undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgiantg24y ago0 comments

But how are those used as loopholes? Aren't these policies that were enacted for the the purposes of giving tax breaks to small businesses?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

varelse4y ago· 1 in thread

If you define small business as $10M in the former and $100M market caps in the latter then sure. Now imagine having a portfolio of such "small businesses" like this. I'm hoping we can agree this is abusing the law, but I give up mostly.

I'm at the point of telling all the billionaires who somehow can't figure out what their assets are worth for a wealth tax (yet seem to always know their total net worth down to the dollar or so) to tell us what their assets are worth, whatever their hearts desire it should be and pay taxes on that value. Except now all such assets go on to an exchange where anyone can buy it immediately for that price. Thank you Robert Heinlein for that idea.

giantg2OP4y ago

It depends on how you determine market cap on private equity. $10M still seems like a small business. $100M might, and could be consistent with the worker limit found in other small business definitions (<200 people).

If they are legitimate businesses, then I don't see the problem with having a portfolio of them. Each one can be a significant risk. If they aren't legitimate, then additional regulations should be formed. If you still think it's a problem to have a portfolio, then they could change the language to use the limit as an aggregate of all businesses owned/sold.

"I'm at the point of telling all the billionaires who somehow can't figure out what their assets are worth for a wealth tax"

It's not just them. Forbes has this issue when ranking them. The IRS needs to be able to validate the numbers too, which is unlikely.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse