On Wed, 21 May 2014 15:16:24 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:04 -0700, Bill McKee
wrote:

On 5/15/14, 4:59 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:57:50 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:05:38 -0700, jps wrote:

The lower premiums are acheived through tax breaks that our company
would not receive if we simply used the funds for business expense.

Which throws you back to the "put the load on our kids" thing.
It is an unfunded government subsidy hiding in the tax code.

Oh, you mean like the ridiculously low tax rate on investments that
lines the pockets of the wealthy and super wealthy?

You mean the low qualified dividends rate? Hell I would be happy to pay
35% on those dividends. If they were not already taxed at 39% at thE
Corporate level (AMONG THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD.) So the effective tax
rate on those dividends are closer to 50%. How about we tax that salary
of yours the same. You pay on it at ordinary income, but since you are
the owner, you do not get to take the salary as an expense to the
company. Hell, lets not allow any salary to be listed as an expense.
It all comes from after tax dollars to the company. You should love it,
as you already stated you liked the high tax rate on investments

Huh? We're a C corp. My salary is a business expense.

Why are you allowed to take it as an expense? when the dividends can not be
an expense?

I'm sorry, you're arguing that my labor on behalf of the company
should not be considered an expense?