Of course! So have a look at me: worked 8 years in IT and saved about 150,000 USD in that time period. I paid taxes on this, mind you. To save this amount I had to live on much lower standard of living that my peers. My wife and my kid too. I quit the job, I'm trying to run a startup. I have a child, a wife and expenses related to that. Instead of getting regular income as everybody else, I spend my savings (accumulated capital) to try create something of value for the public. I take risks. My family does too. We live on 40000 dollars a year or less. Because I'm putting everything into this business. 2 years and 80000 so far plus income I lost by not working in 8-5 job in these 2 years.

Let's say it works out. I sell the business after 3 years for 1,000,000 dollars. You are telling me that it is fine to take 750,000 from me and from my family? For all the risks I took? For all the hard work? For years of living below standard my family could have afforded but decided to take risk and save, and invest? So, you would like to see me with just 1/4 of this? And give 3/4 to people who didn't take any risks, didn't save, are living comfortably (better than me!)

I don't think you understand. France is history.

If you sell it for 1,000,001 the 75% rate only applies to the extra 1. Not the whole 1,000,001 just the 1 that is over the million.

That's what is called a marginal taxe rate. Each tax braket only applies to the money within the backet range.

If you make 1,000,001 the first 6,000 are not taxed and the last one is taxed at 75%. (Or will be if we ever get that).

--

Edit : There also seems to be a concensus about selling not being taxed like a salary. I wouldn't know. But there was also quite a debate on whether the taxes on selling companies was to high.

Look, I have saved for few years to have initial funding for my business. This means I had to take away from myself and my family. To save for future business. So, in that period of time, I had lower standard of living that my coworkers. Right? Maybe my daughter couldn't get the toys her friend. could. Maybe we couldn't go for a vacation in 5 years. Maybe we had to live is small apartment vs. a house. Drive car that's not really nice. All of this to save money to invest in future business. Once the money was saved, I quit the regular job. Now, it's even worse. I have no income at all. And still have to pay bills for the family + spend on the business.

The statistics are 1 in 10 startups make it. 10% chances. So after additional 2 years working on the startup and burning all the savings, let's say - 10% chance - it worked. I made it, I sold the business.

You are telling me to tax people like me at 50%. And how do you think now, why in France there is no Silicon Valley? Because nobody in their right mind is going to work their butt off to be taxed at the end at 50%. It just doesn't add up. It would be better for me to stay with a regular job if I were in France. And in the end that's bad for France. It makes it much less competitive, much less innovative, and scares prospect capital off its borders. California alone has bigger economy than France. But in California nobody will punish you with a tax at 50% for trying to be innovative. And California has good roads and sewage system too. Without extreme taxation and business unfriendly environment.

And yes, it's about policies that make sense for the economic constraints of the government and the values of the voters. Key words there being values of the voters. France might have a very state-driven economy, but most of the world's top economies certainly don't take the American neoliberal wannabe-anarcho-capitalist approach.

And if the rate was 15% your guess is there would be even more start-ups or less? And if more, wouldn't that be more valuable for the Israeli economy than to give this 30% difference to politicians to waste?

>And yes, it's about policies that make sense for the >economic constraints of the government and the values of the >voters. Key words there being values of the voters.

Agree 100% here with you. However when people vote for something they rarely see the side-effects that quite often are much worse than the potential benefits. Like with cough medicine that gives you heart attack. People don't see things through at times. They'll vote for a politician who promises the most, understanding he'll go deeply in debt and not really caring that their children will have to pay it all off. Democracy gives the people great power, the problem is they don't want to accept responsibility for it. I have a great example here: In 1990s Democrats in the USA got this really good idea that all Americans should have a house. Even ones who couldn't afford it. What they did is they told the banks: look we (the Government) are going to guarantee all the mortgages. If you give a mortgage to someone and that person stops repaying it, the Government will buy the mortgage back using taxpayers money. And you know people voted for it. So all the folks who really weren't qualified got mortgages they couldn't afford. How markets work is that there is a balance between greed and fear. You're greedy to give someone a mortgage but afraid he will not repay. The Government took the fear part out of equation. Obviously the whole thing had to collapse. And in 2008 it did. And what caused that? Good intentions, socialism - let's give house to everyone. Now everyone's screwed over. And the funniest part is that now they blame bankers and capitalism for that. It was socialistic idea from the start.

>France might have a very state-driven economy, but most of >the world's top economies certainly don't take the American >neoliberal wannabe-anarcho-capitalist approach.

US is much more socialist they you could think. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Currently in the US there are more people who get Government benefits than those who pay the income tax. That's not capitalism. If you want to see capitalism look at China.

First: you're thinking of social-democracy, not socialism.

But honestly, using China as an argument in favor of capitalism is INCREDIBLY BAD. China looks pretty dystopian to outsiders.

And if the rate was 15% your guess is there would be even more start-ups or less? And if more, wouldn't that be more valuable for the Israeli economy than to give this 30% difference to politicians to waste?

If the rate was 15%, I would guess that there would be roughly the same amount of start-ups. Never has the real business world been shown to respond predominantly to income tax rates. Other factors have always dominated the issue of business formation: availability of skilled labor force, public R&D investment, available infrastructure, solid legal system, etc.

Good intentions, socialism - let's give house to everyone. Now everyone's screwed over.

Neither socialism nor social-democracy gives people loans. You're talking about some kind of weird American state-capitalist thingy. In a social democracy, there are what the Brits call "council houses": available houses or apartments literally owned by the local government and leased or given out based on human need.

Get your brain out of the America and into the sensible world.

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

I wouldn't start one with 45% tax rate, that's for sure. I agree I could start one if the chance of success were really good. I can take that. It's 45% tax, but I'm pretty sure it'll work out. But if you want to have a real risk-taking start-up creating a market - 45% will be a no-no. So that tax rate will force founders to look into easy solutions, not an innovative stuff that will change the world. That's why the really innovative things come out of the US because it still makes business sense to try starting them there. Google, MS, Facebook, Apple. These were all extremely high risk. No sense even approaching them with the Government cutting half of the potential reward when chances are 1 in 1000. 1 in 5 it may make sense. For my business now the rate is about 1 in 10. So, it wouldn't make sense with 45% going to the taxman. I'm sorry I wouldn't start my startup in Israel. Risk/reward ratio would be just too much against me. I'd rather sit with my ass in the comfortable office paying off mortgage.

Your council houses exist in the US too. They are called "projects" and are free housing for poor. Literally free: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#United_States

You see socialism in the US progressed so much that they are even one step in front of the Brits. After building all the Projects they decided to do even more "good" and started promising banks to repay poor's mortgages.

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?

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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

As the poster mentioned, if you are an entrepreneur, normally you forgo a steady salary and corporate benefits in order for a big payout later. When the government is going to take a huge chunk out of that payout when you've already been sacrificing hard just to get there - it begins to look less and less worth it.

I've spent my adult career going from startup to startup. Looking at the current regulatory and confiscatory tax environment, I don't know if I'd do the same starting over.

If I could go back 20 years, I'd probably just go work for a big company like IBM or UPS and stay there. If I'm noticing that pressure against entrepreneurs then others are noticing it too. The government is slowly but surely killing off drivers that increase risk taking.

That's a bad thing.

Utter bullshit. I'm an entrepreneur, and you know why I was able to create a company? Because of the very good French unemployment benefits that allowed me to build up my business for nearly two years after my previous startup failed! Without that, lacking a personal fortune I just wouldn't have been able to create the company.

Now you may not understand french but the table is quite understandable. Fist column the brackets, last column the marginal taxe rate.

You're so very wrong.

1° the 75 % tax doesn't apply if you reinvest the money in a new company. There are several different ways to avoid paying the tax through investment. It's a tax on revenue, earnings, NOT capital. If you use your money as capital, basically you'll never pay more than about 35% taxes overall.

2° you don't understand how marginal tax rates work. You pay 75% of tax on everything ABOVE 1 million. So if you sell your company for 2 millions, the 75% applies on the second million but not the first one.

I don't know about French taxation, but I don't think the sale of the business would be taxed as a million dollars of income.