6 ms·

So what is the social function of Renaissance not paying $6B in taxes? How does this benefit society?

by frandroid 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  wat.
onetimeusename 12y ago
Renaissance did not avoid $6b in taxes. They never owned the stock in the baskets that the politicians claimed they did. The payout to risk ratio of the options is most likely why they were invested. There can't be a social function to not paying because there was nothing to pay.
- hsitz 12y ago
  I don't know specifically about Renaissance's case, but they may well have avoided $6B in taxes if a lot of their fees were categorized as "carried interest". (I don't think the particular fact that they invest in derivatives has anything to do with it.) For hedge funds any fees they accrue for "performance" are carried interest and not subject to regular income tax, though they will eventually be taxed at the capital gains rate. E.g., if a hedge fund charges 2% of assets annually, plus 20% of annual increases in asset value over 8%, the 2% fee would be taxed as regular income and the performance part (20% of increases > 8%) would accrue to them as carried interest, treated as capital gains. You can read more about this at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest My not-so-informed belief is that while there may originally have been a decent rationale for treating hedge fund performance fees as carried interest, in many (most?) modern hedge fund scenarios that categorization is misapplied. In any case, the treatment as carried interest is legal, at least for now.
  - damoncali 12y ago
    Those taxes are not avoided - it's just the current tax law. Money put at risk is taxed as capital gains. You don't automatically get carried interest - if you don't perform, it's zero. Think of it as a portion of their salary that they are contractually bound to invest in the fund, with deference to the limited partners. Do we really want to have fund managers without skin in their own funds? Carried interest is the only way to do that that does not favor the fantastically rich - who have enough advantages already. Ask yourself what might happen to the private fund industry (VC, PE, hedge funds, real estate, etc) if managers were not able to get carry. How would their compensation change? Which funds would benefit? Do we really want that?
    - inthewoods 12y ago
      It's not an issue of whether someone should get carried interest - it's an issue of the rate at which that carried interest is taxed. Funds are essentially providing a service for a given investor but getting taxed as though it was all their own money in the fund - which is not the case in most funds. Instead, what the funds are doing is essentially providing investment advice - for which the fees should be taxed at normal rates rather than at the carried rate as though it is all their own money. So I have no issue with the manager getting carried interest or being taxed at lower rates on their own money - but when they take money from outside investors, they should be taxed at normal rates.
      - damoncali 12y ago
        I won't argue that our tax code is anything but ridiculous. But treating carried interest and capital gains the same way makes sense - it's money put at risk as an investment. I don't think it's relevant that in one case cash is risked and in another case it's compensation at risk. Nobody is goign to argue that the management fee is capital gains because it isn't - it's guaranteed cash. It's different. I think you can argue that capital gains shouldn't be taxed differently than income at all (not sure what I think of that, honestly), but if carried interest has to be in either the "income" bucket or the "gains" bucket, it looks more like gains to me.

So what is the social function of Renaissance not paying $6B in taxes? How does this benefit society?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

georgemcbay 12y ago
wat.

onetimeusename 12y ago

Renaissance did not avoid $6b in taxes. They never owned the stock in the baskets that the politicians claimed they did. The payout to risk ratio of the options is most likely why they were invested. There can't be a social function to not paying because there was nothing to pay.

hsitz 12y ago
I don't know specifically about Renaissance's case, but they may well have avoided $6B in taxes if a lot of their fees were categorized as "carried interest". (I don't think the particular fact that they invest in derivatives has anything to do with it.) For hedge funds any fees they accrue for "performance" are carried interest and not subject to regular income tax, though they will eventually be taxed at the capital gains rate. E.g., if a hedge fund charges 2% of assets annually, plus 20% of annual increases in asset value over 8%, the 2% fee would be taxed as regular income and the performance part (20% of increases > 8%) would accrue to them as carried interest, treated as capital gains. You can read more about this at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest My not-so-informed belief is that while there may originally have been a decent rationale for treating hedge fund performance fees as carried interest, in many (most?) modern hedge fund scenarios that categorization is misapplied. In any case, the treatment as carried interest is legal, at least for now.
- damoncali 12y ago
  Those taxes are not avoided - it's just the current tax law. Money put at risk is taxed as capital gains. You don't automatically get carried interest - if you don't perform, it's zero. Think of it as a portion of their salary that they are contractually bound to invest in the fund, with deference to the limited partners. Do we really want to have fund managers without skin in their own funds? Carried interest is the only way to do that that does not favor the fantastically rich - who have enough advantages already. Ask yourself what might happen to the private fund industry (VC, PE, hedge funds, real estate, etc) if managers were not able to get carry. How would their compensation change? Which funds would benefit? Do we really want that?
  - inthewoods 12y ago
    It's not an issue of whether someone should get carried interest - it's an issue of the rate at which that carried interest is taxed. Funds are essentially providing a service for a given investor but getting taxed as though it was all their own money in the fund - which is not the case in most funds. Instead, what the funds are doing is essentially providing investment advice - for which the fees should be taxed at normal rates rather than at the carried rate as though it is all their own money. So I have no issue with the manager getting carried interest or being taxed at lower rates on their own money - but when they take money from outside investors, they should be taxed at normal rates.
    - damoncali 12y ago
      I won't argue that our tax code is anything but ridiculous. But treating carried interest and capital gains the same way makes sense - it's money put at risk as an investment. I don't think it's relevant that in one case cash is risked and in another case it's compensation at risk. Nobody is goign to argue that the management fee is capital gains because it isn't - it's guaranteed cash. It's different. I think you can argue that capital gains shouldn't be taxed differently than income at all (not sure what I think of that, honestly), but if carried interest has to be in either the "income" bucket or the "gains" bucket, it looks more like gains to me.