Great article, two issues: 1. Instead of looking at averages for entrepreneurs (and stock-holding employees) it should look at expected values. Those take probabilities into account. So with a 0.1 chance of a $100MM payout[1] gives you an expected payout of just $10MM for ~7 years of very hard work. Not too shabby, but not spectacular either. 2. "Assuming you don’t have any exits and you work 65 hours a week while ru…
The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
11–20 of 105 posts
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#12There's not a single mention of taxes in the article. I don't think that the average employee is aware that an entrepreneur/founder/self-employed person can save a lot of tax if they structure it right and are meticulous about it. A self-employed person earning $70K a year can be better off than an employee earning $100K.
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#13Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#14There's not a single mention of taxes in the article. I don't think that the average employee is aware that an entrepreneur/founder/self-employed person can save a lot of tax if they structure it right and are meticulous about it. A self-employed person earning $70K a year can be better off than an employee earning $100K.
I used to be an 'independent contractor'. I work for companies doing ecommerce / Java / Consulting work. I work a fixed term contract and leave when the project is complete.
I set up a limited liability company with me as the director and the only employee. When I get a contract (work), the client hires my company rather than hiring me directly. Depending on your specific tax laws, you pay a lot less tax using this kind of setup i.e. you pay yourself a low salary and the rest in (low tax) dividends.
This is the standard way most IT contractors operate.
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#15There's not a single mention of taxes in the article. I don't think that the average employee is aware that an entrepreneur/founder/self-employed person can save a lot of tax if they structure it right and are meticulous about it. A self-employed person earning $70K a year can be better off than an employee earning $100K.
Elaboration time... I did this in the UK, similar likely applies in the states. I used to be an 'independent contractor'. I work for companies doing ecommerce / Java / Consulting work. I work a fixed term contract and leave when the project is complete. I set up a limited liability company with me as the director and the only employee. When I get a contract (work), the client hires my company rather than hiring me di…
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#16However, if you want to build something that you own, are passionate about, and are comfortable with the possibility of not having much money for many years then being an entrepreneur is definitely a worthwhile endeavor.
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elaboration time... I did this in the UK, similar likely applies in the states. I used to be an 'independent contractor'. I work for companies doing ecommerce / Java / Consulting work. I work a fixed term contract and leave when the project is complete. I set up a limited liability company with me as the director and the only employee. When I get a contract (work), the client hires my company rather than hiring me di…
I'm not even remotely close to being a lawyer, but I thought in the US a single-member LLC is taxed the same as a sole proprietor.
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#18I would look more simply at all the people I know that are entrepreneurs versus those that work in a job.
At least 50 percent of the entrepreneurs have over $1 million In assets and in a few cases over $10 million
Zero employees that I know have over $1 million in assets
I think it is far more likely to be wealthy as an entrepreneur, it's possibly a bit safer as an employee.
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#19The equity value of a founder's shares is an order of magnitude higher than an early hire, or two orders higher than a late A or B round hire, and 3-4 orders higher than a pre IPO employee. No one gets rich as a regular IC hire at series B or C, even at a Google -- it probably tops out at 10-15mm, vs 15b for the founders. Even more so at companies less successful than Google.
On top of that, founders get supremely preferential tax treatment. Founders shares are generally bought near nil, and the entirety of gains are long term capital gains. If you do it right with QSBS and moving to WA before the sale, it can be taxed at zero. An employee often ends up paying hella AMT on almost all gain from ISOs since he didn't early exercise (or, early exercises at substantial out-of-pocket cost), and gets less freedom to sell in later financings, less return in a sub-optimal exit where the sale is covered with preference but "retention grants" are given to founders, etc.
I think the optimal strategy is to work for the most prestigious and successful companies purely as a learning and reputation building exercise, and then either be a founder or consultant to make money. It might be possible to enter a slightly earlier (series b) company as a director or better and still get a reasonable amount of equity (1%+ in a 100-200mm company), but otherwise either going for the tax advantaged, high variance outcome as a founder, or the high cash, flexible, also tax optimized outcome as a consultant, is the best way to actually get paid.
Re: The ROI on being an entrepreneur vs. an employee
#20There's not a single mention of taxes in the article. I don't think that the average employee is aware that an entrepreneur/founder/self-employed person can save a lot of tax if they structure it right and are meticulous about it. A self-employed person earning $70K a year can be better off than an employee earning $100K.
Can you expand upon that? I am always looking to reduce my taxes. I got killed with my 1099s this year.
Small payroll income so that you fall within a low income tax bracket. Top up salary with dividends as they have a much lower rate of tax. If you have a live at home wife, make sure she's employed by the company in some form, eg. you can pay her the minimum wage for secretarial duties. Ideally falling within the tax-free lower bracket. Unlike regular employment, you can start claiming a lot of everyday things such as food/transport/home office electricity/internet/etc. as business expenses, thus meaning you can claim 20% VAT (sales taxes) back depending.
Ultimately, there's also the final payout if you manage to sell the company. If it were classed as regular bonus income, you'd be taxed at 45%. Instead you get charged as capital gains at 18-28%. You can also get entrepeneur relief on the first £10m which means you only get charged 10% instead of 28%.
NOTE: Some of these are loopholes like dividends and employing family. They tend to get cracked down on every now and again (I'm not even sure if they're valid now)
But when you get down to it, there are a heck of a lot of potential savings over standard income tax (currently 40% on anything over £32k, 45% over £150k)