3 ms·

As is evidenced by this and the GE story some weeks ago, it is clear that good (as in thoughtful, experienced, and very legal) guidance in taxes is almost alway

As is evidenced by this and the GE story some weeks ago, it is clear that good (as in thoughtful, experienced, and very legal) guidance in taxes is almost always worth the cost--IF there are big bucks on the table. In my experience, many of the techniques used with the rich can be used (after a little tinkering) with struggling startups. Its just that the wealthier clients are willing to pay more. There are only so many hours in the day. Thus, the professional, by default, doesn't choose to end up earning 1/2X when they could just as easily earn 2X. There must be a way to leverage technology so that these expensive folks get paid the market rate and micro companies can afford it. Not cookie cutter forms, but real, specific, thoughtful solutions that fit. Maybe its in the interface.

rprasad 15y ago
The interface has nothing to do with it. It's all about how much they can get paid for offering tax advice. But most of the solutions that the ultrarich use require significant amounts of monetary investment to achieve tax deferral (or income nonrecognition) results. The general wealth point at which it starts making economic sense to employ a tax advisor is $250k-$350k in yearly income (depending on whether the income is salary or from capital investments). Less than that, and you'll pay more in fees than you will save in taxes.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  I think by "it's in the interface" markklarich means that it may be possible to structure the work and information in a way, possibly through the use of innovative software, that makes it economically viable to make top-tier wealth management available to the next top n% of earners, where n is greater than the proportion who can currently afford it. As a hypothetical example, if there is some tedious aspect of tax advising that can't be assigned to a lower-paid accountant but could be automated, that would free up time to apply to additional clients. Alternatively, it may be possible to design a software and paperwork system that allows the slightly-rich to pool their resources and get a sort of one-size-fits-all solution to their tax problems.
  - markklarich 15y ago
    Exactly. Thanks.

rprasad 15y ago

The interface has nothing to do with it. It's all about how much they can get paid for offering tax advice. But most of the solutions that the ultrarich use require significant amounts of monetary investment to achieve tax deferral (or income nonrecognition) results. The general wealth point at which it starts making economic sense to employ a tax advisor is $250k-$350k in yearly income (depending on whether the income is salary or from capital investments). Less than that, and you'll pay more in fees than you will save in taxes.

nitrogen 15y ago
I think by "it's in the interface" markklarich means that it may be possible to structure the work and information in a way, possibly through the use of innovative software, that makes it economically viable to make top-tier wealth management available to the next top n% of earners, where n is greater than the proportion who can currently afford it. As a hypothetical example, if there is some tedious aspect of tax advising that can't be assigned to a lower-paid accountant but could be automated, that would free up time to apply to additional clients. Alternatively, it may be possible to design a software and paperwork system that allows the slightly-rich to pool their resources and get a sort of one-size-fits-all solution to their tax problems.
- markklarich 15y ago
  Exactly. Thanks.