attention lately.
This article from Bloomberg is about Eduardo Saverin, Facebook co-founder, who was blasted by critics for giving up his US citizenship after moving to Singapore for supposedly avoiding (all) taxes. First of all, Saverin will pay his fair share of taxes ($365 million) upon leaving the US, although supposedly he's saved $67 million in doing so. As long as he's within the rule of law, I'm indifferent about his decision. Secondly, if he's moved to Singapore, what does that tell you about business opportunities in Singapore relative to the western nations?
Here are some quick facts about Singapore's (not exhaustive)
Thoughts? I am not trying to promote Singapore, but Singapore is often regarded as the unofficial financial hub of Asia. I love where I am and will probably stay here for the long haul, but I've given Singapore a lot of thought and if the opportunity presents itself, I'd probably move to work there. Wouldn't you???
I was actually thinking about looking at jobs over there too. Just out of curiosity what did she say the biggest barriers/difficulties were to relocating there? i.e. culture, connections, etc.
She's mostly said good things about it. She's talked about the cons and pros of the culture to me. Even though it's incredibly multicultural in Singapore with an increasing talent war among companies, she's said that locals do resent wealthy new immigrants taking their jobs etc. The good thing about Singapore is that English is their main language too, so westerners shouldn't feel much language barrier. As for connections, her own experience has been great I think. Her employers and colleagues really do want her to succeed and continues to encourage her to further pursue higher learning ie MBA, designations.
singapore definitely looks like a great place to work, especially for young people. Their are a ton more opportunities over there than there are in the states
Interested in this as well
Personally, having low income tax rates is quite a give and take. Housing and cars here are extremely expensive.
Take cars as an example; A BMW M3 in North America should set you back in the region of 60,000 USD = 76,500 SGD. However, a M3 in Singapore will cost you a whooping 400,000 SGD (6x more). This is because we have a crazy import tax for all automobiles. Also, there is a piece of paper called the "Certificate of Entitlement" (COE) which you will have to purchase before you are allowed to own a car and will only last for 10 years. COE now costs 80,000 SGD (included in the 400,000). The mot affordable new car you can get is a Perodua for ~74,000 SGD. That's a 55BHP, 1000 CC car from Malaysia.
With regards to banking & finance, I am not really in a position to say much. However, talking to alumnis and such, breaking into a FO role at a BB is extremely competitive. In Singapore, there is only one state; Singapore. I was told that BBs may only hire 1-2 FO analysts a year (sometimes none at all).
Interestingly, the Finance Minister of Singapore was asked recently why his country was so good for business. His answer? "Our public toilets are the cleanest"
I am going to be against the grain and suggest that Singapore is not really the best financial hubs to move. Let's focus on why Singapore itself is on decline.
Geographically Less Relevant. Singapore used to be the major financial hub because a lot of ships that need to head east have to dock in Singapore. The country made a lot of money being a major shipping hub. Within the last ten years or so, the dynamic has changed. Now we have bigger ships that can go to their final destined ports: Hong Kong, Shanghai, Osaka, and etc. without transferring in Singapore. The geographical advantage is gone. Why that matter? It used to be the major source of income for the country.
Recent Entry into Gambling Business. Singapore has always been very firm about laws and orders. It has always been against gambling. Setting up major casinos like Macau, brings in its own set of problems. It leads to a serious of criminal activities: money laundering, frauds, gang activities. If Singapore were doing so well, why would it recently opens up for gambling business? The answer is Singapore cannot sustain itself from its primarily business (as shipping port) and must look for alternative incomes. These in recent years, it has built up massive casinos to attract business.
Rise of Financial Center. The rise of financial center was particularly fueled initially through revenue generated from being the shipping hubs. Singapore did had the time and resources to develop that as it realized that it is slowly becoming less relevant. Most of the major Singapore banks are also the main vehicles for money laundering for drug lords in the Golden Triangle area. With more international scrutiny, most major banks have gotten out of that business.
Limited Land, Higher Taxes, Expensive Apartments. Pretty self explanatory here.
Personally, I would prefer Hong Kong over Singapore. Hong Kong continues to be an important shipping port despite the macro factors which affect Singapore. Most importantly, being right next to China, makes it geographically relevant in term of being the Asian financial hub. Singapore, in my opinion, not so much.
I don't have much data to back it up. It is all based on my conversation with people who live in Singapore, Hong Kong and China. Everything is based on my observation in term of geography and economic dynamics happening around the area.
