8 ms·

Is this really what people strive for in the USA. To avoid contributing anything back to the country that helped them achieve everything they've ever wanted?

nerdponx 4y ago
Yes. The "privatize gains, socialize losses" thing isn't just an empty meme, it's a legitimate (read: "not strictly illegal") and highly profitable strategy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chii 4y ago
it's not completely free money - you have to invest in qualified funds/businesses, which is located in areas of low economic opportunity that the gov't wants to incentivize businesses to start operating in. This is effectively a tax incentive to open new businesses in these somewhat remote and low-income areas. I dont think it's a bad thing if it does indeed encourage job creation and economic activity in those areas that otherwise would've stagnated.
imgabe 4y ago
The government is not a charity. If they have deemed something to be non-taxable, it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity, in this case investing in economically depressed areas. If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Moralizing about how people shouldn't engage in the behavior that the government is encouraging them to by offering tax incentives is beyond useless.
- klyrs 4y ago
  > The government is not a charity. Not unless you're extremely rich or extremely poor, that is.
- Layke1123 4y ago
  Or...the government is corrupt and used by the wealthy to write loop holes that allow them to escape paying taxes.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    If you think it's corrupt for the government to offer incentives for people to invest in underserved areas where they otherwise wouldn't, by all means, write your representatives, or run for office yourself to end this corrupt practice.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hamburglar 4y ago
      Speaking out about it is also a valid action, you know. In fact if you want to be a single issue candidate and actually get elected, it’s probably a requirement.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    Seems to me that "the wealthy" could come up with simpler loopholes without the pesky requirement to actually invest money in depressed areas.
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      It's not like the actions proposed by this article amount to any investment at in those depressed areas, it's just registering your company there but not actually doing anything which would benefit that neighborhood.
      - jhugo 4y ago
        That's not correct. The article glosses over this, but if you read it carefully: > At least 90% of [the QOF's] assets must be “qualified opportunity zone property” which can be any combination of (1) stock in a QOZB corporation, (2) partnership interest in a QOZB structured as an LLC or other pass-through partnership entity, and/or (3) qualified opportunity zone business property. However, this requirement doesn’t take effect immediately which means the QOF has time to find qualifying investments without rushing. Additionally, the 90% rule temporarily loosens if you deposit more cash into the QOF. So you have to invest the assets either in (qualified) property in the depressed area, or in a company (QOZB) in the depressed area, which then has to meet these requirements among others: > At least 50% of [the QOZB's] total gross income is derived from the conduct of a business in a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 40% of [the QOZB's] intangible property (e.g. patents, trademarks, etc) must be actively used inside a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 70% of [the QOZB's] tangible property owned or leased by the business must be qualified opportunity zone business property. If this is some giant conspiracy by "the wealthy" to get some tax benefits, it's odd that they have put so much effort into making sure there is actual economic benefit for the depressed areas.
- nebulous_two 4y ago
  Do you also give all your information to a random caller that offers you a free cruise? I think you forgot that politicians are legally bribed to behave against the wishes and/or needs of the people. You're right that moralizing is beyond useless. Instead let's define the bounds of our morality by our tax code. What can go wrong?
  - imgabe 4y ago
    I assume when you file your taxes, you refuse all deductions and tax credits that you're eligible for, because obviously the most moral thing is to give as much of your money to the government as possible, right?
    - grapeskin 4y ago
      Yes.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      Most of us don’t lobby the government to write laws that carve out near-zero tax burdens. Which, with the growing wealth inequality, explains that why the tax burden on the middle income keeps stable or grows; while services and benefits keep shrinking.
      - imgabe 4y ago
        Tax returns with AGI over $200k represent 5.7% of returns filed and account for 61.7% of taxes paid. [1] What ratio would you consider fair? [1] Data is from 2019, the latest available from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-stat...
        truckerbill 4y ago
        The utility of money decreases the more you have (outside of lifestyle inflation). When basic needs of society (like housing) aren't being met, there shouldn't be a cap on what the wealthy pay imo.
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  The author suggests operating in areas near colleges because they're developed but the students artificially depress the wages (there's a big difference between a median income of $10k for a neighborhood of families vs college students). Selling these tax laws as the will of the people is a bit of a stretch.
  - gleenn 4y ago
    Afaik the local governments choose the opportunity zones. They probably put those zones next to colleges because they met the requirements AND someone locally thought it would be a good idea to develop there. I definitely still think it's the will of the people deciding how to allocate some money that would otherwise sit in a stock much longer instead.
