what absolute nonsense. I don't find these female superheroes any more attractive than the woman in the comic you linked to finds the muscled men attractive. There's no evidence that any fewer women find the muscled man a sexual fantasy than men find the big bewbed woman.
That's just federal capital gains tax. You also need to consider state taxes. In California you pay ordinary income tax rates on capital gains of up to 13.3% for people with incomes over a million dollars. So the total tax on a capital gain in California can be as high as 37.1%.
And likewise with income taxes. The paper cited I the source article accounts only for fed taxes. Cali income tax would toss another 8-10% on top of that 33.x% number.
Low tax America!
Well, I guess it is low tax it you're not rich, haha.
In California the highest marginal total income tax rate is 56.7%. While this is for incomes over a million dollars, if you make around $100,000, you face a marginal tax rate of 52.6%.
I'm sure there are places with even higher marginal taxes but these don't seem low.
BTW - What is really fucked up is the way very poor people face the very highest marginal tax rates due to means testing of various programs (often over 100%) but that's another story.
And before someone responds with, "there are loopholes now too, har har!": No, there really aren't those kinds of loopholes anymore. The 90% income tax existed in name only, whereas today there actually are people paying ~50% income tax in the US.
which is the elephant in the room when income tax rates are discussed particularity in the uk where the line is "on noes entrepreneurs will flee if the highest rate income tax goes from 45 to 50".
NO real entrepreneur cares about his salary after a certain point its all about capital gain - the fantasists and Muppets on dragons den are not real entrepreneurs.
That is the trouble thease days where the political class go from uni straight into the political machine with no out side job (until they get a few director ships or quangos)
The spin of the whole "disrupt everything" kind of cons the young and energetic in to do the hard yards before the flip.
You don't often hear about individuals making any kind of real difference in social areas of society that are hurting, yet if you build some kind of online service that provides some kind of marginal benefit you're cast as a hero as long as some cashed-up multinational buys you out?
I'm all for fun and profit, but I'll call a spade a spade, and all this flipping at the expensive of multibillionare corporations ain't really disrupting anything. Especially if the service is bought out and shut down, which appears to happen often.
It seems a nice safe bet is to iterate quickly on a niche that big-co is trying to break in to. They see you as a threat and their strategy is to buy you out and either a) integrate you, or b) shut you down completely.
Hooray for progress! Or is this the bad side of capitalism?
This is the 4th pivot for Seesmic? Can early investors ask for their money back if the nature of the business changes from what they originally invested in?
Nope. That's part of the risk assumed by investors.
Plus "you can't get blood from a stone"---how much of that money exists that they could pull it out? And whose money is it exactly when you have multiple investors? At best they would only be entitled to a fraction of a fraction.
It would also set a bad precedent for companies they've invested in if startsup are not allowed to adapt because they'd lose funding, making it more likely that investments fail due to stagnation.
Doesn't this make more sense, though? It's a combination of paying for advertising and paying for application features, both well-tested business models. Paying for random fake things that annoy your friends, however, is not as well-tested.