Human, even when i disregard your failure to completely grasp the english language, i find your comments difficult to internalize. what are your sources for those arguments? changing maritime trade patterns, entrance into gambling, etc - that sort of shit usually goes well with a few statistics and references.
i especially don't understand your gambling argument. you say that it enables those criminal activities, which is pretty much bullshit from a common sense perspective. do you honestly think that gangs just pop up when there's a new casino in town? no. in fact, i would probably be more worried when there are no legal casinos because that means they take it underground where anything fucking goes. since these are criminal business models, i doubt they would wait for a legal casino to pop up to start business. some of these guys' revenue probably gets hit from a casino opening (namely underground gambling.) to your credit there is one slimeball business that comes to mind when i think of casinos and that's loan sharking.
i'm not the biggest fan of moving to singapore either but my argument is way more general - there ain't no way it's up to par with the good ol' US of A. sure there's growth, but at the end of the day, who wants to say "i live in singapore." fuck that. too far from the nfl.
What are the living costs like in Singapore? Rent, nightlife and food?
Apparently, it's the 5th most expensive city to rent in the world. In Asia, it's the third most expensive. Only Tokyo and HK is ahead. I don't doubt the quality of nightlife and food. Another good thing about Singapore is that you can easily travel over the weekend to HK, Vietnam, Thailand etc. and find other nightlife/food
Singapore's a dumb country. It seems impressive on paper, but after you've spent some time there you realize how shallow everything is. It's a bit like Dubai, just a series of shopping malls and chain stores, there's no authenticity, aside from a few (very few) areas.
The local culture is incredibly lame in Singapore. The only thing people ever talk about is how much you spend on stuff and how "convenient" everything is. Not trying to be racist here (I'm white), but I found Hong Kong and Tokyo to be FAR superior. I personally think Tokyo is incredible in terms of quality of life - it's clean, the nightlife is good, it's safe, the food is amazing, and the people are interesting and stylish and know what's good etc
Having said that, Singapore's great for expats in their late 30's or 40's with a few young kids...Companies typically pay for international schools, rent, cars, etc. and there's hardly any tax. A lot of people are pocketing 200k after tax and the only expenses they have are...food? pretty good deal, i must say
If you're young and single and cool, please aim for HK or Tokyo.
I can confirm this. I have a bunch of friends who grew up in Singapore and some of them in fact still live there. All of them are expats and have lived in a lot of exotic places. One thing they all say is that there is probably no better place to grow up than in Singapore.
The nightlife in Singapore is pretty awesome and don't be surprised if the club you're in is in fact a whorehouse. It happened to me once.
i agree with Human's points. However, keep in mind that Singapore is probably best for Westerners. If you aren't a native Mandarin speaker with the top college degree in the US / big names on your resume and you haven't moved to HK yet, you probably will struggle to find a decent job there.
Also, the buyside guys now in China ONLY wants mainland people. Even HK guys have a trouble to break in because the culture is still slightly different and they don't speak the same Mandarin dialect.
Oh, and by the way, Asians in Asia (specifically China, HK, Taiwan, Japan and Korea) are the most racist people ever. If they even discriminate based on the location of the same country other people are coming from, they will for sure discriminate someone from other countries.
Honestly, if I had to spend my 2 year analyst stint in Singapore, Hong Kong, New York, London or San Francisco I wouldn't really care. It would be great to live across the country or in a foreign city for a temporary period of time (less than 5 years). However, eventually I would like to have my career in my hometown.
^+1 anything to get in, so long as I'd be able to return home or NYC for the rest of my career.
I have lived in Singapore for the past two years.
Somewhat mentioned the cost of cars... Having a car in Singapore (or Hong Kong) is totally unnecessary... the subways, taxis, busses, etc. are among the best in the world and i have never felt that i needed a car. Singapore uses taxes to guide society into a cleaner more efficient way of life. Income taxes are incredibly low (i pay less than 10%), while if you want to own a polluting car, you pay 200% tax, if you want to drive and create more traffic, you pay road tax, if you want to smoke and get drunk, you pay tax there. Even when i pay over US$10/beer, i don't have much problem with it because i am still overall paying so little tax, yet receiving absolutely best-of-the-world service from the extremely efficient government.
Someone mentioned that "Singapore is a dumb country... just a series of shopping malls... Wow, Singapore has vastly more to offer in terms of cultural diversity and depth than most other global cities. I suppose you must have just spent time in the shopping malls when you were in Singapore. Every country has its portion of shallow materialistic culture, although i would prefer Singapore's over the US type. There are so many unique and entirely different niches in Singapore - Arab street, little india, china town, raffles place, marina bay, clark quay and boat quay, macritchie reservoir and pulau ubin, sentosa, tanjong pagar, bugis.... What exactly are you looking for?
