Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
questionmark

`Joe the Plumber' Owes Back Taxes

218 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fluffybunny
If he is saying that his tax bracket is at 17% then he is certainly a liar!

But he said he ends up paying only 17% after the CPA did it's job, right?

no he isnt a liar, it is just as usual you are commenting on something as if you know what you are talking about, when in fact you are completely ignorant on the subject...something you shouldt do, but it never seems to stop you...

As the spouse of a lifetime business owner and family friends with the cpa to some of the richest people in the country, I can tell you it is painfully easy to get away with paying less than the 17.7 percent he does...

When you have a tax code created by the rich, well, guess what....loopholes happen and the people with the most money can pay people to take advantage of them.

That is why I challenged you to look the information on buffet up to see for yourself what was going on, but I knew that you would not, it would simply disagree with your little slice of reality...that happens to be false in this case.

You are painfully wrong...again. Do you ever get tired of that? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
no he isnt a liar, it is just as usual you are commenting on something as if you know what you are talking about, when in fact you are completely ignorant on the subject...something you shouldt do, but it never seems to stop you...

As the spouse of a lifetime business owner and family friends with the cpa to some of the richest people in the country, I can tell you it is painfully easy to get away with paying less than the 17.7 percent he does...

When you have a tax code created by the rich, well, guess what....loopholes happen and the people with the most money can pay people to take advantage of them.

That is why I challenged you to look the information on buffet up to see for yourself what was going on, but I knew that you would not, it would simply disagree with your little slice of reality...that happens to be false in this case.

You are painfully wrong...again. Do you ever get tired of that? :lol:

The highest Tax rate is for income of $349,701.00 or more is at 35%.

Now if Mr. Buffet is complaining, did he correct it then and paid 35%?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Tax rate for income of $349,701.00 or more to be exact is at 35%.

Now if Mr. Buffet is complaining, did he correct it then and paid 35%?

There is a reason that tax codes are tens of thousands of pages and not just the table you refer to.

Go do yourself a favor and learn about tax code before you respond again, you are making yourself look silly.

You are clueless on this. it is complicated stuff you obviously are painfully ignorant of...

You might as well be commenting on how to do brain surgery... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
You might as well be commenting on how to do brain surgery... :P

now, now, Fluffy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
now, now, Fluffy....

You are right. That was out of line. I take it back. He might as well be commenting on...

...um...

ughhh...

Never mind...it is like fishing in a barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
Tell us sir how much of that 420 is payed out in property tax, house hold staff pay, insurance tax, other taxes that I can't think of, insurances that I can't think of.

We pay up to 80 percent in taxes now depending on where we live. This includes all taxes. Rich and poor. I think the bush tax cuts cut that too 75 percent. This includes local, state, federal, sales, property, and any that I missed.

Now you're trying to divert the issue on to taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
From the article:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The highest tax bracket is 33 percent without trying to pay lower taxes. so if mr. buffet payed 17.7 percent he was certainly trying to pay a lower tax than he was supposed to be paying ie tax loops and or shelters. So this makes Mr. buffet a lier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
The highest tax bracket is 33 percent without trying to pay lower taxes. so if mr. buffet payed 17.7 percent he was certainly trying to pay a lower tax than he was supposed to be paying ie tax loops and or shelters. So this makes Mr. buffet a lier.

You and aroces can take a class together and get informed on how the tax code works for those that make slightly more than the average "joe" and dont just file a 1040EZ.

For someone who hates being accused of being a liar, you sure are quick to do it to someone else...

I do have to say that the two of you have given me great enjoyment seeing folks who are obviously oblivious of the subject being so certain about buffet being a liar. Really, take some advice, learn a bit about the tax code before you post things like this, it make you look like you dont know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
The highest tax bracket is 33 percent without trying to pay lower taxes. so if mr. buffet payed 17.7 percent he was certainly trying to pay a lower tax than he was supposed to be paying ie tax loops and or shelters. So this makes Mr. buffet a lier.

No, Daniel. He's not.

For example, it's common for company directors to pay themselves a large amount of their income via stock dividends. Stock dividends have a maximum taxation rate of 15%.

Prior to 2003, Stock Dividends were taxed as if they were income. President Bush changed that, with a bill that's due to expire in 2010.

McCain wants to keep the tax at 15%. Obama wants to raise it, to 20% for people making more than $250,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
How times have changed, my father was a bank CEO in the 70s and he considered it immoral that he should earn more than 14 times what his average employee earned at his company...

Did he return or refuse any of his "immoral" pay?

(I doubt it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
For example, it's common for company directors to pay themselves a large amount of their income via stock dividends. Stock dividends have a maximum taxation rate of 15%.

Incorrect.

Part of an executive's compensation plan is usually stock options that vest over some pre-determined schedule.

If the executive chooses to exercise their options and buy the stock (they don't get it for free!) they are a shareholder like anyone else and are entitlted to receive dividends if any (not all companies pay a dividend!).

If they do not own the stock they don't get the dividend.

The intent is to give the exeuctive an incentive to do good for the company since they too will do well when the company does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Did he return or refuse any of his "immoral" pay?

(I doubt it!)

