I mean; here we have a guy that has taken all the advantage of all the benefits a developed industrial country has to offer and then in turn does everything in his power to give back as little as possible.
Hell yeah I'm going to blame him. It's not moral behavior. I don't care whether it is legal or not, he's behaving like a parasite and should be judged according to his behavior.
It seems more like you regret the laws in the US during the decades he was here, and you are hoping future changes in the law will retroactively address your concerns. But I see no moral basis for that stance.
If we want to change the law, we should be forced to consider the effects on the future, and whether those laws will negatively impact the wealth created in the future. If we start going back and seizing wealth from the past, that will give us a false sense that the laws are working, until the old money runs out and we look around and don't see anyone creating new wealth.
Like Paul Ryan who basically made it where he did thanks to US social services but did everything he could while in power to decimate those very services he himself relied upon now that he no longer needed them.
As much as I enjoy watching people dissemble while describing their true actions, there’s not really anyone naive enough to believe Schmidt didn’t actively create the rules google currently operates under, is there?
Maybe he really was just a bystander in his company as it poured millions of dollars into lobbying the American government and he was powerless to stop them.
Or maybe he though the lobbying did nothing and he thought wasting money was a good thing.
Or he’s just lying and hopes people don’t acknowledge that there were maybe half a dozen people who had more power to shape the laws and regulations he operated under. But trying to just pass himself off as an uninvolved observer just rings thoroughly disingenuous.
The solution for the future is to try to harder to make good laws in the present rather than somehow retroactively change the past.
> If we want to change the law, we should be forced to consider the effects on the future
Of course. This is why it's taken so long to come up with laws that prevent the kind of exploitation that creates a couple dozen billionaires while stagnating the majority of America's incomes. It's morality that drives the lawmaking -- since everyone has different morals and we all live under the same laws -- and at least if everyone hates the guy for this then hopefully we see some laws that prevent more behavior like this in the future.
Getting a second citizenship?
People go to Cyprus specifically because they want a Schengen passport.
https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/cyprus-tax-for-non-re...
Not totally unreasonable for a global CEO.
>People like Schmidt purchase themselves [...] freedom of movement
This is not immoral.
>where ordinary people [...] are locked into their country
This is
That is not what the US does which is "We don’t care what you do and where you live, if you have citizenship you better file your taxes"
However, income is not subject to double taxation; if you've already paid taxes in another jurisdiction, Norwegian authorities are not going to tax the same income again.
As opposed to the US.
We choose to live & work here because SV is the Mecca of software development, but that could very easily change within our lifetimes, so tying ourselves down with this ridiculous obligation for life doesn't make any sense in the long term.
Never becoming a citizen in the first place saves so much money and headache.
Does the global tax extend to green card holders who are not citizens?
Yes there are exceptions for some class of residents but they are quite fringe.
Further reading: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/...
Yep, see question 2:
> You have to file a U.S. income tax return while working and living abroad unless you abandon your green card holder status by filing Form I-407, with the U.S. Citizen & Immigration Service, or you renounce your U.S. citizenship under certain circumstances described in the expatriation tax provisions. See Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, for more details.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/freq...
Not quite: I believe Myanmar (and perhaps Eritrea) have similar requirements.
I'm sure Americans feel right at home in that company....
Its not like he just inherited his wealth and is now skipping out ASAP.
Don't get me wrong: I don't like the idea of buying a citizenship at all. But this won't let him escape taxes, if you think that was his intention.
I mean, first, citizenship is made up. Many people have dual citizenship, and many countries will give you citizenship for ancestorship. And, of course, most countries offer citizenship to newborns who aren't contributing much and don't currently care about the country they're living in (and some countries, like the US, do so for babies born in the US to people who aren't citizens).
The US has the most draconian global tax system of any country in the world, and has the unique position of being able to actually enforce it due to the fact the USD is the reserve currency of the world and every country needs to stay on the good side of the US Treasury to transact in the global economy.
In fact, the laws are so strict, they make living abroad as an honest middle-class expat a total nightmare. I have friends who cannot find a single bank in their country that will work with them because of the reporting requirements of working with US citizens. They cannot save in foreign banks and they cannot invest either due to the US penalizing foreign Mutual fund/ETF purchases by private citizens.
But I’m sorry. Me and many others see the nation state as a service provider. An institution that enforces the rule of law, furnishes protection from invaders and criminals, and provides large-scale public goods in exchange for some slice of tax revenue and a code of conduct.
But if I’m unhappy with a service provider, then I should be free to change vendors to whomever meets my need. No different than the freedom to pay for a new phone plan or new gym membership.
You complain that ordinary people don’t have the same consumer choice as the ultra-wealthy. If so, the focus should be on how to make the global market for nation-states more competitive for a wider range of consumers. I agree that many are locked into a shitty service provider. But if anything, the tiny slice of people who can exercise a choice almost certainly makes this market more, not less, competitive.
Says who? You?
The beauty of people is we have different opinions. If Cyprus wants to sell their citizenship for a dollar each, that's their right.
> People like Schmidt purchase themselves a...
Yes, that's one of the motivating factors for being rich, is being able to purchase things afterwards.
There's a child dying somewhere on this planet right now and here you are moralizing on HackerNews - people like you purchase themselves an internet connection and talk about blah blah, while a child is dying.
Citizenship is just a legal relation between a person and a country. If both sides want that relationship, then it is perfectly moral to start such relationship.
But, by buying the citizenship, they are not just showing in some vague indirect way that they "want to" contribute to the country, they are actually, directly, palpably contributing to the country.
> People like Schmidt purchase themselves a tax excemption or freedom of movement in a world where ordinary people right now lose their jobs and are locked into their country.
I'm confused, is your complaint that Schmidt hasn't done enough to "earn" citizenship, or that people that don't have less capacity to contribute should also enjoy what Schmidt does.
On top of the obvious tax benefits in Cyprus, the country is also member state of the EU since 2004.
That means 'Citizenship of the European Union', that includes the ability to travel to anywhere in the EU (visa free), the Ability to reside anywhere in the EU, hell Schmidt could even run for public office in any EU local governments municipal elections if he so wishes.
Here's an idea for a short story: Schmidt does indeed wish so; he becomes a politician in the EU and places himself in a position that allows him to make the EU a much more friendly place for the adtech industry and surveillance capitalism.
There are no tax benefits for US citizens in Cyprus. Giving up your US citizenship involves a significant exit tax.
- Dividend gains exemption
- Capital gains exemption
- Pension income capped at 5%
- Abolished inheritance tax
- All of the above plus bonus EU freedom of movement/residence
The guys fortune is parked on GOOG stock how can you say he has nothing to gain? There is a reason russian oligarchs are parking their money in that tiny island.
a. He has also given a lot more back to the said country. than he has taken from it, IMO. Imagine what life would be like without Google.
b. Google is a global company, not just a US company
c. I don't believe in the notion of nations or citizenship and don't blame him if he doesn't either and is switching citizenships just for convenience/logistics.
Interesting point of view!
In any case, with Trump gone nobody will be around to fight Google if that's your desire.
There was a time when I would have agreed with this claim, but I'm not so sure these days.