2 ms·
The tax change I would like to see is a better way to support bootstrapped small companies whose working capital requirements are increasing as they grow. You
by zaroth 10y ago
The tax change I would like to see is a better way to support bootstrapped small companies whose working capital requirements are increasing as they grow.
You start on Day 1 with $100 and sweat equity and grow your business. Year one you have $100k of revenue and $90k of expenses. You need that $10k in the bank as its now your monthly burn.
Year 2 you grow to $400k and have $40k of net income. You need that $40k in the bank because it's now your monthly burn.
Year 3 you grow to $1.2m and have $200k of net income. You need that $200k in the bank because... Ok, you get it.
If you're funded you can burn those funds in the beginning and carry forward the losses as your capital requirements are growing.
Otherwise you are stuck paying at least 40%, but can be much more depending on the states you do business in, not to mention the CPA cost is substantial just to make all the filings.
It's really hard to bootstrap from $0 when every dollar you need to keep in the bank just to have 3 months expenses on hand, actually costs you $2.
It's also really hard to get a line of credit that early in the business lifecycle, so it's quite a trap for bootstrapping companies.
It would be really great if there was a way to defer the taxes on that early profit that is staying as working capital.
Almost like the money shouldn't be taxed at the corporate level as long as the company is not holding more than X months of expenses.
I've read there are taxes for holding "too much" money at the corporate level and not paying dividends, but apparently it's not really applied in practice? Or, again, only targeting smaller businesses who can't afford to play the necessary games.