He did, and as biggest shareholder he also curbed the earnings of the board. The resulting money was put into a retirement fund for the employees. The bank was sold to a multinational in the 80s, because my dad had to accept that none of his kids were interested in banking and he wanted to do something more satisfying, and the first thing they did is liquidate the retirement fund....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
He did, and as biggest shareholder he also curbed the earnings of the board. The resulting money was put into a retirement fund for the employees. The bank was sold to a multinational in the 80s, because my dad had to accept that none of his kids were interested in banking and he wanted to do something more satisfying, and the first thing they did is liquidate the retirement fund....

You just said he got paid 14x more than the lowest employee.

So what multiple did he select for himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Incorrect.

Part of an executive's compensation plan is usually stock options that vest over some pre-determined schedule.

If the executive chooses to exercise their options and buy the stock (they don't get it for free!) they are a shareholder like anyone else and are entitlted to receive dividends if any (not all companies pay a dividend!).

If they do not own the stock they don't get the dividend.

The intent is to give the exeuctive an incentive to do good for the company since they too will do well when the company does.

No. Correct.

Unless, of course, you want to walk us through how somebody can own a company and not hold the majority of shares in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
You just said he got paid 14x more than the lowest employee.

So what multiple did he select for himself?

I would have to ask him...don't know. At the time I was more interested in my car and girlfriends than in finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
No. Correct.

Unless, of course, you want to walk us through how somebody can own a company and not hold the majority of shares in it.

The more you post the more you show your ignorance of business. In this case, specifically accounting.

Salaries, bonuses etc. are are considered expenses to a business and therefore deductable from gross income (income before taxes).

Dividends are paid from net income (income after taxes).

Therefore companies prefer to pay salaries, bonuses etc because they are deductable to the business while dividends, as pointed out here many times, is double taxes - taxes to the company and the shareholder.

Game set and match: MasterPo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
I would have to ask him...don't know. At the time I was more interested in my car and girlfriends than in finances.

Many years ago Ben&Jerry Ice Cream was looking for a new CEO. B&J considers themselves one of the more progressive "enlightened" companies when it comes to salary distribution.

So they set a low level, something like 5x difference between the CEO and the lowest full time employee.

No one applied for the job.

So they had to raise it.

At around 12x they got a decent candidate but he only stayed a mere 1 year and didn't accomplish much.

A the end of it all they did finally find a decent CEO but pay was around 20x difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dayne
The more you post the more you show your ignorance of business. In this case, specifically accounting.

Salaries, bonuses etc. are are considered expenses to a business and therefore deductable from gross income (income before taxes).

Dividends are paid from net income (income after taxes).

Therefore companies prefer to pay salaries, bonuses etc because they are deductable to the business while dividends, as pointed out here many times, is double taxes - taxes to the company and the shareholder.

Game set and match: MasterPo

I have no problem with CEOs getting large salaries, bonuses and stock options, but I believe they should be based on performance not entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
The more you post the more you show your ignorance of business. In this case, specifically accounting.

Salaries, bonuses etc. are are considered expenses to a business and therefore deductable from gross income (income before taxes).

Dividends are paid from net income (income after taxes).

Therefore companies prefer to pay salaries, bonuses etc because they are deductable to the business while dividends, as pointed out here many times, is double taxes - taxes to the company and the shareholder.

Game set and match: MasterPo

So companies don't pay Dividends? Which alternative reality are you living in exactly?

Run us through how, exactly, Warren Buffet pays 17.7% tax. I'll give you a clue. Starts with a D.

Game set and Match: Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
I have no problem with CEOs getting large salaries, bonuses and stock options, but I believe they should be based on performance not entitlement.

I could not agree more (after all a publisher is the CEO of a publishing house...), but - as insider- nobody can tell me that his performance is 400 times that of his employees. If that was the case he could fire 200 of them.

I have nothing against people earning more than others, the worst vision of the world I have is where everybody has to be equal, but it cannot be our goal to re-introduce vassalage through the back door... after all, we know it lead to stagnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
I have no problem with CEOs getting large salaries, bonuses and stock options, but I believe they should be based on performance not entitlement.

Yes and no.

That's why executives get bonuses and stock options which are often tied to performance.

But no one is going to take on the job of CEO for a mere $50,000 and 5% 401k match. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
So companies don't pay Dividends? Which alternative reality are you living in exactly?

Run us through how, exactly, Warren Buffet pays 17.7% tax. I'll give you a clue. Starts with a D.

Are you purposely being difficult or just have a reading comprenhension problem?

Of course they pay dividneds. I never said they don't!!

Re-read what I wrote:

Companies prefer to pay salaries and bonuses because those can be deducted from their income (the company's income) before taxes while dividends are not deductable to a company.

This is of course based on U.S. accounting rules. Europe and other places may have different rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

A company pays it's employees what it feels said employee is worth. Does not matter if said employee is a CEO or a ditch digger. I have no right to tell said company what it can or cannot pay said employee unless I have stock in it.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
A company pays it's employees what it feels said employee is worth. Does not matter if said employee is a CEO or a ditch digger. I have no right to tell said company what it can or cannot pay said employee unless I have stock in it.

You're definately starting to impress me. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
A company pays it's employees what it feels said employee is worth. Does not matter if said employee is a CEO or a ditch digger. I have no right to tell said company what it can or cannot pay said employee unless I have stock in it.

I agree with you there too, and that is where I say that the maximum tax bracket should be 50% instead of 35, and everybody who earns more than 50 times the average income should pay that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.