Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ajmurmann 1281 days ago
The article also mentioned money going to other people working on the game. Unclear how's much that is though.

Edit: this also touches on a grievance I have with progressive taxation and annualized retirement savings. These guys might have been in a Lowe tax bracket for many years and be back in a low tax bracket depending on how sales go over the years. The one time they hit it home they are in the top tax bracket and can only max out tax advantages from retirement contributions for that one year. They'd be in a much better position in this regard of their income was spread out. The entire system is build assuming people earn pretty much the same year to year. Same for other self-funded founders with exits.
2 comments
happyopossum 1281 days ago
They could easily set up a corporation and pay themselves over 10-20 years to avoid a windfall (and max out tax advantages over multiple years) if that’s the goal…
link
jwfergus 1281 days ago
The corporation would actualize the income as profit at some <=1Yr period, where it would be subject to corporate tax. Not saying your idea wouldn't work out best tax-wise, but that you'd still need to run the numbers. I'm pretty amateur at accounting, so I don't know.

I do get a kick out of the idea that these guys basically revolve a lot of their life around developing DF. I wonder how much of their lifestyle could be legitimately expensed from a corporate account without any IRS hassle.

link
datalopers 1281 days ago
Would be nice if you earned a 401(k) credit/allowance each year so when you do hit it big you can rapidly play catch-up on the past 20 years or whatever.
link
cableshaft 1281 days ago
> Would be nice if you earned a 401(k) credit/allowance each year so when you do hit it big you can rapidly play catch-up on the past 20 years or whatever.

No kidding. I spent most of my 20s and part of my 30s working for companies without a 401k (several small startups or video game studios). I'd love to put in more than the max now to make up for it, but have to make do with just buying stocks without the tax advantage.

I think that if you're considered 'behind' for your current salary and age, especially significantly so (I bet a bunch of people here, even those 10 years younger than me, probably have 5-10x more in their 401k than I do), there really shouldn't be much of a cap on what you can put into your 401k.

Like the cap should just be a max total you can have in there based on your age, not a cap per year.

link