Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#21

Post by gjm11 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18
fletchowns wrote: post #7

Seems like some very reasonable proposals that have the potential to make a huge impact. support long-term unemployed workers who create their own jobs by starting their own companies nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety new science labs and Internet-ready classrooms BusinessUSA within 90 days...one-stop online platform will provide access to information about the full range of government prog…

There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever raising taxes for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to the early 80s: Instead of focusing on one particular tax rate (marginal individual rates) and ignoring all the others, why not just look at tax revenues? They've been more or less flat (at 18.1% of GDP) for the past 50 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-bud…

The people arguing that taxes on high earners should not be raised (and should perhaps even be lowered) are mostly not saying "The government's revenues are too high"; they are saying that those tax rates are too high -- that higher upper-band income tax rates are unjust, or will reduce the incentive to work harder, or something of the sort.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were.

Incidentally, it seems pretty odd to me to say "more or less flat" and give a number as precise as 18.1% when the actual variations have been from 15% to over 20%. I wouldn't call that "more or less flat" (though I would agree there's no long-term trend, which is an entirely different matter) -- but, regardless of that, I suggest an experiment. Ask someone to plot a graph of something that's "more or less flat at 18.1%", a graph of something that's "more or less flat at 18%", or a graph of something that's "more or less flat, between 15% and 20%". I predict that the first will be much, much flatter than the actual revenue graph; the second will merely be much flatter; and the third might be about right (though probably still too flat; "varying between 15% and 20%" would most likely get you a better result).

In other words, your choice of wording gives a very false impression of how the graph actually behaves.

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#22

Post by melling »

marze wrote: post #9
Locke1689 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of worthless comment I hoped would never become commonplace on Hacker News. There's no argument here. There's no point. It's just an snide jab with an information content of zero. If you disagree with the article, say specifically why. If you agree, say specifically why.

I think wavephorm makes a valid point. The government has been giving huge sums to the banking industry to bail it out, a fact. And a tiny fraction of that to entrepreneurs, also a fact. If the US had more startup-friendly policies, you could imaging a $100B fund, still 1/40th of the banking industry bailout, that could have a huge positive effect. Being aware of the disparity is the first step toward correcting it.

Giving or lending? I can't find accurate numbers. Much of the money was loaned to companies to weather the crisis. It had to be paid back. How would lending to a bunch of risky startups make things better? The govt should create an environment where it is desirable for entrepreneurs and investors to take risks.

Anyway, whining about the financial crisis and saying they got more is pointless. What is the best way to create a system in which startups can thrive? Guaranteed loans for everyone probably isn't the answer.

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#23

Post by ig1 »

learc83 wrote: post #12

I wish the president had used this opportunity to support real patent reform. That could've been a huge step toward supporting startups and job creation.

How many people do you know who didn't create a startup because of patents ?

I'm not saying patent reform isn't important, but it's probably not even in the top-100 problems the average startup faces.

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#25

Post by watchandwait »

tomelders wrote: post #24

From the outside looking in, I really don't understand why Obama's approval ratings are at an all time low. I wish the UK were as elegantly pragmatic as this.

The U.S. economy is stalled because of a wave of government legislative activism (health care, finance, bailouts, energy, labor) unseen here since the New Deal.

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#26

Post by yardie »

melling wrote: post #22
marze wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think wavephorm makes a valid point. The government has been giving huge sums to the banking industry to bail it out, a fact. And a tiny fraction of that to entrepreneurs, also a fact. If the US had more startup-friendly policies, you could imaging a $100B fund, still 1/40th of the banking industry bailout, that could have a huge positive effect. Being aware of the disparity is the first step toward correcting it.

Giving or lending? I can't find accurate numbers. Much of the money was loaned to companies to weather the crisis. It had to be paid back. How would lending to a bunch of risky startups make things better? The govt should create an environment where it is desirable for entrepreneurs and investors to take risks. Anyway, whining about the financial crisis and saying they got more is pointless. What is the best way to c…

If I offer to buy something from you worth $1 and give you $100 for it do you consider that a $99 loan?

Yes TARP was paid back by the banks. The bigger problem is the highly overvalued junk assets the government assumed from them though. It's into the trillions and is being downplayed by the media.

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#27

Post by david927 »

robot wrote: post #20
david927 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at OpenStarts.com

sounds interesting, but I think one problem will be the number of shareholders are often limited. You may run into issues like the differences between public/private companies. Did you think of how you might solve that?

Thanks for checking it out. The companies are public and there's no limit to the number of shareholders.

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#28

Post by HistoryInAction »

learc83 wrote: post #12

I wish the president had used this opportunity to support real patent reform. That could've been a huge step toward supporting startups and job creation.

Protect IP Act passed today, I believe, which is a real bummer for actual patent reform that will promote innovation, since the system was just shifted from a 'first to invent' to a 'first to file,' supporting patent farming/fencing and litigation. Bummer :(

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#29

Post by HistoryInAction »

robot wrote: post #19
david927 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at OpenStarts.com

I meant more in the form of U.S. startup visa, but thanks.

I do political coordinating for Startup Visa. Anything with 'visa' = immigration, which is a whole other can of (political) worms. The White House/OSTP is certainly aware of Startup Visa and understands how important it is to the tech community, as they've mentioned the policy during the Facebook and Twitter town halls, as well as the President's El Paso immigration speech. However, few in the political world have made the connection between startup visa and jobs.

In their defense, I just finished up some first order analysis, based on the Startup Genome report. Startup Visa as is currently proposed in the S. 565/H.R. 1114—supported by folks like pg and Brad Feld—would create about 15,000 jobs and nearly $1B in revenue during the first two years. To contrast this with the macroeconomic situation, the US needs to create 125,000 jobs each month to keep up with population growth. Now if someone can get me an economic multiplier number, reflecting the fact that tech companies like Facebook are highly leveraged in terms of the economic impact:jobs creation ratio, that'd be a different fish on Capitol Hill...

Assumptions: cap of '10,000-X' visas, based on the number of unused visas in the EB-5 Investor Visa that would be made available as Startup Visas; no more than 4000 EB-5 visas have ever been granted in a single year to date; 5000 Startup Visas is a reasonable first-order guess

Data comes from the Startup Genome survival rates, jobs created per startup stage, and revenue ranges.

I'm looking for help for anyone interested in advancing Startup Visa on Capitol Hill, so drop me a message: http://www.quora.com/Craig-Montuori

Also, if anyone's interested, there's a call tomorrow hosted by the White House on the 'America Jobs Act': "Business Leaders Briefing Call

What: Overview of President Obama's “American Jobs Act” Who: A Senior White House Official Time: 1:00 p.m. EDT Conference Call Number: (866) 615-1890 Participant Access Code: 216408"

Re: White House proposes crowdfunding exemption

#30

Post by TuaAmin13 »

gjm11 wrote: post #21
yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever raising taxes for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to the early 80s: Instead of focusing on one particular tax rate (marginal individual rates) and ignoring all the others, why not just look at tax revenues? They've been more or less flat (at 18.1% of GDP) for the past 50 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-bud…

The people arguing that taxes on high earners should not be raised (and should perhaps even be lowered) are mostly not saying "The government's revenues are too high"; they are saying that those tax rates are too high -- that higher upper-band income tax rates are unjust, or will reduce the incentive to work harder, or something of the sort. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that…

"It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were."

In the olden days the top tax rates were incredibly high (90%), but you didn't actually pay that; you had a ton of deductions to lower you actual paid rate.

Forgetting that argument for a second, was there an opportunity cost that doesn't exist today? With those periods of innovation and wealth creation, did they only happen because we were the "best" location at the time? As in, it didn't matter what the rates were because the US was the best place given the infrastructure you require. Now you can go to many places on the globe and get the same stuff done. Wouldn't that imply that the US has to become more competitive in order to promote growth, and part of that competitiveness (the variables we can manipulate) would be lowering marginal income taxes.

Post reply on HN