4 ms·

Here are some relevant links about this across the web touching on the effects of the Bond/Dodd amendments: http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/pu

by grellas 16y ago

Here are some relevant links about this across the web touching on the effects of the Bond/Dodd amendments: http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-policy/federal-policy-issues/highlights/ http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/resources/public-poli... (statement by Angel Capital Association with links to primary sources) http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/5629 http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/5629 (statement from Senator Dodd's website) http://www.reit.com/PolicyPolitics/FederalNonTaxLegislation/RegulationDReform/tabid/546/Default.aspx http://www.reit.com/PolicyPolitics/FederalNonTaxLegislation/... (with links to primary sources) http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/Blog/2010/05/prohibited-using-the-secs-logo-1.html http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/Blog/2010/05/prohibited-u... (with discussion of certain remaining problems with the amendment language) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703957904575252430233003388.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870395790457525... (WSJ editorial entitled "Angels (Back) in America" - behind paywall) http://martendale.com/government/article_Adams-Reese-LLP_1011518.htm http://martendale.com/government/article_Adams-Reese-LLP_101... (excellent technical discussion on where this stood a short while ago just as the amendments were being introduced) http://www.pehub.com/71242/up-the-bracket-dodds-discriminatory-deal/ http://www.pehub.com/71242/up-the-bracket-dodds-discriminato... (a strongly expressed negative view of the compromise, arguing that excluding value of principal residence is harmful and emphasizing that the accredited investor rules should be liberalized so that more and more people can invest - strongest point: the same people who block small investors from investing in startups also strongly push state lottery systems that do far more harm to small "investors" than startup investing would ever do)

gte910h 16y ago
I find the comparison of a state lottery, which is something completely not personally sold, to investment in a business, pressured by friends, family, or by random salespeople, to be in such different categories, the comparison is disingenuous. Additionally, the lotteries require an infinitesimal expenditure compared to startup funding. While I agree with the pehub poster that the portion about housing and mortgages is off, I would suggest that liquid assets - all liabilities be used as a gauge of net worth, then lower the floor to something more like 700k.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  Clearly you've never lived in a major city or around poorer people. I've seen people drop the kind of money that would make me cringe to spend on lottery tickets every week for the last 10 years that I've lived in Boston. It's a joke to suggest that people are pressuring family to invest in their companies in the same way that the lottery pushes itself on those least able to afford it. The lottery is a lot more effective at preying on its victims than any salesmen that I've ever met. The lottery is a tax on the poor dressed up to look good by politicians who seek to gain from it. A single lottery ticket is nothing but the people I see never just buy one. They buy a lot of them.
  - enjo 16y ago
    It does happen. I've met more than one family where an elderly mother and/or father where forced back into working because they invested in their entire life-savings into their child's (or nephew's, niece's, etc...) hair-brained get-rich-quick scheme. That said, I don't see how it's governments role to make sure people don't screw themselves over. Bring on casinos, lotteries, and open investement as far as I'm concerned.
    - jswinghammer 16y ago
      I agree with the exception of the lottery. I'd rather not have the state involved in this. I just don't like my tax money funding (even if the lottery more than pays for itself) something I consider immoral.
      - detst 16y ago
        How is your tax money funding the lottery when you admit that it more than pays for itself? In fact, the lottery where I live pays hundreds of millions of dollars into a school fund every year; money that your tax dollars otherwise would have to pay for.
        jswinghammer 16y ago

by grellas 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago

I find the comparison of a state lottery, which is something completely not personally sold, to investment in a business, pressured by friends, family, or by random salespeople, to be in such different categories, the comparison is disingenuous. Additionally, the lotteries require an infinitesimal expenditure compared to startup funding. While I agree with the pehub poster that the portion about housing and mortgages is off, I would suggest that liquid assets - all liabilities be used as a gauge of net worth, then lower the floor to something more like 700k.

jswinghammer 16y ago
Clearly you've never lived in a major city or around poorer people. I've seen people drop the kind of money that would make me cringe to spend on lottery tickets every week for the last 10 years that I've lived in Boston. It's a joke to suggest that people are pressuring family to invest in their companies in the same way that the lottery pushes itself on those least able to afford it. The lottery is a lot more effective at preying on its victims than any salesmen that I've ever met. The lottery is a tax on the poor dressed up to look good by politicians who seek to gain from it. A single lottery ticket is nothing but the people I see never just buy one. They buy a lot of them.
- enjo 16y ago
  It does happen. I've met more than one family where an elderly mother and/or father where forced back into working because they invested in their entire life-savings into their child's (or nephew's, niece's, etc...) hair-brained get-rich-quick scheme. That said, I don't see how it's governments role to make sure people don't screw themselves over. Bring on casinos, lotteries, and open investement as far as I'm concerned.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    I agree with the exception of the lottery. I'd rather not have the state involved in this. I just don't like my tax money funding (even if the lottery more than pays for itself) something I consider immoral.
    - detst 16y ago
      How is your tax money funding the lottery when you admit that it more than pays for itself? In fact, the lottery where I live pays hundreds of millions of dollars into a school fund every year; money that your tax dollars otherwise would have to pay for.
      - jswinghammer 16y ago