3 ms·

I’m unclear about two things: - This seems like it’s a big problem for small startups, but a complete non-issue for FAANG. So why are the FAANGs doing such agg

I’m unclear about two things: - This seems like it’s a big problem for small startups, but a complete non-issue for FAANG. So why are the FAANGs doing such aggressive layoffs? - Why is this in the public discourse until just now? Until a few weeks ago, the discourse seemed to be that the sudden discontinuation of ZIRP was the primary contributor to the tech job meltdown. Suddenly the narrative is changing, but nothing is new, given that tax code change happened in 2022.

mikeflynn 1y ago
Section 174 has definitely been talked about a lot over the last few years, (even here on HN from time to time) but it's tax code details like this that never seem to make it above hype-fueled misrepresentations like "AI Is Taking All Software Jobs!" Yes, it's a huge problem for small startups. Many of them went from not making revenue in the eyes of the IRS to being profitable and having massive tax bills. FAANG has the ability to move things around to their EU offices, but they also have the ability to spin it and do a layoff to help with their tax burden but also cover up issues like over-spending on projects like a shift to VR that didn't go anywhere, for example.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 1y ago
  > Yes, it's a huge problem for small startups. Many of them went from not making revenue in the eyes of the IRS to being profitable and having massive tax bills. Let's be clear: as a small startup this means that you went from not making any money (i.e. losing money), to losing slightly more money. It certainly sucks that you get a tax bill when you're not profitable [1], but the tax is still proportional to revenue, which for many early stage startups is small, and should be growing rapidly enough that the marginal investment in your meager R&D team is worth it. And if it isn't growing, you have bigger problems and probably shouldn't be hiring anyway. You budget for it and move on, just like you budget for anything else. My point is that the rhetoric around this issue has made it sounds like your median founder is going to stop founding in the USA and go so somewhere else, but that's fairly silly. It isn't good to not be able to deduct salaries, but it's probably not a "massive" problem. For the truly early stage startup it doesn't even merit consideration, because you're not making enough money for the tax to come close to a salary. US Corporate tax rate is 21%. Assuming that you aren't able to deduct anything at all, you'd have to be making $1M a year in revenue (real annual revenue, not theoretical extrapolated future revenue) to get close to a fully loaded engineer. Where this definitely will hurt is in a large corporation that is bringing in billions of dollars in revenue, and employing many thousands of people in R&D. That's a real knock to the quarterly report, which can (and will) be found by cutting the fat -- of which there is a lot. [1] and, to be clear, I think the change in rules are dumb and should be reverted.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    > Let's be clear: as a small startup this means that you went from not making any money (i.e. losing money), to losing slightly more money. That’s not how it’s playing out in reality at all. Are you lying or confused? Small groups working on government grants are getting hit with six figure tax bills. They aren’t undergoing a minor shift; this is something that will destroy many small businesses working on research specifically, if nothing else.
    - timr 1y ago
      > That’s not how it’s playing out in reality at all. The math is straightforward. You can make wild assertions all day long, but ultimately, you have to have significant revenues for this to matter on the margin. > Small groups working on government grants are getting hit with six figure tax bills. Setting aside the...let's say "rarity" of what you're describing -- small, for-profit groups applying for government grants (oy) as a startup -- for these orgs to truly be getting "six-figure tax bills", it means that they have to be making about half a million dollars a year in revenue (minimum), with no deductions at all. I'm not saying that small startups aren't getting tax bills or that those bills don't suck; I'm saying that they don't explain industry wide hiring trends.
      - kulahan 1y ago
        > You can make wild assertions all day long, but ultimately, you have to have significant revenues for this to matter Oh, you actually are just straight-up lying, or purposefully wallowing in ignorance. Here, read this so you can’t play this game where you pretend not to know that this is true. https://sensiba.com/resources/insights/protecting-qualified-small-business-eligibility-while-navigating-section-174/#:~:text=Section%20174%20rules%20requiring%20businesses,benefits%20and%20capital%20gains%20exclusions. https://sensiba.com/resources/insights/protecting-qualified-...
        timr 1y ago
        > Oh, you actually are just straight-up lying, or purposefully wallowing in ignorance. Wow. I know I shouldn't reply, but: 1) That's about QSBS, not income tax. 2) QSBS is only relevant should your equity be liquid (i.e. IPO, sale, etc.) in the distant future (there's a 5-year holding period). 3) QSBS is only applicable to a fraction of startups anyway. The section 174 change interacts with both things, but the reason people want to change it has nothing to do with QSBS, and everything to do with the fact that they cannot deduct expenditures in the current tax year.
Bukhmanizer 1y ago
I made a comment elsewhere but FAANGs can do aggressive layoffs because the startup ecosystem is so much harsher these days. If (non-AI) startups no longer pose an existential threat to your organization, then why do you need to spend so much on talent? Your users won’t have anywhere else to go.
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Exactly that. The startup scene is dead and killed venture capital. But some recent acquisitions might change that, especially openai acquiring io and meta scale ai for billions while also paying up to 9 digits salaries to 50 newly recruited AI scientists. We are watching the birth of the one-person startup
  - Bukhmanizer 1y ago
    Yep and note that AI is the big exception to that largely due to the lack of established regulation that heavily favours incumbents that a lot of tech ecosystems now suffer from.
bagacrap 1y ago
Investors as a whole began scrutinizing earnings and stock prices of FAANGs and other high growth companies much more closely starting in 2022. While this may amount to an accounting change if you can float the bill for a few years, it should affect the stock price in a regime where investors care about p/e ratios. The stock price is the C-suite's duty to protect, and also affects cost of capital. So leadership will take steps to cut short term costs. This is all theoretical though. I'm curious what the actual measured impact on profitability is for mag7.
tom_m 1y ago
It is a huge issue for FAANG. I'd think moreso than startups. They employ so many more people. The numbers add up quick. Big companies are not laying people off because of the AI boogie man. AI is still rapidly changing and hasn't been adopted as much as people think. What? Companies are being pre-emptive here? No. They are letting people go because of many reasons, least of all is AI. If you could magically go twice as fast you don't say ok let's not do that. Instead let's go as fast as we were going before. Not if you have the budget. If it was part of your plan. Your plan that you wouldn't change overnight. Nope. This is all part of the plan at these companies. They hired knowing the tax breaks would run out. They literally hired to fire people and they aren't going to admit that. How convenient the AI boogie man came about around the same time...but for anyone who understands budgets and how things work, this was all set into motion BEFORE AI.

mikeflynn 1y ago

Section 174 has definitely been talked about a lot over the last few years, (even here on HN from time to time) but it's tax code details like this that never seem to make it above hype-fueled misrepresentations like "AI Is Taking All Software Jobs!" Yes, it's a huge problem for small startups. Many of them went from not making revenue in the eyes of the IRS to being profitable and having massive tax bills. FAANG has the ability to move things around to their EU offices, but they also have the ability to spin it and do a layoff to help with their tax burden but also cover up issues like over-spending on projects like a shift to VR that didn't go anywhere, for example.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
timr 1y ago
> Yes, it's a huge problem for small startups. Many of them went from not making revenue in the eyes of the IRS to being profitable and having massive tax bills. Let's be clear: as a small startup this means that you went from not making any money (i.e. losing money), to losing slightly more money. It certainly sucks that you get a tax bill when you're not profitable [1], but the tax is still proportional to revenue, which for many early stage startups is small, and should be growing rapidly enough that the marginal investment in your meager R&D team is worth it. And if it isn't growing, you have bigger problems and probably shouldn't be hiring anyway. You budget for it and move on, just like you budget for anything else. My point is that the rhetoric around this issue has made it sounds like your median founder is going to stop founding in the USA and go so somewhere else, but that's fairly silly. It isn't good to not be able to deduct salaries, but it's probably not a "massive" problem. For the truly early stage startup it doesn't even merit consideration, because you're not making enough money for the tax to come close to a salary. US Corporate tax rate is 21%. Assuming that you aren't able to deduct anything at all, you'd have to be making $1M a year in revenue (real annual revenue, not theoretical extrapolated future revenue) to get close to a fully loaded engineer. Where this definitely will hurt is in a large corporation that is bringing in billions of dollars in revenue, and employing many thousands of people in R&D. That's a real knock to the quarterly report, which can (and will) be found by cutting the fat -- of which there is a lot. [1] and, to be clear, I think the change in rules are dumb and should be reverted.
- kulahan 1y ago
  > Let's be clear: as a small startup this means that you went from not making any money (i.e. losing money), to losing slightly more money. That’s not how it’s playing out in reality at all. Are you lying or confused? Small groups working on government grants are getting hit with six figure tax bills. They aren’t undergoing a minor shift; this is something that will destroy many small businesses working on research specifically, if nothing else.
  - timr 1y ago
    > That’s not how it’s playing out in reality at all. The math is straightforward. You can make wild assertions all day long, but ultimately, you have to have significant revenues for this to matter on the margin. > Small groups working on government grants are getting hit with six figure tax bills. Setting aside the...let's say "rarity" of what you're describing -- small, for-profit groups applying for government grants (oy) as a startup -- for these orgs to truly be getting "six-figure tax bills", it means that they have to be making about half a million dollars a year in revenue (minimum), with no deductions at all. I'm not saying that small startups aren't getting tax bills or that those bills don't suck; I'm saying that they don't explain industry wide hiring trends.
    - kulahan 1y ago
      > You can make wild assertions all day long, but ultimately, you have to have significant revenues for this to matter Oh, you actually are just straight-up lying, or purposefully wallowing in ignorance. Here, read this so you can’t play this game where you pretend not to know that this is true. https://sensiba.com/resources/insights/protecting-qualified-small-business-eligibility-while-navigating-section-174/#:~:text=Section%20174%20rules%20requiring%20businesses,benefits%20and%20capital%20gains%20exclusions. https://sensiba.com/resources/insights/protecting-qualified-...
      - timr 1y ago
        > Oh, you actually are just straight-up lying, or purposefully wallowing in ignorance. Wow. I know I shouldn't reply, but: 1) That's about QSBS, not income tax. 2) QSBS is only relevant should your equity be liquid (i.e. IPO, sale, etc.) in the distant future (there's a 5-year holding period). 3) QSBS is only applicable to a fraction of startups anyway. The section 174 change interacts with both things, but the reason people want to change it has nothing to do with QSBS, and everything to do with the fact that they cannot deduct expenditures in the current tax year.

Bukhmanizer 1y ago

I made a comment elsewhere but FAANGs can do aggressive layoffs because the startup ecosystem is so much harsher these days. If (non-AI) startups no longer pose an existential threat to your organization, then why do you need to spend so much on talent? Your users won’t have anywhere else to go.

owebmaster 1y ago
Exactly that. The startup scene is dead and killed venture capital. But some recent acquisitions might change that, especially openai acquiring io and meta scale ai for billions while also paying up to 9 digits salaries to 50 newly recruited AI scientists. We are watching the birth of the one-person startup
- Bukhmanizer 1y ago
  Yep and note that AI is the big exception to that largely due to the lack of established regulation that heavily favours incumbents that a lot of tech ecosystems now suffer from.

bagacrap 1y ago

Investors as a whole began scrutinizing earnings and stock prices of FAANGs and other high growth companies much more closely starting in 2022. While this may amount to an accounting change if you can float the bill for a few years, it should affect the stock price in a regime where investors care about p/e ratios. The stock price is the C-suite's duty to protect, and also affects cost of capital. So leadership will take steps to cut short term costs. This is all theoretical though. I'm curious what the actual measured impact on profitability is for mag7.

tom_m 1y ago

It is a huge issue for FAANG. I'd think moreso than startups. They employ so many more people. The numbers add up quick. Big companies are not laying people off because of the AI boogie man. AI is still rapidly changing and hasn't been adopted as much as people think. What? Companies are being pre-emptive here? No. They are letting people go because of many reasons, least of all is AI. If you could magically go twice as fast you don't say ok let's not do that. Instead let's go as fast as we were going before. Not if you have the budget. If it was part of your plan. Your plan that you wouldn't change overnight. Nope. This is all part of the plan at these companies. They hired knowing the tax breaks would run out. They literally hired to fire people and they aren't going to admit that. How convenient the AI boogie man came about around the same time...but for anyone who understands budgets and how things work, this was all set into motion BEFORE AI.