Hacker News Reader

Kinda similar thing here. But ironically, this is eroding the country away. Once you get a considerable amount of job seekers that got free education elsewhere and can retreat back for major healthcare issues, the inflation-adjusted salary levels drop to a point where you can't afford those things off your regular paycheck. So North America is becoming a rather weird place that attracts the brightest people from all over the world only to offer them the conditions where they will likely not afford having a family and will not pass their knowledge and traits to the next generation.

From an Individualistic perspective, as you loosely outlined, the US is unparalleled. However, from a collectivist perspective, which we are discussing in this thread, the US is empirically and emphatically bad.

Do you ever question your moral integrity? You’re in the US taking advantage of a society that doesn’t have good social systems and which is why the wage in the US is high for skilled work. Then whenever you get sick you’ll return to a society with good social support but at the cost of lowering high wages. Seems you’re taking advantage of everything with ignorance and or desire. Whatever the case may be, I’m curious to your thoughts on this and I assume you’ve thought of it before.

Hate the game, not the player.

If it becomes a big enough problem, then EU countries could change their laws to make government-funded medical care conditional on paying certain amounts of taxes in-country.

> Hate the game, not the player.

I agree with this, I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted for asking though because I think anyone would be curious to read personal testimony of their own situation. I would question myself if taking advantage of being in a country that strips social programs for keeping wages high for skilled employees. It's not like paying taxes negates that reality.

I would encourage you to read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346775 and answer that.

Done, also thanks for writing your views. It's nice to read reasoning and more so from tech people because it's somewhat relatable being the same field as myself.

> Hate the game, not the player.

That's a lame excuse for anti-social behavior. "Somebody has to get those kids addicted".

Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back.

I know about the categorical imperative, but people aren’t saints. They follow incentives. The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them.

That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial. He’s creating far more wealth in his current job than he could in the EU. If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy.

> I know about the categorical imperative, but people aren’t saints

It's not about sainthood, it's about ethics.

> The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them.

Breaking the rules will always give him more benefit, unless we "chastise" (that is: punish) that behavior. There's little we can do to make not murdering people that stand between him and riches "better" but making him believe that we will punish him.

Clearly, relying on ethics and/or rational acting won't work with that kind of people.

> That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial.

There would be no society if everybody acted like him.

> If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy.

He will, as he stated, only move back if he gets seriously ill and requires the social net to catch him. He will only come back if he's going to cost money.

I am curious, how would you have acted in my shoes? A few alternative options I can think of:

1) Not even try to move to the US to pursue the dream of a world-class tech career (dream I had since I was 12), stay in my own EU country with a mind-numbing consultancy job (which again, it's the only kind of employment available since the country is mostly rural with a limited software industry) to be fully consistent with morals. This also means I won't be able to financially help my parents as a sign of gratitude for all they've done for me, since my salary will be barely enough to keep me afloat.

2) Move to the US and completely renounce to my EU citizenship, so I won't ever have a way to go back and "take advantage" of my EU country (meaning I wouldn't even be able to see parents and family without an immigration visa).

3) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, but completely deny to myself the option of eventually moving back if needed. So, if I get a massive debilitating cancer that will force me to quit my job and lose my health insurance in the US, I'll die without treatment and all alone (loving family is all in EU) but with morals.

4) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, keep the possibility of eventually moving to EU, but to be consistent with morals find a way to donate to my EU government a few hundreds/thousands a month to keep contributing to the social safety net even if I'm not a resident there (I don't believe that's even physically possible?). But certainly that wouldn't be enough to cover the expenses my government paid for my education, so I should also find a way to refund that?

5) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, and start a countdown mandating that in exactly N years (where N cannot be certainly changed!) I will move back to EU regardless of where I am in my career or health status, so I won't be able to just move to the EU at the most convenient time.

I'm asking because it's easy to talk about problems at a philosophical level, but please try to step down from your judging pedestal and come back to the real world with real problems, thinking what YOU would have done in practice.

> 1) Not move to the US to pursue a world-class tech career, stay in EU with a mind-numbing consultancy job to be fully consistent with morals.

I know plenty of people in the EU that work in IT, get paid very well (compared to their peers) and do not work in a consulting company. Especially for very talented people, I haven't heard of any stories about not finding interesting, fulfilling work.

> 3) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, but completely deny to myself the option of eventually moving back, so if I get a massive debilitating cancer that will force me to quit my job and lose my insurance in the US, I'll die with morals.

Since you renounce your duties to the society that gave you your free education and upbringing, renouncing the benefits sounds fair, yes. Living and dying by your personal convictions is what I respect in people. Living by them only while it's convenient and stopping to do so when they get tested just means that you don't actually have any.

