Live data from Hacker News

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

adgrok.com

31–40 of 53 posts

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

#31
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…

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.

I'm not saying they don't; Especially on the upside, tax rates matter a lot, and the potential upside effects how much investment a startup gets, at all stages.

I'm just saying, when you are still trying to scramble up to profitability, complex tax laws are a big deal. Certainly under $10K/year profit (and probably for a while further) you are going to be spending more on tax related accounting and planning than you will pay in taxes. You can't just ignore it because you aren't making any money.

It's not just paying the accountant at the end of the year; Especially in lower-margin businesses, how something is taxed can make the difference between profit and loss. You've got to run all your ideas by the tax expert. This is expensive, as both I and the tax expert have deep domain specific experience that needs to be at least partially shared to figure out if a particular idea can work or not.

Yeah, once you've got two million in profit a year, the cost of that tax person is probably a good bit less than what you are paying in taxes, and I imagine you care a lot more about the rate. I'm talking about those of us who are still in the red or only a little in the black.

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

#32
post #19
post #18

What ranges of equity/salary compensation are offered these days? If one should be skeptical about an employee who wants mostly cash, how should founders react to someone preferring all equity?

I'd be fine with it. I think later on when you've got dozens (or hundreds) of employees and a limited options pool, it might become unfeasible. But right now, I'd have no problem with paying an employee only equity. Even tiny companies like us have valuations that are, well, non-zero, so it's not like some employee can conspire to get founder equity status by simply not taking cash. Why, know someone who will take on…

Are there legal problems with this? Don't you need to pay at least minimum wage? Or is that implied?

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

#33
post #5

A very good post by @asmartbear on the same subject : http://blog.asmartbear.com/death-clock.html

I think that the Death Clock article is complementary, rather than an alternative.

The OP post is essentially a laundry list of expenses that startups can expect to face. This is useful because it is easy to overlook something that will blow a hole in your cash.

The Smart Bear post is a higher level look at tools for managing cashflow. Instead of checking the cashflow balance once per month, you can see almost immediately what's going on. Short feeback loops are the core of agility.

The only danger I can see with the SB approach is a risk of overcorrecting to noise. The use of least-squares fitting helps, but mindfulness pays.

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

#34
post #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…

You are absolutely right, and frankly we're wondering if we should do such a deal right now. I absolutely believe your point that such 'easy credit' will spur companies to spend more on lawyers than they should. We'd like to avoid that.

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

#35
This is my first post on Hacker News. Glad to join you guys and see that you're talking about finances. I'm an accountant who is also a tax and business lawyer, specializing in micro businesses and creative projects. Hopefully I can contribute to the discussion.

This community is full of people who know how to hack code. I'd like to introduce the idea that it's possible to be equally creative with business entity design. Business laws and tax codes are just other types of codes, waiting to be hacked.

Corporations are one way to organize and that structure is well-suited to mature businesses. But it's far from the best format for beginning creative enterprises. It seems to be widely accepted that start-ups need to be corporations to make the transitions smoother as more investors are added down the line. It's time to reconsider that.

Start-ups have completely different needs than mature businesses and should not be strangled by all the baggage that comes with a corporation, in the name of 'making a smoother transition.'

It is fairly simple to start with an organization that is NOT a corporation and, thereby, avoid payroll taxes. Possibly ALL taxes, depending on the structure and the source of cash. This is particularly true if you are going to give equity anyway.

Do some research on entity choice. Examples might be a Limited Liability Company, Limited Liability Partnership (in some jurisdictions), Limited Partnership, Limited Liability Limited Partnership (also only in some jurisdictions), even go naked as as simple Partnership or Joint Venture.

By the time you're big enough to go public, you'll be able to afford the lawyers you need to reorganize. And that will be the least of your concerns. In the meantime, pick a business structure that is well-suited to your current needs, and can even help with some of your current headaches, like salaries, taxes, and cash flow.

So, yes, a good accountant will pay for themselves many times over. So will a good lawyer. Finding a good one is the real challenge.

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

#37
post #32
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be fine with it. I think later on when you've got dozens (or hundreds) of employees and a limited options pool, it might become unfeasible. But right now, I'd have no problem with paying an employee only equity. Even tiny companies like us have valuations that are, well, non-zero, so it's not like some employee can conspire to get founder equity status by simply not taking cash. Why, know someone who will take on…

Are there legal problems with this? Don't you need to pay at least minimum wage? Or is that implied?

[deleted]

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

#38
post #37
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there legal problems with this? Don't you need to pay at least minimum wage? Or is that implied?

[deleted]

hm. I'm also not a lawyer or a tax professional, so I may have it completely wrong, and I should probably shut up. But my understanding was that if you owned equity in a company and you worked for that company, if the IRS looked at it, in nearly all cases you'd be ruled an employee.

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

#39
post #37
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there legal problems with this? Don't you need to pay at least minimum wage? Or is that implied?

[deleted]

According to the IRS (I am a tax attorney/accountant) any officer of a corporation is a "statutory" employee. Anything of value that the corporation gives to that person is construed as wages -- subject to SS tax, medicare tax, federal unemployment, and all the rest of the employee/employer law. (which varies by jurisdiction, but is almost always expensive and onerous). In fact, anything of value that goes to a person related to that officer is wages to the officer. Stock, par or no par, usually has some value. Those are wages.

Just as note to add dark humor to the subject -- note that in the law the employer/employee relationship is called "Master-Servant."

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

#40
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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."

Exxon Mobile paid $21 billion in corporate taxes on operating income of $53 billion in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 for an effective corporate tax rate of 40%. Do leftists not know where to look this stuff up? They are allowed to take finance and accounting classes, no?

Post reply on HN