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

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.

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.

Your double taxation helps fund Harry's zero taxation. Thank you for that.

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?

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?

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?


He's an employee like anyone else.

jps wrote:
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's
should not be considered an expense?

I am saying, why is not dividends an expense. If your salary is an
expense, then dividends should be considered an expense. That is just a
salary to the owners also. You say you are an owner of the C corp, so that
salary is just a dividend to you.

On Thu, 22 May 2014 00:10:17 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

jps wrote:
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's
should not be considered an expense?

I am saying, why is not dividends an expense. If your salary is an
expense, then dividends should be considered an expense. That is just a
salary to the owners also. You say you are an owner of the C corp, so that
salary is just a dividend to you.

No, it's not. It's compensation for work.

On Thu, 22 May 2014 01:55:01 -0400, wrote:

Dividends are profit, after everyone is paid and all expenses are
recovered.

===

Technically speaking that is not necessarily true. Dividends are
usually a cash distribution to shareholders but that does not imply
that the corporation is currently profitable although that is most
often the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend

On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:12:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 May 2014 08:32:26 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 22 May 2014 01:55:01 -0400, wrote:

Dividends are profit, after everyone is paid and all expenses are
recovered.

===

Technically speaking that is not necessarily true. Dividends are
usually a cash distribution to shareholders but that does not imply
that the corporation is currently profitable although that is most
often the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend

A company that takes operating capital and returns it to stock holders
is not a company I want to bet my (stock) money on.

===

Understood, but sometimes it's entirely legit. One example is a
company that has big tax loss carry forwards but is still generating
substantial positive cash flow.