Live data from Hacker News

Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

adgrok.com

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#21
post #15
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think that when you are small and not very profitable, lowering the complexity of taxes would help you more than lowering the tax rate. Most taxes are on profit (or on income) and nearly all of them are graduated. Before you are making much money, you don't have to pay out much in taxes. However, tax complexity makes planning much more difficult. I've gotta include a tax person in my decision making pro…

This. The US has one of the highest on-paper corporate tax rates while having one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates that most companies actually pay. This is basically a regressive taxation system for business since small businesses don't do things like offshore accounts and tax havens, so they get stuck with the bill. Meanwhile we're incenting big business to spend more time on that BS than on producing go…

It is hard to get around the 35% US corporate tax rate. In my time as an investment banker, the only way I saw that companies could easily lower their taxes is by losing money (losing money one year gives you a carry-forward loss that you can use to get out of taxes the next, hardly free money). As far as I am aware, this kind of tax credit is common in the developed world and the US corporate taxes remain the highest. The impression that you get at reddit/ The Huffington Post/ Hollywood that you can open up a foreign bank account and bam no taxes is largely false. All the companies that I sold, capitalized, or researched paid taxes at close to the nominal rate of 35% (my specialty was firms $100 million to $1 billion in market cap).

What are your credentials? Perhaps you are a corporate tax accountant and you know better than I do.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#22
post #12

You would think, with the big deal Obama is making about how we need to do everything we can to encourage more start ups, he would offer some kind of 2 year tax free grace period. I understand that we need to tax to some extant, but how much more likely do you think start ups would be to succeed if we didn't have to worry about taxes eating away our already limited money during the first most crucial steps?

Personally, I think that when you are small and not very profitable, lowering the complexity of taxes would help you more than lowering the tax rate. Most taxes are on profit (or on income) and nearly all of them are graduated. Before you are making much money, you don't have to pay out much in taxes. However, tax complexity makes planning much more difficult. I've gotta include a tax person in my decision making pro…

Tax rates do matter. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and you hit the top bracket with ~$2 million in profit (as I remember). That's a large company, but not a huge one.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The US has one of the highest on-paper corporate tax rates while having one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates that most companies actually pay. This is basically a regressive taxation system for business since small businesses don't do things like offshore accounts and tax havens, so they get stuck with the bill. Meanwhile we're incenting big business to spend more time on that BS than on producing go…

It is hard to get around the 35% US corporate tax rate. In my time as an investment banker, the only way I saw that companies could easily lower their taxes is by losing money (losing money one year gives you a carry-forward loss that you can use to get out of taxes the next, hardly free money). As far as I am aware, this kind of tax credit is common in the developed world and the US corporate taxes remain the highes…

I almost certainly know less about corporate taxes than you do.

But how do you explain the gap between stated and effective tax rate? Maybe I'm oversimplifying by blaming the Cayman Islands but obviously big corporations are doing something to pay significantly lower taxes than the advertised rate.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#24
post #9
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in NYC you have a 1.5% income tax, rather than corporate tax, which is almost worse in a way.

Yeah, and that doesn't even bother me, because I love living here and wouldn't trade that 1.5% for a suburban commute. To start with, I don't have to own a car, so that alone probably puts me ahead on income (the cost of rent puts me right back behind again, though). I am still upset as a Red Sox fan that a bunch of that money went to subsidizing the new Yankee Stadium, though.

but you could move to south san francisco, and have an easy bart commute and the company wouldn't have to pay any payroll tax.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#25
post #13

nice post, unfortunately SF payroll tax is 1.5% over $150,000 in payroll, not $250k in payroll as mentioned in your article :( It's a racket and is one of the reasons Twitter and Zynga are threatening to leave SF if the city doesn't give them a break on the tax. But it hurts the little guys more. If you have 4 employees making $40k each you have to pay 1.5% of 160k, which is $2400 (that amounts to almost 2 months of…

"It's a racket and is one of the reasons Twitter and Zynga are threatening to leave SF if the city doesn't give them a break on the tax." Lots of cities have payroll taxes, and they're not a "racket" -- it's the cost of doing business in a city. What's unusual about SF is that it has a law that considers gains on employee stock options as taxable pay, not that it has a payroll tax.

well, if we were getting real services from it I wouldn't be as bothered by it.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#26
post #3

nice post, unfortunately SF payroll tax is 1.5% over $150,000 in payroll, not $250k in payroll as mentioned in your article :( It's a racket and is one of the reasons Twitter and Zynga are threatening to leave SF if the city doesn't give them a break on the tax. But it hurts the little guys more. If you have 4 employees making $40k each you have to pay 1.5% of 160k, which is $2400 (that amounts to almost 2 months of…

Personally, I'd be willing to take a 1.5% paycut to work in SF instead of the Valley, because I can't stand suburban commutes. But that kind of reasoning is probably why I'm in NYC instead of out west to begin with. EDIT: Also, I'd suspect that the "1.5% on payrolls over 150k" only applies to the amount in overage, because that's the way most graduated taxes work. So it'd be 150 bucks on the 10k of overage in your 16…

no, it's not on the overage. It's on the total amount.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#27
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to get around the 35% US corporate tax rate. In my time as an investment banker, the only way I saw that companies could easily lower their taxes is by losing money (losing money one year gives you a carry-forward loss that you can use to get out of taxes the next, hardly free money). As far as I am aware, this kind of tax credit is common in the developed world and the US corporate taxes remain the highes…

I almost certainly know less about corporate taxes than you do. But how do you explain the gap between stated and effective tax rate? Maybe I'm oversimplifying by blaming the Cayman Islands but obviously big corporations are doing something to pay significantly lower taxes than the advertised rate.

