Stimulus for Startups: Some Thoughts From a Seattle Startup Attorney (opens in new tab)

(startupcompanylawblog.com)

3 pointsjoewallin15y ago4 comments

4 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

cperciva15y ago· 2 in thread

Quoth the article: I think that investors in companies ought to be able to obtain a full and immediate tax credit for the entire amount of their investment to the extent that the funds are used to employ people. This would cost the Treasury (because, for example, an investor's tax bill would be reduced by the amount of a $100,000 investment by $100,000, and the payroll taxes collected on $100,000 paid in wages would be less than $100,000), but I think it would be a simple and wonderful way to encourage direct investments into companies and create jobs.

Am I misunderstanding this, or is it really as loony as I think it is? He seems to be saying that if I would have a $100k tax bill, I can decide to hire my brother to weave baskets and pay him $100k instead of paying it to the government.

Aside from supporting nepotism, how is this any different from the government hiring people to weave baskets?

joewallinOP15y ago

cperciva--we can disagree, and you can think that what the govt is doing or has done in the past is great...but it is not working. we need to try something different. as long as the money is used to employ people...why should the govt care? it will get its payroll tax dollars from your brother weaving baskets...

cperciva15y ago

as long as the money is used to employ people...why should the govt care?

Because the government could employ someone to do something useful. Pay them to build bridges. Or to repair hurricane-damaged homes. Or to write open source software. Or heck, pay them to run around in circles and burn off some of the famous American obesity.

I don't know what the best thing to pay people to do is, but I'm sure there's something useful the government could do if it's paying people anyway...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse