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

President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

goodwinprocter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#41

Post by roc »

harold wrote: post #40
roc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a permanent burden in taxation or inflation on the economy that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it." Which bill is it that massively increases the size of government?

Healthcare? Without debating the merits of the bill, there's no doubt that it represents a huge increase in government bureaucracy.

What's "huge"? Similarly, what's the benefit of considering "expansion" of government bureaucracy without the context of its budget impact?

i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government?

e.g. Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government?

Looking at one side of the equation it's trivial to see that we have. But looking at the whole equation, in context, it's just as trivial to see that we haven't; not in any practical, useful sense.

So pardon me if I'm deeply skeptical of people arguing about only one side of the equation and with subjective measurements to boot.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#42

Post by rick888 »

roc wrote: post #41
harold wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare? Without debating the merits of the bill, there's no doubt that it represents a huge increase in government bureaucracy.

What's "huge"? Similarly, what's the benefit of considering "expansion" of government bureaucracy without the context of its budget impact? i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government? e.g. Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of…

"i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government?"

When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost?

"Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government?"

The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them? Also, who decides how long we are going to wait and see if they will be successful..and how long would be considered successful? 1 year? 5? 10?

My other problem is that the Democrats will never admit when something just doesn't work. If a tax hike fails to improve the economy, we either didn't increase taxes enough (or fast enough) or the economy is so bad because of Bush that anybody in their position would have a problem. The faithful Democrat voter believes this crap and we get to keep repeating things that have already been shown to fail.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#43

Post by WildUtah »

endtime wrote: post #33
WildUtah wrote: post #17

Does this have to be an ordinary corporation, or does an LLC taxed as a C corporation count as a corporation here? It's a lot less hassle and paperwork to have an LLC.

I believe you have to be a C corp...we're an LLC and we've talked about converting before the end of the year specifically for this.

Looks like my state has reduced requirements for single-shreholder corporations so I could start out with one of those this year and deal with complications when I add partners. It's just a choice of one day of formalities and pain today for a chance that I will want to sell it in five years.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#44

Post by addoway »

The exclusion won't apply in this case, because as some indicated below, LLC's are not corporations and most angels invest alone or as a group under a LLC.

After some thought, I just don't see this bill creating any additional investments outside of those that were already going to happen.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#45

Post by anamax »

_pius wrote: post #24
anamax wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> angels usually invest as individuals or via LLCs LLCs are corporations. I wonder what the bill actually says.

LLCs are not corporations, at least not in the United States.

My mistake - I thought that the limited liability aspect was defining of corporations.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#46

Post by mkramlich »

lzw wrote: post #27

A very obscure, complicated and short term bill that lets democrat congressmen go back to their districts and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc. Minimal effect, and on top of it, it is overwhelmed by bills already signed that do significant damage to the economy. For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a pe…

> and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc.

... because they did.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#47

Post by mkramlich »

lzw wrote: post #27

A very obscure, complicated and short term bill that lets democrat congressmen go back to their districts and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc. Minimal effect, and on top of it, it is overwhelmed by bills already signed that do significant damage to the economy. For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a pe…

> that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it.

... that almost all economists agreed would stimulate it. Important clarification.

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#49

Post by shasta »

ojbyrne wrote: post #29
jbl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reading is that one needs only to purchase the stock before Jan 1, 2011 and then hold it for at least five years. Gains from sale of the stock after that would then be taxed according to this new bill.

Ah, I guess it could be read that way: "which includes a temporary exclusion for 100% of the gain recognized by non-corporate investors from the sale of qualified small business stock (“QSBS”) acquired after September 27, 2010 and before January 1, 2011" so the dates apply to "acquired" rather than "recognized." It's pretty ambiguously worded.

I find it almost impossible to read the sentence your way because you'd have to split the phrase "acquired after September..."

Re: President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing

#50

Post by roc »

rick888 wrote: post #42
roc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "huge"? Similarly, what's the benefit of considering "expansion" of government bureaucracy without the context of its budget impact? i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government? e.g. Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of…

"i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government?" When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost? "Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion do…

> "When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost?"

Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government?

> "The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them?"

I was making a point about the whole equation. If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely".

> "If a tax hike fails to improve the economy" No-one has proposed that tax hikes will improve the economy. Tax hikes are proposed to reduce the deficit. Which, by definition, would depress the economy.

I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react.

Post reply on HN