Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : John EDWARDS for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1034)	3/1/2004 8:42:36 AM
From: redfish	Respond to of 1381

This is one of the most poorly reasoned diatribes I have ever read. It is an outrage that this dirtbag traitor would resort to outright lies. This is a classic Subchapter "S" corporation devised to shelter income, mainly for professionals such as lawyers (and also syndicated columnists, but not me). It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code, and it is a big one. The S corporation is in no way, shape or form a tax shelter. Every penny of profit gets taxed. It is intended to avoid the double taxation resulting from a C corporation, and is used by pretty much every mom-and-pop business in the nation. The government's position is that dummy corporations such as John R. Edwards, P.A., must pay its sole employee a "reasonable" salary. Tax practitioners told me that paying a $1.1 million salary out of $11.1 million net income may not pass the "reasonable" test. A P.A. is not a "dummy" corporation, you despicable scoundrel, it is a corporation like any other, except with less favorable asset protection features. There have been thousands of cases determining what is "reasonable" compensation. Given that in the case of C corporations it is very much in the IRS's favor to argue the business owner paid himself too much the case law tends to support paying yourself a low salary and taking the rest as dividends. There is no record that Edwards, during his six years in the Senate, ever even considered legislation to close the giant loophole of the personal corporation. Because proposing such a thing would bring howls of protest from the small business community, and any politician who did so would be ridden out of town on a rail.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1034)	3/1/2004 12:47:32 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1381

So you're on Carlyle Group's side, huh? If there was ever obvious proof of the real agenda behind the big neocons, all you have to do is look at the deals Carlyle has been going after and closing. Mainly defense related. War is their business and war is good for business. Same with Halliburton and Bectel.