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?

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

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

jps wrote:

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.

I agree with JP on this. The money he pays himself is taxes as
ordinary income.
It is a business expense.
Dividends are profit, after everyone is paid and all expenses are
recovered.
The problem with dividends is the corporation pays taxes on them at a
ridiculous rate (compared to virtually every other country in the
world) and then the stock holder has to pay tax on that same money
again.

If they do not have enough other activity, they may end up filing the
short form and pay the regular income rate on them too.
I know a lot of people with relatively simple tax returns who are not
going to screw with a schedule D worksheet, just to save a little
money on dividends.
I think the government makes it hard on purpose, to get that extra
money.

Exactly my opinion. These people who say the reduced taxes are unfair,
ignore the fact the dividends have already been taxed at a rate higher than
the highest personal income tax rate. Just treat them like JPS dividend
for working at the company. Send it out untaxed at the corporate level and
the payee pays at ordinary income levels

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.