- spliunder54 4y ago
  This is why people should stop complaining about religions. Of course it's done for the tax break. You don't cede power when the government allows you to grab it. If you want your special interest group to thrive in the US, get with the program and exploit the tax loopholes before they're gone.
  - Layke1123 4y ago
    I can't imagine what it's like to live in your head. It's like you can't even grasp how what you said is wrong on so many levels.
- grapeskin 4y ago
  > If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. But then these corrupt, America-hating billionaires will spend millions digging up dirt on you, funding your opponents, and claiming you’re sending jobs to China.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  > (and by extension, the people it represents) This is where your argument breaks down. Gerrymandering has completely eliminated this as a reasonable belief in most places. Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. > the government can simply remove the tax break. If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Oh wait!
  - imgabe 4y ago
    > Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. Seems like the problem is the voters then. > If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
    - thereare5lights 4y ago
      > Seems like the problem is the voters then. Yes. That means that your claim > it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity particularly the > (and by extension, the people it represents) is false. ---- > Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win. False. The vast majority of people want their team to win. Simultaneously, most people want abortion to be legal. These statements are both true. The logical fallacy is here is an inability to recognize that it's and, not or.
      - imgabe 4y ago
        It's not false. You're confusing stated preferences vs. revealed preferences. People might say they want to enshrine their legal right to abortion or that they don't want people to get tax breaks for investing in depressed areas, but they don't do anything that would actually make those preferences a reality (i.e. elect candidates based on those issue who will enact the policies people say they want). So when it comes down to it, people do not actually want those things enough to take the actions necessary to make them happen.
- moistly 4y ago
  > If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Yes, as we’ve seen, it is very easy to get the government to repeal a loophole that enables a billion-dollar company to dodge a tax. Why, it is virtually child’s play! The poors just need to hire a lobbyist, outspend the tax-dodging lobbyists, and Bob’s yer uncle! The government, as you say, will simply remove the tax break.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  > investing in economically depressed areas. Except the wealthy play games like extending Harlem through central park to midtown so that they can fund building their own luxury apartments as economic development in a "depressed" area.
- brnt 4y ago
  It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I do business, he is cheating, they are corrupt.
- Retric 4y ago
  The US government is the worlds largest charity, it also does a lot of other things. However it accepts donations and supports the poor, arts and sciences etc. There are even plenty of things people might want to donate too that only governments do, the Red Cross etc are hardly building space telescopes or US highways.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    Taxes are not donations. You don’t go to jail if you refuse to give a donation.
    - lukas099 4y ago
      > it also does a lot of other things.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Never said they where, but you can donate money to the US government: https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-southwest-region-7/donations-program https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-...
  - trasz 4y ago
    I'm not sure if the positive contribution by US exceeds its negative contribution, such as destruction of Middle East and large parts of South America.
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s difficult to compare. Seatbelts alone have saved significantly more lives than every middle eastern intervention cost but it’s hard to say how long before someone else came up with them. What would have happened without an open GPS? Without TCP/IP or all that medical research etc etc. Now try to figure out what WWII would have looked like without lend lease etcand I just have no idea. PS: I doubt most charities are a net positive impact, but again it’s complicated.
alliao 4y ago
I'd like to hear your thoughts on countries that don't even have capital gains tax
- Layke1123 4y ago
  I'll let you take an educated guess on my position...
0xy 4y ago
Capital gains tax is a parasitical tax that punishes people for being responsible with their after-tax money. It also creates massive, massive loopholes that can be abused. The fairest solution is to scrap CGT and associated capital loss write-offs. This allows the middle class to thrive by investing in productive enterprises and not getting taxed yet again to do so. It's the worst kind of tax that punishes success by stealing your after-tax money. As for your appeal to nation, the US will waste your money on slaughtering Afghanistani children with bombs and handing out cash to serial fraudsters (look up how many people on Social Security are actually real). Most tax money is wasted by government.
- jusssi 4y ago
  There are two groups slicing the worker's cheese. One is the state, they claim tax. The other is the investors, they claim profit. Calling out other parasites, don't forget you also are one.
  - 0xy 4y ago
