4 ms·
That would be true if this were morally neutral. But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice, the right met
by pg 13y ago
That would be true if this were morally neutral. But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice, the right metaphor is not critical mass but a crack in dam.
- nabeel 13y agoWell put pg. It isn't that the money was that material, it just felt wrong and petty that it was being done in the first place so we wanted to fix it. Just feels silly we didn't do it a lot sooner.
- jacquesm 13y agoIs your fund sales tax exempt? (In other words are you able to deduct sales tax from your earnings before taxes?) If so you may just end up making the tax man happy and reducing the amount you can invest by whatever sales tax applies in your location. Depending on your process costs and deal-flow this could add up over time.
- tptacek 13y agoSales tax?
- darkarmani 13y agoMaybe for catering all of the multiparty meetings?
- jacquesm 13y agoIn the EU sales tax (VAT, whatever) is added to every business-to-business transaction and later refunded. If your fund is classed as financial services sector then you may be sales tax exempt. This has certain tax advantages but really doesn't help when you start to receive substantial bills (such as legal fees on a transaction of this magnitude) with sales tax added to them because you can't deduct the sales tax on your own filings.
- tptacek 13y agoYeah, not here.
- larrys 13y ago"But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice" I don't feel (given what I know about this) that it's an "abuse" or though I can absolutely see what it is viewed this way. And of course the people who are charging it are going to justify it by saying "it's standard practice" because that is the easiest way to get beyond the objection and smooth things out. People have certain ideas of what they find right and just and don't think rationally about what it really means relative to the entire transaction. For example you could go to a restaurant where the steak dinner costs $30 but feel it is an abuse because they want $1.50 for a glass of tap water. Or they want to charge you to use the restroom. But if you go to an equivalent restaurant which charges $35 and gives you free tap water and bathroom you wouldn't think twice (merely focusing on whether you think you got value for the $35 meal). The reason people have to rely on arguments of "standard practice" is because they are quick and easy and get by objections much easier then a lengthy discussion. It's a time saver.