> 4) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, keep the possibility of eventually moving to EU, but to be consistent with my morals find a way to donate to my EU government a few hundreds/thousands a month to keep contributing to the social safety net (I don't believe that's even possible for non-residents).

That's another option, I'm sure you can find a way if you want to.

I don't mind the emigration part at all, it's the reasoning I dislike. Saying "I don't like the bureaucracy" or "I don't like the population density" or "I don't like the language/food/culture/tv program" etc, that's perfectly fine in my book. But saying "I've taken all I can, it's time to move on, otherwise I'd have to give back. Oh well, I might come back if I ever get needy again and there's more to take" is not in my book. Living in a society that finances your education and catches you if you fall comes at a cost. Ducking out when the bill comes isn't what I'd do.

>Since you renounce your duties to the society that gave you your free education and upbringing, renouncing the benefits sounds fair, yes. Living and dying by your personal convictions is what I respect in people. Living by them only while it's convenient and stopping to do so when they get tested just means that you don't actually have any.

Why not formalize it by saying one should lose citizenship automatically under these circumstances? If you don't agree with that, then realize you are drawing a line somewhere, and deanmoriarty is merely drawing the line in a different place. Both of you are the same, and are merely quibbling with the degree by which you are the same.

> Why not formalize it by saying one should lose citizenship automatically under these circumstances?

For practical reasons. It's hard to formalize and having people be stripped of any citizenship is shit. I don't mind the idea of losing your previous citizenship once you acquire a new one, that's fine.

I'd much prefer a system where education etc is fundamentally free but is converted into a loan if you emigrate. Society X invests into you, you want to jump ship to Y so you pay back what X invested into you, possibly in multiple installments or an additional income tax.

Thanks for your reply.

One more question for you, to understand the scope of your philosophy: I don't plan on having kids ever, and to be honest my reasoning is partially driven by the fact that I see them as an unnecessary financial and time burden on me and my partner (she agrees).

Does that mean that in your world view we don't deserve a place in society at all, because if everyone was like us we wouldn't have a society at all in a few decades, so once again I am living by exploiting all the financial and time commitments spent by other people in raising other humans for my benefit?

No.

I'm also not against suicide, even though society would end if everybody did it. It's about your interaction with others where your morality matters. Whether you have children or not is your personal decision and is up to you, similarly to burning your possessions. It's when you're contemplating to burn other people's possessions that the do/don't questions arise.

I have empathy for your situation if your dream was from the age of 12 to be in the tech career and only obtainable in USA. I had a dream that wasn't work-related and I wasn't able to obtain it. Yes, dreams are worth a lot and makes me find your situation exceptional compared to someone just in it for the money. Myself, I chose to move away from the USA because being a software engineer could be done in Canada and it had nothing to do for my dream. Heck, even if money would have financed my dream, I wouldn't have wanted to work in the US for financing my dream because I've seen too much dread before graduating that was rooted by how US culture only cares about themselves. Anyway I guess you're okay morally if your dream has good merits as well. Like whatever you're making isn't just some mindless product for socially conditioning certain demographics and into buying a product that has no real extension to life in a positive way.

>Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back.

I know this comment will trigger a bunch of people, but for me a sign of maturity is when people realize the categorical imperative isn't all it's hyped up to be.

I was a big believer of the categorical imperative since my teens - years before I had heard the phrase or heard of Kant. But the more I understood statistics and its role in the world, the more I realized the categorical imperative is only a first order way of looking at things. Once you take into account human psychology, and its inevitable spread statistically, you realize that in many cases, viewing things with a categorical imperative lens is not only futile, but counterproductive. One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?"

Personally, I realized I was dodging difficult issues by invoking the categorical imperative.

That's my thought on the categorical imperative in general. Regarding this specific case: Various commenters have already mentioned that some countries do indeed make it hard for you to use their healthcare if you've not been paying into the system all these years. I know one guy who ran into this - he spent most of his career outside making big bucks, and then retired in his country which provides socialized medicine. They told him they will not cover conditions he developed while he was not paying into the system (essentially, pre-existing conditions when he moved back). He has to pay full cost to get treatment for those services.

deanmoriarty is not the sole actor here. The US, as well as his country of citizenship are quite capable of ensuring they don't get exploited. If either country thinks this is abuse, they are welcome to modify their policies.

And BTW, yes, part of the reason people in the US get paid high salaries may be due to the lack of socialized health care. However, there is no implicit social contract in the US to spend that money for medical care in the US. In fact, I'd argue the social contract is quite the opposite. The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad.

> One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?"

