Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenraven | Hacker News Reader

> It's completely missed that small entrepreneurs may also want to take part

This is by design. It’s the same all over the world. The wealthy are not going to just let you compete

That is the issue across the entire world. Large corporations can easily bear the cost of regulatory laws, environmental requirements, rules, and regulations. They can also go to great lengths to promote an environment that is almost nightmarish for a smaller company or entrepreneur trying to enter the game.

They create barrier after barrier through their lobbying efforts. A good example is having to pay $50,000 for an inspector to come and determine whether your automatic door opens and closes properly, or to verify that your facility does not have a chimney. A friend of mine who owns a business in Niagara Falls, Canada, had to pay around $10,000 for a wind assessment to determine where chimney exhaust would go once released. He didn’t even have a chimney. They ended up having to have another inspection to verify they didn't have a chimney.

Many of these environmental laws are intentionally created and applied to small businesses as well, even when the cost of meeting the requirements is greater than what the business could realistically generate in sales.

The result is that large corporations can absorb these costs, while small businesses and entrepreneurs are often priced out before they even have a chance to compete.

Dunno about that. I live in the US. I can start a small business today and the only thing I'd have to do differently is file an additional form on my taxes next year. Yes, that's a simplification that doesn't apply to every situation, but it is still completely accurate.

That's pretty much the situation in the UK if you are a sole trader. If you set up a limited liability company, that's a separate entity and has its own tax reporting requirement, but nothing onerous. I am a sole trader, and manage a small company separately from that.

One thing I have heard of in the USA is the need for a "business licence". I'm not sure what that is or whether it applies to all businesses, so I'm not sure what it would correspond to in the UK. Neither of my businesses needed any licences or permissions to start trading.

There's no standard concept of a "business license" in the US either. Generally, the corporate registration / LLC filing is all you need to start doing business as a limited liability company, and you don't need to do anything special as a sole proprietor. Sometimes state and local governments have special requirements for particular types of activity, and require registration to begin operating in a regulated field. City and county governments sometimes have a business tax that you have to pay if you're operating a facility open to the public, and may require the tax receipt to be on display on your premises.

> One thing I have heard of in the USA is the need for a "business licence"

Where have you heard about that? Because there is no concept of universal business license.

It's a term sometimes colloquially applied to one or more things that are not actually a "business license".

Some jurisdictions require "Certificates of Occupancy" if the ownership of a commercial property changes. This is more about the state of the structure and modifications made to it.

Some jurisdictions require registration with a state or county tax authority. In my state this is called a "business registration". Depending on jurisdiction, you may not be allowed to legally operate a for-profit business without this registration.

So there are frequently government-issued documents that are not called a "business license" but may be required to legally do business.

That's pretty much the situation in the UK if you are a sole trader. If you set up a limited liability company, that's a separate entity and has its own tax reporting requirement, but nothing onerous.

It's becoming more onerous all the time to run a small business in the UK though.

We just got charged £100 just to essentially tick one box with Companies House saying "nothing changed since last year".

The main tax paperwork is the annual financial statements. These are getting more demanding over the next couple of years with the simplified versions that small companies have been allowed to file looking like they will no longer be acceptable after that time.

You now have to file tax returns like PAYE and VAT using approved software. Most of that software - even the big names - ranges from OK but with significant problems and limitations to simply awful.

I heard recently that personal self assessment tax returns for company directors are about to get more complicated as well.

If you have business premises then you have to deal with business rates. Often these are still based on valuations from a time when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Some small businesses have already closed down due to this becoming unaffordable.

I've lost count of how many different kinds of insurance we now have. All have a cost of course.

If you're working solo or the only person from your company working with a specific customer/client then you need to worry about Off Payroll Working as well. That's still a huge mess of ambiguity decades after IR35 was introduced and likely incurs further expenses for legal reviews and insurance policies that shouldn't even need to exist.

Control any personal data? Make sure you register with the ICO and pay their fee too.

Sell online or even run a website? Make sure you know the requirements for information you have to provide and it's in exactly the right format for compliance. (I've even seen businesses working in the compliance industry failing on this one and risking regulatory sanctions.)

The public sector is increasingly pushing for things like Cyber Essentials if you want to be part of its supply chain. That is an absolutely textbook example of regulations that were clearly written for large businesses using a certain operating system. The only options are 100% compliance or failing and 100% compliance is tricky for sole traders or microbusinesses to achieve without disproportionate expense and administration. If you need the certified version then that's another cost and the disruption of being audited to deal with.

We haven't even talked about everything you have to do if you want to take on employee #1 who isn't one of the founders/owners yet.

I don't think it's realistic to say that the UK is supportive of small businesses today. It never really was but at least the the potential financial benefits used to justify the overheads. Now the taxes are far higher - you end up paying double-digit higher overall rates if you set up a Ltd that can actually grow as a business compared to simply trading as a self-employed sole trader now - and the overheads and costs are also far higher in numerous ways. It's no surprise that people are deterred from going into business here and that's really bad for the country because we need the people willing to take the risks and put in the effort to build the next generation of businesses to support our economy and provide much-needed new jobs.

And you'd need to line up your own health insurance.

Usually not if you already have a day job. But that's completely orthogonal to the original statement.

It is not the same all over the world. Starting a small company in the US is a breeze compared to what I’ve watched peers in the EU fight against.

Interstate commerce also seems to be vastly easier inside the US in comparison to the alleged single market of the EU. The most companies seem to deal with is California-specific regulations. Meanwhile, most companies in the EU eventually opt to create a ton of subsidiaries, basically one per state, to handle all the localized duties that the EU requires.

Yup the Constitution here has rightly prevented each State from adding regulations that burden interstate commerce. Sometimes that has resulted in overly broad federal oversight (CFTC versus state gaming boards) but most of the time that’s a good thing.

Not sure if you are referencing something else but in the case of VAT (sales tax) this is simply not true, see: VAT one stop shop / moss. There are also no customs duties on inter-state shipments.

Employment regulations are different - if you have a lot of people working for you in another member state you'll need a branch office or subsidiary there (or you can easily outsource it via services like https://www.playroll.com/)

Back in college (USA) friends would spin up LLCs for the summer just to buy mowers or vans to do yard work. They would hire all the students who didn't get summer jobs. Those hired students would make about 3x a STEM intern makes in western europe today.

It was also in the context of Europe that I heard of the concept of an unpaid internship. I was like, what??

Sorry but do you imply interns are going to be paid? In Europe? /s

Starting a small company in many EU countries is a breeze too e.g. Estonia, Portugal, UK and no doubt many others. The rumoured 'EU Inc' entity should also help close the gap for member countries where incorporating domestically traditionally comes with more friction (e.g. Germany).

Laws are voted by politicians. Do you mean that most EU politicians are puppets of EU corporations?

That might be one reason they refuse to be open about their financial supports in their various organizations yes. it is very well known unfortunately..

It's usually US corpos that are lobbying all over the EU, it's unlikely that the EU automakers would have lobbied for their destruction

Its not as bad as in the US I think, but yeah, most of the laws are actually (literally) written by corporations. I wouldn't call them puppets, but EU corps have an outsized influence on the outcome of the process.

I don‘t know about EU laws specifically, but national law in Europe is often written by lobby firms in favor of their corporate sponsors. In Iceland for example the main corporate lobby is called Viðskiptaráð, and they brag about the high percentage of laws they write passing at the parliament (in 2007 it was like 90%). I don‘t think things are much different in the rest of Europe (maybe just less obvious due to size differences).

