

White House proposes crowdfunding exemption  - uripom
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/08/president-s-american-jobs-act-fueling-innovation-and-entrepreneurship

======
fletchowns
Seems like some very reasonable proposals that have the potential to make a
huge impact.

 _support long-term unemployed workers who create their own jobs by starting
their own companies_

 _nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety_

 _new science labs and Internet-ready classrooms_

 _BusinessUSA within 90 days...one-stop online platform will provide access to
information about the full range of government programs and services
businesses need to compete globally_

I'm happy to pay my taxes, personally I don't think there is a much better use
of my money than improving the lives of the people in this country, or any
country for that matter (once my basic needs are met, of course). Putting
people to work is just an awesome side effect of improving our infrastructure
and schools. If there is wasteful spending in the government, identify it, and
get rid of it. There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever
raising taxes for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to
the early 80s:
[http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_histo...](http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf)
[PDF]

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans are willing to compromise on
increasing revenue, and the Democrats on entitlement programs, in order to
meet the goal Obama has set for the deficit reductions, which is what will
ultimately determine if The American Jobs Act will come to fruition.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever raising taxes
for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to the early
80s:_

Instead of focusing on one particular tax rate (marginal individual rates) and
ignoring all the others, why not just look at tax revenues?

They've been more or less flat (at 18.1% of GDP) for the past 50 years.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-budget-
ove...](http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-budget-
overview-2011-1?op=1)

~~~
gjm11
The people arguing that taxes on high earners should not be raised (and should
perhaps even be lowered) are mostly not saying "The government's revenues are
too high"; they are saying that _those tax rates_ are too high -- that higher
upper-band income tax rates are unjust, or will reduce the incentive to work
harder, or something of the sort.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that
upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that
innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were.

Incidentally, it seems pretty odd to me to say "more or less flat" and give a
number as precise as 18.1% when the actual variations have been from 15% to
over 20%. I wouldn't call that "more or less flat" (though I would agree
there's no long-term trend, which is an entirely different matter) -- but,
regardless of that, I suggest an experiment. Ask someone to plot a graph of
something that's "more or less flat at 18.1%", a graph of something that's
"more or less flat at 18%", or a graph of something that's "more or less flat,
between 15% and 20%". I predict that the first will be much, much flatter than
the actual revenue graph; the second will merely be much flatter; and the
third might be about right (though probably still too flat; "varying between
15% and 20%" would most likely get you a better result).

In other words, your choice of wording gives a very false impression of how
the graph actually behaves.

~~~
TuaAmin13
"It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that
upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that
innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were."

In the olden days the top tax rates were incredibly high (90%), but you didn't
actually pay that; you had a ton of deductions to lower you actual paid rate.

Forgetting that argument for a second, was there an opportunity cost that
doesn't exist today? With those periods of innovation and wealth creation, did
they only happen because we were the "best" location at the time? As in, it
didn't matter what the rates were because the US was the best place given the
infrastructure you require. Now you can go to many places on the globe and get
the same stuff done. Wouldn't that imply that the US has to become more
competitive in order to promote growth, and part of that competitiveness (the
variables we can manipulate) would be lowering marginal income taxes.

------
bmahmood
Its exciting to watch this proposal start to come to fruition. I worked in the
government, and attended an Access to Capital Summit in the Dept of Treasury
back in March, where I saw this proposal take bloom.

At the Summit, Jessica Jackley of Profounder and Kiva vocally voiced concern
for the Reg A and Reg D restrictions on "accredited investors". Sec Geithner
was in the room as well. A month afterwards, the idea had organically
permeated other conversations in the White House, and meetings in the OSTP
would often bring up the issue. Now it seems its finally made its way into
legislative proposal.

Comes to show I think, that even though government is slow, byzantine, and
sometimes impossible to access, often all it takes to get something done is to
just show up and say something really provocative. Someone may listen!

