Quoth the article:
<i>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.</i><p>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.<p>Aside from supporting nepotism, how is this any different from the government hiring people to weave baskets?