undefined | Better HN

0 pointsseibelj4y ago0 comments

Why is raising taxes on the QSBS not what “tax the rich” means? It’s literally a 100% tax-free benefit to the owners of businesses, up to $10 million per year.

I support and like the QSBS, but it is exactly the sort of thing the average voter would say is a “tax loophole for the rich”.

0 comments

romanhn4y ago

Whom do you lump under "owners of businesses"? Because early employees are impacted as well, seeing how they own company stock. And there are a lot more of those, than just the founders.

seibeljOP4y ago

Why does anyone deserve to pay 0% tax on gains, even for early stage companies? Why not the guy who works in the sewer or digs ditches for a living? It reeks of plutocracy.

And again, I support the QSBS. I'm trying to put things into perspective for the HN crowd that somehow sees 6 to 8 figure payouts as something that deserves 0% tax, yet also votes for liberal politicians. These things do not square, at least for the average non-techie voter.

romanhn4y ago

It has nothing to do with "deserving" it. Tax breaks exist, generally, to create specific incentives. In this case, the incentive is to promote small businesses by parking cash with them at an early stage, despite the added risk. Removing this break will disincentize early investment and/or make it harder for businesses to stay capitalized in their formative years.

1 more reply

refurb4y ago

This is exactly what people call out - "Yes we should raise taxes on the other guy, not me!".

hamandcheese4y ago

The average voter likely doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the difference between high income and high wealth.

I think “tax the rich” the way most people think of it would have to be some form of wealth tax.

seibeljOP4y ago

I think if you presented the facts - that even early employees of tech companies, who already earn some of the highest salaries in the world, can make up to $10 million per year tax free - the average voter would say that's criminally unfair.

Sure sure, you can explain that the latest SaaS bullshit is just an absolutely crucial achievement in human history that needs this, but I think it won't be convincing.

hamandcheese4y ago

The key “argument” in my mind is this: why are we trying so hard to tax those who might become wealthy but seemingly make no effort to tax those who already are wealthy?

I agree, that probably isn’t compelling to many, but I suspect it is a view found commonly here on HN.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

romanhn4y ago

Whom do you lump under "owners of businesses"? Because early employees are impacted as well, seeing how they own company stock. And there are a lot more of those, than just the founders.

seibeljOP4y ago

Why does anyone deserve to pay 0% tax on gains, even for early stage companies? Why not the guy who works in the sewer or digs ditches for a living? It reeks of plutocracy.

romanhn4y ago

1 more reply

refurb4y ago

This is exactly what people call out - "Yes we should raise taxes on the other guy, not me!".

hamandcheese4y ago

The average voter likely doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the difference between high income and high wealth.

I think “tax the rich” the way most people think of it would have to be some form of wealth tax.

seibeljOP4y ago

Sure sure, you can explain that the latest SaaS bullshit is just an absolutely crucial achievement in human history that needs this, but I think it won't be convincing.

hamandcheese4y ago

The key “argument” in my mind is this: why are we trying so hard to tax those who might become wealthy but seemingly make no effort to tax those who already are wealthy?

I agree, that probably isn’t compelling to many, but I suspect it is a view found commonly here on HN.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse