Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA • Hacker News Board

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#31

Post by tankenmate » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:48 AM UTC

mjolk wrote: post #18

> All of a sudden, we were forced to figure out, how much we actually sold in each of those states, where we hired people Not to be offensive, but differences in state rules should have been expected, given the name of the country. How hard do you think it would be to get a random sample of 50 people to decide on a movie? Now swap people with territories and movie with governance. This blog post is just ranting and w…

After having done business in many other countries you begin to realise that certain countries have a love affair with needless bureaucracy; the US and it's fragmented federation being one of them. Take Australia for example; even though it is a federation of states (and territories) like the US it has one uniform goods and sales tax that is consistent across the country. In fact states regularly come together to share best practice between legislation and administration in order to increase efficiencies within the country. Even road laws (which are a state matter in Australia) have been deliberately homogenised between states. Even countries like the UK with it's constituent nations and territories work hard at having a uniform and efficient system for businesses to do what they need to do.

Saying "Just deal with it" is a cop out that will end up consigning your country to a worsening economic future. Tourists are already turned off from coming to the US because of the TSA issues. Having a "Just deal with it" attitude will also drive away business. This will lead to a worsening trade imbalance and the joys that come forthwith.

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#32

Post by davidw » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:48 AM UTC

clarkevans wrote: post #28

yardie wrote: post #3

* You could have saved yourself a load of headache and incorporate in Delaware. * If you don't have a physical office in each state you don't have a presence there. You shouldn't have needed to pay sales tax. Amazon only pays taxes in states they have a physical presence (warehouse, office, callcenter).

Hiring an employee in another state may create a nexus in that state, and this may require you to file income tax in that state. For example, if you incorporate in Delaware, and then hire someone for >$50k in Texas, you may have to file company income taxes in Texas. Not that Texas income attributed to your company (or partners) will be much, but, computing and filing is best done by hiring an accountant.

I'm not sure about EU law - but if you have a company in Denmark, and want to hire someone who works in Portugal as a permanent employee, and not a contractor, what do you need to do?

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#33

Post by davidw » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:49 AM UTC

mcv wrote: post #27

mjolk wrote: post #18

> All of a sudden, we were forced to figure out, how much we actually sold in each of those states, where we hired people Not to be offensive, but differences in state rules should have been expected, given the name of the country. How hard do you think it would be to get a random sample of 50 people to decide on a movie? Now swap people with territories and movie with governance. This blog post is just ranting and w…

It's not just ranting about some paperwork. It's pointing out that the paperwork is far worse than in the EU (which is far less unified than the US, but at least the labour market is pretty transparent), and actively discourages companies from incorporating in the US. The US is hurting its own bottomline here. Now countries shouldn't make it too attractive for companies either; then you get a race to the bottom where…

> the EU

No, Denmark. If you want paperwork, there's plenty to be had here in Italy!

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#34

Post by arethuza » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:52 AM UTC

xvirk wrote: post #7

whenever someone is boasting about how the scandinavia is a paradise I'd suggest reading this article in Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-mi...

I think this comment on the article sums it up nicely:

"I have this feeling that Michael Booth was simply trying to respond to the highly selective, often fallacious Nordic image currently being peddled in the UK (with the Guardian as the worst offender) with an article employing the same kind of distortions. A rhetorical device, if you like."

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#35

Post by kartikkumar » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:54 AM UTC

sourceless wrote: post #22

kartikkumar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition the US can't be like a 3rd world country (hint: 3rd world country is not what I think you mean to say [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

First, no, key word being 'like' - it's a comparison. Second, yes, you're right, but no need to be a pedant, the meaning original commenter employed is widely accepted and understood.

Understood as what? I'm presuming you're implying that "3rd world country" == "country in the developing world", as it's often used. Although you might consider it to be fully acceptable, there are many that disagree that that equality be taken as a norm, including the head of the World Bank [1].

Fact of the matter is that use of the "3rd world" as a descriptor is contentious at the very least and I opted to draw attention to this fact.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/third-world-term-sh...

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#36

Post by davidw » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:56 AM UTC

It's indubitable that the nordic countries are well-run places. Occasionally though, the amount of "smug" they export is a bit on the high side.

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#37

Post by ari_ » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:56 AM UTC

A lot of this could have been solved by (pick a few):

1. forming a 1099 relationship with your devs if they weren't working full time.

2.Using a Personal Employment Organization.

3. Doing your research before blindly incorporating in Texas. We could debate for ages the merits of the state and federal system, but if you were going down this whole road of opening a company in another country and hiring there, then it would have been useful to talk to a tax lawyer and an accountant who are familiar with the issues involved.

TLDR;Europeans whining about things they didn't research, again.

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#38

Post by kartikkumar » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:57 AM UTC

Orangeair wrote: post #21

kartikkumar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition the US can't be like a 3rd world country (hint: 3rd world country is not what I think you mean to say [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Since we're smugly throwing around Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

Had you seen my body language when I posted the comment, you might not have decided that it was made out of any sense of smugness.

NOTE:

Since my comments in this thread were downvoted, implying that they were not taken in the spirit they were intended, my contribution to this thread should be considered obsolete. I'll leave my original comments in place to serve as a reminder to myself to be careful about what I say around here in future.

[OBSOLETE]

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#39

Post by CalRobert » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 10:58 AM UTC

I really don't understand this fetishization of the US for business. If you want to be sued into utter oblivion and live on the streets with a nonexistent social safety net I guess it's all right. I'm in Ireland and if you want to start a real business (not some rinkydink app that mysteriously needs €30 million in funding so you can fail more spectacularly) the climate seems quite good.

Re: Why you might not want to incorporate in the USA

#40

Post by vacri » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 11:01 AM UTC

mjolk wrote: post #18

> All of a sudden, we were forced to figure out, how much we actually sold in each of those states, where we hired people Not to be offensive, but differences in state rules should have been expected, given the name of the country. How hard do you think it would be to get a random sample of 50 people to decide on a movie? Now swap people with territories and movie with governance. This blog post is just ranting and w…

differences in state rules should have been expected, given the name of the country

'United'?