Someone mentioned that it is geographically less relevant due to (although i don't understand why you would think this) shifting maritime trade patterns.
Singapore has built itself to be the shining beacon of Southeast Asia, the hub of commercial activity in the region. It benefits in a similar way as Hong Kong has and continues to benefit from being the commercial hub for mainland China. Just as shipping is not rule the economy of Hong Kong, shipping does not rule the economy of Singapore. What has led Hong Kong and Singapore to flourish is their outstanding business environment relative to their neighbors. Singapore is in the middle of Indonesia (230m people), malaysia, vietnam, thailand, philippines, cambodia, laos, myanmar, etc. and if you are doing big business in the region, you will want to base out of Singapore in the same way as Hong Kong is an attractive base for your chinese business. As long as Indonesia and the wider SEA region grows, Singapore will continue to thrive.
I love Singapore and am frustrated by the criticism directed at it by some other westerners who often to not know what they are talking about. With that said, I am actually moving to Hong Kong in a couple of months in order to join my girlfriend up there. Hong Kong is great too, and i enjoy living there as well, however i prefer the lifestyle of Singapore (my girlfriend and i have had many discussions on whether she comes down to SG or I come up to HK...)
You can't be serious. Raffles Place, Bugis, Marina Bay, Clarke Quay, Tanjong Pagar haha? These are some of the most synthetic places I've ever experienced in any country.
I could go on and on about Singapore.
I had friends from the U.S., U.K, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Australia, France, HK, Canada etc etc They all thought Singapore was a really superficial place. There are so many factors at play (governance, climate, history, education, economy), it's hard to pick out a single cause for its pathetic culture.
I had the full experience there too, I know what I'm talking about :). I went to F1, Zookout, numerous nights out in Clarke Quay, Butter Factory etc, PGA events, weekends in Bintan, Indonesia. I saw all the areas, lived in three different flats. These events were all fun, don't get me wrong, but after awhile, when it comes to day to day living, hanging out in your local neighbourhood - grabbing a good coffee, checking out a gallery or a band...this kind of stuff is totally absent. Someone will probably come back and say Haji Lane or Holland Village haha.
There's no real creative class in Singapore. You don't have that friction between business and the arts like you do in other cities. That's what makes cities great, and that's why Singapore will never be in the same conversation as London, Paris, New York, or Tokyo. And not even those cities...you start to miss the places like Melbourne, Kyoto, Chicago, and Montreal - cities with a good balance between career, arts and entertainment, hot women, food, culture etc.
I'm not trying to hate on Singapore for rivalry's sake. I'm not from Hong Kong or Tokyo, I'm American. Just being honest.
Again, I'd say for the 30-40 year old expats - great place for a few years. And for regional travel on weekends, Singapore can't be beat. The new terminal at Changi is easily one of the best in the world, and it is very "convenient", as Singaporeans like to say.
I've been to Singapore on business for a few weeks and I must admit, it was impressive. The cleanliness of the streets and friendliness of the people are truly unmatched. I agree with a lot of what was said above (both the positives and the negatives) and will add the following:
Climate: It is incredibly warm and humid in Singapore 24/7. It rains every day, although usually for about 30 minutes or an hour. Some people like this and some don't. The country combats it with intense air conditioning in every building and a massive underground transit system complete with underground shopping and restaurant activities. It is pretty cool.
Transportation: Cars + Certificates are ridiculously expensive. However, I agree that you don't need one. Unless you're planning regular trips to Malaysia or the Singapore Zoo (very cool), public transit can get you everywhere else.
Housing / People: I don't know the situation in the city, but outside the city there are MASSIVE strips of government subsidized housing that seem to house an endless supply of factory workers. Given the population is only 4 - 5 million, a quarter of which are Expats, you won't get the same "meet different people every day" experience that many people like in bigger cities. This can be a good or a bad thing.
Food: Singapore has a very diverse assortment of food options, partially due to the diverse ethnic origins of its people. For someone who is accustomed to Asian food, this is great. For Westerners who grew up on burgers and fries, the food can be a bit of a struggle.
I am a Singaporean, please feel free to ask me anything.
How much trouble would you get into for being drunk in public?
Just to hijack this thread, I am organizing WSO Singapore's first meetup on 13 July 2012.
