4 ms·

I'm tired of this BS being spread by ppl who didn't even read the finances law in question (at least bullet points). It's not true, the 60% tax rate comes from

I'm tired of this BS being spread by ppl who didn't even read the finances law in question (at least bullet points). It's not true, the 60% tax rate comes from the creation of a new bracket in the income tax and the treatment of selling your startup as income. To attain 60% you 1) need to sell for more than 150k 2) count all the acquisition money as instant revenue 3) do not intend to invest. And in fact, you have decreasing income tax if you sell assets you were bound to for 2 years (5%) and increasing up to 40% (on the 45% income tax...) for 12 years and more. If you invest 80% or more of the amount you earn, you don't have this tax, the same if you sell to retire... And don't even get me started on the "auto-entrepreneur" status which is a joke (that needs to end).

snippyhollow 14y ago
Let's be clear: I'm not agreeing with the government's policy (at least it's now not blatantly racist): I'm not agreeing with everything in the proposed tax scheme, I'm not agreeing with the entirety of the distribution of the spending, and I'm not agreeing with their lack on direction. I'm also not agreeing on bullshit being spread by a group of clueless persons on Facebook and being spread by rudebaguette and the like for clicks. If you want to tell tall stories, good for you, it can be interesting, you'll have plenty of stories to count because the combinatorics are gigantic, but don't call yourself a journalist. /rant
- rdbgtt 14y ago
  Thanks Gabriel Synnaeve for the great comment - it's a great example in how it's always cool to be for something, as long as you clarify that your not for it "the same way everyone else is." The "bullshit" that we spread on Rude Baguette cites sources, so if you have a problem with the way they're being talked about, that's called a "spin." We also wrote that "bullshit" about 36 hours after the creation of the #geonpi fan page, because we felt the "bullshit" was worth talking about. I don't think the blogger her, who also write for RB, is calling himself a "journalist," writing in the blog of his startup's website - at best he's expressing his opinion. PS: ending a comment with "/rant" doesn't make it any more justified - although thanks for clarifying that it was written with no forethought, afterthough, or thought at all. Yours Rudely, -Liam Boogar Editor @ The Rude Baguette
VSerge 14y ago
I did read the article 6 of the finances law on which my article comments. I'm unsure you have. I am sure however that you neither read my article, or any of the many explaining why this 60% top bracket is significant, ie for investors who are an essential part of the startup ecosystem, and make their money only on a few big hits with large payouts.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
VCs make nearly all their returns off a few big hits. So on the big hit, they will certainly: 1) make > 150k. 2) Sell out instantly, or at the very least in chunks considerably bigger than 150k. Even if they do sell out in 150k chunks, that will drastically reduce their returns - returns = log(outcome/investment)/t, so increasing t will lower returns. 3) Return the funds to investors. Sounds like this law will, in fact, cut returns by roughly 50%. Or maybe 30% if the exit takes a long time.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  Institutional VCs will likely be able to account for the income such that they are, at least on paper, re-investing a good portion of the income.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    No. A VC fund invests each dollar precisely once and then attempts (over the next 10-15 years) to return those funds to investors when they cash out. Maybe VCs in France will completely restructure their business to avoid this massive tax (presumably incurring lower returns in the process). Or maybe they will just invest outside France. Either way, this is not a small problem for them.
    - dllthomas 14y ago
      Money is fungible and people are creative; My expectation is that, in the middle-run, that they will be make this no more than a small problem for them. What are their investors doing with the money? If they intend to pile up a bunch of dollars and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, then yes, that pile might shrink as a result of this law, but I expect that represents a relatively small fraction of institutional VC money. As the parent said, if they sell to retire, the income isn't taxed so highly; if they sell to cash out of this investment and put (at least 80% of) it into something else, then the money is being reinvested, and hopefully can be handled as such in the accounting.
- fab13n 14y ago

snippyhollow 14y ago

Let's be clear: I'm not agreeing with the government's policy (at least it's now not blatantly racist): I'm not agreeing with everything in the proposed tax scheme, I'm not agreeing with the entirety of the distribution of the spending, and I'm not agreeing with their lack on direction. I'm also not agreeing on bullshit being spread by a group of clueless persons on Facebook and being spread by rudebaguette and the like for clicks. If you want to tell tall stories, good for you, it can be interesting, you'll have plenty of stories to count because the combinatorics are gigantic, but don't call yourself a journalist. /rant

rdbgtt 14y ago
Thanks Gabriel Synnaeve for the great comment - it's a great example in how it's always cool to be for something, as long as you clarify that your not for it "the same way everyone else is." The "bullshit" that we spread on Rude Baguette cites sources, so if you have a problem with the way they're being talked about, that's called a "spin." We also wrote that "bullshit" about 36 hours after the creation of the #geonpi fan page, because we felt the "bullshit" was worth talking about. I don't think the blogger her, who also write for RB, is calling himself a "journalist," writing in the blog of his startup's website - at best he's expressing his opinion. PS: ending a comment with "/rant" doesn't make it any more justified - although thanks for clarifying that it was written with no forethought, afterthough, or thought at all. Yours Rudely, -Liam Boogar Editor @ The Rude Baguette

VSerge 14y ago

I did read the article 6 of the finances law on which my article comments. I'm unsure you have. I am sure however that you neither read my article, or any of the many explaining why this 60% top bracket is significant, ie for investors who are an essential part of the startup ecosystem, and make their money only on a few big hits with large payouts.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

VCs make nearly all their returns off a few big hits. So on the big hit, they will certainly: 1) make > 150k. 2) Sell out instantly, or at the very least in chunks considerably bigger than 150k. Even if they do sell out in 150k chunks, that will drastically reduce their returns - returns = log(outcome/investment)/t, so increasing t will lower returns. 3) Return the funds to investors. Sounds like this law will, in fact, cut returns by roughly 50%. Or maybe 30% if the exit takes a long time.

dllthomas 14y ago
Institutional VCs will likely be able to account for the income such that they are, at least on paper, re-investing a good portion of the income.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  No. A VC fund invests each dollar precisely once and then attempts (over the next 10-15 years) to return those funds to investors when they cash out. Maybe VCs in France will completely restructure their business to avoid this massive tax (presumably incurring lower returns in the process). Or maybe they will just invest outside France. Either way, this is not a small problem for them.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    Money is fungible and people are creative; My expectation is that, in the middle-run, that they will be make this no more than a small problem for them. What are their investors doing with the money? If they intend to pile up a bunch of dollars and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, then yes, that pile might shrink as a result of this law, but I expect that represents a relatively small fraction of institutional VC money. As the parent said, if they sell to retire, the income isn't taxed so highly; if they sell to cash out of this investment and put (at least 80% of) it into something else, then the money is being reinvested, and hopefully can be handled as such in the accounting.
fab13n 14y ago