(03-02-2020 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I did my Master's on the difference, psychologically, between entrepreneurs and managers. or, if you will, the difference between people with skin in the game and those who don't. I don't see a cradle making any difference to whether or not person A will take a chance or not.

Do you still have the thesis on this? I would love to read it.

Being, in order, a W-2 stalwart, moving to an 'indirect' skin in the game (i.e. took a 30% cut from other private sector positions to do startups, so not *real* skin in the game just 'what I could have made elsewhere), then to 'lets fund this with hard cash and personal debt obligations' --- I have always wondered about the differences in psychologies.

Now I am at the point that pretty much a vast majority of the monies I make are through investing and working the investments --- I havent had a w2 in 12 years, and my legal practice bills out less than what I made as a third year (24 years ago, that is).

I would love to read that thesis and results if possible. Please redact any identifying information.

Quote:If you want to encourage entrepreneurism, instead of making failure easy, why not reward success? Lower the taxes for start ups,

Give that man a cigar.

Quote:give a struggling fledgling enterprise a chance. Let people deduct losses from other income, a la Trump.

+1 again.

Quote:Si much made of him taking losses, but that is part of the warp and woof of making decisions - tax consequences.

In one venture, we are fully expecting a 120k+ loss in year two after coming to break even on the trial location. It is fine for me, because my income is on the low side of some of the other partners, and the 30k attributed loss for me doesnt make a huge matter for me tax-wise. But other partners are in the 'trickle the losses at 3k' and it doesnt make them happy.

The funny thing is when we game planned this, the larger the in loss years 1 and 2 translated to absolutely phenomenal returns in years 3+ based on the type of business. Now, we are opting for lower losses year 1, a little over break even year 2, and decent gains years 3 and out --- but it in no way makes up for the other scenario.

Kind of stupid, since the high initial loss scenario translates to 20% more person-year employment generation in the first decade than the other one.