Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4783)	9/23/1998 10:25:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) of 67261

OTOTOT Michelle, I really don't understand your point. For example you said: >>No taxes were paid on those gains, and believe me they are substantial.<< They would pay capital gains on the excess over 250K if single and 500K if married, how are you concluding that they pay no taxes? You said that>> your corporation was paid in stock. I paid myself very little. How much taxes should I pay.<< Again I don't understand your point. Your personal taxes would be based on your net income, if you elect to pay yourself "very little", that's your choice. But, basically you are deferring income (for whatever reason you see fit). I'm assuming you are a "C" Corp. so when your corporation sells the stock your corporation would then pay taxes on the the sale amount. What problem are you having with that? The only problem I see is that once that particular income (sale of corp. assets) eventually flows thru to your personal return (bonus, income) you will be taxed again. The argument you seem to making is that your income tax if Dell had paid you direct would have been too high, so instead you had Dell pay your corporation in stock. Again, you simply deferring that income. Sooner or later I assume you will "cash in" your stock payment either personally or corporately and you will pay taxes on capital gains, not income (ostensibly will be a lower amount if you are in the top tax bracket). If I'm hearing you correctly you seem to be complaining that you felt you were forced to accept payment to your corporation instead of personally because you perceive your "income tax" to be excessive and chose to "shelter" that income temporarily in your corporation. Your situation appears to be a very strong example of why we need a flat income tax with much lower rates. You are currently shielding that income from taxes (legally) and will eventually be forced to pay taxes personally once you "recognize" that gain on your personal return. So currently the IRS gets no money from you at all on that transaction. Now multiply that times probably millions of people who are currently sheltering income in the same way. If there were a fair, flat tax people would feel "forced" to go to such means to preserve their income from the excessive current rate. So my point is 15% of something is certainly better than 33% of nothing. I have concluded that an across the board tax reduction in a flat tax mechanism is a win/win situation for the government and the taxpayer. bp

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next