Join the group [Singapore Monkeys] for more info, or simply drop me a PM.
Been there. Seems like a cool place to live and work for a couple of years for experience and all, but unless the opportunity is absolutely massive enough, I don't think I'd want to give up my American citizenship like Saverin.
Shout out to the WSO Meet up in Singapore in July: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/event/wso-singapore-meetup-2012
How important is the knowledge of the language when it comes to working in finance?
we speak English. It is abit better than say Hong Kong, which Chinese and Cantonese are also valued.
Minus quo excepturi omnis occaecati iure asperiores. Deserunt eos sint vero. Et magnam iusto voluptas amet hic ut ratione. Placeat optio error voluptatem rerum dicta qui pariatur. Magni explicabo voluptatem aperiam.
Totam corrupti expedita qui. Eligendi ut quas repellendus. Sed velit aspernatur maxime in minus ipsam. Porro eius illo in accusantium delectus sit. Qui perferendis doloribus ullam earum blanditiis et perferendis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Voluptate non non dolorem corporis enim quasi quasi. Aut animi dicta at corrupti. Unde repellat facere qui eum. Amet alias magnam earum natus. Provident in debitis exercitationem culpa.
Libero et aut qui. Quo ipsum modi eum et. Veritatis consequuntur nemo quo. Consequuntur neque ipsam sed atque velit occaecati architecto deleniti.
Vel animi similique non voluptates assumenda atque sit. Quod id debitis tenetur doloremque est velit.
Consequatur voluptatum culpa possimus assumenda quia odio vitae. Harum minima expedita sit dolore cupiditate. Saepe maxime iure ipsa non. Earum id deserunt facere libero est odio adipisci facilis. Aut et aut ut nihil veritatis.
Aut sit labore beatae aut vel error vel eius. Quas nesciunt quia accusamus ut culpa. Sint et facilis nihil iste sit quam. Beatae libero quis provident voluptas at maxime harum.
Est repudiandae sit repellat quibusdam. Et delectus ut numquam dolor sed. Eveniet eum dolorem dolores qui rerum hic id voluptatem. Libero eum perferendis accusamus dolorem eos nesciunt molestias debitis.
Et velit asperiores eum. Rerum dolor accusantium mollitia vel dolore exercitationem et. Pariatur repudiandae necessitatibus vitae. Dolores repellat aliquam aut sapiente distinctio totam reiciendis ut.
Quam voluptatibus nihil eos. Omnis et iste sit quos libero. Ut repellendus aliquam qui alias.
Nulla voluptate accusamus architecto omnis est. Cupiditate officiis sit tempora quis porro reiciendis distinctio. Minima quia laudantium exercitationem voluptates et fugit voluptate sed. Ad facilis commodi enim iste et.
Quae molestiae quia et nesciunt voluptas autem dolore. Iste autem maiores iste maxime repudiandae neque. Nobis adipisci ipsam mollitia beatae adipisci. Repellendus eaque quas animi sit est quo voluptas. Autem natus veritatis cumque sint assumenda nobis exercitationem.
A at vero temporibus perspiciatis repellendus rerum. Laboriosam aliquam quisquam non odio. Quod neque quia praesentium reprehenderit facere dignissimos. Praesentium quod qui blanditiis facere non sequi.
Dolorem et sit rerum. Quaerat perspiciatis accusamus accusamus molestiae. Esse qui ut aut delectus omnis. Aut ipsa dicta eos nihil voluptas et libero. Nesciunt ad vitae ut eum eos qui et.
Velit aut et mollitia ut est nihil. Accusamus voluptatem consequuntur sequi voluptas ad.
Adipisci laboriosam rerum quo eum at quo. Maxime reprehenderit voluptatem suscipit libero.
Aspernatur dicta quam tenetur neque voluptatem. Accusantium assumenda laboriosam nobis repellendus sint fugit. Dolor nulla non non ut delectus. Quas culpa in non eos aut at.
Impedit eius iusto saepe accusantium. Sunt assumenda illum velit qui quas. Distinctio quod perspiciatis molestiae corrupti porro aut.
Dolorem dolores neque eum maxime non. Asperiores ratione reprehenderit ipsam. Est omnis repellendus officia quia.
Aut ut sit incidunt dolorem nostrum harum. Recusandae rem molestias aliquid. Voluptatem dignissimos sunt ut ipsam. Quis quibusdam suscipit error harum itaque vel earum. Vitae est sequi nihil exercitationem dolores et. Facere expedita quia ea totam ipsum et.