[victork2]

Why not, after all actions must have consequences. If he wants to avoid taxes and it's legal by all means he should do it. But there should be consequences to his actions, this proposition seems like a possible one (quite extreme though).

I would like to remind all the wannabe rich on HN who believe that one day they will be in his shoes, nobody succeeds alone and your success has a price for the country. For example in the case of Facebook there are more infrastructure costs for the whole internet, additional regulations have to be passed, etc...

PS: Ghostery on Venturebeat: 17 spying widgets found... Not going on that website ever again.

[mvkel]

Isn't this completely backwards? Why would you be able to punish someone for doing something completely legal? Do we punish profitable corporations who pay no tax? Of course not; they're abiding by the laws. If you want to prevent this stuff from happening, change the law.

[ArtB]

> If you want to prevent this stuff from happening, change the law.

Isn't that what they are trying to do?

[jbenz]

Yes, exactly. They are trying to change the law with the "Ex-Patriot Act". Also, let's address this:

>Do we punish profitable corporations who pay no tax? Of course not; they're abiding by the laws.

Maybe we should change this law too. Especially in a political environment that is supposed to be doing everything it can to support small businesses. It takes a certain sized corporation to be able to funnel their earnings through Ireland (for example). Makes it hard to compete for the little guy.

[yashchandra]

"Isn't that what they are trying to do?"

No they are not. They are trying to skim money out of someone who worked his ass off and when it is time to get paid, he is being shortchanged.

[rprasad]

The only thing he provided was the angel funding for Facebook. He literally hasn't done any work to earn the increase in the value of Facebook's stock since he got fired a few months after Facebook launched. This guy is practically the reason for founder vesting cliffs.

He's not being shortchanged; he's done nothing to earn this money.

[victork2]

No we don't because regulators are always one step before the corporations on taxes.

Actions that you take legally must have consequences too, as long as these consequences are legal the thread of legality has been preserved along the way. It's not a punishment, it's a consequence. I am not born in the US, thus I don't have the right to be the US President, is it a punishment ? No it's simply a consequence.

I would love all people that say that we need to "fix" the tax system instead of making "rich go" to take a step back and get out of their simplistic views. The tax system and a state is infinitely more complex than any company you could imagine. The worst part is that a country sets its own rule and thus has way more responsibility. Moreover higher instances require a state to behave a certain way and prevent certain behaviors. Even worse, external entities such as foreign countries can interfere with internal regulation mechanism (that's what's happening in this case).

The US being a relatively free state cannot prevent any body to abandon a nationality and thus to lower their tax. For most it's an important procedure which allows you to forfeit other nationalities and take a nationality that requires you to have no other nationalities( some countries impose that). Tax evasion is a constant battle because the laws have to guarantee cases like the one I mentioned but they are also used to save money. Thus legislator are constantly fighting a war against tax evasion and this is one example.

Again, your success has a burden on the whole community and we have to pay it. I know why it's so hard to understand here, many of you who see themselves as future entrepreneurs are thinking "Oh gosh, it's going to happen to me one day, I don't like that" and want to fight against it, but really try to see vastness of the complexity of the problem. There is no simple fix.

edit: Changed the phrasing

[yummyfajitas]

Again, your success has a price on the whole community and we have to pay it.

Could you explain this statement? Specifically, what is the price of Saverin's success that is paid for by the rest of us?

The normal justification for taxation is that they pay for public services, e.g. roads and police. Saverin is no longer consuming those services. Why should he continue paying for them?

[geebee]

"A price on the whole community" might not have been the best phrasing, but I'd tend to agree that Saverin benefited immensely from being in the US (and that the stable government supported by taxes absolutely played a role in his success).

As for why he should continue to pay for services he is no longer using? Well, to me his current money is a kind of deferred income from the years he was in the US. He earned his billions while he was at Harvard, and then later while he was in the US. The income wasn't realized until later, because that's how startups work.

