[luau] What does Everyone think of ACT221?

[Dustin Cross]

Good words Scott!  Our state needs to attract new business.  Some companies
are abusing 221 and that needs to be stoped, but we shouldn't change 221.
The Tax office has changed what businesses need to do to use 221,
specifically addressing the abuses to date.

The problems I see with 221 is that it is not designed for small businesses
and small investors can not take advantage of it.  What I mean by this is:

- it will cost you around $20K in legal fees to get your comfort letter
from the state saying you can use ACT 221.

- SEC laws do not allow investors with less than a $1 million net worth or
$250K per year anual income to invest in ACT 221.

So basically if you want to start a business in your garage, you better
have a lot of money upfront to pay the attorney and your grandma will most
likely not qualify to invest in your company.

221 can be good for the state, the tax office just needs to learn more
about how it can be abused so they can keep it under control.

Dusty



> As I understand it, there are a few cases of abuse that should be
> remedied.  This does not merit the public smear campaign that the
> Lingle  administration and now the Star-Bulletin seem to endorse.  By
> smear  campaign I mean publicly berating the entire Act for the
> offenses of a  few.  By doing so, I am yet to see an informed
> discussion of specific  problems that can be remedied with specific
> proposals.
>
> This is a problem.  I depend on my newspaper to research both sides of
> an issues and offer an investigative report.  I am getting propaganda
> without proposals.  From our Governor, a Republican no less, I expect a
>  good reason why we need to take more money out of our economy and put
> it  in the Government.  This belies the supply-side philosophy her
> party and  presumably she embraces.
>
> I think that the Act is amazing.  Nothing has motivated me to try
> harder  to create a technology company than this.  My motivation is
> experiencing  undue anxiety, though, because I do not know what steps
> my Government  will take to change this Act.  Business hates
> uncertainty, and Lingle is  creating *way* too much uncertainty.  She
> needs to suggest exactly what  needs to be changed and then propose it.
>  Period.
>
> What we have now are sweeping criticisms of an Act that is supposedly
> corrupt and is lacking proof of success.  If our media and our
> Government would spend the same amount of time researching and
> reporting  specific abuses and successes, we would be far more informed
> and capable  of taking action.  The FUD cloud we are now in benefits
> only the
> decision-makers.
>
> I think Act 221 is visionary for a State that depends on the good will
> and generosity of complete strangers who decide to travel here and pay
> inflated resort prices for a vacation.  There is no sustainability in
> this.  What Act 221 needs is a visionary leader to implement it.
>
> scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> LUAU mailing list
> LUAU at videl.ics.hawaii.edu
> http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau