3 ms·
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 r
by rprasad 16y 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 16y agoI 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 16y agoExactly. Thanks.