My knee-jerk reaction is: What an ass. He comes here, gets an education, co-founds a company, and gets rich from it. And yes, he's spending money and creating jobs -- but he's also benefiting from the infrastructure, the business climate, the population, and more. And when it comes time to pay his tax bill, he skips out. Not cool.
service rendered and paid for, he doesn't owe you anything, wtf do you want?!
> he's also benefiting from the infrastructure, the business climate, the population, and more
i don't know his story, but if he grew up in the US, his parents probably worked there and paid taxes like everyone else that paid for those things.
also, there are other countries that have that kind of infrastructure, business climate, etc. give or take a bit of quality here and there. some of them have less regulatory capture, thus are both more effective and more efficient, and thus can provide equal or better services for less taxes.
it's completely legal to leave for greener pastures if you can, that's why freedom is a good thing. your faux moral argument smacks of either envy or socialism, can't quite decide which.
listen, the state doesn't have a "moral right" on your money, energy, or time. first, you're born somewhere but then you basically make a deal. most people enter this deal implicitly, but it's still a deal, it's got nothing to do with morality or ethics.
The logic behind your efficiency argument is fallacious. IF that were the case, he would have FOUNDED and BUILT the company on greener pastures.
But he didn't, he built and founded facebook here, and this is where he should pay his debt. He benefitted from the climate on THESE pastures, and the cost of doing so should be paid.
The state gives you the "moral right" to your property by protecting it from others using violence. There's no such thing as private property without the state. That was my argument. I'm not taking a position on whether Saverin should've retained his citizenship and paid taxes or not.
Except the state doesn't actually protect, they only enforce consequences after the fact. If someone wants to destroy your property, the state is powerless, and the aggressor will more likely than not be successful, depending on their and your level of savvy.
I know this sounds incredibly pedantic, but feel it's important to make the clarification.
It's legal to give up your citizenship - he plans to live in Singapore and he must still pay the exit tax. This is what the law says and he doesn't break it.
If you want to discuss this emotionally, try to see his point of view as well: US is the only nation in the world (ok, maybe with 1-2 other exceptions from Africa) where residency doesn't determine the tax authority you're subject to. He plans to live and have his residency in Singapore and pay taxes there but US would still like to have his tax money, who's the ass?
Yeah, fair enough, it's legal and I'm sure he has the legal representation to abide by the letter of the law.
That said... if I wanted to present a highly sympathetic portrait of someone renouncing US citizenship because of the unusual policy of taxing citizens overseas, this isn't the case I'd pick.
I believe that Saverin benefitted tremendously from being in the US, as a US citizen, and that his earnings (ie., proceeds from the IPO) are a direct result of having been in the US for this time. When you work at a startup, you are essentially working for the prospect of future earnings (in a way, it's a form of deferred earnings, except of course it's highly unpredictable). He has found a clever way to be a US citizen while his earnings are unrealized, but not a US citizen once they are.
This is very different from the case where a person earning a salary in the US moves overseas and lives and earns a salary as a resident of a different country.
By the way, I've never read a real defense of the unusual policy of taxing US citizens who live abroad, and I am a little worried I'm overlooking something here. Does anyone know what the justification for this is? Or why it's justifiable for the US but not (essentially) every other country?
He can't possibly be saving more than $500M in taxes. To me it seems worth it to pay $500M in taxes and retain all the protections the United States provides. Get kidnapped? I want the US backing me.
Just google "US Citizen Freed" and you will find countless examples of US Gov intervention and protection that simply cannot be bought.
He is now a much, much better kidnapping target since he is one of just a few non US citizens with over a Billion dollars who has no real protection. Do you think Singapore can protect him? His lawyer just made a huge fee and looks smart but gave up his clients relatively inexpensive protection.
> He is now a much, much better kidnapping target since he is one of just a few non US citizens with over a Billion dollars who has no real protection.
Somewhat interesting, considering his parents fled to the US because gangs in Brazil had him on a "to-kidnap-list". If anyone were aware of the problem I'd think he would be.
I find this line of thinking disturbing. I don't think it is worth it for a single person to pay $500M for anything. If this was a real concern, you could buy one hell of a personal army for $500M.
True. But do you consider those extra billions to be money he didn't earn in the United States? In this case, it does seem like the US is going after income that was properly earned in the US, it's just that with startups (and IPOs), you can cleverly renounce your citizenship in between the time the work is done and the money is realized.
I see this as different from someone going over to England, working, opening an account, making investments, and discovering that they owe (or at least have to file) with the US.
The US is one of the few countries that doesn't allow its citizens to avoid double taxation. You are still liable for US taxes on foreign-earned income above $80,000 per year.
Americans living in Denmark don't seem to worry too much about US tax. This is due to the insane taxation level we have here, which blows all other levels out of the water and makes calculating US tax very easy.
I lived abroad for years and was double taxed on part of my income. The tax treaties and exclusions are limited to certain dollar amounts. He's likely well above those limits.
He did pay taxes on what he earned while there and contributed to your society. The company he co-founded created lots of jobs and helped the economy tremendously. The problem is that even if you aren't a resident being a citizen of the US has negative tax implications that are only seen in 2 or 3 countries in the world. If you plan to live overseas indefinitely its smart to get rid of your US citizenship.
When the United States stops spending its tax revenue bombing third world countries, maybe then you'd have a moral argument. Till then it's the duty of all right thinking people to minimize their collaboration with the federal government.
This was more or less Thoreau's argument in his essay Civil Disobedience (1). He concluded that the US was acting immorally in its war in Mexico and therefore he didn't pay his poll tax. They locked him up overnight, and then his aunt paid his tax and he was let out.
Some people conclude that those who collaborate with the federal government are evil and therefore deserving of arbitrarily bad treatment, and that's what gets you terrorists and violent anarchists and so on. Also, one looks in vain for the government which always behaves ethically and can be relied upon to continue doing so which one ought to be supporting instead.
But then, I remember he's getting nothing for free here. He's giving up his citizenship. Under the current economic/political climate, that may be something that looks easy to do on a whim ("The US is going to lose superpower status! Who cares!"), but this is a big, big thing. You lose all rights to live and work in the US, and can't ever get this back.
