[eli_gottlieb]

All very nice for you, but we've hit a core issue: you are now talking about your personal preferences for tax rates, rather than addressing the actual economic question regarding start-ups.

The economic question is: "At what level of taxation (both in terms of effective tax percentage and income level where it kicks in) do taxes become the largest factor preventing the formation of start-up companies?" We need to be talking about Big-O optimization: we should always solve first the problem that is largest and whose solution will cause the fewest new problems.

So, if the amount of startups would be the same why not to tax at 80% ? Would it still be the same?

See above. You are asking the wrong question: "Do we get more start-ups with a higher tax rate or a lower tax rate?" That assumes tax rates on high-income professionals (in Israel that 46% rate is for the top 10% of income-earners, the people earning the most income you can without owning a company) are the dominant factor in whether or not a start-up gets founded.

This assumption is ideologically based (in American anti-tax rhetoric) and almost definitely wrong. Why? It's obvious: a start-up founder running on savings and investment isn't actually bringing in enough new income to get hit with the top tax-rate! Think about it: if you're a founder getting your start-up going, in any country, do you burn your seed money to give yourself a salary in the top 10% of incomes, or do you forgo the larger personal income to keep more of the money in the business for a longer time? Obviously the latter.

So the tax rate on the rich and the upper-upper middle class is not the deciding factor. To pose a counterpoint: would you found a start-up in a country with a 10% income tax but no intellectual-property laws?

[LekkoscPiwa]

First of all, honestly, very nice talking to you. As a fiscal (not social!) conservative I enjoy discussions with more of a left-wing friends a lot! So, just wanted to say it's cool talking with you. Which doesn't mean I won't be trying to be badass bad dealing with your responses, lol.

>All very nice for you, but we've hit a core issue: you are >now talking about your personal preferences for tax rates, >rather than addressing the actual economic question >regarding start-ups. >The economic question is: "At what level of taxation (both >in terms of effective tax percentage and income level where >it kicks in) do taxes become the largest factor preventing> >the formation of start-up companies?" We need to be talking >about Big-O >optimization: we should always solve first the >problem that is largest and whose solution will cause the >fewest new problems.

That's not that difficult to answer that question really. Just look at the data. Where most of the successful start-ups that made it big come from? Start-ups that changed the world (innovation) or created whole new segments of the economy? Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, GitHub, Oracle, Intel, whatever. Where are they from? France? Israel? Japan? Australia? Canada? Russia? You know the answer. US. And as you pointed out yourself that is where the "anarcho-capitalism" (lol) is, so please connect the dots ;-) (no offense intended) Actually, the only start-up I can think of that made it big and is non-US based is Skype (based of the UK). You know any others in the IT that made it big and created a new market or changed the world or created whole new market segments and are not US-based?

I think that the business environment is important factor as well. If a country imposes 75% income tax on whoever/whatever it just tells you a whole lot about the public attitudes towards business and capital in that country. It is like a thermometer showing you have a fever. Once you see 39C degrees you know that's no good no matter what's the excuse. It's the same with the tax rate for the markets. 75% looks like very unfriendly place business-wise imposed no matter on whom and for what. This is why it scares off the capital. Because it shows that the general public treats businesses with suspicion. So maybe better to invest somewhere else.

>This assumption is ideologically based (in American anti-tax >rhetoric) and almost definitely wrong. Why? It's obvious: a >start-up founder running on savings and investment isn't >actually bringing in enough new income to get hit with the >top tax-rate! Think >about it: if you're a founder getting >your start-up going, in any country, do you burn your seed >money to give yourself a salary in the top 10% of incomes, >or do you forgo the larger personal income to keep more of >the money in the business for a longer >time? Obviously the >latter.

Obviously not. I work almost for free for many years for a prospect of a single huge payout at the end. If I sell my business for $1 million, I don't want half of it to be taken by the Government! Let me explain in more detail below.

Let' say I sell the business for $1M. Let's say the tax rate is 46%. So, after 2 years of work and investing $100k in it, I make the math: 1. My last job I made $150k a year. Two years equals $300k in lost income. 2. $100k invested from savings 3. Low quality of life for the family 4. $1,000,000 - $460,000 = $540,000 after taxes. (yes, I know it'll be less because rates are progressive, so let's say: $1,000,000 - $350,000 = $650,000) 5. $650,000 - $100k burnt savings - $300k lost income equals... yeah! I just made $250k profit! While the Government made $350k.

I invested years of my live, substandard living, and $100k in savings plus $300k in lost income. The Government invested nothing. Oh, actually it has been trying to make it as difficult for me as possible all the time because that what Governments do by design when they come in touch with any business: regulations, paperwork, imposing controls, etc. So, at the end: I made $250k. The Government made $350k. You call this fair because I could use roads and sewage system? Geeez, thanks!

Now look at these numbers again as they explain why you won't see Google or Amazon going out of France or Israel any time soon.

As I said in the previous post the tax scheme that you have in Israel works only with a short-term business plan that is a sure thing. Like an IT consultancy when I know that clients are there for sure. And they are there right now. So, I don't loose $300k in income and don't need $100k in savings to work on something without any income for another 2 years. I can start today and have income tomorrow. But that's NOT how innovation happens. I'm sorry. Innovation takes time and funding. Your taxation scheme kills it before it even has chance to happen.

>So the tax rate on the rich and the upper-upper middle class >is not the deciding factor. To pose a counterpoint: would >you found a start-up in a country with a 10% income tax but >no intellectual-property laws?

No. But I would in a country with comparatively low income tax and very strong intellectual property laws.

[eli_gottlieb]

That's not that difficult to answer that question really. Just look at the data. Where most of the successful start-ups that made it big come from? Start-ups that changed the world (innovation) or created whole new segments of the economy? Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, GitHub, Oracle, Intel, whatever. Where are they from? France? Israel? Japan? Australia? Canada? Russia? You know the answer. US. And as you pointed out yourself that is where the "anarcho-capitalism" (lol) is, so please connect the dots ;-) (no offense intended) Actually, the only start-up I can think of that made it big and is non-US based is Skype (based of the UK). You know any others in the IT that made it big and created a new market or changed the world or created whole new market segments and are not US-based?

This is the kind of experimental design that would and should fail an undergrad experimental-design course. And I really mean that, I'm not trying to make an ideological point or condescend to you. This is really bad reasoning.

Not only have you jumped to claiming that Correlation Equals Causation, you're not even correlating tax rates (the variable you want to examine) with start-up success. You're correlating national headquarters with start-up success, and then claiming this says something about tax rates.

The fact that US tax rates have themselves varied over time and place is counterevidence against your claim! What does it mean to you if California-with-high-tax-rates produces as many start-ups as California-with-low-tax-rates? Or what does it say about California versus Texas versus New York versus Massachusetts? The actual evidence points towards Silicon Valley being special somehow rather than a general effect from tax rates.

There's also a huge issue with the phrasing, "Start-ups that changed the world (innovation) or created whole new segments of the economy?" To once again reference HPMoR, yes, only your start-ups are in this new reference category you've constructed to include only them by definition.

Let' say I sell the business for $1M. Let's say the tax rate is 46%. So, after 2 years of work and investing $100k in it, I make the math: 1. My last job I made $150k a year. Two years equals $300k in lost income. 2. $100k invested from savings 3. Low quality of life for the family 4. $1,000,000 - $460,000 = $540,000 after taxes. (yes, I know it'll be less because rates are progressive, so let's say: $1,000,000 - $350,000 = $650,000) 5. $650,000 - $100k burnt savings - $300k lost income equals... yeah! I just made $250k profit! While the Government made $350k.

Sheer nonsense. Merely probably opportunity cost is not on the actual accounting books; you could have lost your job the next year anyway. You made $550k and the government got $350k.

Besides, if you already made $150k/year, you're ridiculously fortunate and you have no valid claim to society's pity. You made 61% of the net profits after a 46% tax rate, and for a small start-up sale like $1,000,000 a profit to the founder of $550k is pretty freaking good.

Now look at these numbers again as they explain why you won't see Google or Amazon going out of France or Israel any time soon.

http://mappedinisrael.com/ -- Try and stop us.

[LekkoscPiwa]

>This is the kind of experimental design that would and >should fail an undergrad experimental-design course. And I >really mean that, I'm not trying to make an ideological > >point or condescend to you. This is really bad reasoning.

So, do you know any any IT companies that made it big and created a new market or changed the world or created whole new market segments and are not US-based? Or not? I'm sorry, but I could care less about you reasoning if it has no evidence based in reality.

>The fact that US tax rates have themselves varied over time >and place is counterevidence against your claim! What does >it mean to you if California-with-high-tax-rates produces as >many start-ups as California-with-low-tax-rates? Or what >does it say about California versus Texas versus New York >versus Massachusetts? The actual evidence points towards >Silicon Valley being special somehow rather than a general >effect from tax rates.

Of course Sillicon Valley is somehow special. The same way Los Angeles is somehow special that it is de facto movie and music industries capital of the world, New York is finance capital of the world, Las Vegas is gambling capital of the world, Chicago is commodities trading capital of the world, and some claim New York is fashion capital of the world (heard it from a Parisian fashion designer), etc. You see, once you have friendly business economic environment, all types of beautiful and creative kind of things will happen all over the place. Not only in IT. Again probably theoritcally or academically you can come up with some "evidence" to the contrary, but the simple truth is that if you are serious actor, you will move to LA, if you are serious software developer, you'll move to SF and if you are seriously into finance you'll move to New York. And this wasn't built on 50% or more tax rates my friend. You are serious or you're not serious. With tax rates like this it looks like you're not really serious.

>There's also a huge issue with the phrasing, "Start-ups that >changed the world (innovation) or created whole new segments >of the economy?" To once again reference HPMoR, yes, only >your start-ups are in this new reference category you've >constructed to include only them by definition.

Thank you for admitting that if you want to change the world, you have to move to the US and open company there.

>Sheer nonsense. Merely probably opportunity cost is not on >the actual accounting books; you could have lost your job >the next year anyway. You made $550k and the government got >$350k.

Lol, yeah, or I could win $10M in the lottery. And seriously: you had your classes at College, I had mine. You do add lost opportunity cost in your business plan.

>Besides, if you already made $150k/year, you're ridiculously >fortunate and you have no valid claim to society's pity. You >made 61% of the net profits after a 46% tax rate, and for a >small start-up sale like $1,000,000 a profit to the founder >of $550k is pretty freaking good.

It's not 550k. Deduct the opportunity cost. And then it's mere 250k. Now, add all years of saving, unhappy wife, etc. No, it's not worth it. And how came you don't address the fairness part of the whole thing. The Government is almost like a mafia here that provides nothing, or comes up with some kind of a BS like "sewage, roads" (mafia says that they provide "security services), you know it's BS. And then they take bigger part of the profits than me! Hahaha, I guess I would be really "fortunate" for me then :-). The Government doesn't deserve it. And still it's good in Israel. Now imagine France and me selling it for let's say $3m. The Government would collect 75% from each dollar above $1m. Fortunate me, huh. :-) I can pay 75% of my sweat to the mafia because I sweat all my life trying to do something great vs. sitting as a Government employee from 8 to 5 all my life. Yeah sure, penalize me. I'm sure it has no impact on enterprenuers decisions in France now, lol, Im sure ;-)

Another point is that leaving money with the people and not the government is better for the economy too.

Finally, fortune has nothing to do with it, but people who believe in socialism don't get it.

> http://mappedinisrael.com/ -- Try and stop us.

Your Government and attitudes like your do good job enough in that stopping department (sadly). A little bit like a cancer on overall healthy body of the nation. Quite to the contrary I wish Israeli IT Scene all the best. However, it would be difficult for them to cope with that type of Government and society believing as strongly is socialism as you do. I mean sure you can be a success story. But with this penalizing tax rate forget about creating something more than US-validated clone ideas for the local market. Because with that type of taxation nothing else probably makes sense.

[eli_gottlieb]

Your willful self-delusion aids my cause, so I'm going to leave you to it.

[LekkoscPiwa]

As Schopenhauer famously noticed if you lack arguments start personal attacks on the discussant. No outside-US based good start-ups, no? No outside-US based strong movie industry, no? No outside-US based strong music industry, no? And list goes on and on.

Socialism works. For the capitalistic US and China it does! Because once you impose economic barriers on yourself they have much easier job competing with you. Hence why 'cancer'. Cells killing the body that hosts them.

[eli_gottlieb]

I'm not making a personal attack; I'm pointing out that you're completely ignoring the real evidence put before you.

For instance, if Israeli start-ups suck so much, why do your vaunted American investors keep buying them?