Hacker News Reader

Comment by endtime | Hacker News Reader

Not sure this is hacker news, but if it is, could we skip the blogspam and link straight to the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10349679.stm)? The blog post doesn't add any value.

View on HN

Agreed that the link should go to the BBC source article, but for what it's worth, general business/finance stuff is generally considered to be on topic here, because of the large overlap with general finance topics and startups.

My "not sure" was meant literally, for what it's worth. Though I think saying startups -> money -> Russian tax policy is a bit of a stretch.

I agree that the connection is tenuous, but long-term capital gains taxes are of special interest to founders since they affect their net returns on exits.

For someone like me, a European interested in doing startups, this is very interesting. Depending on controlled foreign company (tax) laws this might mean Russia will become a zero tax jurisdiction for business owners with income from patents, licenses, domain names, ecommerce etc. If these sources of income belong to companies in countries with zero corporate tax.

Edit: Russia does not (at the moment) have CFC laws. It may be time to learn russian...

It does embed that absolutely hilarious Cato Institute video.

Center for Freedom and Prosperity is not Cato; it is not a Cato Institute video.

The person speaking in the video identifies himself as an employee of the Cato Institute, it's not hard to imagine why I made the mistake. Not to mention the fact that half of the board of directors (and some of the listed experts) of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity work for or have worked for the Cato Institute.

In any case, you are correct, the video was created by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, and I apologize for the error.

That video was shockingly slanted. The guy presenting it was also very punchable-looking.

Eh, wha the video was not slanted? Did you guys watch it?!?

I think there are just a lot of people who agree with the slant. Agree or not, though, it was obviously one sided.

I don't mind people agreeing with the slant because it is a fair economic argument to make but to just mark me down for pointing out the slant is harsh IMO.

That video was full of stuff complaining that you get taxed on EARNINGS from investments and trying to equate that to being taxed twice on the same principal sum. This is nonsense. You're being taxed for earnings and then earnings made from those earnings. That's two separate sums.

The chap was trying to make out that people were being punished for saving as opposed to spending but failed to consider consumption taxes such as sales tax or VAT (in Europe). You don't get punished for saving, you place your money in the bank and it remains there, no punishment. You do get punished for earnings gained by those savings but that's to be expected because that is technically income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com