EU politicians seemed to be fairly captured by corporations generally. Less so than politicians from the countries themselves. Voting turnout for EU representatives is very low compared with voting for local officials. I think its because people know that who they vote for as their chancellor or prime minister can make a big impact on their lives. They see the EU parliament as this distant thing and don't follow it so much. EU representatives therefore don't have as much accountability and can more easily be swayed by lobbying. How else can you explain the whole chat control thing which everyone hates but still keeps getting pushed through. Like who is voting for this a-holes.

It passed on a technicality of present reps voted against in majority but not enough total votes because the president had triggered a special vote for the last session before recess when less reps are present.

Was even one representative that voted for this from a region where the people that they represent wanted it by even the slimmest of majorities? I don't think so. These votes were in full defiance of their constituents.

Yes and mostly European elite and royal families. Royal families and their friends have strong power across Europe but they are well hidden via media.

The entire purpose of EU is trade (trading nations don't go to war etc), trade is more or less defined by large corporations, it's through that lens every decision is made and measured.

The one thing EU politicians hate is disruption. Entrepreneurs are fresh entrants trying to disrupt an existing market. The politicians don't even need to be puppets. The fact that these small startups exist and may even succeed is reason enough.

I'd say this is not limited to the politicians.

Nothing specific to EU here except the specific point is about EU this time. Otherwise just copy paste "most EU politicians are puppets of EU corporations" in some search engine and enjoy, here are the top result of such a search:

https://rednetwork.net/articles/2026/06/how-corporations-set...

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/eu-leaders-puppets-of-financia...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_reasons_behin...

https://edwardshepherd.substack.com/p/the-puppets-and-their-...

https://www.lobbycontrol.de/wp-content/uploads/EU-Lobbyrepor...

Now looking up for "EU politicians are prised for their probity and strong attachment to defend their people" here are the top results:

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/political-corruption-in...

https://www.ftm.eu/articles/european-parliamentarians-involv...

https://www.eupublicintegrity.com/what-is-public-integrity-i...

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-union-corruption-pf...

https://www.economist.com/europe/2026/04/29/europes-unpopula...

So even searching specifically for praising information, one will have to dig deep apparently, or maybe go straight to the official propaganda of what the politicians say about themselves (but probably less so about others).

Everyone is free to go as deep as they want (and can afford) and draw their own conclusions.

There are more lobbyists in Brussels that EU public servants. I guess that corpos don't spend this kind of big money for nothing.

The US is wealthier, has more billionaires and has fewer of these barriers for small entrepreneurs. So no, this is not the monocausal explanation that applies equally everywhere.

(YES, the US has regulatory capture, YES the wealthy attempt to use it, YES we should try to eliminate it here too, but it remains true that it is easier to run a small business in the US, while having more billionaires. There are other explanations to the differential here).

Agreed, europe has a culture of "stability" first. The fear of disruption and chaos is larger after two WW and it outsourced the risks of disruption to the US. Basically, use the us as a test-mouse for new ideas and innovations, then when proven safe introduce them and ride those coat-tails to infinity.

> use the us as a test-mouse for new ideas and innovations, then when proven safe introduce them and ride those coat-tails to infinity

What actually happened, and continues to happen, is that Europe and the EU became entirely dependent on US tech and other foreign industry. It wasn't just a matter of "see what works and then copy it domestically". It oursourced basically everything.

To be fair, it was mostly outsourced to China, at least in Slovenia with our electronics development and manufacturing (Iskra and Gorenje). US stuff has also always been more expensive in every category except software.

Is fetishizing disruption good for USA? It did helped to create a billionaire oligarch class, but that class is literally intentionally destroying it. I mean, it may end up destroying Europe and the rest of the world too, but the US democracy seem to be their first target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil at best - organ at mid - cancer when bursting out of the role at worst

I'm not sure I agree. I find the Delaware & IRS forms and systems archaic/byzantine compared to e.g. the UK system.

Why do you deal with any of it? As a small business use Stripe Atlas or whatever.

Doesn't that kind of prove my point?

well said. like WB said, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Oh no. It's the mysterious "they"!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com