4 ms·

Why bother? He already knows what they'd say: "Cut spending, cut taxes, and stay out of our way."

by edw519 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago
Really? I've seen several people who think taxes are too low, not everyone is a republican who does startups. On the "Stay out of our way" I do think the feeling is pretty broad across the board.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I've seen several people who think taxes are too low, Oh really - how much extra do they pay? What - they mean that other people's taxes are too low? Do they actually mean "taxes are too low" or is that a proxy for "not enough govt services"? I ask because the US govt collects about as much per person as Western European govts (and more than Canada). Yet, those countries do provide more services, but it's not because they collect more money. (The US has lower rates but has a higher gdp.) http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626
  - tzs 16y ago
    > Oh really - how much extra do they pay? That's a silly argument. There's nothing inconsistent about believing that it would be better off for the country as a whole if tax rates are higher, but not volunteering to personally pay higher than the current actual rate. You play the game by the current rules, not the rules you are advocating the game change to.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > There's nothing inconsistent about believing that it would be better off for the country as a whole if tax rates are higher, but not volunteering to personally pay higher than the current actual rate. If the country would be better off with $100B additional tax revenue, it would be better off with $5B additional tax revenue.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    They mean taxes are too low. 2 ways to make up a deficit: Raise taxes or cut services. They want the deficit fixed, and they want it done through taxes.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > They mean taxes are too low. 2 ways to make up a deficit: Raise taxes or cut services. Interesting that you equate spending with services. The deficit is spending - revenues. The latter are only slightly connected to rates, especially the top marginal rate.[1] Are they looking to get more revenues from the 50% of the population that isn't paying much of anything or the 1-2% which is paying 40% of revenues? Which reminds me - while the top marginal rate has jumped around a lot, the "tax revenue as a fraction of GDP" hasn't managed to top 21% for very long and tends to stick around 18%. We're currently spending around 25% of gdp. Why will we be able to hit that with tax revenue? [1] The estate tax has never been, and never will be, a significant revenue source. The very rich don't die often enough and they engage in significant estate planning. The estates of the rich folks who died in 2010 weren't going to pay much in taxes because they did estate planning in previous years.
      - gte910h 16y ago
        I'm not particularly interested in talking tax policy on HN as I view a great majority of it offtopic. If you'd like to hit reddit.com/r/politics, I'll talk till the cows come home.
staunch 16y ago
I don't know of any startup that's struggling because of government spending or taxes. In fact taxes are probably too favorable for VCs. They have a completely unnecessary and unfair loophole that should be closed. Immigration is the biggest government policy issue impeding startups, and that's something Obama could help fix.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I can think of plenty of American startups that are hindered (or simply don't exist) as a result of regulation. Betfair should be a Silicon Valley (or NY) company with billions in revenue. Instead, it's a UK company with $350M in revenue, available only to the UK market. See also Intrade, Hollywood Stock Exchange, etc. All due to regulatory issues. How about automated medical diagnostics? Many prototypes have been built which outperform human doctors, but the entire industry is dead due to fear of litigation/FDA. Leverage the internet to disruptively innovate in education? Good luck, with the massive subsidies given to the traditional system. See also the regulatory issues that Ubercab, AirBnB and others are running into. This isn't taxes, but it sure doesn't count as "stay out of our way".
  - jessedhillon 16y ago
    You listed three things that I'm really glad the government does: - Attempts to keep all investment activity well-regulated and conformant to some definition of legitimate. Thus minimizing the risk that my money manager is going to lose my money on an illegitimate, thinly disguised gambling platform like the Hollywood Stock Exchange. There's no reason why something like that shouldn't be tightly regulated -- HSX is not the same thing as the NYSE and shouldn't be allowed to take real money in exchange for fake value. The NYSE returns my investment when companies I've selected do well: actual value. The HSX returns my money when random celebrities have an on camera nipple slip: no value. - Make sure that there are tight restrictions on what counts as a medical device, or as medicine. If there's something approved to go into my body for medical reasons, I want associated risks to be minimized. This is not where I want the boomtown to be -- I don't want to undergo the therapeutic equivalent of WebVan or Twitter. - I also don't want just any jackass to be able to print a textbook off of Blurb and start selling it to my kid's teachers. Qualified jackasses only, thank you :) No seriously, the way education is decided in this country is currently suboptimal, but the goal is to have all children on the same page. I don't want to find out that my kid has been on some experimental curriculum that turned out to be a pointless waste of time. But you're also wrong about this. It is possible to start an alternate education system, so long as you conform to guidelines about what you teach. I've never heard anyone complain that they couldn't get their education startup going because of "massive subsidies given to the traditional system." There are a number of folks trying to crack this one from different angles, from textbooks to actual brick-and-mortar institutions.
nostromo 16y ago
That's exactly what he'll hear meeting with a bunch of billionaires with huge market share. As an actual startup, my issues are much different: * I can't afford health care for my first employees. * Stop making it so difficult to visit the US. * Let me help my employees abroad emigrate to the US. * Fix the patent system.

Why bother? He already knows what they'd say: "Cut spending, cut taxes, and stay out of our way."

by edw519 16y ago

Why bother? He already knows what they'd say: "Cut spending, cut taxes, and stay out of our way."

Really? I've seen several people who think taxes are too low, not everyone is a republican who does startups. On the "Stay out of our way" I do think the feeling is pretty broad across the board.

anamax 16y ago
> I've seen several people who think taxes are too low, Oh really - how much extra do they pay? What - they mean that other people's taxes are too low? Do they actually mean "taxes are too low" or is that a proxy for "not enough govt services"? I ask because the US govt collects about as much per person as Western European govts (and more than Canada). Yet, those countries do provide more services, but it's not because they collect more money. (The US has lower rates but has a higher gdp.) http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626
- tzs 16y ago
  > Oh really - how much extra do they pay? That's a silly argument. There's nothing inconsistent about believing that it would be better off for the country as a whole if tax rates are higher, but not volunteering to personally pay higher than the current actual rate. You play the game by the current rules, not the rules you are advocating the game change to.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > There's nothing inconsistent about believing that it would be better off for the country as a whole if tax rates are higher, but not volunteering to personally pay higher than the current actual rate. If the country would be better off with $100B additional tax revenue, it would be better off with $5B additional tax revenue.
- gte910h 16y ago
  They mean taxes are too low. 2 ways to make up a deficit: Raise taxes or cut services. They want the deficit fixed, and they want it done through taxes.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > They mean taxes are too low. 2 ways to make up a deficit: Raise taxes or cut services. Interesting that you equate spending with services. The deficit is spending - revenues. The latter are only slightly connected to rates, especially the top marginal rate.[1] Are they looking to get more revenues from the 50% of the population that isn't paying much of anything or the 1-2% which is paying 40% of revenues? Which reminds me - while the top marginal rate has jumped around a lot, the "tax revenue as a fraction of GDP" hasn't managed to top 21% for very long and tends to stick around 18%. We're currently spending around 25% of gdp. Why will we be able to hit that with tax revenue? [1] The estate tax has never been, and never will be, a significant revenue source. The very rich don't die often enough and they engage in significant estate planning. The estates of the rich folks who died in 2010 weren't going to pay much in taxes because they did estate planning in previous years.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      I'm not particularly interested in talking tax policy on HN as I view a great majority of it offtopic. If you'd like to hit reddit.com/r/politics, I'll talk till the cows come home.

staunch 16y ago

I don't know of any startup that's struggling because of government spending or taxes. In fact taxes are probably too favorable for VCs. They have a completely unnecessary and unfair loophole that should be closed. Immigration is the biggest government policy issue impeding startups, and that's something Obama could help fix.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I can think of plenty of American startups that are hindered (or simply don't exist) as a result of regulation. Betfair should be a Silicon Valley (or NY) company with billions in revenue. Instead, it's a UK company with $350M in revenue, available only to the UK market. See also Intrade, Hollywood Stock Exchange, etc. All due to regulatory issues. How about automated medical diagnostics? Many prototypes have been built which outperform human doctors, but the entire industry is dead due to fear of litigation/FDA. Leverage the internet to disruptively innovate in education? Good luck, with the massive subsidies given to the traditional system. See also the regulatory issues that Ubercab, AirBnB and others are running into. This isn't taxes, but it sure doesn't count as "stay out of our way".
- jessedhillon 16y ago
  You listed three things that I'm really glad the government does: - Attempts to keep all investment activity well-regulated and conformant to some definition of legitimate. Thus minimizing the risk that my money manager is going to lose my money on an illegitimate, thinly disguised gambling platform like the Hollywood Stock Exchange. There's no reason why something like that shouldn't be tightly regulated -- HSX is not the same thing as the NYSE and shouldn't be allowed to take real money in exchange for fake value. The NYSE returns my investment when companies I've selected do well: actual value. The HSX returns my money when random celebrities have an on camera nipple slip: no value. - Make sure that there are tight restrictions on what counts as a medical device, or as medicine. If there's something approved to go into my body for medical reasons, I want associated risks to be minimized. This is not where I want the boomtown to be -- I don't want to undergo the therapeutic equivalent of WebVan or Twitter. - I also don't want just any jackass to be able to print a textbook off of Blurb and start selling it to my kid's teachers. Qualified jackasses only, thank you :) No seriously, the way education is decided in this country is currently suboptimal, but the goal is to have all children on the same page. I don't want to find out that my kid has been on some experimental curriculum that turned out to be a pointless waste of time. But you're also wrong about this. It is possible to start an alternate education system, so long as you conform to guidelines about what you teach. I've never heard anyone complain that they couldn't get their education startup going because of "massive subsidies given to the traditional system." There are a number of folks trying to crack this one from different angles, from textbooks to actual brick-and-mortar institutions.

nostromo 16y ago

That's exactly what he'll hear meeting with a bunch of billionaires with huge market share. As an actual startup, my issues are much different: * I can't afford health care for my first employees. * Stop making it so difficult to visit the US. * Let me help my employees abroad emigrate to the US. * Fix the patent system.