5 ms·

Sure, lets keep foreign born past citizens who helped create $100B companies from coming back to the USA. That will show them! I really don't think we could s

by nirvana 14y ago

Sure, lets keep foreign born past citizens who helped create $100B companies from coming back to the USA. That will show them! I really don't think we could survive another attack on the order of Facebook!

kemiller 14y ago
I don't think Saverin's contributions are really proportionate to his windfall. But even that aside, yes, it's great that people come to this country to build things. But this country also offers a lot that makes that possible (there's a reason they come here, after all), not least the enforcement of laws and a relatively level playing field, and part of the bargain is that you pay some back when you win. You could argue that what he's doing now amounts to insider trading.
- nirvana 14y ago
  You seem to be arguing that he didn't "pay some back when you win". However, as part of the renunciation process you have to be up to date on your taxes, and you have to pay a tax on any money you move out of the USA. Thus he's already paid his taxes. Now he's a citizen and resident of singapore. He's got a couple investments there. But your claim that he owes the US taxes on what he built in the USA would seem to no longer apply, right? Since he's building the next thing in singapore, wouldn't he owe singaporean taxes? If he didn't renounce, the US government would be taxing him on the money he makes in Singapore on a singapore business as well. Even though he's no longer benefiting from the "services" provided by the US government. The US is unusual in the fact that it taxes citizens on their worldwide income. Further, it imposes fairly onerous reporting requirements that make it difficult for US citizens who live outside the USA to conduct business. Just because he spent 10 years here, doesn't mean the US really deserves a cut of everything he makes for the rest of his life. This is why there's a renunciation process, and he has gone thru that process legally.
  - kemiller 14y ago
    I think the way the US claims taxes on foreign income is wrong. But this is clearly not foreign income, and he's leaving with clear foreknowledge of a likely future windfall. I don't think anyone is claiming he has not complied with the law. They're saying that if he wants to renounce citizenship, he must also renounce the benefits of being in the US. If that's truly his intention anyway, then he has nothing to worry about, right? I'm sure that even if this happens he's not going to shed many tears. If he wants to see his family, they can just meet somewhere else.
    - nirvana 14y ago
      Either he sold his Facebook stock before leaving, in which case he already paid taxes on it. Or he didn't, and since FB is an american company listed on an american exchange, when he sells any of it he'll still be subjected to long term capital gains, as any other non-US citizen who owns stock on a US exchange is. Thus the only thing to be upset about is that we have a person who has the ability to produce a high income for himself that the USA can no longer tax.
      - gsb 14y ago
        Non-resident aliens are specifically excluded from paying capital gains to the US. I wonder why? The US also refuses to collect information on income earned in the US by foreign residents (currently there are some efforts to change this, being obstructed by congress). Of course if you suggest that this means the US is a tax haven then you are in for an earful. Other, bad, countries are tax havens. Never the magnificent USA! A far more equitable solution to the Saverin 'problem' would be to apply CGT to ALL US-derived gains. Most countries do this. But that is unlikely to happen as it would reduce foreign investment...
    - hnwh 14y ago
      "But this is clearly not foreign income" The IRS themselves disagree with you on that statement. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch04.html#en_US_2011_publink100047450 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch04.html#en_US_2011_pub...
cantankerous 14y ago
I think U.S. citizens have, at least, some warranted sense of righteous indignation here. The guy came to the U.S., jumped onboard a company that really couldn't have made it this big anywhere else (at least at the time), takes the money and runs. I think people are generally well within reason to dislike his choices and reform the system to prevent he and others from repeating.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  If a Brazilian interviewed the founders of a company remotely, made a remote angel investment, and the company became a success in the US, should the Brazilian also be obligated to pay individual US income taxes? If not, what difference does it make that the Brazilian resided in the US for some period of time? Note that the corporation is still paying US taxes by virtue of being physically located in the US. The issue is whether the investor should pay additional individual income tax on top of that.
  - cantankerous 14y ago
    Your first remark is irrelevant because he didn't just reside in the US. He is/was a US citizen. This is not an issue of whether or not the investor should pay income taxes on top of it or not. This is a tangential issue that is not what's being debated, though it is a reason that a lot of people get upset.

