3 ms·
> Tax VC funding on non essential problems and use that to fund non-profit competing startups. The essential word here is problematic to agree on. Not only are
by imgabe 7y ago
> Tax VC funding on non essential problems and use that to fund non-profit competing startups. The essential word here is problematic to agree on.
Not only are people going to disagree what is essential, as you say, but many things that later become essential do not start out that way. Personal computers were expensive toys for hobbyists. Google was a research project by a couple of grad students. An online bookstore? Why would we need that? Just go buy a book at Borders. And so on.
- thrwaway69 7y ago>> use that to fund non-profit competing startups. Research is another matter entirely. I am only leaning towards taxing when someone has already thrown a product in the market for commercial interest. If google is making profit or big enough revenue and taking VC funding to grow, then it will be taxed on the funds granted to create another non-profit search competitor. That way, initial funding is not taxed but hacks to growth are.
- imgabe 7y agoSo once a company starts to succeed, you take its revenue and use it to fund a nonprofit competitor? That is supposed to be more fair?
- thrwaway69 7y ago> If google is making profit or big enough revenue and taking VC funding to grow That's not what I am saying. Growth hacks are not fair to the market and people. How is developing a situation where monopolies will be created better? It will be unfair to everyone that comes after.
- imgabe 7y agoWho is going to decide if they're making "enough" revenue or profit? A company simply being large does not make it a monopoly. We already have laws against monopolies that fo mostly unenforced.