------
Zakharov
How can you spend "$25 billion in K-12 school infrastructure" and "$1 billion
to support NextGen air traffic modernization" "all without adding a dime to
the deficit"? I think the programs should go ahead deficit or no, but it does
seem like something's being left out.

~~~
bmahmood
Often its by just shuffling funds from certain programs to another. I believe
in this particular case, they'll also use revenue-generating measures like
closing tax loopholes to fund the new programs, thereby not adding to the
deficit.

------
teyc
Kudos to KickStarter and the two projects for getting a mention on
Whitehouse.gov

------
learc83
I wish the president had used this opportunity to support real patent reform.
That could've been a huge step toward supporting startups and job creation.

~~~
HistoryInAction
Protect IP Act passed today, I believe, which is a real bummer for actual
patent reform that will promote innovation, since the system was just shifted
from a 'first to invent' to a 'first to file,' supporting patent
farming/fencing and litigation. Bummer :(

~~~
dctoedt
Protect IP didn't pass; it was the America Invents Act (patent reform).

~~~
HistoryInAction
Thanks for the correction. I keep mixing the two up :-\

------
iamdave
In a way, I kind of wished they had linked to something a little more relevant
with the Kickstarter link. There was some strong talk about transportation
infrastructure and technology leading that in the president's speech tonight

I realize it's reaching, but I think maybe using the revolights project page
to suggestively highlight transportation/infrastructure is an important theme
as a part of the Jobs Bill.

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/revolights/revolights-
jo...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/revolights/revolights-join-the-
revolution?ref=spotlight)

------
auston
If I am interpreting this correctly, they want to deregulate small-scale angel
investing up to $1m? So long as the risk is largely distributed?

This sounds like a good plan, at least on the surface!

------
david927
The regulations regarding funding for private firms stems from a time when it
was much harder to do qualification. With the changes in technology and the
emerging reputation economy, the risks of such investing have diminished.
Especially if it's capped, opening up investment to the average person would
cause an explosion in innovation and job creation that would offset the harm
cause by fraud. I'm extremely excited by this!

------
mathgladiator
That is some crazy PR for kickstarter. Wow!

------
robot
I wish they had something for alien founders creating jobs.

~~~
david927
Take a look at OpenStarts.com

~~~
robot
sounds interesting, but I think one problem will be the number of shareholders
are often limited. You may run into issues like the differences between
public/private companies. Did you think of how you might solve that?

~~~
david927
Thanks for checking it out. The companies are public and there's no limit to
the number of shareholders.

------
wavephorm
Trillions for banksters, millions for the entrepreneurs. It's a start I
suppose.

~~~
Locke1689
This is the kind of worthless comment I hoped would never become commonplace
on Hacker News. There's no argument here. There's no point. It's just an snide
jab with an information content of zero. If you disagree with the article, say
_specifically_ why. If you agree, say _specifically_ why.

~~~
marze
I think wavephorm makes a valid point. The government has been giving huge
sums to the banking industry to bail it out, a fact. And a tiny fraction of
that to entrepreneurs, also a fact.

If the US had more startup-friendly policies, you could imaging a $100B fund,
still 1/40th of the banking industry bailout, that could have a huge positive
effect.

Being aware of the disparity is the first step toward correcting it.

~~~
melling
Giving or lending? I can't find accurate numbers. Much of the money was loaned
to companies to weather the crisis. It had to be paid back. How would lending
to a bunch of risky startups make things better? The govt should create an
environment where it is desirable for entrepreneurs and investors to take
risks.

Anyway, whining about the financial crisis and saying they got more is
pointless. What is the best way to create a system in which startups can
thrive? Guaranteed loans for everyone probably isn't the answer.

~~~
yardie
If I offer to buy something from you worth $1 and give you $100 for it do you
consider that a $99 loan?

Yes TARP was paid back by the banks. The bigger problem is the highly
overvalued junk assets the government assumed from them though. It's into the
trillions and is being downplayed by the media.

------
tomelders
From the outside looking in, I really don't understand why Obama's approval
ratings are at an all time low. I wish the UK were as elegantly pragmatic as
this.

~~~
watchandwait
The U.S. economy is stalled because of a wave of government legislative
activism (health care, finance, bailouts, energy, labor) unseen here since the
New Deal.

~~~
cbs
>The U.S. economy is stalled because of a wave of government legislative
activism

Really? I thought it was that dive in consumer demand.