    This can only be true if you hold humans in such low regard that you think they cannot make an informed choice about where to work and under which conditions. Any example of a cooperative usually descends into chaos, an example being worker's unions which descend into criminality, corruption and pure evil (teacher's unions regularly defend sexual predator teachers, for example) more often than not. It's also a pure fallacy and just plain wrong to suggest I claim profit from Cloudflare. Cloudflare has not and does not issue dividends, meaning all of the profit is reinvested in business operations or goes to the workers. As an investor, I don't see a single cent of profit in this case.
    - jusssi 4y ago
      > sexual predator teachers You need to chill, dude. I am not defending child molesters. I am not even claiming that capital investment is evil. I am simply pointing out the fact that the relation is parasitic. > As an investor, I don't see a single cent of profit in this case. Then you aren't paying capital gains tax either, so I don't see the problem. I'm curious though, do you also not expect to get any profit for this particular investment in the future? When you have got back your inflation adjusted initial capital + a modest interest + a reward for the risk, do you mail your share certificates back to Cloudflare with a note, thank you, good doing business with you?
thrwawy283 4y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. While I would commonly understand people want to avoid taxes, I think there's a real question in there: Why don't people want to contribute back to an environment that enabled their success? I have too many family members that will avoid acknowledging anything the government does for them. "The social contract."
- Layke1123 4y ago
  Because it's not what the VC's who run this site want the narrative to be and do everything they can to keep tech bros on their side.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Fezzik 4y ago
I think, like most things, it’s a bell curve - the bulk of the people want to contribute a reasonable amount while some want contribute none and some extra. The glaring issue in the United States is how much capital is gained — though I prefer ‘allocated to’, as the people do the work — by a minuscule portion of the population and the paltry taxes they then pay.
- ars 4y ago
  "platry"?? The top 10% of the US pays 71% of tax.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Well duh, the top 10% own 89% of the country. Obviously they have to pay a reasonable tax rate.
- tomcam 4y ago
  > the bulk of the people want to contribute a reasonable amount Not sure that’s correct. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-of-us-households-paid-no-federal-income-tax-last-year-amid/ https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-o...
dheera 4y ago
The government of USA is incredibly inefficient at getting anything done. If I had billions of dollars I would always strive to legally pay as least taxes as possible and use the funds to contribute back the country in much more efficient ways, including investing in people who are provably getting shit done. Here's the latest of a constant firehose of misuse of funds I've seen. The gist is that a Stanford professor is basically leeching $40K of tax money at a $5000/hr rate for "consulting" about social justice and equity in schools. I'd rather give that $40K directly toward educational supplies for underprivileged students, or to a hundred tutors and therapists at $50/hr, or something else. https://nypost.com/2022/04/08/stanford-prof-calls-cops-on-berkeley-prof-who-exposed-her-5k-hour-consulting-fee/ https://nypost.com/2022/04/08/stanford-prof-calls-cops-on-be...
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  A state school professor (Berkeley) called out a private school professor (Stanford) for a $5k/hour BS consulting fee. How does that make your case?
  - dheera 4y ago
    That BS consulting fee comes from my taxes.
    - moistly 4y ago
      Strange that you pick a minuscule—nay, pissant—cost, when you could point to other waste that is literally millions of orders of magnitude greater. The BS consulting fee cost you perhaps a hundred-thousandth of a penny. The unnecessary war in Iraq cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Billions in subsidies to oil companies that are earning record-breaking profits is costing you hundreds of dollars. Don’t let clickbait distract you from the real pain.
      - dheera 4y ago
        Strange that you didn't see this part "the latest of a constant firehose"
golemotron 4y ago
> Is this really what people strive for in the USA. To avoid contributing anything back to the country that helped them achieve everything they've ever wanted? You are working from a flawed model. Government spending is not tied at all to revenue. Over the past three years the federal government has dropped over 5 trillion dollars on the economy from a helicopter. Why not take advantage of a loophole when money can and is being created out of thin air?
senectus1 4y ago
This is America...
dmje 4y ago
Thank god for you. Wish I could upvote this 10x :-)
tomcam 4y ago
Apparently it’s the American dream. Over half of US workers pay zero federal tax. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-of-us-households-paid-no-federal-income-tax-last-year-amid/ https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-o...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
csomar 4y ago
It's a free market approach. The alternative is that the government collects money everywhere equally and then go and invest/pump money into these area. If the area is tax negative (requires more government money than it brings in), then might as well give it tax breaks; if that economic activity can break it off the cycle. The very fact that some of these places exist for a long time; means that it's not worth it to invest in them even with the tax breaks.

