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 : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (15992)	10/6/2004 1:12:59 AM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 27181

Hope this helps a little. M Did Edwards really weasel his way out of medicare taxes? Although legal, Edwards "earned" a tiny portion that could be taxed for SS and medicare, and took the rest of the 26.9 mil in dividends. Taxing the Super-Rich posted 07/13/04 (edited Tuesday, Jul 13, 2004 17:10) libertarian.journalspace.com A Wall Street Journal editorial, Liberal Loopholes, published today, exposes the hypocrisy of Sen. John Edwards in calling for higher taxes on the super-rich like himself. Here's an excerpt: Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax dodge to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a "subchapter S" corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9% Medicare tax but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded more than 90% of his income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the line. The Internal Revenue Service takes a dim view of such operations and "may collapse the structure entirely and argue the S corporation is not truly a separate entity," in the words of Tax Adviser magazine. Attorney CPA magazine lists it as No. 11 of its "15 best underutilized tax loopholes," but warns that the IRS "has successfully litigated cases against individuals, particularly sole shareholders of personal service S corporations, reclassifying such deemed distributions as wages subject to social security taxes." As a political matter, the dodge is especially hypocritical because the income limits on which Medicare taxes are paid were lifted by Democrats in 1993 specifically to hit "the rich," as Mr. Edwards likes to call people in his tax bracket. And the supreme irony? Mr. Edwards has claimed that he set up the subchapter S company to protect himself from legal liability. You know it's time for tort reform when even the trial lawyers say they're afraid of getting sued. ... Mr. Edwards is right that there really are two Americas. The people who work for their money and want to keep more of their own paychecks. And wealthy politicians who want to raise taxes on the middle class secure in the knowledge that they won't have to pay. The editorial further notes that, of course, "nobody is obligated to pay more than what the letter of the law requires. But the complex tax code benefits the wealthy, who can afford tax attorneys and complicated schemes to skirt the law. And high marginal rates give them plenty of incentive to do so." So, here's the reality—despite all the rhetoric, taxing the "super-rich" never ever actually happens. Instead, and as usual, the middle class will pay the bill. And this goes far beyond Senator Edwards and the current campaign. This is business as usual for all of the politicians in Washington. It always has been! Did Cheney just say 'I didn't know about the problem with AIDS in the black community'? He honestly said that he had not heard the statistics on black female Aids cases in the US. Did Cheney just disagree with Bush's stand on gay marriage? He said that President Bush set administration policy on this issue. Did Edwards really have a poor attendance record in the senate? Evidentially: deseretnews.com Does Cheney really believe (I don't mean this sarcastically), that the current coalition is comporable to the first GW? I don't know....... The entire debate will be thoroughly fisked by the bloggers over the next few days. This will be written about imo. Did Kerry really vote against GWI? That's stuff I've not heard before Yes! Kerry voted against GW1.