I see this as a completely different situation from an American who leaves the US, takes up residence in Canada, earns a salary in Canada, pays Canadian taxes, makes investments as a Canadian resident, etc. This was a situation where someone actually earned the wealth in the US, as a US citizen.

[ABS]

> He earned his billions while he was at Harvard

IMHO the deferred argument is bogus, it's not like he could have pocketed then but decided not to. Whatever valuation Facebook will get tomorrow is, well, tomorrow's valuation.

Was attending Harvard free? Don't think so

> The income wasn't realized until later, because that's how startups work.

so would a founder get some money back if his startup bombed and he lost his money? Or is all the downside on him while the upside must be shared?

[geebee]

Was attending Harvard free? Don't think so

I have no idea. I don't think the government provided him with a free apartment or car either. It's not really central to my argument. My point is that he earned this money while living in the United States as a citizen of the United States, even if he didn't realize the gains until later.

so would a founder get some money back if his startup bombed and he lost his money? Or is all the downside on him while the upside must be shared?

This is pretty much how taxes work. You generally pay more in taxes when you make money than when you lose money.

EDIT: One thing I would say - if he has legally paid his taxes, then I don't think he should be barred from re-entry into the United States. I may not like the strategy, but I don't see how you can be accused of having renounced your citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes if the US imposed an exit tax on you and you paid it!

[yummyfajitas]

...Saverin benefited immensely from being in the US (and that the stable government supported by taxes absolutely played a role in his success).

This is irrelevant to the question of Saverin paying individual income taxes. Any foreign investor gains these benefits and pays for them via corporate income taxes and the like.

Should all foreigners who make investments in the US be subject to US income taxes? If not, then this argument is moot.

[geebee]

No, I think that income earned in the United States should be subject to US income taxes.

I would consider stock that was earned while working in the US to be income earned in the US, even if they don't become valuable and aren't exercised until a later date.

[waterlesscloud]

Here's a thought-

His actions provided massive value to the US, creating an enormous amount of wealth that did not previously exist and adding to the nation's assets.

Far from exacting a price on a community, his actions have paid off quite handsomely for the community.

[geebee]

I couldn't agree more. But that would be true if his tax rate were 5%, 15%, or 25%.

Nobody likes paying taxes, but I'm not radical enough to believe that someone who becomes a billionaire while working and living in the US as a US citizen shouldn't pay US taxes. Almost nobody does - it's the tax rate that people really disagree about.

What that rate should be is, of course, open to debate, but I don't really see it as central to this particular argument. I think this is more narrowly about the extent to which the money Saverin made from facebook should be considered money earned in the US as a US citizen.

[wpietri]

What evidence do you have that his actions provide massive value? I grant that the actions of somebody at Facebook did, but I don't have particular reason to believe that he was the key factor. He was, after all, forced out early on, and hasn't done much interesting since.

[rsanchez1]

We have to pay something now, make up for the lost revenue. The government could have probably made a lot more off Saverin over his lifetime if they had a sensible tax policy. No wonder Saverin is fleeing to Singapore.

[kcl]

You cannot use legality as a defense for two reasons:

1. By renouncing your citizenship you put yourself in an extra-legal position.

2. The laws are perceived as underdeveloped. That's why the situation has attracted the attention of US senators.

[yashchandra]

exactly. could not agree more

[biot]

There are consequences. He no longer gets to vote. He no longer has access to US-funded social programs. There is a long list of things he can no longer enjoy as a US citizen; natural consequences of not being a citizen. It sounds like you support introducing unnatural consequences.

I once visited the US on business and left without purchasing anything more than a meal. If every action must have consequences, what consequences would you suggest for my actions? Perhaps I should be banned from re-entering the US since I didn't contribute significantly enough to the US economy while I was there?

[yashchandra]

"But there should be consequences to his actions"

You mean consequences to actions that he took legally ?

[rsanchez1]

Yeah, let's sacrifice individual liberty for larger government revenues, and justify it using class warfare.

Only winner here is Singapore, with a tax policy that makes way more sense than United States tax policy.