Comment by anamax
16 years ago
> the only restriction would be that you have to acquire stock in the company when it is worth less than $40M (easy)
Not really.
Most of us aren't accredited investors, so we can't buy stock in small companies without starting them, working for them, or being related to the founders.
Reduced taxation on small biz stock will make successful small biz more profitable, so it's a big deal for angels, VCs, and their limited partners, but because it doesn't increase the size of the investor pool, it just helps their returns.
This may have a modest effect on the number of funded small biz, but it won't help most of us.
You'd think that the super-genius' in the Obama administration would know about the accredited investor stuff.
Most of us aren't accredited investors, so we can't buy stock in small companies without starting them, working for them, or being related to the founders.
What is the reasoning behind preventing people from investing into companies? Is it just to keep people from being swindled? It seems off to me.
> Is it just to keep people from being swindled?
That's the stated reason. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it's a real reason or even the only reason.
If you are a co-founder and stayed with a company for five years before exit, wouldn't you qualify for this no-tax clause?