nerdponx 4y ago

Yes. The "privatize gains, socialize losses" thing isn't just an empty meme, it's a legitimate (read: "not strictly illegal") and highly profitable strategy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

chii 4y ago

it's not completely free money - you have to invest in qualified funds/businesses, which is located in areas of low economic opportunity that the gov't wants to incentivize businesses to start operating in. This is effectively a tax incentive to open new businesses in these somewhat remote and low-income areas. I dont think it's a bad thing if it does indeed encourage job creation and economic activity in those areas that otherwise would've stagnated.

imgabe 4y ago

The government is not a charity. If they have deemed something to be non-taxable, it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity, in this case investing in economically depressed areas. If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Moralizing about how people shouldn't engage in the behavior that the government is encouraging them to by offering tax incentives is beyond useless.

klyrs 4y ago
> The government is not a charity. Not unless you're extremely rich or extremely poor, that is.
Layke1123 4y ago
Or...the government is corrupt and used by the wealthy to write loop holes that allow them to escape paying taxes.
- imgabe 4y ago
  If you think it's corrupt for the government to offer incentives for people to invest in underserved areas where they otherwise wouldn't, by all means, write your representatives, or run for office yourself to end this corrupt practice.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    Speaking out about it is also a valid action, you know. In fact if you want to be a single issue candidate and actually get elected, it’s probably a requirement.
- jhugo 4y ago
  Seems to me that "the wealthy" could come up with simpler loopholes without the pesky requirement to actually invest money in depressed areas.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    It's not like the actions proposed by this article amount to any investment at in those depressed areas, it's just registering your company there but not actually doing anything which would benefit that neighborhood.
    - jhugo 4y ago
      That's not correct. The article glosses over this, but if you read it carefully: > At least 90% of [the QOF's] assets must be “qualified opportunity zone property” which can be any combination of (1) stock in a QOZB corporation, (2) partnership interest in a QOZB structured as an LLC or other pass-through partnership entity, and/or (3) qualified opportunity zone business property. However, this requirement doesn’t take effect immediately which means the QOF has time to find qualifying investments without rushing. Additionally, the 90% rule temporarily loosens if you deposit more cash into the QOF. So you have to invest the assets either in (qualified) property in the depressed area, or in a company (QOZB) in the depressed area, which then has to meet these requirements among others: > At least 50% of [the QOZB's] total gross income is derived from the conduct of a business in a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 40% of [the QOZB's] intangible property (e.g. patents, trademarks, etc) must be actively used inside a qualified opportunity zone. > At least 70% of [the QOZB's] tangible property owned or leased by the business must be qualified opportunity zone business property. If this is some giant conspiracy by "the wealthy" to get some tax benefits, it's odd that they have put so much effort into making sure there is actual economic benefit for the depressed areas.
nebulous_two 4y ago
Do you also give all your information to a random caller that offers you a free cruise? I think you forgot that politicians are legally bribed to behave against the wishes and/or needs of the people. You're right that moralizing is beyond useless. Instead let's define the bounds of our morality by our tax code. What can go wrong?
- imgabe 4y ago
  I assume when you file your taxes, you refuse all deductions and tax credits that you're eligible for, because obviously the most moral thing is to give as much of your money to the government as possible, right?
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    Yes.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Most of us don’t lobby the government to write laws that carve out near-zero tax burdens. Which, with the growing wealth inequality, explains that why the tax burden on the middle income keeps stable or grows; while services and benefits keep shrinking.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      Tax returns with AGI over $200k represent 5.7% of returns filed and account for 61.7% of taxes paid. [1] What ratio would you consider fair? [1] Data is from 2019, the latest available from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-stat...
      - truckerbill 4y ago
        The utility of money decreases the more you have (outside of lifestyle inflation). When basic needs of society (like housing) aren't being met, there shouldn't be a cap on what the wealthy pay imo.
travisjungroth 4y ago
The author suggests operating in areas near colleges because they're developed but the students artificially depress the wages (there's a big difference between a median income of $10k for a neighborhood of families vs college students). Selling these tax laws as the will of the people is a bit of a stretch.
- gleenn 4y ago
  Afaik the local governments choose the opportunity zones. They probably put those zones next to colleges because they met the requirements AND someone locally thought it would be a good idea to develop there. I definitely still think it's the will of the people deciding how to allocate some money that would otherwise sit in a stock much longer instead.
spliunder54 4y ago
This is why people should stop complaining about religions. Of course it's done for the tax break. You don't cede power when the government allows you to grab it. If you want your special interest group to thrive in the US, get with the program and exploit the tax loopholes before they're gone.
- Layke1123 4y ago
  I can't imagine what it's like to live in your head. It's like you can't even grasp how what you said is wrong on so many levels.
grapeskin 4y ago
> If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. But then these corrupt, America-hating billionaires will spend millions digging up dirt on you, funding your opponents, and claiming you’re sending jobs to China.
thereare5lights 4y ago
> (and by extension, the people it represents) This is where your argument breaks down. Gerrymandering has completely eliminated this as a reasonable belief in most places. Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. > the government can simply remove the tax break. If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Oh wait!
- imgabe 4y ago
  > Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning. Seems like the problem is the voters then. > If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it. Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
  - thereare5lights 4y ago
    > Seems like the problem is the voters then. Yes. That means that your claim > it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity particularly the > (and by extension, the people it represents) is false. ---- > Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win. False. The vast majority of people want their team to win. Simultaneously, most people want abortion to be legal. These statements are both true. The logical fallacy is here is an inability to recognize that it's and, not or.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      It's not false. You're confusing stated preferences vs. revealed preferences. People might say they want to enshrine their legal right to abortion or that they don't want people to get tax breaks for investing in depressed areas, but they don't do anything that would actually make those preferences a reality (i.e. elect candidates based on those issue who will enact the policies people say they want). So when it comes down to it, people do not actually want those things enough to take the actions necessary to make them happen.
moistly 4y ago
> If at some point we no longer want to incentivize that behavior, the government can simply remove the tax break. Yes, as we’ve seen, it is very easy to get the government to repeal a loophole that enables a billion-dollar company to dodge a tax. Why, it is virtually child’s play! The poors just need to hire a lobbyist, outspend the tax-dodging lobbyists, and Bob’s yer uncle! The government, as you say, will simply remove the tax break.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
> investing in economically depressed areas. Except the wealthy play games like extending Harlem through central park to midtown so that they can fund building their own luxury apartments as economic development in a "depressed" area.
brnt 4y ago
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I do business, he is cheating, they are corrupt.
Retric 4y ago
The US government is the worlds largest charity, it also does a lot of other things. However it accepts donations and supports the poor, arts and sciences etc. There are even plenty of things people might want to donate too that only governments do, the Red Cross etc are hardly building space telescopes or US highways.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Taxes are not donations. You don’t go to jail if you refuse to give a donation.
  - lukas099 4y ago
    > it also does a lot of other things.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Never said they where, but you can donate money to the US government: https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-southwest-region-7/donations-program https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-greater-...
- trasz 4y ago
  I'm not sure if the positive contribution by US exceeds its negative contribution, such as destruction of Middle East and large parts of South America.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s difficult to compare. Seatbelts alone have saved significantly more lives than every middle eastern intervention cost but it’s hard to say how long before someone else came up with them. What would have happened without an open GPS? Without TCP/IP or all that medical research etc etc. Now try to figure out what WWII would have looked like without lend lease etcand I just have no idea. PS: I doubt most charities are a net positive impact, but again it’s complicated.

