Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
Care to show me where I put "this equation holds true only for buisnesses" or where in your head you came up with the notion that only buisnesses earn a profit?

That's why I specified "accounting terms," which, AFAIK, is the orignal intent of the OP.

Yes, you can say a person earn a profit, but that's not the same meaning.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's why I specified "accounting terms," which, AFAIK, is the orignal intent of the OP.

Yes, you can say a person earn a profit, but that's not the same meaning.

so, what you are doing is obscuring the argument so that it is meaningless?

as i already said, he who owns the company owns its profits....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by pchang
In many countries, companies pay sales taxes when they are the end users of the products they buy.

That's an expense, not a tax.

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
no, but seeign as he owns the compnay, he also owns the profits, and seeign as he has no 'wages', the 'profits' are his means of substinance.

Not all the time. He can pay himself a salary.

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
That are many occcasions where the owner can earn less the his employees, maybe his employees should have their wages cut so he gets an even share?

I suppose that's possible. Frequently, steps will be taken to correct the imbalance, so to speak.

Originally posted by Japher
What about buisness that earn a profit, but have no employees? Should they be forced to hire people?

I suppose the OP is about businesses making $ at the expenses of their employees. If there are no employees, there is no exploitation, so they don't count. Like small craftsmen.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's an expense, not a tax.




Not all the time. He can pay himself a salary.



I suppose that's possible. Frequently, steps will be taken to correct the imbalance, so to speak.



I suppose the OP is about businesses making $ at the expenses of their employees. If there are no employees, there is no exploitation, so they don't count. Like small craftsmen.

sales tax is not a tax, HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH. omg I almost fell out my chair.

[Japher]

O-k, little confussed... it's early for me sorry.

I see what Kid is trying to get at is that companies should be required to reimburse their employees according to their profit earnings... Many companies do this, and it is built into their buisness models. Of which, many of these companies see great success.

However, they do this in a manner to insure employee loyalty and company substance. They do this through stock options, profit sharing, and setting pay tiers.

I think the most communist of all buisness models was that of Ben&Jerry's which had set pay teirs based on earnings. It was like saying X% will be reinvested into the company for equipment, facilities, upkeep, and upgrades with Y% given to inverstors as a return (which included employees) and the remaining Z% distributed at a set percentage amongst the employees... The guy who turned the butter got a%, they guy who drove the truck b%, and the owner of the company c%... If the owners wanted more of the profit due to high earnings or less money needing reinvestment they would either pay higher dividends or increase pay, and either would benefit the whole company...

Worked for them until the were bought out for mega-cash, and the quality of their ice cream has since dropped...

---

On a side note. One loop hole the employeer could use is to assign his dependents as employees and write-off their "expenses". He could even have a "company" car and and "office" at home. Also, the owner would most likely not live off of profits, but assign himself a salary... As with Steve Jobs having a salary of only $1/year, probably to screw an ex-wife or something

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Companies don't make money don't have to pay taxes, either.

They pay payroll taxes other than trustees taxes (the part that's collected from employees wages), sales and use tax on goods purchased other than for resale, real and personal property taxes, utility taxes, etc. Income taxes are deferred, in some/most cases, but states such as California have minimum taxes even when you lose money.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher
On a side note. One loop hole the employeer could use is to assign his dependents as employees and write-off their "expenses". He could even have a "company" car and and "office" at home.

And IRS is all over that kind of transparent BS.

[Dinner]

I know two different friends who's parents own family businesses and the family car gets written off as a business expense. They've been doing that with each car they buy for at least the last 12 years that I've known them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you can get away with audit roulette, sure you can abuse the hell out of the rules.

However, if you go by the book, or more precisely, the IRC, you can only deduct mileage rate unless business use is more than 50% of total mileage.

Personal and commute mileage is non-deductible under either mileage rate or percentage of cost methods.

If the company directly pays for the vehicle and allows you to use it for personal or commute use, the fair market value of such use (generally what it would cost as a lease) must be 1099'd to you as a miscellaneous income item.

If you use the mileage rate method, the "standard" mileage rate only applies for 15,000 miles per yer for four years, as 15 cents per mile of that rate is allocable to depreciation. After that, you have to use a much lower mileage rate.

If you have less than 50% qualifying business use, or no policy that restricts the vehicle to business use only, it is ineligible for expense treatment under Section 179 of the IRC.

If you have high enough profit and/or gross sales that the vehicle deductions disappear into the background noise, then you can get away with flagrantly skating the rules - most everyone does, and most everyone gets away with it, but assuming you can do something legally, and assuming you can break the law and get away with it are two different things.

Mostly IRS just fines you, but there are a fair number of people in Federal prisons from MLM scams like Amway and others, when they played the personal expense deduction and "home office" game to extremes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Companies don't make money don't have to pay taxes, either.

Yes they do. You pay taxes BEFORE expenses, on your income, not on your net income (profit).

However, if you have no income at all, you are right, you will pay no income taxes

[Berzerker]

The US was founded on a revolution against unfair taxation. Anger over unfair taxes is part of our national identity.

Kid, who was imposing those unfair taxes? GOVERNMENT! And your solution to the evils of profit? A 100% GOVERNMENT tax (communism)? Good one, Kid, cite the capitalists who created this country to promote communism.

Working people who know very little about economics and politcs find it so easy to critisize the government because of what they percieve as unfair taxes. It's easy to see how taxes hurt you because they come out of your check or you have to pay them directly. Why can't more working people see that profit, rent and interest comes out of their pay too?

Pardon me, Kid, but if an employer did not make the investments in machinery and land, etc, what would your labor be worth if you were a machinist working for that employer? Less, nada? That's right, the machinist's labor is worth less without the employer's investments, so the extra money the machinist makes because of the employer's investments = PROFIT! Profit belonging to the machinist!!!

If no one owned baseball teams, how much would Derek Jeter's labor be worth? Not much... But because someone invested loads of money to build a team and all that goes with it, Jeter's labor is much more valuable. Jeter PROFITS because of what someone else did to increase the value of his labor...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeter Swallows!

Oh, sorry... got caught up in playoff fever .

[Berzerker]

Otter's right!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
if the commies had there way, according to this thread atleast, the workers should get all the cash whilst the owner and his family have to starve.

I think you're getting it.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: So untrue

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
in the UK, atleast, the bussness has to contributew to the Natianal Health insurabce of the employee i beleive.

Well maybe not. Businesses don't contribute anything. The employees contribute everything. It's as simple as that. Profit comes from work and so does the tax collected from businesses.