I'm way late on this, but I've been thinking a lot about it, and I'm particularly interested in this debate with someone whose opinion I respect a lot.
Regarding your first paragraph, I'd agree that "claiming a low income" is a bad idea, and not just because it's illegal. Regarding the audit business, my accountant seems pretty confident that a straightforward tax return without too much any weirdness (real estate, huge equipment costs, etc.) is fairly safe from auditing, if I'm paid a salary that a software developer in my position might expect to make.
Regarding your second, more important paragraph: I'm pretty sure I disagree about it being unethical. I think the tax code is depressingly regressive, and I'd legitimately feel like I'd shirked a duty if I just ducked out on money I should have paid. I believe in the power of government, and having the money to back it up is important.
That said, the government decides what's taxable, and which actions should be incentivized. There are plenty of breaks that I probably "shouldn't have": Why do I get to pay less tax because I own a home, or because I got married? Why, as a "small business owner," can I deduct the cost of my insurance premiums, but employees can't? It seems silly, but I'm certainly not going to file at the single rate instead of the married one.
There are years and years of precedent about S-corporations paying shareholder-employees;[0] the "reasonable" salary bit comes up every time. The mental model I've been using has been: How much of this money am I making because I'm a developer, and how much is here because I run my own business? If my annual salary would be, say, $110,000 as a W-2 employee at some big company, but as a contractor I can bill $180,000 a year, I'd say the business grossed $70,000 farming out the work of a $110,000 programmer. To a certain kind of shop, working as a contractor is a valuable service: Companies don't have to go through the hassle of dealing with an employee, only a purchase order. Still, SOMEBODY has to deal with that hassle: Now, though, it's me.
Regarding your first paragraph, I'd agree that "claiming a low income" is a bad idea, and not just because it's illegal. Regarding the audit business, my accountant seems pretty confident that a straightforward tax return without too much any weirdness (real estate, huge equipment costs, etc.) is fairly safe from auditing, if I'm paid a salary that a software developer in my position might expect to make.
Regarding your second, more important paragraph: I'm pretty sure I disagree about it being unethical. I think the tax code is depressingly regressive, and I'd legitimately feel like I'd shirked a duty if I just ducked out on money I should have paid. I believe in the power of government, and having the money to back it up is important.
That said, the government decides what's taxable, and which actions should be incentivized. There are plenty of breaks that I probably "shouldn't have": Why do I get to pay less tax because I own a home, or because I got married? Why, as a "small business owner," can I deduct the cost of my insurance premiums, but employees can't? It seems silly, but I'm certainly not going to file at the single rate instead of the married one.
There are years and years of precedent about S-corporations paying shareholder-employees;[0] the "reasonable" salary bit comes up every time. The mental model I've been using has been: How much of this money am I making because I'm a developer, and how much is here because I run my own business? If my annual salary would be, say, $110,000 as a W-2 employee at some big company, but as a contractor I can bill $180,000 a year, I'd say the business grossed $70,000 farming out the work of a $110,000 programmer. To a certain kind of shop, working as a contractor is a valuable service: Companies don't have to go through the hassle of dealing with an employee, only a purchase order. Still, SOMEBODY has to deal with that hassle: Now, though, it's me.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...