NationStates Jolt Archive

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=international+bankers


Says alot ..

This rather proves that Americans fail to see what taxes provide them with.

I didn't get past the first 45 seconds or so. Yes, the 16th amendment was ratified legally.

I didn't get past the first 45 seconds or so. Yes, the 16th amendment was ratified legally.

how about watching a few mintues then? :rolleyes:

how about watching a few mintues then? :rolleyes:

if they are going to start off with lies, I don't see how it's going to improve past that.

Claiming that the 16th amendment isn't part of the constitution is as stupid as denying the holocaust or the moon landing.

Basically what it is saying is that banker took over America in 1913. Well at least that's a new conspiracy, though I'm surprised the Jews weren't involved:rolleyes:.

Click Stand;12997725']Basically what it is saying is that banker took over America in 1913. Well at least that's a new conspiracy, though I'm surprised the Jews weren't involved:rolleyes:.

all bankers are jews. Duh.

I'm about 2 mins in, does it explain at any point how exactly bankers benefit from people paying income tax?

Apparently the government gives bankers profits somehow. This is some crazy ass conspiracy rambling, and I find it to be unworthy of my time.

This rather proves that Americans fail to see what taxes provide them with.

Figuring that out would take 10 seconds analyzing any public opinion forum.

How much would a law that states people must pay income tax deflate the whole thing?

Wait, best part; early on, it says we cannot allow judges to dictate American life then turns around and relies on judges opinions to support them!

Hypocrisy.

Even better: Saint Ronald of Reagan hates them taxes but Ebul Bill Clinton lurves taxes.

Wow.

Is this the same silly video someone posted a while ago saying the money multiplier is a banking conspiracy?

Anyone who doesn't understand the wonderful scam that is income tax is hopelessly doomed to pay out the nose.
Let me explain the scheme in the tax law very plainly.

Individuals earn, pay taxes on the money they earn, and then spend what is left over. Corporations such as banks earn, spent the money they have, and pay taxes ONLY on what is left over.

Any c-corporation in the US (most big companies are C-corporations) does not have to pay taxes on their income. They only pay taxes on NET income. That means profits MINUS expenditures.

As a useful example, say I wanted to invest in a big real estate deal. I would have to be out of my mind to do it as an individual. Instead what I do is form a corporation with myself as sole shareholder and CEO. I now do the investment and make a profit. I then decide (as the sole shareholder) that the CEO is entitled to medical insurance and a company car. My company than buys it's CEO (me) a new car and a medical insurance policy. Taxes are only paid on the money that is left over. The net result is that I now have a car entirely tax free.

THIS is the big scam ladies and gentlemen. If you think the rich are paying more taxes than you, you're in for a surprise. Most billionaires pay less in taxes than your typical upper-middle class family because they themselves have no actual assets. Their wealth exists as ownership in corporations they own. As long as they hold onto their companies, they pay zero direct taxes. Remember that capital gains tax only applies AFTER you sell.

Still think income tax is for the benefit of the average Joe? Just remember that your taxes are going to pay for government grants to the corporations that are legally not paying taxes.

It's crap. It's all crap. It's complete and total crap.

No, really, it's 100% total, absolute, complete crap. Shame on anyone who takes even a moment of it with any value what so ever. Every argument, every single one, has been debunked thoroughly (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm).

It's crap. It's all crap. It's complete and total crap.

No, really, it's 100% total, absolute, complete crap. Shame on anyone who takes even a moment of it with any value what so ever. Every argument, every single one, has been debunked thoroughly (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm).

nice...

I sat though ten minutes and the only thing running through my mind was "Loose Change"

This rather proves that Americans fail to see what taxes provide them with.

An extremely inefficient entitlement system and a war in Iraq. hmmm.

The truth is we need a certain amount of tax in America but at present there is too much. Besides, the state governments have all the power to micromanage and experiment. They should be ones doing all the taxing.

An extremely inefficient entitlement system and a war in Iraq. hmmm.

The truth is we need a certain amount of tax in America but at present there is too much. Besides, the state governments have all the power to micromanage and experiment. They should be ones doing all the taxing.

states do have the power to tax people. state income tax. some states do, others don't.

Claiming that the 16th amendment isn't part of the constitution is as stupid as denying the holocaust or the moon landing.

I for one believe that the holocaust never happened on the moon.

states do have the power to tax people. state income tax. some states do, others don't.

Duh, everybody knows that. I geuss what I mean is that if anything, the states should tax alot more because they are the entities that can provide the most services under the constitution.

Duh, everybody knows that. I geuss what I mean is that if anything, the states should tax alot more because they are the entities that can provide the most services under the constitution.

Ah, sorry. and I don't assume the poster is from the US... which is why I didn't comment with a "everyone knows" statement :cool:

I for one believe that the holocaust never happened on the moon.

Notice nobody lives there now! Open your eyes!

As to the OP:

Sorry I vote it's crap along with the others.....

Something I have to get off my chest because I feel very strongly about this issue:

All true Americans dislike government and despise taxes. Why you might ask? Because we know what is better for us than the government does. And if anybody wants to tell me how to live they have to talk to me first, and then my handgun.

See, now THIS horseshit hackumentary SHOULD have been called "Loose Change".

I suppose that all the infrastructure in this faded republic is just hummin' right along and in great shape, then? Best ask those who were on I-35W in Minneapolis.

Something I have to get off my chest because I feel very strongly about this issue:

All true Americans dislike government and despise taxes. Why you might ask? Because we know what is better for us than the government does. And if anybody wants to tell me how to live they have to talk to me first, and then my handgun.

Damn right!

Something I have to get off my chest because I feel very strongly about this issue:

All true Americans dislike government and despise taxes. Why you might ask? Because we know what is better for us than the government does. And if anybody wants to tell me how to live they have to talk to me first, and then my handgun.

really... I thought All TRUE Americans are skeptical about the Government and dispised UNFAIR taxes.

Don't forget that it's the Government that says it's your consitutional right to have that handgun. :cool:

Something I have to get off my chest because I feel very strongly about this issue:

All true Americans dislike government and despise taxes. Why you might ask? Because we know what is better for us than the government does. And if anybody wants to tell me how to live they have to talk to me first, and then my handgun.

you said it brother!

however only a fool falls for the notion that there is a legal way to avoid paying income taxes (when you owe income tax). that way lies not madness but prison.

An extremely inefficient entitlement system and a war in Iraq. hmmm.

The truth is we need a certain amount of tax in America but at present there is too much. Besides, the state governments have all the power to micromanage and experiment. They should be ones doing all the taxing.

And what are you basing this on?

Yes, everyone except American Conservatives realize that there should be rate of taxation that is somewhere between 0% and 100%. Some conservatives realize it too, but too many think that the ideal amount of taxation is n-1 where n equals whatever it is now.

Something I have to get off my chest because I feel very strongly about this issue:

All true Americans dislike government and despise taxes. Why you might ask? Because we know what is better for us than the government does. And if anybody wants to tell me how to live they have to talk to me first, and then my handgun.

Aren't you telling people how they should live?

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/slavery.htm

Weakest counter-argument I have seen yet. Completely fails to grasp what is meant by "taxation is slavery". But then, most anti-tax people probably don't grasp it either, so I'll forgive him.

The strange thing about that website is the way he seems to look at tax protestors as against him. I always find it amazing how people who have as much as half or more of their income taken away can see the government as anything but a thief. It's like they have no feeling of individual sovereignty at all, as if they don't think they have the right to question things.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/slavery.htm

Weakest counter-argument I have seen yet. Completely fails to grasp what is meant by "taxation is slavery". But then, most anti-tax people probably don't grasp it either, so I'll forgive him.

The strange thing about that website is the way he seems to look at tax protestors as against him. I always find it amazing how people who have as much as half or more of their income taken away can see the government as anything but a thief. It's like they have no feeling of individual sovereignty at all, as if they don't think they have the right to question things.

i believe that his point is that taxation doesnt meet the legal definition of slavery.

how anti-tax people might twist the defintion is irrelevant.

i believe that his point is that taxation doesnt meet the legal definition of slavery.
I don't think he makes a very good case. Take the 13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now, you don't have to twist anything to note that the proportion of time I'm working without compensation due to my earnings being taken away I'm in involuntary servitude (unless I'm really into my job and would do it without pay, I guess).

On the other hand, Article 1 of the Slavery Convention of 1926 says:
For the purpose of the present Convention, the following definitions are agreed upon:

(1) Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.

(2) The slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

From that angle, I could agree that taxation is not slavery.

But then, the "taxation is slavery" argument, however flawed, is one of principle rather than legal definitions.

Rarely have I encountered a more asinine and retarded video.

Of course, I only watched the beginning. Still...

For the record:

1) The Sixteenth Amendment was legally ratified. This is a question long settled by the courts.

2) The Sixteenth Amendment is, for the purposes of the anti-tax argument, largely besides the point. The Sixteenth Amendment does NOT give the federal government ANY NEW POWERS of taxation. I don't know why so many seemingly intelligent people cannot get this through their heads. All it does is remove the requirement that any income taxes should be apportioned according to the populations of the States.

The federal government had the power to tax income prior to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Sixteenth Amendment did not give it this power.

But before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, each State would have been required to submit a total income tax to the federal government proportionate to the number of people living in that State.

All the Sixteenth Amendment did was simplify the matter.

:rolleyes:

Figuring that out would take 10 seconds analyzing any public opinion forum.

I only spent ten seconds on the video ;)

Anyone who doesn't understand the wonderful scam that is income tax is hopelessly doomed to pay out the nose.
Let me explain the scheme in the tax law very plainly.

Individuals earn, pay taxes on the money they earn, and then spend what is left over. Corporations such as banks earn, spent the money they have, and pay taxes ONLY on what is left over.

Any c-corporation in the US (most big companies are C-corporations) does not have to pay taxes on their income. They only pay taxes on NET income. That means profits MINUS expenditures.

As a useful example, say I wanted to invest in a big real estate deal. I would have to be out of my mind to do it as an individual. Instead what I do is form a corporation with myself as sole shareholder and CEO. I now do the investment and make a profit. I then decide (as the sole shareholder) that the CEO is entitled to medical insurance and a company car. My company than buys it's CEO (me) a new car and a medical insurance policy. Taxes are only paid on the money that is left over. The net result is that I now have a car entirely tax free.


THIS is the big scam ladies and gentlemen. If you think the rich are paying more taxes than you, you're in for a surprise. Most billionaires pay less in taxes than your typical upper-middle class family because they themselves have no actual assets. Their wealth exists as ownership in corporations they own. As long as they hold onto their companies, they pay zero direct taxes. Remember that capital gains tax only applies AFTER you sell.

Still think income tax is for the benefit of the average Joe? Just remember that your taxes are going to pay for government grants to the corporations that are legally not paying taxes.

Car registration. Sales tax. Tax on the net income. Inheritance tax. Etc...

Oh yes, they definitely still pay taxes.

As a useful example, say I wanted to invest in a big real estate deal. I would have to be out of my mind to do it as an individual. Instead what I do is form a corporation with myself as sole shareholder and CEO. I now do the investment and make a profit. I then decide (as the sole shareholder) that the CEO is entitled to medical insurance and a company car. My company than buys it's CEO (me) a new car and a medical insurance policy. Taxes are only paid on the money that is left over. The net result is that I now have a car entirely tax free.

No, the result is that you now have committed tax fraud by creating a corporation for the purposes of evading taxes. Are you really laboring under the misapprehention that what you described is even remotely legal?

People have been sent to jail for far less.

But then, the "taxation is slavery" argument, however flawed, is one of principle rather than legal definitions.

Had you bothered to read the page, you would have noticed that the author's sole point was to discuss whether there is a legal obligation to pay taxes, not should there be a legal obligation to pay taxes.

That is a crucial and fundamental difference. For the purposes of that discussion, it was only relevant whether o not taxation was slavery as a matter of law and thus barred under the 13th amendment.

Whether it is slavery as a matter of principle is entirely irrelevant to that discussion. The author notes that one is free to believe whether or not we should pay taxes, and that his page does not at any point address whether we should or not. To point out that his argument was silly because the "taxation is slavery" argument is often one of principle totally misses the point that he is not discussing principle, merely law.

And since, as you point out, the argument "taxation is slavery" is often more principle and less law, since there is basically no real legal response to it, a very weak legal argument necessitates only a weak legal counter argument.

Car registration. Sales tax. Tax on the net income. Inheritance tax. Etc...

Oh yes, they definitely still pay taxes.

Yes corporations still pay taxes even if they manage to not pay federal income taxes by showing a loss. However as you well know a corporation as he describes can shield an individual by giving them better tax breaks then Joe and Jane average American working for someone else. I know how this works. We as in the wife and I both run everything through corporations. If we made the amount of money we do through our business as employees of a company our tax bill would be much higher then what we pay now. I believe that is what this poster was originally trying to say.

No, the result is that you now have committed tax fraud by creating a corporation for the purposes of evading taxes. Are you really laboring under the misapprehention that what you described is even remotely legal?

People have been sent to jail for far less.

Where did he say that one could do that just for the purpose of evading taxes? He started off by saying he was investing in a big real estate deal. Investing implies trying to make money. Then he describes how he could write off things against his earnings in the corporation. All of the different items he described are legally deductible in a C corporation framework. Hence if he shows no profit after legally running his corp. then he pays no taxes. However he would not escape taxes all together as another poster described. The car sales tax and other sales taxes while doing business and such. Also depending on how much gross earnings and where his corporation did business he may have a B & O tax.

