Testing costs too much money that doesn't give any return
First off, this is a huge misconception and just isn't accurate. On the surface, testing can look like it is an unneeded cost. However, by spending money on testing frees up your engineers on being able to work on actually programming tasks. If you assume your engineers to test the software every time they implement a new feature, than you're paying someone an engineers hourly rate when you could be paying for someone at half the cost.
The other misconception is there is no return on the investment, however, quality is a major part of product and reducing the number of bugs is critical. That's right, "reduce", because even with the best testing process in the world you will not eliminate all bugs. The testing process is meant to identify the major bugs. Imagine launching an update to your product and all of a sudden users that subscribed before x date can no longer log in. Might not sound possible, but trust me it's more common than you think. What's the price of losing all of those customers?
We're not big enough to hire a test department
When people think of having a test process, they might immediately think that means hiring a new employee. This doesn't have to be the case. In the wonderful world of today's computing, you can automate pretty much anything! By spending a bit of time up front to put in a testing process can save you from having to hire someone down the road to do the manual tasks of testing when a machine could have been doing it all along.
Consider looking into how you are going to test the software BEFORE you start building it. It is a major piece of the puzzle that is more important than every feature the end-user will see, because testing affects them all.