Raising taxes will stifle investing. I recently tried to fund an invention..

[C......N......C]

There is no money available from private investors. People with money are holding onto it with a fist of iron. How does this reconcile with the argument that raising taxes will stifle investing.

[WeDidIt]

1. Uh...wow

<click>

[ShortnFiery]

2. And if they are given significant tax breaks they will blithely take their money OVERSEAS.

Either way, we're screwed so it's beyond time the filthy rich pay their share.

[tridim]

3. There was massive innovation and investment during the 90's..

When taxes were the same as they will be in 2010.

[brentspeak]

4. The 0% estate tax scheduled for next year has to be repealed

One of the few ways to get some of the cash the uber-riche have back into the economy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. How much were you trying to fund? nt

[C......N......C]

11. 3 Million. Was looking for 50 investors of $60,000 for 25% of the stock.

I have access to a large number of investors. There is no money. People are really scared.

[cliffordu]

6. But-but-but----

I thought Sham-WoW was already an invention!!!!

[Epiphany4z]

7. I like the slap chop

the bevis and butt-head in me always giggles when the skinny guy says "and your gona love my nuts!"

[C......N......C]

12. That is hilarious. Had to be intended!

[jobycom]

8. People invest because they expect good returns.

If the economy is strong and promising yields on new inventions, finding investors is no problem. In fact, a progressive tax system will allow middle and lower income earners to invest more, while limiting the power of the largest income earners to invest. That means that the middle classes grow and become more vested in the economy, and the richest classes, while not being hurt, have slightly less control over the economy.

A regressive tax structure has the opposite affect, which is why the middle class shrunk under Reagan, and grew under Clinton, and why poverty went up and wages down under Reagan, and the opposite under Clinton.

The number of investors is based on the health of the economy, not the taxation structure. Who invests is based on the taxation structure.

[Egalitariat]

9. Raising taxes, by definition, lowers future after tax returns

Which means the companies that were just barely getting funded before (because they barely cleared the hurdle) will no longer clear the hurdle and won't get money.

It's an academic argument. Probably true in a vacuum; may or may not be true in real life.

I believe it's true. But I don't think, by itself, it's a reason not to raise taxes.

[Schema Thing]

10. Raising taxes spurs investment

investing in a business is a great way to shelter money from taxes, as many forms of direct investment are tax write-offs.

[n2doc]

15. ex-freakin-actly! n/t

[fascisthunter]

13. because those using that lie are full-of-it

this country had a very high tax rate and it didn't stifle progress nor did it have an ill-effect on average Americans. If anything, it gave more people the means to learn, produce and compete. If anything... tax cuts stifle everything except for the wealthy's ability to hoard and game the system for themselves. They know that... that's why it's preached so much in the corporate media...

[wtmusic]

14. Yup, if you're trying to raise a lot of money from multimillionaires

it might be more difficult now.

Of course that applies to virtually none of the money raised by inventors anyway.

Carry on.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. But if you invest money in a business don't you get to write it off?

I'm not sure how it works with venture capital but that's the case for any other business expense. Unless venture capital is treated like investing in stocks or mutual funds.

[Canuckistanian]

17. By that logic, NOTHING got financed in the '50s, '60s and '70s

And the tax rates back then were astronomical in comparison today.

I'd put question in reverse - the wealthy have had tax breaks for DECADES now. Where are the corresponding massive increases in small business investing?