Starting a large business with a not so large income?
"There are three (or four) ways that a company can grow: (Crowdfunding is a relatively new (in mainstream businesses) alternative financing method where people will finance a company with the expectation that they will benefit from the product or service that they provide.) Obviously a startup has no prior income to use, so it must either raise money through equity or debt. People say that one must borrow contingent on their salary. Banks lend money based on the ability to pay the loan back plus interest.  For individuals, their income is their primary source of cash flow, so, yes, it is usually the determining factor in getting a loan.  For a business the key factor is future cash flows.  So a business will borrow money, say, to buy a new asset (like a factory) that will be used to generate cash flows in the future so that they can pay down the debt.  If the bank believes that the use of the money is going to be profitable enough that they will get their money back with interest, they'll loan the money. Equity investors are essentially the same, but since they don't get a guaranteed payback (they only get paid through non-guaranteed dividends or liquidation), their risk is higher and they are looking for higher expected returns. So the question I'd have as a bank or equity investor is ""what are you going to do with the money?""  What is your business strategy? What are you going to do that will make profits in the future?  Do you have a special idea or skill that you can turn into a profitable business?  (Crowdfunding would be similar - people are willing to give you money based on either the social or personal benefit of some product or service.) So any business either starts small and grows over time (which is how the vast majority of businesses grow), or has some special idea, asset, skill, or something that would make a bank willing to take a risk on a huge loan. I know, again, that people here tend to turn blind eyes on unfortunate realities, but people do make giant businesses without having giant incomes. The ""unfortunate reality"" is that most startups fail.  Which may sound bad, but also keep in mind that most startups are created by people that are OK with failing.  They are people that are willing to fail 9 times with the thought that the 10th one will take off and make up for the losses of the first 9.   So I would say - if you have some great idea or skill and a viable strategy and plan to take it to market, then GO FOR IT. You don't need a huge salary to start off.  You need something that you can take to market and make money.  Most people (myself included) either do not have that idea or skill to go out on their own, or don't have the courage to take that kind of risk.  But don't go in assuming all you need is a loan and you'll be an instant millionaire.  You might, but the odds are very long." "For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the ""12 million"" refers to?  Do you mean ""total cost of animations created by the company in a year"" or?  If so, ""12 million"" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example.  Do you mean the ""cost of plant"" - so, for a ""TV commercial production company"" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a ""film or TV-commercial production company"" is a bad example, it's not really a ""business"" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous ""film or TV-commercial production companies"" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.)  G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial.  G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job.  Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says ""Yes"" and hands over a cheque for $190,000.  G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he ""hires"" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on.  Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer.  P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically ""help with cashflow."" The answer to that is nothing more than ""through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that."" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on.  (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G ""apologizes"".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from ""actual investors"", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories.  Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: ""borrow money"" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to ""start an animation studio"" - which would be completely whacky.  Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you ""have"" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs).  XYZ just couldn't care less.  All they care about is your folio of work.  In this example, RSA would get the job  :)  ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around ""borrowing money"" to get businesses like that started.  (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't -  your fears are assuaged!  :)"
Stuff like this is why we need to put legal measures in place to discourage businesses from getting overly large - like progressive corporate tax rates. Small business growing bigger leads to effienciencies of scale - but at some point the size starts leading massive inefficiencies like completely ignoring customer complaints. "There's another line of business based on the theory of perpetual incremental growth. It's called a ""pyramid scheme""  In the longlongago, there were two general types of stock: growth stocks and income stocks.   Growth stocks were generally smaller businesses that were still, well, growing. You didn't expect much of a dividend from them because they were reinvesting profits into growing into new markets. The focus was on capital growth.   Once a company got fairly large and mature, then the expectation of capital growth tapered off because back then reasonable investors recognized it's insane to expect that a company can grow forever. Then, while there may be some ongoing capital growth, the major focus was on dividend income - getting a piece of the profits a large, established company could pull in.   The dotcom (among other things) broke that. People got obsessed with capital growth and instant returns. The idea of a decent yield over time became laughable. Instead a company had to show a percentage year over year growth or they got filleted by Wall Street.   If you put one penny on the first square of a checkerboard, then two pennies on the next, then four pennies on the square after that... once you fill the entire checkerboard how much money do you have?" It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year. The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities.  That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments.  High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive.  Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead.  So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening.  And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market.  But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme.  But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market.  So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans. Well $100k is approximately the 80th percentile. So it's doing pretty well.   But perhaps [this website](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.4cd4ec597815) will show how much SALT deductions benefit the rich. Just move the dial over to the $1M mark and suddenly your biggest deduction is state and local taxes. There isn't any place you can put $300 and turn it into significant passive income. What you need to do instead is manage the active (work) income that you have so that your money goes farther, freeing income up for reducing debt and investing.  Investing $300 one time won't add up to much, but investing $100 a month will turn into wealth over time. Making a monthly budget is the key to managing your income.  In the process, you'll find out where your income is going, and you can be intentional about how much you want to spend on different things in your life.  You can allocate some of your income to paying down debt and investing, which is what you need to do to get ahead. For some general guidelines on what to do with your money first, read this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing.  For more specifics on creating a budget, eliminating debt, and building wealth, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey. More likely I miswrote.  Yes, we're talking about capital gains.  But who, outside of the moneyed elite, have enough capital gains to incur substantial taxes?  Many don't and never will despite how hard they work or how productive they are.  Also, doesn't taxing income more than capital gains discourage production?  I always hear how high capital gains tax discourages investment and growth. I think I came across wrong. I did not mean to imply that they didn't. I think I should have clarified by saying most business owners put in a ton of work, and most of the successful business owners also got lucky. My point was that the work is a prerequisite to getting lucky.