Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

John Paulson, a lifelong New Yorker, is exploring a move to Puerto Rico, where a new law would eliminate taxes on gains from the $9.5 billion he has invested in his own hedge funds, according to four people who have spoken to him about a possible relocation.

Ten wealthy Americans have already taken advantage of the year-old Puerto Rican law that lets new residents pay no local or U.S. federal taxes on capital gains, according to Alberto Baco Bague, Secretary of Economic Development and Commerce of Puerto Rico. The marginal tax rate for affluent New Yorkers can exceed 50 percent.

In October 2011, when Occupy Wall Street protesters marched by the homes of Manhattan's billionaires, Paulson chided them by pointing out his loyalty to city.

"The top 1 percent of New Yorkers pay over 40 percent of all income taxes, providing huge benefits to everyone in our city and state," his firm said in a statement at the time, adding that the hedge fund had opted to stay in New York rather than flee to a low-tax state. "Instead of vilifying our most successful businesses, we should be supporting them and encouraging them to remain in New York City and continue to grow."

Rowling loves her country, and she wants her kids to grow up there. And, as someone who once depended on the safety net designed to help those going through hard times, she feels a debt to her society.

Here's Rowling in the London Times (via Chris Bertram of Crooked Timber and Frank Black) :

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug

GannonFan wrote:It would be interesting to read how each of them gives, if they do, to private and public charities or other causes. The amount they give to the government in terms of taxation is just one piece of the puzzle, and in this case, what the US does with it's tax revenue versus what the UK does with their's is a bit different.

kalm wrote:Neither is right or wrong, it's their choice. But gratefulness is a two way street and is a very under-rated virtue IMHO:

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:Neither is right or wrong, it's their choice. But gratefulness is a two way street and is a very under-rated virtue IMHO:

I'm a proud American but I would have to at least consider moving under those circumstances. How could you not? He has almost $10 billion invested so even at a 1% rate of return that is almost $100 million/year, 50% of that is $50 million in potential taxes. That's a lot of money to be giving to the government. I don't disagree that he likely benefited from living in America and would probably not have made that much money if not for the opportunities that the country provided.

And this raises the question so it's ok to focus on asking the rich "ask not what your country can do for you but ask instead what you can do for the country"?

dbackjon wrote:

UNI88 wrote: I'm a proud American but I would have to at least consider moving under those circumstances. How could you not? He has almost $10 billion invested so even at a 1% rate of return that is almost $100 million/year, 50% of that is $50 million in potential taxes. That's a lot of money to be giving to the government. I don't disagree that he likely benefited from living in America and would probably not have made that much money if not for the opportunities that the country provided.

And this raises the question so it's ok to focus on asking the rich "ask not what your country can do for you but ask instead what you can do for the country"?

So he is a freeloader...

Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to 'cause that's the only way it's gonna work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying.