5 ms·

There's no case against Adam. You bicker on the ethics of his operations, but he did not violate any law. In fact, he took advantage of poor corporate laws, whi

by chirau 7y ago

There's no case against Adam. You bicker on the ethics of his operations, but he did not violate any law. In fact, he took advantage of poor corporate laws, which is not a crime either. Be bitter with him, fair enough, but be intelligent still It's in the same bracket with the whole "Amazon pays $0 in taxes". Taking advantage of poor laws is not a crime. You can accuse them all you want, but we all do it albeit at a microscopic scale. Punishing circumventers is not the answer, reviewing the law is. Neumann did what was best for him. It was legal. That's all. Your expectation of a person doing what is good for the greater good is your own weakness. I'm not telling you to stop, just don't cry foul when folks from other schools of thought do what they do best. Maximize returns.

staplers 7y ago
You write like you're his lawyer.. or even worse, him.
- rchaud 7y ago
  Most HN-posted stories about big gubmint looking into startups will have at least a few comments that seem eager to advocate on the behalf of the company in question. Perhaps they imagine themselves as one day being in a position to get paid $6m as a trademark fee for the name "We".
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    I’m not one of these people, but maybe they just don’t understand the purpose of this and think it’s a “shakedown,” a “help me get re-elected” thing, etc. Not everything is a conspiracy.
girvo 7y ago
> You can accuse them all you want, but we all do it albeit at a microscopic scale. I've always found this argument fascinating. I certainly don't, with the specific example of taxes (within my country, Australia). Is it that rampant in the US? Or is it really more that people who break the law assume everyone else does too?
- mc3 7y ago
  If you claim the maximum you can claim, take advantage of negative gearing, property depreciation, tax free capital gains on primary residence, one of the many parental rebates/handouts that are or have been available to middle class on good incomes, various arrangements to get around paying tax on shares from your company, etc. etc. then yes you are probably getting away with paying less tax by knowing the rules, whereas the uninformed wont. Where the line is drawn between this and say domiciling elsewhere to avoid tax, going to work in Singapore for a few years and bringing the money back or whatever, all the way to doing what the big corps do to systematically avoid billions in tax - who knows?
  - girvo 7y ago
    I, personally, don't do any of that: I don't own property, which the bulk of those schemes require, and I don't have children, which the other set usually does. No trusts or anything involved to reduce my tax burden. I pay what I pay, basically, because I fall into the slightly weird edge-case of having a decent salary but none of the other things that would give me access to these sorts of systems for better or worse. Doesn't really worry me though, I earn more than enough for a happy life!
    - buboard 7y ago
      Good for you, but unless you are avoiding these situations on purpose, or promise to pay above what's legally required for taxes, you can't claim ethical superiority than those that do.
      - girvo 7y ago
        Where did I claim “ethical superiority”? I was accused of doing something, I explained that I did not. No need to be rude about it either, thanks.
  - ip26 7y ago
    Claiming the home sale exemption is not exploiting the tax code any more than claiming the standard deduction. If you don't claim depreciation on your rental property, the IRS will still recapture when you sell it- even though you didn't take it. So how is taking it an exploitation?
enraged_camel 7y ago
>> In fact, he took advantage of poor corporate laws, which is not a crime either. Taking advantage of poor code by breaking into systems is a crime. Why isn’t it a crime to take advantage of poorly written laws?
- dannyw 7y ago
  Because the whole point of law is to create an objective definition of what is a crime and what is not a crime.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    That may be the point, but it’s not what happens in practice. In reality, laws are vaguely worded on purpose with the promise that “we won’t enforce it in instance x”
- buboard 7y ago
  because then it wouldn't be laws
- smabie 7y ago
  Because what if that law is poorly written as well?
- autiezz 7y ago
  hmmm good
seanhunter 7y ago
There's no way of knowing whether or not he violated laws or whether there's a case against him at this stage. The purpose of the NY AG investigation is literally to establish whether there's a case and the purpose of a hypothetical subsequent trial would be to establish whether in fact he violated laws. You don't get to just say that as a postulate.
rurp 7y ago
> It was legal. That's all. You are making some awfully strong assumptions about the legality of Neumann's actions. How could you possibly know that everything he did was perfectly legal? The very fact that this investigation was opened strongly implies that you should be less certain in that assumption.
alephnan 7y ago
Whether or not something is legal serves as a great moral compass...