alliao 4y ago

I'd like to hear your thoughts on countries that don't even have capital gains tax

Layke1123 4y ago
I'll let you take an educated guess on my position...

0xy 4y ago

Capital gains tax is a parasitical tax that punishes people for being responsible with their after-tax money. It also creates massive, massive loopholes that can be abused. The fairest solution is to scrap CGT and associated capital loss write-offs. This allows the middle class to thrive by investing in productive enterprises and not getting taxed yet again to do so. It's the worst kind of tax that punishes success by stealing your after-tax money. As for your appeal to nation, the US will waste your money on slaughtering Afghanistani children with bombs and handing out cash to serial fraudsters (look up how many people on Social Security are actually real). Most tax money is wasted by government.

jusssi 4y ago
There are two groups slicing the worker's cheese. One is the state, they claim tax. The other is the investors, they claim profit. Calling out other parasites, don't forget you also are one.
- 0xy 4y ago
  This can only be true if you hold humans in such low regard that you think they cannot make an informed choice about where to work and under which conditions. Any example of a cooperative usually descends into chaos, an example being worker's unions which descend into criminality, corruption and pure evil (teacher's unions regularly defend sexual predator teachers, for example) more often than not. It's also a pure fallacy and just plain wrong to suggest I claim profit from Cloudflare. Cloudflare has not and does not issue dividends, meaning all of the profit is reinvested in business operations or goes to the workers. As an investor, I don't see a single cent of profit in this case.
  - jusssi 4y ago
    > sexual predator teachers You need to chill, dude. I am not defending child molesters. I am not even claiming that capital investment is evil. I am simply pointing out the fact that the relation is parasitic. > As an investor, I don't see a single cent of profit in this case. Then you aren't paying capital gains tax either, so I don't see the problem. I'm curious though, do you also not expect to get any profit for this particular investment in the future? When you have got back your inflation adjusted initial capital + a modest interest + a reward for the risk, do you mail your share certificates back to Cloudflare with a note, thank you, good doing business with you?

thrwawy283 4y ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted. While I would commonly understand people want to avoid taxes, I think there's a real question in there: Why don't people want to contribute back to an environment that enabled their success? I have too many family members that will avoid acknowledging anything the government does for them. "The social contract."

Layke1123 4y ago
Because it's not what the VC's who run this site want the narrative to be and do everything they can to keep tech bros on their side.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Fezzik 4y ago

I think, like most things, it’s a bell curve - the bulk of the people want to contribute a reasonable amount while some want contribute none and some extra. The glaring issue in the United States is how much capital is gained — though I prefer ‘allocated to’, as the people do the work — by a minuscule portion of the population and the paltry taxes they then pay.

ars 4y ago
"platry"?? The top 10% of the US pays 71% of tax.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Well duh, the top 10% own 89% of the country. Obviously they have to pay a reasonable tax rate.
tomcam 4y ago
> the bulk of the people want to contribute a reasonable amount Not sure that’s correct. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-of-us-households-paid-no-federal-income-tax-last-year-amid/ https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-o...

dheera 4y ago

The government of USA is incredibly inefficient at getting anything done. If I had billions of dollars I would always strive to legally pay as least taxes as possible and use the funds to contribute back the country in much more efficient ways, including investing in people who are provably getting shit done. Here's the latest of a constant firehose of misuse of funds I've seen. The gist is that a Stanford professor is basically leeching $40K of tax money at a $5000/hr rate for "consulting" about social justice and equity in schools. I'd rather give that $40K directly toward educational supplies for underprivileged students, or to a hundred tutors and therapists at $50/hr, or something else. https://nypost.com/2022/04/08/stanford-prof-calls-cops-on-berkeley-prof-who-exposed-her-5k-hour-consulting-fee/ https://nypost.com/2022/04/08/stanford-prof-calls-cops-on-be...

nobodyandproud 4y ago
A state school professor (Berkeley) called out a private school professor (Stanford) for a $5k/hour BS consulting fee. How does that make your case?
- dheera 4y ago
  That BS consulting fee comes from my taxes.
  - moistly 4y ago
    Strange that you pick a minuscule—nay, pissant—cost, when you could point to other waste that is literally millions of orders of magnitude greater. The BS consulting fee cost you perhaps a hundred-thousandth of a penny. The unnecessary war in Iraq cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Billions in subsidies to oil companies that are earning record-breaking profits is costing you hundreds of dollars. Don’t let clickbait distract you from the real pain.
    - dheera 4y ago
      Strange that you didn't see this part "the latest of a constant firehose"

golemotron 4y ago

> Is this really what people strive for in the USA. To avoid contributing anything back to the country that helped them achieve everything they've ever wanted? You are working from a flawed model. Government spending is not tied at all to revenue. Over the past three years the federal government has dropped over 5 trillion dollars on the economy from a helicopter. Why not take advantage of a loophole when money can and is being created out of thin air?

senectus1 4y ago

This is America...

dmje 4y ago

Thank god for you. Wish I could upvote this 10x :-)

tomcam 4y ago

Apparently it’s the American dream. Over half of US workers pay zero federal tax. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-of-us-households-paid-no-federal-income-tax-last-year-amid/ https://thehill.com/policy/finance/599753-study-57-percent-o...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

csomar 4y ago

It's a free market approach. The alternative is that the government collects money everywhere equally and then go and invest/pump money into these area. If the area is tax negative (requires more government money than it brings in), then might as well give it tax breaks; if that economic activity can break it off the cycle. The very fact that some of these places exist for a long time; means that it's not worth it to invest in them even with the tax breaks.