[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]

This business of attacking Saverin personally is ridiculous. You do it, other people do it, and eventually it seems like the thing to do. Then when Congress starts to attack Saverin it seems normal. We have to go after those greedy rich bastards, don't we? But it's a very dangerous precedent. Do the words "bill of attainder" not mean anything to anyone here?