Usually companies with a low effective tax rate have lost money in recent years. This is especially true over the last 3 years (I believe 3 years is the limit on a carry-forward loss credit, and 2008-2011 has been bad for business). The net effect is that US companies pay 35% taxes on their 3-year trailing average income rather than income in a given year.

Occasionally you will hear another breathless claim on places like reddit/The Huffington Post/The Daily Kos that some large percent of corporations pay no corporate taxes at all. They are usually counting the large number of small businesses organized as S-corps and LLCs which pay pass-through personal income taxes rather than corporate taxes, and counting all the C-corps that lost money and therefore paid no corporate taxes for the year. On its face it is a true statement that most corporations pay no taxes, but it is a very misleading statement.

In my experience, it is very difficult for the shareholders of a C-corp in the United States to derive benefit from the entity's business activities without the benefits being taxed at the corporate level.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#28
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost certainly know less about corporate taxes than you do. But how do you explain the gap between stated and effective tax rate? Maybe I'm oversimplifying by blaming the Cayman Islands but obviously big corporations are doing something to pay significantly lower taxes than the advertised rate.

Usually companies with a low effective tax rate have lost money in recent years. This is especially true over the last 3 years (I believe 3 years is the limit on a carry-forward loss credit, and 2008-2011 has been bad for business). The net effect is that US companies pay 35% taxes on their 3-year trailing average income rather than income in a given year. Occasionally you will hear another breathless claim on places…

Well, so here's a study by the congressional budget office:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf

Puts the effective corporate tax rate a cool 10-15 points under the statutory one, depending on sector, and has some graphs illustrating that our statutory rate is one of the highest while our effective rate is one of the lowest.

So it's not just the dirty hippies saying this.

The dirty hippies tend to get angry about stuff like the fact that Exxon apparently pays little to no corporate taxes (citation needed), and whatever else they have going on they certainly haven't posted a loss recently.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#29

Every dollar you bring in has a significant effect on your runway. While making a few K a month and making it early may be far from profit, it can change your runway from 12 months to 18 months and beyond. It can also determine if you get to call it "my" business or "the" business.

It is a tremendous feeling to get to the break-even point and with it the realization that you can now work on your startup full-time for as long as you want.

Re: Startup Economics 101, or, How Long Until We’re Dead?

#30
Be cautious about deferred fees in dealing with lawyers. These have their legitimate role in the world of startups but, as with any other form of "easy credit," they can wind up costing you far more in the long run than if you simply negotiate good rates or fixed fee amounts for work you have at hand.

For example, this piece discusses fee deferrals up to $30K. How would this work?

A typical deferred-fee deal provides that a startup will get corporate legal services of up to x amount that are deferred for some fixed time (say, 6 months) or until the company does its first funding at some minimum amount (say, $1 million), whichever comes first. In exchange, the startup gives the law firm a small piece of equity for the credit extension. If the startup fails in its business, the founders are not personally liable for the cost of the legal services and the law firm eats the loss (this is the credit risk it takes for which it gets equity in exchange). If the startup does not fail, the bill comes due in time and must be paid.

Now, a few observations from one who has done such deals many times over from a lawyer perspective:

1. The deferred-fee deal is a beautiful fit for the type of go-for-broke, hope-to-massively-scale company that will depend heavily on VC funding. You team up with a few co-founders, set your company in motion, and let it fly. You get heavily diluted up front when the VC funding comes in at $5 million and up, the burn rate for the company is high, and you go all out with a prestige team to build that billion dollar company (or at least hundreds of millions). You hire a law firm that bills $500/hr and up even for green attorneys and that works in teams. A simple company formation is $5K and up; your convertible note round is $5K to $10K and up; your Series A round is $50K to $60K and up. And, if it all works, all this gets paid from VC money. If it flops, you owe nothing. In a way, then, this is a risk-free way as a founder to go for broke in launching an ambitious venture.

2. Now consider a bootstrap venture or an angel-funded venture where the founders delay outside funding until they can build a credible pre-money valuation in hopes of minimizing dilution. Unlike the VC-funded case, you will here want to be much more cautious about what the legal services will cost. In most such companies, it is easy to get through the first 6 months of the company's history (a typical deferral period) without coming anywhere close to spending $30K on a legal budget. Company formation can easily be done in the $2K-$3K range for the vast majority of such companies; bridge notes for $3K or so; Series A often for $5K to $10K. Maybe you also need Terms of Service and other miscellaneous items (e.g., trademark applications). Thus, if you add up all the typical legal needs of such a venture, you might get up to the $10K range in the normal case if you spend your money wisely.

3. The temptation, then, with a deferred-fee deal is to spend on legal matters with greater abandon given that you are using "easy credit." This made sense historically under the VC model. It makes less sense under the modern angel model and even less sense for a company that is going the purely bootstrap route.

4. When it comes to deferred-fee deals, then, it is important to count the real cost. It may be a good step for your company but make sure the fit is right for your venture. A decade ago, this was a near-ideal arrangement for most startups with quality founding teams. Today, it makes sense for some but probably not for most quality startups.

5. Bottom line: if a deferred-fee deal looks attractive, then, by all means do it. Just don't treat it as an axiomatic good. Like most easy-credit arrangements, the ultimate cost to your company (even if not to you personally) may be quite a bit higher than what it might otherwise be if you focus purely on the market cost of the services.

I do find it ironic that this item is emphasized in a (nice) piece on watching your spending and that is what prompted me to comment. Do watch your dollars and especially when someone offers you something that seems to be all upside (when it is not).

Post reply on HN