Wealthy socialite and top Democratic donor Denise Rich denounces her U.S. citizenship - saving her t
Wealthy socialite and top Democratic donor Denise Rich denounces her U.S. citizenship - saving her tens of millions of dollars in taxes
•Songwriter also has Austrian citizenship through her late father
•Former husband Marc Rich fled the country when indicted on charges of tax evasion - but was pardoned by President Clinton in 2001
•House of Representatives committee later found Denise Rich had swayed the decision through donations to Clinton campaign
•Comes as the latest wealthy American to denounce citizenship
PUBLISHED: 09:43 EST, 9 July 2012 | UPDATED: 11:06 EST, 9 July 2012
By Reuters Reporter
Denise Rich, the wealthy socialite and former wife of pardoned billionaire trader Marc Rich, has given up her U.S. citizenship - and, with it, much of her U.S. tax bill.
Rich, 68, a Grammy-nominated songwriter, top Democratic donor and glamorous figure in European royalty circles, renounced her American passport in November, according to her lawyer.
Her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg, appeared in the Federal Register on April 30 in a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. citizenship and permanent residents who handed in their green cards.
Wealthy: Denise Rich, a songwriter who was married to pardoned billionaire trader Marc Rich, has denounced her American citizenship and will save millions in U.S. tax bills
By dumping her U.S. passport, Rich likely will save tens of millions of dollars or more in U.S. taxes over the long haul, tax lawyers say.
Rich, who wrote songs recorded by Aretha Franklin, Mary J. Blige and Jessica Simpson, is the latest bold-faced name to join a wave of wealthy people renouncing their American citizenship.
-
Marc Rich received a presidential pardon in 2001 on President Bill Clinton's last day in office.
Federal prosecutors and Congress investigated the pardon, and in 2002 a House of Representatives committee concluded Denise Rich had swayed the action through donations to the Clinton library and campaign. Dubbed "Lady Gatsby" by Yachting magazine, Rich owns multiple properties, including a mansion in Aspen, Colorado.
She is a frequent habitue of Cannes, Monte Carlo and St. Tropez with celebrities and singers aboard her 157-foot yacht, Lady Joy.
-
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin gave up his U.S. passport to become a citizen of Singapore, an offshore tax haven, before the company's initial public offering in May.
Nearly 1,800 citizens and permanent residents, a record since data was first compiled in 1998, expatriated last year, according to government figures.
-
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170969/Wealthy-socialite-Denise-Rich-denounces-U-S-citizenship--saving-tens-millions-dollars-taxes.html
==
AnotherMcIntosh (2,231 posts)
Is this the same Denise Rich with a husband who obtained a pardon with the assistance of Holder?
I wonder what motivated Holder to help her husband?
Why yes, yes it is!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just in case some people need to be reminded;
Sid
Sid
Sid
Sid
Sid
I love Canada and would never tell them to mind their own business.
please don't act like you and I are on the same side.
You are free to call me a hoser, but when someone makes it a HABIT to be an asshole towards members of the site, and have little things like "this town needs an enema", etc, yeah, I'm going to be a tad offended. Is it because SD is Canadian? No. It's because SD is telling people how to vote and doesn't even live in this country, pay taxes in it, and acts like we are all idiots in this nation.
That I disagree with. Proceed with the hoser calling, but at least they are drinking good beer in the picture 
.
of extremely rich Dems, some of whom tried to mount a Draft Hillary campaign against the president's reelection. There are rich assholes, and there are assholes who don't have a dime. Some assholes just smell nicer than others. What's your point?
Should we all reproach ourselves for voting and advocating for these two guys? You seem to be trying to equate this woman's actions today, to Eric Holder's "advocacy" in the 90's? The question remains...Who gives a fuck?
If this article http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=921501 is to be believed, it looks like Rich's pardon was a done deal, with or without Holder's "advocacy".
here is to constantly bash both parties as the same, but why you're allowed to continue with this campaign is perplexing. No one here has any delusions that you're trying to draw some connection from this woman to the Obama administration. It's what you do.
For most "Democrats", however, job #1 is getting the president reelected. Your goal seems to be somewhat different.
matter who those forces happen to be. Since we know who the two serious contenders for the presidency are, I keep wondering what the point of all the trashing is, other than to help the GOP create another 2000. Now that makes sense. There's no other reason I can think of that anyone would listen to someone spouting the "both parties are the same" bullshit.
As for the "elite"? I could care less about their defense. But I do know this, if everyone adopts your rhetoric, and keep trying to make enemies of those "elite", they ALL have the wherewithal to pick up & pull a Denise Richardson, the rest of us don't. Do you know what that would do to an already crumbling tax base?
What happens when you've driven all the "elite" from our shores? What will the country look like then? Your talking points are tiresome, and frankly boring at this point, and can be quickly summarized as follows: "Rich people SUCK"; "Eric Holder SUCKs"; "Democrats SUCK"; "Anyone who disagrees with me SUCKs". Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
There may come a time when you'll be first in line for crumbs. 
The crap you're spewing comes from being well fed, not really having to worry about a roof over your head, purporting to be ideologically driven, although I have my doubts. But it's the internet, where one can pretend to be whomever they choose. I'm actually the Democrat you guys hate the most, I'm that Democrat who would vote for a dead dog with a (D) behind it's name, rather than vote for a Republican, or Republican enablers (fuckin' 3rd parties). What's at the root of a lot of the "concern" we see at DU, is nothing more than under-the-radar third party advocacy, and outright suppression tactics. Hell, it's not even that subtle anymore. 
You can't challenge me or my devotion to the party of my parents and grandparents. NEVER!!! And for those who keep trying to change it to fit some romanticized vision of yesteryear, or some European/Venezuelan model, go do your own thing, just don't bother "Democrats" with it. AFAIC, those constantly trashing the Democratic Party and it's leadership should be shown the door. IMHO.
Be entrepreneurial, do your own thing. How does "Progressive Underground" sound? Or "PU" for short? This is still Democratic Underground, if there's any doubt, maybe this will help.
"It is clear that the 2012 presidential election is going to be President Obama vs. Mitt Romney. So, for the purposes of enforcement of the DU Terms of Service, general election season has begun. Here is the relevant section:
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground.
.......
But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear.
........
Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. (To be clear, you don't get a green light to relentlessly trash President Obama if you claim you are going to vote for him. As the TOS say: If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.)"
Skinner, EarlG, Elad
DU Administrators
this discussion.
p.s.: I do live for the day when Admin will honor it's own mission statement. "Electing More Democrats".
And trust me, I'm not looking for help from you, but thanks loads!
Careful you don't break anything climbing down from that ivory tower of yours.
Stay with that strategy! It's a winner! 
literature" ignoramus, that makes me feel good.
The poster's smug approach may be suitable for his/her coffee klatch or "classical lit" book club, but it's not a winner with Jane & Joe Sixpack. It smacks of " Nah Nah Boo Boo, I'm smarter than you" 
. It's why there will never be another hardcore liberal in the WH. Many so called "liberals" come off as pompous, overeducated, overly cerebral, condescending smarty pants, and that's a losing strategy with regular folks who might have left high school to go to work in the cotton mill, or sling hash at the local diner. In fact it alienates them. If that's the approach being used, I don't see building any lasting movement infrastructure from it. And I certainly wouldn't want these "liberals" speaking to people as a "Democrats".
that you've come to this conclusion?
It's been fizzling since last September!
hoping. But, backing off the "heated environment" and realizing that attacks will come and be vitriolic...and yet still trying.
What else can one do? In these times.
Okay, I'm gonna leave you now. You've lapsed into some shit I'm not familiar with. highminded ideals and hawk 'em elsewhere. I know which party has my back. Part of the problem? Hardly.
Right wing numbskulls buy this junk from Limbaugh and the Faux talking heads.
Huey and Sabrina, I don't know if you've read this but it's good. 
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/06/13/reader-comment-the-rich-and-the-power-of-myth/
Excerpt:
DAVE PARKER:
Hanauer has pulled back the veil that masks the true intentions of our modern myth-makers.
Let’s take the functions one at a time with regard to the loaded phrase, “job creator.”
1. Look at the size of their mansions, private planes and yachts! See what wondrous things a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett can do! They each have more money than God! They’re gods among mere mortals!
2. The Biggest Man up the Highest Stairs (and let’s be clear about this: God’s got the biggest balls of them all) by force and fiat, personally created the cosmos, making it — and us — His personal private property, to do with as only He can see fit.
3. Since “job creators” are nearer to God than we, the 99%, are; we should bow down, avert our gaze, and let them have their way with society and us. It is right and proper that the 1% should lord over the 99%. It’s what God would do.
4. The best the 99% can hope for is to be cared for, cradle to grave, on the plantations of our rightful masters. To work on the plantation of a Job Creator is the next best thing to Heaven on Earth. Going off plantation, being without a job, or complaining about conditions are sure signs of allegiance with the Devil.
***
Paraphrasing Shakespeare, the power of myth is to bring into being the world stage on which we play our ever more notorious parts. The metaphors with which we construct the cosmos, and through which we
enliven it, are the most powerful forces in the human world. It’s bad enough that the power of myth is being perverted to serve economic interests. It gets worse.
The awesome power of myth is also being weaponized, putting, for example, the “awe” in “Shock & Awe.”
Don’t believe that the power of myth is that powerful? Still think myths are antiquated fancies, the best thing to do with which is to bust them? Still want to use myth as an intellectual’s grandiose synonym for lie?
Riddle me this: which is more powerful: myths, or nukes?
Answer: We were jacked to war in Iraq by the power of myths about nukes. Nukes are nigh on useless, but myths about them are more powerful than the weapons themselves.
Just ask Iran. Or Japan.
I find it spectacular that Arlen Specter's GOP talking points are being used to slam Holder, for the actions of a selfish spoiled woman, who wants to take her millions and flee the country that made some of her success possible. How the fuck is Eric Holder responsible for that?
This is muckraking at its absolute worst, and a continuation of the "both parties are the same" meme.
Disgusting!
(do I also need to add this?
probably for the sarcasm impaired)
I hate these purity posts!
The pros (and perhaps the cons, but mostly the pros) of renouncing one's US citizenship was discussed in a Forbes magazine article before Barack Obama became President. Forbes was anything but critical of people who made such a decision and notably slow to denounce any lack of patriotism on the part of such people who would renounce their citizenship in the land of their birth for the benefit of growing their personal estate.
Indeed, Forbes still is discussing renouncing one's US citizenship for tax purposes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/05/29/renouncing-your-citizenship-madness-or-sanity/2/
For those political tyros and those who haven't paid attention to "Steverino" Forbes and his politics--Forbes is a business magazine with a notably right-wing tilt. Forbes spent part of the 2008 election tub-thumping for Republican politicians.
I disapprove of Denise Rich's actions--I think that was a disloyal and unpatriotic action on her part. I would also say that there are quite a few right-wingers and corporatist-minded individuals who have already swapped their allegiance from the red, white, and blue to some other flag of convenience.
But I doubt that either tools of the various right-wing propaganda organs or the inquisitive or diligent members of the corporate mainstream news media are going to look very hard or very long for those individuals who have dropped their US citizenship for personal convenience but who lack personal or financial ties to Democratic Party candidates or progressive-favored political causes.