Where did he say that one could do that just for the purpose of evading taxes? He started off by saying he was investing in a big real estate deal. Investing implies trying to make money. Then he describes how he could write off things against his earnings in the corporation. All of the different items he described are legally deductible in a C corporation framework. Hence if he shows no profit after legally running his corp. then he pays no taxes. However he would not escape taxes all together as another poster described. The car sales tax and other sales taxes while doing business and such. Also depending on how much gross earnings and where his corporation did business he may have a B & O tax.


First off, deductions are only legitimate if they are for the furtherance of that business. He said he was making A deal. One transaction. If transactions are part business and part pleasure, only a percentage of the value of the purchase may be deducted, commensurate with the percentage of the use of that purchase for business reasons. IE purchasing a car "for business reasons" when that car is used half for business and half for pleasure allows you to deduct ONLY 50% of the expense of the car for business reasons.

Now a few things. First, the IRS looks more closely at corporations in their first year of incorporation. Second, they look more closely at corporations that post no or negative profit. Third, they look more closely at corporations with one sole owner or a small handful of owners. Fourth, they look more closely at corporations whose deductions could be used for private purposes rather than corporate ones (IE those that deduct the purchases of cars moreso than those that deduct the purchases of factories and warehouses)

Now, so in this hypothetical example, the IRS notices a bran new corporation, with a single sole owner, posting a gross profit but 0 net profit. And then they look at the deductions that this particular corporation made, and notice that they were all deductions for "business purposes" that could have been used for private purposes.

Now, when the nice man from the IRS takes a look at his records and asks him to explain how the entirety of the purchase of a brand new car was a legitimate business expense for a company that completed exactly one investment transaction, what do you think is going to happen?

Here's a hint. If he tries to explain that this car, for which the full and total value was deducted, was used fully, entirely, and only for business, to complete this one transaction, then they're going to take a look at the car. They'll look at the mileage of the car. They're going to ask him where he went with the car for the purposes of this business. They're going to ask him to justify the trips he took for business purposes. They're going to ask him to prove that he went where he said he would. They're going to go over every moment of this car's life, and if he can't prove that this car was used completely and totally for business purposes, which it must be for him to completely and totally deduct the full value of that car....the nice man from the IRS is not going to be so nice anymore.

It's not enough that your company suddenly "decides" you need a car. That car must be used in the furtherance of the business. Shit like deducting a corporate purchase of a car when said car is not ultimitly used for the sole purpose of business is called tax fraud. It is illegal. People go to jail for things like that.

Wow.

Screw taxes.

First off, deductions are only legitimate if they are for the furtherance of that business. He said he was making A deal. One transaction. If transactions are part business and part pleasure, only a percentage of the value of the purchase may be deducted, commensurate with the percentage of the use of that purchase for business reasons. IE purchasing a car "for business reasons" when that car is used half for business and half for pleasure allows you to deduct ONLY 50% of the expense of the car for business reasons.

Now a few things. First, the IRS looks more closely at corporations in their first year of incorporation. Second, they look more closely at corporations that post no or negative profit. Third, they look more closely at corporations with one sole owner or a small handful of owners. Fourth, they look more closely at corporations whose deductions could be used for private purposes rather than corporate ones (IE those that deduct the purchases of cars moreso than those that deduct the purchases of factories and warehouses)

Now, so in this hypothetical example, the IRS notices a bran new corporation, with a single sole owner, posting a gross profit but 0 net profit. And then they look at the deductions that this particular corporation made, and notice that they were all deductions for "business purposes" that could have been used for private purposes.

Now, when the nice man from the IRS takes a look at his records and asks him to explain how the entirety of the purchase of a brand new car was a legitimate business expense for a company that completed exactly one investment transaction, what do you think is going to happen?

Here's a hint. If he tries to explain that this car, for which the full and total value was deducted, was used fully, entirely, and only for business, to complete this one transaction, then they're going to take a look at the car. They'll look at the mileage of the car. They're going to ask him where he went with the car for the purposes of this business. They're going to ask him to justify the trips he took for business purposes. They're going to ask him to prove that he went where he said he would. They're going to go over every moment of this car's life, and if he can't prove that this car was used completely and totally for business purposes, which it must be for him to completely and totally deduct the full value of that car....the nice man from the IRS is not going to be so nice anymore.

It's not enough that your company suddenly "decides" you need a car. That car must be used in the furtherance of the business. Shit like deducting a corporate purchase of a car when said car is not ultimitly used for the sole purpose of business is called tax fraud. It is illegal. People go to jail for things like that.

weren't you disagreeing with me over the same point a few weeks ago? :p

Had you bothered to read the page, you would have noticed that the author's sole point was to discuss whether there is a legal obligation to pay taxes, not should there be a legal obligation to pay taxes.
Oh, I know. But the argument that taxation is slavery is never actually used in the context "taxation = slavery and slavery is forbidden by the 13th Amendment, therefore taxation is forbidden by the 13th Amendment". That's a strawman on his part.

The point that you somehow aren't legally required to pay taxes is indeed stupid. I mean, these are people with guns looking for money to spend on their "make the world a better place" schemes. Of course you are required to pay taxes.

weren't you disagreeing with me over the same point a few weeks ago? :p

No, not at all. Why would I argue against that? That's stupid. What i was arguing was that the concept of "in the course of business" is not always entirely and clearly defined. That it is a subjective standard.

Every individual and corporation has the right to demonstrate that their use was for the course of business. They also have the right to appeal the decision of an auditor that disagrees.

That, however, does NOT mean that just because someone says it's in the course of business, that anyone will believe him. He has the right to demonstrate that his car is used in the course of business, because "course of business" is not always a clear cut definition. HE can argue that it is and provide evidence and make his case.

But in this hypothetical that the previous poster crafted....good luck with that. Just because something is a subjective standard doesn't mean that it is just because you say it is. It's facts and circumstances based.

Oh, I know. But the argument that taxation is slavery is never actually used in the context "taxation = slavery and slavery is forbidden by the 13th Amendment, therefore taxation is forbidden by the 13th Amendment". That's a strawman on his part.

It is used, rarely. Not very often and not with any kind of persuasion, but I have heard it mentioned, so I think that's why the author put a brief blurb in there.

Let's face it, everyone including business will do anything to reduce their tax bills.

No, not at all. Why would I argue against that? That's stupid. What i was arguing was that the concept of "in the course of business" is not always entirely and clearly defined. That it is a subjective standard.

Every individual and corporation has the right to demonstrate that their use was for the course of business. They also have the right to appeal the decision of an auditor that disagrees.

That, however, does NOT mean that just because someone says it's in the course of business, that anyone will believe him. He has the right to demonstrate that his car is used in the course of business, because "course of business" is not always a clear cut definition. HE can argue that it is and provide evidence and make his case.

But in this hypothetical that the previous poster crafted....good luck with that. Just because something is a subjective standard doesn't mean that it is just because you say it is. It's facts and circumstances based.

ah, I remember now. I was discussing originally Jocabia's claim that his friends deducted most everything they did as a business expense.

Let's face it, everyone including business will do anything to reduce their tax bills.

as well they should. why pay more tax than you are legally required to?

Let's face it, everyone including business will do anything to reduce their tax bills.

and this is why I have a job. :p

as well they should. why pay more tax than you are legally required to?

That's it!

and this is why I have a job. :p

and which is why if one wants to avoid paying more than necessary they go to a tax professional not take advice from some crackpot on a utube video.

its so unpleasant getting charged with tax evasion and spending time in prison for it.

(not that i watched the video, i dont have the bandwidth)

I don't have 2 hours to watse on this....

as well they should. why pay more tax than you are legally required to?

Because, as I stated very early on, Americans seem to lack the understanding of what the taxes provide you with.

Of course, when your government seems more interested in purchasing new fighter planes instead of subsidising hospitals, I can actually understand you.

Of course, when your government seems more interested in purchasing new fighter planes instead of subsidising hospitals, I can actually understand you.
People want them to buy more fighters. Subsidizing hospitals is socialism and socialism is bad. More missiles to attack socialist countries!

It's not enough that your company suddenly "decides" you need a car. That car must be used in the furtherance of the business. Shit like deducting a corporate purchase of a car when said car is not ultimitly used for the sole purpose of business is called tax fraud. It is illegal. People go to jail for things like that.

I can tell you as a veteran of owning corporations that buying cars are done ALL the time. They do not physically check mileage and never heard of them doing that under an audit. What do you say to a business that buys and owns a house and several cars? What then would you say if that person was audited by the IRS and everything was fine. I think you know a little bit but I believe that maybe a lack of experience in the real world in dealing with corporations. Trust me you can do a lot with a corp legally. In fact there is so many tax savings ways of doing things why would someone do anything illegal.

Individuals earn, pay taxes on the money they earn, and then spend what is left over. Corporations such as banks earn, spent the money they have, and pay taxes ONLY on what is left over.

Any c-corporation in the US (most big companies are C-corporations) does not have to pay taxes on their income. They only pay taxes on NET income. That means profits MINUS expenditures.

Hogwash. They pay the exact same income taxes their employees do AND an amount equal to that. This is required by law and anyone who's ever, ya know, held a job in accounting knows that.

It has nothing to do with profit.

Because, as I stated very early on, Americans seem to lack the understanding of what the taxes provide you with.

Of course, when your government seems more interested in purchasing new fighter planes instead of subsidising hospitals, I can actually understand you.

so you living in a more enlightened society seek out opportunities to pay extra taxes that you are not required to pay just so you can contribute more to this ideal government you live under?

No, the result is that you now have committed tax fraud by creating a corporation for the purposes of evading taxes. Are you really laboring under the misapprehention that what you described is even remotely legal?

People have been sent to jail for far less.This is the exact reason the real rich don't care either way about income tax. You mistake tax evasion, which is illegal, with tax avoidance which is perfectly legal. Things like this are perfectly legitimate business expenses and legal for individuals because a wholly-owned C-corporation has no shareholder accountability. The idea that this is somehow illegal or uncommon is totally and utterly mistaken. Channeling investments through C-corporations for tax purposes is legal in the United States as well as most industrialized nations.

Car registration. Sales tax. Tax on the net income. Inheritance tax. Etc...

Oh yes, they definitely still pay taxes.
Registration: Not a tax.
Sales tax: Buy the car in Delaware.
Net income: Spend enough to make the net income zero. (Legal)
Inheritance tax: You got me on that one.

Hogwash. They pay the exact same income taxes their employees do AND an amount equal to that. This is required by law and anyone who's ever, ya know, held a job in accounting knows that.

It has nothing to do with profit.You're laboring under the mistaken assumption that the corporation in question actually pays salaries. You don't need a salary as the sole employee when you own the whole company. With no employees paying income tax, company taxes in that area go to zero. You actually don't want a salary if you're the total owner of a C-corp. The idea that wealth comes from a salary is a lower and middle class idea. Real money comes from business building and (shielded) capital gains. I don't blame you for not knowing that little caveat since, "ya know", as an accountant and not an investor, you would not be working for companies with no employees.

EDIT:
No, the result is that you now have committed tax fraud by creating a corporation for the purposes of evading taxes. Are you really laboring under the misapprehention that what you described is even remotely legal?

People have been sent to jail for far less.
You need to read the tax laws. It's not only legal but common.

EDIT2:
Car registration. Sales tax. Tax on the net income. Inheritance tax. Etc...

Oh yes, they definitely still pay taxes.
Well....
Registration: Not a tax.
Sales Tax: Buy the car in Delaware.
Tax on the net income: Net income can be zero if you use 100% of the profits to buy more asset investments. You gain value with a paper net of zero. (Legal)
Inheritance: I don't see how that applies to a direct purchase.

so you living in a more enlightened society seek out opportunities to pay extra taxes that you are not required to pay just so you can contribute more to this ideal government you live under?

The government, being democratic here in Denmark, is voted in by the people, based on what they promise. The current government promised not to raise taxes and was voted in. They haven't raised taxes, but haven't cut them either.

If a government which promised to raise taxes were to be voted in, then the rule of the majority would kick in. This is entirely possible. Similarly for lowering taxes.

I feel that the current amount of taxes I would theoretically pay if I actually earned enough money to have to would be going towards good ends and for that reason, I would pay them gladly. I wouldn't pay extra, because I wouldn't see a benefit in doing this. I already get free education, healthware, public services, protection, etc... and the state has a surplus.

The government here doesn't just go "we're raising taxes" they go "we're raising taxes, and here's why" and then it's up to me to either be disgruntled and vote in people who will lower/keep the taxes or be happy and support the people who raised the taxes.

If you don't wanna pay taxes, stop voting in parties that want you to and make your own political party.

I think you know a little bit but I believe that maybe a lack of experience in the real world in dealing with corporations.

......

I'm a corporate attorney.

You need to read the tax laws. It's not only legal

suuuuuure it is. The IRS just loves it when corporations write off as a deduction the cost of a car given to their CEO who doesn't use it for any business purposes what so ever.

Yeah, that's PERFECTLY legal, not tax fraud in the slightest

:rolleyes:

The government, being democratic here in Denmark, is voted in by the people, based on what they promise. The current government promised not to raise taxes and was voted in. They haven't raised taxes, but haven't cut them either.

If a government which promised to raise taxes were to be voted in, then the rule of the majority would kick in. This is entirely possible. Similarly for lowering taxes.

I feel that the current amount of taxes I would theoretically pay if I actually earned enough money to have to would be going towards good ends and for that reason, I would pay them gladly. I wouldn't pay extra, because I wouldn't see a benefit in doing this. I already get free education, healthware, public services, protection, etc... and the state has a surplus.

The government here doesn't just go "we're raising taxes" they go "we're raising taxes, and here's why" and then it's up to me to either be disgruntled and vote in people who will lower/keep the taxes or be happy and support the people who raised the taxes.

