ConceptualEconomist t1_j9ib91d wrote

There’s a lot of reasons it could be higher, maybe MA has a lot more going on in terms of auditing businesses. Maybe MA wants to incentivize people to be general S Corps because they understand that there’s virtually little difference outside of the protections afforded to LLCs.

Regardless, it’s not really that important in the grand scheme of things. $500 should be a drop in the bucket for LLCs for MA.

If you want to point to other states, then you should take into account other parts of MA compared to that state (higher COL, other of the many indicators pointing to MA as being a top living destination state).


ConceptualEconomist t1_j9fcmpf wrote

Accountant here - there is some wrong information here in this thread about taxing of an LLC and S Corps. There are distinctions between these two things. An LLC is a legal structure that protects its partners from personal liability (there are exceptions to this, if the “corporate veil is pierced”). An S Corp is a tax-filing status where income flows through the entity to the person (S Corp v C Corp are the two types companies file for taxes, a lot of differences here but that’s another discussion).

LLCs require a higher fee because of the protection provided to LLCs by the state. People in this thread who say LLCs are taxed differently than S Corps or those who say MA is stupid and that’s why it’s a higher fee literally have zero clue what they’re talking about.


ConceptualEconomist t1_is2rwvg wrote

Lmao, it’s not pedantic. Additionally, you pick up on an extra ‘s’ and try to make fun of my mistake, and you also say “Thanks for helping my writing out”. Pick up a book, go back to school, go outside and touch some grass, maybe talk to another person that you can physically see! Just something other than staying on Reddit, please.


ConceptualEconomist t1_is2p6dz wrote

My reading comprehension? Did you see the original point I was trying to make about the original commenter’s “the US didn’t ‘lose economic equality’ as much as it ‘gained inequality’”? The point I was trying to make is they are the same and you’re going off about “ReAL WorLD APPliCaTIoN”. You’re two scenarios of Americans either becoming poorer or wealthier is independent of “gaining inequality” and “losing equality” being the same thing. In your first scenario (Americans becoming poorer - had to point this out because your reading comprehension is probably lower than that of the average second grader), they gained inequality/losses equality. In your second scenario (Americans gaining wealth), they gained equality/lost inequality.


ConceptualEconomist t1_is2n7f1 wrote

You are conflating it with a specific class. You’re practically admitting to it by saying “Middle class people being pushed into poverty, versus wealthy people tripling their salaries, both increase inequality. One is a massive problem, the other, not nearly as much.” You even said both increase inequality! So how is that different from decreasing equality? It isn’t different.


ConceptualEconomist t1_is2kux5 wrote

Don’t conflate equality with specific classes. Equality is relative to all classes, not one. “Gaining inequality” could mean the wealthy becoming wealthier, the poorer becoming poorer, or a mix of the two. You are assigning inequality solely to the working class, which is stupid because the “inequality” part is the working class relative to the wealthy. What about if the working class became even more better off than the poor? Would you say the working class “gained equality”? No, you’d say “it is less equitable”.


ConceptualEconomist t1_is1w8pp wrote

Agreed with Reagan era introducing tax laws/regs that helped the rich, but the whole “US didn’t ‘lose economic equality’ as much as it “gained economic inequality’” literally mean the same thing. Becoming less equitable is the same as becoming more inequitable. There’s no possible way by definition for something to become less equitable and less inequitable simultaneously.