One could ask how you demonstrably cannot understand the conflation of two unrelated concepts?
Concept A: taking a risk to create a startup that you hope becomes a profitable company by executing to its core competency
Concept B: investing in your own company through a tax vagary with an investment device that has nothing to do with startup (or a particular startup)
Seems clear as day to me.
Remember, we can't see the future.
By your logic: You are free to invest like him in early stage startups. You will be out zilch, so why not do what he did?
1. Accredited investor rules 2. Please find me a startup which will allow me to buy shares at $0.001/share while simultaneous selling to other investors at a price of 500k[0]. 3. If you say to start my own and invest in my own company that I am working for in my Roth, I'll remind you that it's explicit not allowed, and the fact that it's not allowed is the thing that most people are taking issue with.
[0] Yes, that's not the full valuation issue, but it's enough to see that the value at the time wasn't really legitimate.
Yeah, I don't think this person was hurting for the paltry sum they invested. It also sounds like they would've been just fine if it had failed (aka just move on to the next venture until you hit jackpot).
The rich get richer I guess, and random folks on the internet applaud the pilfering of the commons (dodging taxes).
Why can't other investors create their own startups and invest their money similarly?
Startup founders take a lot of risk. There is a big chance his investment could have been zero. It is strange that ProPublica does not understand this basic concept.
Where is their report on millions of Roth accounts that went to zero?