Abraxas
Golden Member
- Oct 26, 2004
- 1,056
- 0
- 0
For their existence? Perhaps not. For the level of luxury and technology we enjoy and the things that make ecommerce possible? It sounds like it because it is true. Do you honestly think he would have been able to create his wealth if, for example, DARPA had not taken the moves that led to the creation of the internet? Do you think we as a society would have ever made it as far as we did without public education or public roadways? Their success comes from the groundwork done by the global everyman in producing the institutions that were necessary for those ideas to even be possible.You make it sound as if individuals in the US owe government for their very existence. This is nothing more but pure collectivist rational that allows for the confiscation of wealth by a torch and pitch fork wielding mob. This person came to the US and became a US citizen, established himself, paid into 'the system' while he was a US citizen and via his own effort created more wealth for himself and others then you, I or anyone else on this board could of or will ever likely create in our lifetimes.
His success isn't due to some bureaucrat signing off on papers but based on his work and the work of his partners whose innovative ideas were encouraged by the realization that they could and would generate large sums of wealth if they themselves followed through on these ideas and were willing to take risks others would not.
Is it more presumptuous to say he was the only person on the planet who could possibly be a CFO in an internet start up or that in a country of hundreds of millions, a large number of which were in the right time and place for said start up (Harvard when Facebook was created) one of them might have been able to fill the role adequately, or, that had that not been the case, that another person in a giant business world trying to make money who understands the internet and the commerce behind it would have stepped in and created a comparable product? It is simple, high exit taxes only come into play when someone leaves the country, and, unless they are planning on renouncing citizenship, they should have no effect on the person anyway. If they are planning on renouncing citizenship, eating at Restaraunt America and skipping out on the check, screw them. Leave the position open for someone who isn't.And that demand is only realized in the private sector where the ability to take risk and earn rewards is allowed without the fear of others coming in to take a large cut without putting in any risk. In addition who is to say someone else would of taken the same risks as this guy? That is a pretty presumptuous position to assume that others would "step in" to fill a demand without actually knowing the risk they took or the work they put into this business.
You again make it sound as if his success and resulting wealth was ordained and approved by a governmental bureaucrat. What is worse is that you completely over look the taxes already generated by FB and its employees which includes the 900-1,000 millionaires it created and the taxes he paid when he was a US citizen prior to facebook taking off and becoming a huge success.
Only because partisanship is coloring your reading of my post. Nothing I said implies it was "ordained" or "approved", only that a sufficient level of social, infrastructural, and technological development must be achieved before things like Facebook become possible and that the American taxpayer, now and historically, made it possible for this to happen in America. I overlook those things because they aren't relevant. Those other tax payers aren't skipping out to avoid paying their fair share, he is, so he is the issue of discussion,
What you are arguing for is to take away wealth generated by an indivdual in law abiding manner because you feel upset that he renounced his citizenship because you feel entitled to take from others without any clear reasoning as to why you are owed his money.
Well, if you read my post, my reasons are pretty clear. The reason you might not think so has more to do with you than it does with me. Yes, he is law abiding. And if we raise the exit tax for America no laws were broken so there was absolutely no reason to mention "law abiding". He deserves to lose some of his wealth because he used he infrastructure of America to fuel his rise to wealth and then left the car with an empty gas tank when he returned it. America needs gas money, and those who get the most mileage out of it need to pay their portion of the bill.