by chirau 7y ago

staplers 7y ago

You write like you're his lawyer.. or even worse, him.

rchaud 7y ago
Most HN-posted stories about big gubmint looking into startups will have at least a few comments that seem eager to advocate on the behalf of the company in question. Perhaps they imagine themselves as one day being in a position to get paid $6m as a trademark fee for the name "We".
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  I’m not one of these people, but maybe they just don’t understand the purpose of this and think it’s a “shakedown,” a “help me get re-elected” thing, etc. Not everything is a conspiracy.

girvo 7y ago

> You can accuse them all you want, but we all do it albeit at a microscopic scale. I've always found this argument fascinating. I certainly don't, with the specific example of taxes (within my country, Australia). Is it that rampant in the US? Or is it really more that people who break the law assume everyone else does too?

mc3 7y ago
If you claim the maximum you can claim, take advantage of negative gearing, property depreciation, tax free capital gains on primary residence, one of the many parental rebates/handouts that are or have been available to middle class on good incomes, various arrangements to get around paying tax on shares from your company, etc. etc. then yes you are probably getting away with paying less tax by knowing the rules, whereas the uninformed wont. Where the line is drawn between this and say domiciling elsewhere to avoid tax, going to work in Singapore for a few years and bringing the money back or whatever, all the way to doing what the big corps do to systematically avoid billions in tax - who knows?
- girvo 7y ago
  I, personally, don't do any of that: I don't own property, which the bulk of those schemes require, and I don't have children, which the other set usually does. No trusts or anything involved to reduce my tax burden. I pay what I pay, basically, because I fall into the slightly weird edge-case of having a decent salary but none of the other things that would give me access to these sorts of systems for better or worse. Doesn't really worry me though, I earn more than enough for a happy life!
  - buboard 7y ago
    Good for you, but unless you are avoiding these situations on purpose, or promise to pay above what's legally required for taxes, you can't claim ethical superiority than those that do.
    - girvo 7y ago
      Where did I claim “ethical superiority”? I was accused of doing something, I explained that I did not. No need to be rude about it either, thanks.
- ip26 7y ago
  Claiming the home sale exemption is not exploiting the tax code any more than claiming the standard deduction. If you don't claim depreciation on your rental property, the IRS will still recapture when you sell it- even though you didn't take it. So how is taking it an exploitation?

enraged_camel 7y ago

>> In fact, he took advantage of poor corporate laws, which is not a crime either. Taking advantage of poor code by breaking into systems is a crime. Why isn’t it a crime to take advantage of poorly written laws?

dannyw 7y ago
Because the whole point of law is to create an objective definition of what is a crime and what is not a crime.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  That may be the point, but it’s not what happens in practice. In reality, laws are vaguely worded on purpose with the promise that “we won’t enforce it in instance x”
buboard 7y ago
because then it wouldn't be laws
smabie 7y ago
Because what if that law is poorly written as well?
autiezz 7y ago
hmmm good

seanhunter 7y ago

There's no way of knowing whether or not he violated laws or whether there's a case against him at this stage. The purpose of the NY AG investigation is literally to establish whether there's a case and the purpose of a hypothetical subsequent trial would be to establish whether in fact he violated laws. You don't get to just say that as a postulate.

rurp 7y ago

> It was legal. That's all. You are making some awfully strong assumptions about the legality of Neumann's actions. How could you possibly know that everything he did was perfectly legal? The very fact that this investigation was opened strongly implies that you should be less certain in that assumption.

alephnan 7y ago

Whether or not something is legal serves as a great moral compass...