Anti-trust doesn't address issues of modern tech companies
Andrew believes that the current anti-trust framework doesn't address the problem of large companies that don't charge users or feel the need to report a profit. He would promote legislation allowing Americans to own their data and address the impact of
technology on their lives, such as the mental health effects. He'd create a Cabinet-level Department of Technology staffed by experts and located in Silicon Valley to find ways to address the problems that these tech companies are causing.
Source: USA Today on 2019 Democratic primary
, Nov 7, 2019
Set environmental standards for companies
One principle that we're going to have in our businesses here is that, if you are a very large business, you need to measure your carbon imprint and your effect on the environment. And then if we extend that to operations in other countries that are
either of U.S. companies or, over time, our trading partners, then we can have more sophisticated standards that include environmental impact, not just for American companies, but the companies and countries we do business with.
Source: Climate Crisis Town Hall (CNN 2019 Democratic primary)
, Sep 4, 2019
0.1% tax on the sale of stocks, bonds and derivatives
Andrew Yang on Wall Street Taxes: Create taxes on financial trades.
THREE CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Kirsten Gillibrand; Bernard Sanders; Marianne Williamson.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and entrepreneur Andrew Yang support a
0.1 percent tax on the sale of stocks, bonds and derivatives. Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a similar plan. Author Marianne Williamson wants to eliminate preferential tax treatment of exchange traded funds.
Source: Politico "2020Dems on the Issues"
, Jul 17, 2019
Competition isn't always the answer, like for tech giants
Yang said breaking up big tech companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook was "a 20th century solution to a 21st century set of problems."
Q: Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?
A: "There are dynamics in technology,
right now, that make it so that competition isn't always the answer."
Q: Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?
A: "Do I think there's something intrinsically wrong, there being billionaires in the world? No, I do not."
Source: 2019 "Meet the Candidates" (NY Times.com)
, Jun 18, 2019
Same tax rate on capital gains as on earned income
Capital gains and carried interest currently receive favorable treatment by the tax code. This privileges investors over workers and promotes speculation. It's irrational that we privilege capital gains and investment income versus earned income.
The top 20% own 92% of the stock market, and the bottom half of Americans own essentially zero. We should be encouraging and rewarding work first and foremost. An investor should not be paying a lower tax rate on gains than the person who
is working hard every day. I've worked and invested and working is a lot harder.
As President, I will...
Propose an end to favorable tax treatment for capital gains and carried interest. Ending the carried interest treatment loophole
alone would generate $18 billion per year in revenue and ending favorable treatment of capital gains would generate tens of billions more.
Ran test-prep company, then sold it to bigger company
I was thirty [in 2005] when I started running Manhattan GMAT, and I was pumped. I articulated three core values and started putting them up on a screen before each meeting:
Help students achieve their goals
Our standard is excellence
Build a strong team
For the full-time staff, it was important to me that they regard our little test-prep company as a great place to build a career: I decided to build a corporate culture. We had regular staff outings to celebrate record months.
I figured that if these expenses kept turnover low and morale high, they would pay off many times over in high performance and consistent growth.
Prior to Manhattan GMAT, I'd been accustomed to something of a venture-capital mindset, to try to
keep your investors excited. With Manhattan GMAT there were no investors to placate.
In 2009, after a competitive bidding process, we agreed to be acquired by Stanley Kaplan Test Prep and the Washington Post company.
Send top people to startups, not financial services
This book makes a basic argument. If year after year we send our top people to financial services, management consulting, and law schools, we'll wind up in the pattern we're already seeing: layers of highly paid professionals working astride faltering
companies and industries. But if we send them to startups, we'll get something else. Early-stage companies would have a better chance of innovating and creating value. Even allowing for a certain amount of failure, we'd create hundreds of new companies
and tens of thousands of new jobs over time. Our economy and our country would be better off.
We'd restore our culture of achievement to include value creation, risk and reward, and the common good. By solving this one problem, we solve many other
problems at the same time.
We are hyper-allocating the bulk of our top graduates to professional services industries, while leaving promising new companies around the country under-resourced.
Economies recede after switch from making things to services
Our economy has progressed from making things to supplying financial services. It's not the first time an economy has made this transition.
Both the Netherlands and Great Britain were global manufacturing powers in their day. The Dutch and British
then turned to financial services and insurance as the drivers of their economies. Unfortunately, it's hard for an economy to rely solely on financial services, and both countries receded from the world stage.
We no longer manufacture devices, we manufacture analyses. Investment banks, private equity firms, corporate law firms, and management consultancies are all vitally important to today's US economy.
They offer prestige, high-starting salaries, training, expense accounts, and the promise of community and open doors.
Venture for America: non-profit entrepreneurship support
My parents came to the US from Taiwan to make a better life. I wanted to do something to give back to the country that had given my family so much. I mean, here I was, a moderately rich dude in my mid-30s.
I began talking to people about this idea,
which I called Venture for America--the most self-explanatory name I could think of. It would be a nonprofit with a three-part mission:
To revitalize American cities and communities through entrepreneurship.
To enable our best and brightest to create new opportunities for themselves and others.
To restore the culture of achievement to include value creation, risk, and reward, and the common good.
Our immediate goal would be to help create 100,000
new US jobs by 2025. To do that, we would provide to startups and growth companies around the country the talent they needed to expand and hire; and we would train a critical mass of our best and brightest to become business builders and entrepreneurs.
You want to join a team before it's cool and hope that the company takes off. If it does, you could have yourself a very good run. You could even wind up being the difference between the company taking off and languishing on a small scale.
These people--the builders who work with the founders to help these companies grow and prosper--are, in many ways, more appropriate role models. The plan should not be, for the most part, "start a company."
More realistically, the plan should be "join a team." If you're positioned to start your own organization, that's great--but rare.
If you join a growth organization, you'll likely do different things in different roles throughout your career.
If you have a good run, you can always come back and start something later.
And it's not just coders and engineers that these new companies need. Just about any growth company is going to need smart salespeople, content creation, and analytics.