[himax]

Thanks for your reply.

"The main problem is that you're completely missing the point." Sorry, can you be a little less confrontational?

"This is a complete non-topic." "...pay yourselves minimum wage if you can." And if I can't pay myself and several more founders? Would that make it a "Yes, topic" ?

I don't trust just one person's proclamations, specially when it makes no sense and there is no explanation, just a directive.

What sense does it make for all Founders depositing into start-up their post tax saving just so that start-up pay them back those money minus second income tax, minus second FICA & Unemployment insurance deductions for next 6-12 month?

That doesn't make sense to me. Because that prevents almost all tech startups to legally exist.

Thanks again for your comment.

[tjpd]

It's always hard to convey tone of voice well online. Sorry.

"And if I can't pay myself and several more founders? Would that make it a "Yes, topic" ?"

No, it's still a non-topic. If you can't pay your founders minimum wage you still have the same two choices: do a start-up or don't do a start-up. If you chose to do a start-up, know that you are taking on the additional risk that you might be breaking minimum wage laws and/or one of your founders can take you to court over it.

"What sense does it make for all Founders depositing...?"

The sense of it, is that it removes the risk of you breaking minimum wage law. That's ignoring all the positive social good of all those things. As NeutronBoy mentions you're literally describing how business works.

"that prevents almost all tech startups to legally exist"

No, it doesn't. I think your confusions stems from misunderstanding how law works & how law is enforced. Law is not proactive & the law is not binary. Minimum wage law cannot prevent "a start-up to legally exist". As Kirsty & Carolynn point out several times in that video your startup is a separate legal entity, one that exists from the point of incorporation. Assuming you've incorporated your start-up exists. Minimum wage law can't make it un-exist. A law or statute can't prevent it from existing. The clearest evidence for this is that thousands of start-ups do exist & that >0 them probably haven't paid minimum wage.

[himax]

Yes, I described how "some" businesses do it, most of them fail by 5 year mark or earlier and most of them don't give equity to early employees and don't have founders that work for equity, those are "some".

In contrast, most high tech or newer generation of self educated founders start without any money till there is an MVP and if some money are needed they are almost never allocated for complying with minimum wage laws to pay to equity earning founder, because in most businesses there is a more pressing need to pay for unavoidable things without which business wouldn't exist at all.

I perfectly know how law works, you just didn't picked-up on an emphasis of "legally" that was kind of obvious, meaning was "exist in legal compliance" I could have phrased it more accurately and you got me there, but it was more of an emotional typing than a prepared essay.

[NeutronBoy]

> What sense does it make for all Founders depositing into start-up their post tax saving just so that start-up pay them back those money minus second income tax, minus second FICA & Unemployment insurance deductions for next 6-12 month?

You've just described how all business work.

1. Someone at the start puts in money

2. The business does work and pays it's employees

3. The person who put the money in at the start get's a share in the profits.

The fact that the people putting the money in, and the people doing the work are the same doesn't really matter.