If you don't wanna pay taxes, stop voting in parties that want you to and make your own political party.

i feel that you did not understand what "there is no sense in paying more taxes than you have to" means.

it means " I wouldn't pay extra, because I wouldn't see a benefit in doing this". in essense.

because we have to fill out income tax forms detailing our income and certain expenses that are deducted from that income, it becomes a rather complicated process of making sure that you are taking all the legal deductions from your income and none of the illegal ones.

no one wants to pay more than they have to.

suuuuuure it is. The IRS just loves it when corporations write off as a deduction the cost of a car given to their CEO who doesn't use it for any business purposes what so ever.

Yeah, that's PERFECTLY legal, not tax fraud in the slightest

:rolleyes:I'm sure they don't love it but there's also nothing they can do about it. There's always a great irony when someone rolls their eyes at the truth. Almost a palpable amusement. I'm an investor, I am my business. If I use my PC for 5 minutes a day to look at potential real estate to invest in, my PC becomes a legitimate business expense. If I use my car to drive to meet with attorneys and escrow people (which I will because it's my car) than that car is a legitimate business expense. Your problem is that you're thinking of a business as something to work for and not something to BE. When you are the business, everything you do becomes business action.

Hell, I know these 4 guys who used their company they owned to buy a timeshare ski house in Vermont. The company owns the house and pays for their travel expenses every winter at ski season. They meet for one day to deal with actual business and spend another 6 on the slopes. It's all 100% legal. The truth is, most people pay far more taxes on investments than they have to because they steadfastly refuse to believe that they don't have to pay a large percentage of it. Too many people are simply unwilling to accept the fact that the system IS unfair and so they refuse to turn it to their advantage. That's one of the main differences between money and wealth.

Also, why would I advocate something illegal? It's far too easy to make and keep money legally to risk breaking the law.

It's up to you if you want to pay through the nose. I won't stop you. I'm simply letting you know that I legally don't and you don't have to either. Why should you have to pay more than you absolutely have to? If you don't believe me, that's fine, it's no skin off my nose and no money out of my pocket.

You're laboring under the mistaken assumption that the corporation in question actually pays salaries.

Salaries and wages. Now perhaps I'm mistaken because you didn't mention that you were talking about fraudulent setups with zero employees. Because,

You said,

Individuals earn, pay taxes on the money they earn, and then spend what is left over. Corporations such as banks earn, spent the money they have, and pay taxes ONLY on what is left over.

You didn't say, "corporations such as banks with zero employees."

Then you said,

Any c-corporation in the US (most big companies are C-corporations) does not have to pay taxes on their income.

Not "any c-corporation in the US that doesn't have any employees."

If you'll notice, most banks and corporations HAVE employees.

I'm sure they don't love it but there's also nothing they can do about it. There's always a great irony when someone rolls their eyes at the truth. Almost a palpable amusement. I'm an investor, I am my business. If I use my PC for 5 minutes a day to look at potential real estate to invest in, my PC becomes a legitimate business expense. If I use my car to drive to meet with attorneys and escrow people (which I will because it's my car) than that car is a legitimate business expense. Your problem is that you're thinking of a business as something to work for and not something to BE. When you are the business, everything you do becomes business action.


Oh, wow, an investor! Sorry, I didn't mean to take such a tone with you. Here I was thinking that me with my legal degree and background in corporate transactions, with my years of experience as a legal advisor, with all the time I spent learning business tax law, that I thought I knew the truth that when you write off a purchase as a business expense you are only allowed to deduct the portion of the expense compared to the portion of the time that purchase was used for business purchases. Which is to say, that your car is only a legitimate business expense to the extent that you use it for business, and the mere fact that you occassionally use your personal car for business reasons doesn't let you write off the entirety of the cost of that car.

Guess I was wrong, after all, you must be right, you're an investor!. What a waste it was all those years of law school, all that after school independant study, all that work for the bar, all that effort to move up in my career. All this time instead of doing that, I could have been fucking around on the internet, spewing pithy phrases like "business isn't what you do, it's what you ARE" like an arrogant jackass.

Sorry, did I say arrogant jackass? I of course meant "like an INVESTOR!"

Oh, wow, an investor! Sorry, I didn't mean to take such a tone with you. Here I was thinking that me with my legal degree and background in corporate transactions, with my years of experience as a legal advisor, with all the time I spent learning business tax law, that I thought I knew the truth that when you write off a purchase as a business expense you are only allowed to deduct the portion of the expense compared to the portion of the time that purchase was used for business purchases. Which is to say, that your car is only a legitimate business expense to the extent that you use it for business, and the mere fact that you occassionally use your personal car for business reasons doesn't let you write off the entirety of the cost of that car.

Guess I was wrong, after all, you must be right, you're an investor!. What a waste it was all those years of law school, all that after school independant study, all that work for the bar, all that effort to move up in my career. All this time instead of doing that, I could have been fucking around on the internet, spewing pithy phrases like "business isn't what you do, it's what you ARE" like an arrogant jackass.

Sorry, did I say arrogant jackass? I of course meant "like an INVESTOR!"

speaking of......I am going to have to quit posting from my laptop because I am messing up my deductable/non-deductable ratio on it.

Oh, wow, an investor! Sorry, I didn't mean to take such a tone with you. Here I was thinking that me with my legal degree and background in corporate transactions, with my years of experience as a legal advisor, with all the time I spent learning business tax law, that I thought I knew the truth that when you write off a purchase as a business expense you are only allowed to deduct the portion of the expense compared to the portion of the time that purchase was used for business purchases. Which is to say, that your car is only a legitimate business expense to the extent that you use it for business, and the mere fact that you occassionally use your personal car for business reasons doesn't let you write off the entirety of the cost of that car.

Guess I was wrong, after all, you must be right, you're an investor!. What a waste it was all those years of law school, all that after school independant study, all that work for the bar, all that effort to move up in my career. All this time instead of doing that, I could have been fucking around on the internet, spewing pithy phrases like "business isn't what you do, it's what you ARE" like an arrogant jackass.

Sorry, did I say arrogant jackass? I of course meant "like an INVESTOR!"

have they dropped the requirement of keeping a mileage log for the business use of a car?

what the rule on buying a vacation property for the use of company employees?

have they dropped the requirement of keeping a mileage log for the business use of a car?
it's a good idea to keep a log, whether you are deducting actual expenses or the mileage rate, just in case you get audited.

what the rule on buying a vacation property for the use of company employees?
I have to look that one up, because it might be just like other business property, or it might be like a car where you can only deduct a portion of it's use.

Here is the problem:

Lots of businesses, especially small businesses, are run by people who do not fully understand tax law. Hoping to save money they do their taxes themselves rather than hire a qualified accountant or consult a tax attorney.

They wind up believing popular myths like the notion that they can deduct 100% of the cost of any item they use, at least some of the time, for business.

And a significant proportion of them don't get caught.

What they are doing is NOT legal, but enforcement is spotty enough that the myth persists. They always "know someone" who got away with it, and that "someone" inevitably insists, "it's all 100% legal."

It's not. What you're really doing is rolling the dice against the possibility that you get caught.

And maybe you won't. The chances of getting caught are low enough that it's not the most horrible bet in the world.

Of course, the consequences of getting caught can be rather severe. So if you're going to roll the dice, you should at least do yourself the favor of understanding realistically the stakes of the bet.

Want to do some prison time? Don't think they'll shrink from putting you away, if they catch you. My ex-fiancée's aunt and uncle owned a little family restaurant--not exactly big business--and they got caught for tax fraud on exactly the kinds of deductions being discussed here: they bought a little boat and slapped an advertisement for their restaurant on the side, claiming the entire thing as a business expense.

The IRS disagreed. The two of them spent 366 days in federal prison.

The real attorney who advised me prior to startup seems to disagree. With that being said, I don't think I'll waste any more time with some of the self-accredited e-lawyers here. Some people will refuse to see that we live in a world of excess and not a world of insufficiency. If you want to needlessly pay through the nose to fund pointless wars and welfare queens, be my guest.

The real attorney who advised me prior to startup seems to disagree. With that being said, I don't think I'll waste any more time with some of the self-accredited e-lawyers here. Some people will refuse to see that we live in a world of excess and not a world of insufficiency. If you want to needlessly pay through the nose to fund pointless wars and welfare queens, be my guest.

you might want to talk to him again or make an appointment with a tax lawyer.

sometimes in the midst of somethin as complicated as starting a new business we dont take in every bit of information we are given. sometimes we hear what we want to hear or interpret our lawyers advice in a way he didnt intend.

it would be a shame to end up in trouble with the irs because you have formed an erroneous idea of how easy it is to use a business to legally shelter money.

The real attorney who advised me prior to startup seems to disagree.Oh, for fuck's sake.

If you use your car exclusively in your business, you can deduct car expenses. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses based on actual mileage.

You can deduct actual car expenses, which include depreciation (or lease payments), gas and oil, tires, repairs, tune-ups, insurance, and registration fees. Or, instead of figuring the business part of these actual expenses, you may be able to use the standard mileage rate to figure your deduction. For 2006, the standard mileage rate is 44.5 cents a mile for all business miles.

If you are self-employed, you can also deduct the business part of interest on your car loan, state and local personal property tax on the car, parking fees, and tolls, whether or not you claim the standard mileage rate.

......

I'm a corporate attorney.

Then you know what I am talking about, right?