The failed companies often go out of business and have huge worker
lay-off’s. The shut-downs of these failed companies are often forced
by the major shareholder, the VC. The VC cuts its losses by shutting
down the failing company and selling off its assets (equipment, property,
etc). VC’s sometimes even profit from these shut-downs and liquidations.

The very few successful small companies will expand and hire workers.

Nobody has quantified the sum of total gains/losses of jobs as a
consequence of VC activity. That is, nobody has figured out if VC’s
cause more jobs to be lost or more jobs to be created.

Mitt Romney has absolutely no proof to support that he has created
more jobs than he has wiped out through his VC firm investments.

So essentially, he pays a lower tax rate than the middle-class American
because the government HOPES that his investments will create more
jobs than they will destroy. There is no proof that they do so however.

Romney is just another millionaire playing with money. And the IRS gives
him an unjustified tax break to do so. No proven gain for America.

Thanks Mitt, what have you done for me lately?
SOMETHING ELSE
You tried to act smart but you posted nothing of substance.
You don’t sound so smart to me.

BAD WOLF
Sure those jobs would be there.
Tell us why they wouldn’t be.
I’ll bet you can’t make your case.

Regardless, VC’s would still make a fortune without the tax breaks.
But instead of paying Romney $20M/yr it may instead be $8M/yr.
Guess what; VC’s would continue to invest in the same manner.
BAD WOLF (2)

a)

You are flatly incorrect in your first position.
VC’s invest in small companies that already exist and which seek to expand.
VC’s do not found anything.

You are missing a fundamental point regardless of that insignificant error.
It is that when small companies do indeed expend successfully they simply take
away market-share from other companies. STAPLES, for example, expanded
by taking away business from other stores that were already selling these
products to Americans. STAPLES didn’t add anything to the market; it just took
away customers from somebody else.

STAPLES did not invent any new products. They are pushing the same stuff that
every other office product supplier ever pushed. So there is no reason to think that
because of STAPLES there are more jobs, in total, than there were before.
b)

You obviously really don’t know much about VC’s.
VC’s are in business because they are loaded with money.
In fact, they have so much of it that they are willing to take big losses until they find
companies that do eventually succeed. You should read my posting more carefully
to gain more understanding. (It’s your opportunity to learn rather than to just argue.)
c)

Your argument about taxes eating up too much of a VC’s liquidity is humorous.
There is no proof that VC’s even create more jobs than they destroy so why should
we even care to offer them tax breaks?

(Frankly, I think that VC’s reduce employment but that’s a long explanation.)

Furthermore it is funny that you think that a tax increase shall discourage VC’s
from investing. Romney got $20M/yr. And that’s just the most recent two years;
imagine how astronomical his profits were for previous years which is probably
why he isn’t releasing that info.

I don’t have a problem with his prosperity; I’m just making the point that VC’s are
loaded and that a tax increase shall not slow them down. To the contrary it may
even cause them to work harder to try to make more money – don’t laugh, I’ve
heard this opinion expressed by serious economic commentators. It actually
makes sense; you would just need to think about it for a while.