This means that the Senate has now made the tax reform bill a win for those who work in startups instead of a loss.
I’m thrilled and I want to thank all of you who called your elected officials and those in the Senate Finance Committee who clearly understand the importance of equity compensation to the startup model.
A proposed tax that charges people as their startup equity vests instead of when they cash it out and actually have money to pay the taxes could wreck how tech companies recruit talent. And the industry doesn’t have much time to mobilize to get this tax changed. The U.S. Senate released its proposed tax reform bill late last week under the aggrandized “Tax Cuts and Jobs… Read More
Adapting to the impacts of human-caused climate change is a major challenge facing cities around the world. More than 80% of the United States’ population and 50% of the world’s live in cities, many of which are in especially vulnerable coastal areas.
But what kind of planning approach should city leaders take? Should they develop “broad-scope” plans that address multiple community issues, such as comprehensive land use planning, citywide sustainability, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Or should they pursue “narrow-scope” plans, such as hazard mitigation plans that focus on reducing risks from natural hazards, like floods, hurricanes, and heat waves, or climate change adaptation plans that focus only on reducing risks from climate impacts, which typically exacerbate existing natural hazard risks?
In a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, we set out to help answer this question. More specifically, we sought to identify
Sherpa Capital co-founder Shervin Pishevar has filed a lawsuit against Definers Public Affairs, a Republican opposition research firm that he believes is being paid to spread rumors about him.
The Uber investor and Hyperloop One co-founder is accusing former Mitt Romney presidential campaign manager Matthew Rhoades and his business partner, Joseph Pounder, of aiming to convince reporters of… Read More
Almost a year ago, the Indian government rolled out an unprecedented policy move. Arguably, it was a time when the country was poised for economic success. With $9.49 trillion in purchasing power parity, it was the third-largest (in PPP terms) and the fastest-growing large economy in the world. On November 8, with no advance warning, India’s two highest-denomination banknotes, the 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee bills, were demonetized, rendering 86% of the country’s currency invalid overnight. The ostensible objective was a popular one: to root out corruption and illegitimate activity involving untraceable cash transactions. As the implications unfolded, I wrote two pieces (“India’s Botched War on Cash” and “Early Lessons from India’s Demonetization Experiment”) evaluating the policy and its impact. My assessment of the action was that the policy was poorly thought out and executed and that its net impact would be negative and particularly bad for
Finally, health care, which has been largely immune to the forces of disruptive innovation, is beginning to change. Seeing the potential to improve health with simple primary-care strategies, some of the biggest incumbent players are inviting new entrants focused on empowering consumers into their highly regulated ecosystems, bringing down costs.
This shift is long overdue. Whereas new technologies, competitors, and business models have made products and services more affordable and accessible in media, finance, retail, and other sectors, U.S. health care keeps getting costlier. It is now by far the world’s most expensive system per capita, about twice that of the UK, Canada, and Australia, with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease now accounting for more than 80% of total spending.
These astronomical costs are largely due to the way competition works in American health care. Employers and insurance companies — not end