The categorical imperative isn't about "is it likely that everybody will act like me" but "would it be good if everybody acted like me". You'll likely not end humanity if you start murdering your neighbors, because most people will not follow your example. Your murder might not even get noticed, so even the statistics won't change - and yet you'll probably agree that there's an ethical problem involved in murdering your neighbors.

I do agree with you that we shouldn't use Kant as the one-size-fits-all solution. Don't rely on telling people (or people understanding!) not to throw their trash everywhere, just put up a trash can so they can throw it in there. It is a solid framework for judging acts, but has it's weaknesses of course. The whole "the murderer is coming for your friend who is hiding in your bedroom, are you allowed to lie to him to save your friend" thing is something where I don't agree for example.

> The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad.

Sure, externalizing costs will provide advantages.

>The categorical imperative isn't about "is it likely that everybody will act like me" but "would it be good if everybody acted like me".

I know what it's about. My point is that in many tough situations, following it leads to suboptimal solutions (not just for me, but for society). It is not a good way to decide the morality of many things.

>You'll likely not end humanity if you start murdering your neighbors, because most people will not follow your example. Your murder might not even get noticed, so even the statistics won't change - and yet you'll probably agree that there's an ethical problem involved in murdering your neighbors.

I would agree, but I don't need the categorical imperative to decide this. It's not as if this is a tough scenario that the categorical imperative made a lot easier to analyze.

That's already how it is and has been for a long time in many EU countries, e.g. Poland, when you need to pay NFZ premiums to qualify for NFZ (i.e. state) health insurance.

I don't see it that way.

I am very committed to this country (US) and in fact I am also pursuing the citizenship process as a sign of long term commitment to it. The option of going back to EU is certainly something I keep in mind considering my European citizenship, but I don't necessarily look forward to it, at least not more than, say, all the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people planning to move abroad or to a different state when they want to retire and/or switch gears in life. I hope to be a productive member of this society for many decades.

Also, I am paying a massive amount of taxes to the US (effective tax rate in a coastal city can easily get to 40%+ on a tech salary), so I'm not taking advantage of anything at all.

By your logic, I should also question my moral integrity because I am not planning to ever have kids (personal reasons), so I am effectively relying on others to spend their own money/time to raise new human beings that will provide services to me and pay for my social security when I'll be old, which doesn't make any sense.

A single person making $200k/year in San Francisco will pay an effective rate of 34% in federal, state, and payroll taxes. Only your marginal rate is above 40%, but income taxes are of course graduated.

You don’t hit 40% until about $400k (in SF at least). So ya, if you are paying 40%, you are definitely in the 1%.

Yes, 400-500k is about the right range of compensation in SF for a senior software engineer working at FAANG, and that's about my number. Also, I'm single and renter so I get no tax benefits at all. But I'm not complaining about having to pay those taxes, it's a very reasonable price to pay for the massive opportunity being given to me, which I appreciate even more coming from EU, as I was saying before.

Got it, people often mistake their marginal rates for their effective rates and think they are paying much more than they really are. The jump of only 6% seems a bit small actually for an extra $200k in income, but thats America.

It likely won't work.

As soon as he gets US citizenship, exit tax will be placed on him and now if he wants to quit US citizenship he pays a big exit tax and US citizens are taxed on their global income, so whenever he works next, he also pays taxes to the US.

Curious to hear more details on this, but this is my current understanding:

First, exit tax is not just contingent on citizenship, but also on long term permanent residency, so I am effectively already under that rule, citizenship or not. Also, while the exit tax is for sure draconian, it doesn't mean you'll have to necessarily pay a huge amount, it merely depends on the unrealized gains you have in your assets. In my case that's relatively small since I'm not a homeowner and I've been paying capital gain taxes all along.

Second, most countries in the world (including the one where I have EU citizenship) have tax treaties with the US so that individuals who pay income or other taxes in a foreign country where they are resident for fiscal purposes will effectively obtain a foreign tax credit against the US taxes, avoiding double taxation. Since taxes in EU are higher than US, one wouldn't have to pay anything at all to the US. I've been dabbling with the US foreign tax for years myself due to some passive income generated in my home country, and I've always been able to claim full credit for it when filing my US taxes.

Third, my plan would not be to "work next" somewhere in EU. When/if I decide to leave (which may be never), with 7 figures in assets I should be able to live a modest lifestyle out of passive income in my original EU country (very cheap cost of living), so taxes would be minimal, if any at all.

The exit tax is not some wealth/estate tax that will make a huge dent in your assets, it's simply making capital gains tax due on the date of leaving US, not on the date of the sale of capital asset. It's extremely easy to pay zero exit tax when you leave US: just liquidate all your positions, so that you only own cash. This way, you'll just pay capital gains tax instead of exit tax. Of course, there's no reason to do that, because both are equal.