3 ms·
If countries want to heavily regulate business deals, I think the quid pro quo should be a tax system that provides a good way for founders and early employees
by petercooper 3y ago
If countries want to heavily regulate business deals, I think the quid pro quo should be a tax system that provides a good way for founders and early employees to take some money off the table without having to sell to big companies like Adobe, by going public, or having half of any gain wiped out in taxes. Why shouldn't those folks able to pick up a lump sum for their work and the risk they took? They may as well have got a job at a big enterprise if an annual paycheck was all that mattered, and then you end up with fewer new companies and entrepreneurial risk-taking.
- arrosenberg 3y agoGo public? Why shouldn't you have to pay taxes on it? Are you going to stop using the roads when you are rich?
- petercooper 3y agoNot no taxes, just something that maintains a good reward/risk balance and an invcentive for people to be founders or early employees of these types of companies. The UK used to have so-called Entrepreneur's Relief, for example. Some countries have low capital gains tax regimes. It's not an uncommon thing. (Sure, a country could gleefully milk everyone to the max, but then they can't complain when they lack for entrepreneurship.)
- arrosenberg 3y agoIt just makes no sense and has never been necessary to incentivize Americans to take business risk. I don't understand why the entrepreneur, who is presumably getting a big exit in this scenario, deserves additional tax relief on top of that windfall. That sounds like another way for the rich to get even richer.