 |
|  |
 |
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
They don't pay payroll taxes, their employees do. They just collect the $ for the government.
They don't pay sales taxes either.
Here, if a company doesn't make $, it doesn't have to pay for a business license.
Anything else? |
in the UK, atleast, the bussness has to contributew to the Natianal Health insurabce of the employee i beleive.
quote: If so, feeding family and paying rent (except for the shop) don't count. |
I guess they don't, but with our these 'prfits' that bloke gets no return for his labour (and contrary to lefty beleif, the boss does have to do a helluva lot of work - what you put in you get out etc), and with no return, the poor sod has to starve without a home i guess. His fault for being a hard working honest capitalist i guess
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
quote: 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
|
|
quote: 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
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
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
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:31
|
|
quote: 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.
quote: 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...
Last edited by Berzerker on 15-10-2003 at 05:14
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|