by nirvana 14y ago

kemiller 14y ago

I don't think Saverin's contributions are really proportionate to his windfall. But even that aside, yes, it's great that people come to this country to build things. But this country also offers a lot that makes that possible (there's a reason they come here, after all), not least the enforcement of laws and a relatively level playing field, and part of the bargain is that you pay some back when you win. You could argue that what he's doing now amounts to insider trading.

nirvana 14y ago
You seem to be arguing that he didn't "pay some back when you win". However, as part of the renunciation process you have to be up to date on your taxes, and you have to pay a tax on any money you move out of the USA. Thus he's already paid his taxes. Now he's a citizen and resident of singapore. He's got a couple investments there. But your claim that he owes the US taxes on what he built in the USA would seem to no longer apply, right? Since he's building the next thing in singapore, wouldn't he owe singaporean taxes? If he didn't renounce, the US government would be taxing him on the money he makes in Singapore on a singapore business as well. Even though he's no longer benefiting from the "services" provided by the US government. The US is unusual in the fact that it taxes citizens on their worldwide income. Further, it imposes fairly onerous reporting requirements that make it difficult for US citizens who live outside the USA to conduct business. Just because he spent 10 years here, doesn't mean the US really deserves a cut of everything he makes for the rest of his life. This is why there's a renunciation process, and he has gone thru that process legally.
- kemiller 14y ago
  I think the way the US claims taxes on foreign income is wrong. But this is clearly not foreign income, and he's leaving with clear foreknowledge of a likely future windfall. I don't think anyone is claiming he has not complied with the law. They're saying that if he wants to renounce citizenship, he must also renounce the benefits of being in the US. If that's truly his intention anyway, then he has nothing to worry about, right? I'm sure that even if this happens he's not going to shed many tears. If he wants to see his family, they can just meet somewhere else.
  - nirvana 14y ago
    Either he sold his Facebook stock before leaving, in which case he already paid taxes on it. Or he didn't, and since FB is an american company listed on an american exchange, when he sells any of it he'll still be subjected to long term capital gains, as any other non-US citizen who owns stock on a US exchange is. Thus the only thing to be upset about is that we have a person who has the ability to produce a high income for himself that the USA can no longer tax.
    - gsb 14y ago
      Non-resident aliens are specifically excluded from paying capital gains to the US. I wonder why? The US also refuses to collect information on income earned in the US by foreign residents (currently there are some efforts to change this, being obstructed by congress). Of course if you suggest that this means the US is a tax haven then you are in for an earful. Other, bad, countries are tax havens. Never the magnificent USA! A far more equitable solution to the Saverin 'problem' would be to apply CGT to ALL US-derived gains. Most countries do this. But that is unlikely to happen as it would reduce foreign investment...
  - hnwh 14y ago
    "But this is clearly not foreign income" The IRS themselves disagree with you on that statement. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch04.html#en_US_2011_publink100047450 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch04.html#en_US_2011_pub...

cantankerous 14y ago

I think U.S. citizens have, at least, some warranted sense of righteous indignation here. The guy came to the U.S., jumped onboard a company that really couldn't have made it this big anywhere else (at least at the time), takes the money and runs. I think people are generally well within reason to dislike his choices and reform the system to prevent he and others from repeating.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
If a Brazilian interviewed the founders of a company remotely, made a remote angel investment, and the company became a success in the US, should the Brazilian also be obligated to pay individual US income taxes? If not, what difference does it make that the Brazilian resided in the US for some period of time? Note that the corporation is still paying US taxes by virtue of being physically located in the US. The issue is whether the investor should pay additional individual income tax on top of that.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  Your first remark is irrelevant because he didn't just reside in the US. He is/was a US citizen. This is not an issue of whether or not the investor should pay income taxes on top of it or not. This is a tangential issue that is not what's being debated, though it is a reason that a lot of people get upset.