Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IRS Nails CPA For Copying Steve Jobs, Google Execs

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the money-for-somethin' dept.

Businesses 509

theodp writes "It seems $1 salaries are only for super-wealthy tech execs. The WSJ reports that CPA David Watson incurred the wrath of the IRS by only paying himself $24,000 a year and declaring the rest of his take profit. It's a common tax-cutting maneuver that most computer consultants working through an S Corporation have probably considered. Unlike profit distributions, all salary is subject to a 2.9% Medicare tax and the first $106,800 is subject to a 12.4% Social Security tax (FICA). By reducing his salary, Watson didn't save any income taxes on the $379k in profit distributions he received in 2002 and 2003, but he did save nearly $20,000 in payroll taxes for the two years, the IRS argued, pegging Watson's true pay at $91,044 for each year. Judge Robert W. Pratt agreed that Watson's salary was too low, ruling that the CPA owed the extra tax plus interest and penalties. So why, you ask, don't members of the much-ballyhooed $1 Executive club like Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt get in hot water for their low-ball salaries? After all, how inequitable would it be if billionaires working full-time didn't have to kick in more than 15 cents into the Medicare and Social Security kitty? Sorry kids, the rich are different, and the New Global Elite have much better tax advisors than you!"

cancel ×

509 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Joys of employeehood.... (5, Insightful)

rajeevrk (1278022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971634)

Remember all, when you are an employee, the government always has the first share of your pay-pie.... if the cpa was smart, he'd have set up a proper LLC shell, and worked through it. I'm sure he has the skills to do so. and the appeals verdict on this should be interesting...... Also, yaaahooo, my first first-post!!!

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (5, Funny)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971644)

Also, yaaahooo, my first first-post!!!

Ah, if someone paid me a dollar for every time I got a first post... I'd be an executive!

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971654)

Ah, if someone paid me a dollar for every time I got a first post... I'd be an executive!

No, if you took 95 cents of my dollar every time I got a first post, you'd be an executive.

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (0)

TafBang (1971954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971812)

Score....

Off Topic Rant (5, Insightful)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971672)

if the cpa was smart

CPA's [wikipedia.org] aren't very smart, that's what CA's [wikipedia.org] are for.

But in all seriousness, CPA is a really easy designation to get. I've got friends who have done both (due to working in firms who were CPA, and CA only), and the CPA is a piece of cake compared to the CA. So, the CPA is far less a symbol of being good at accounting than the CA is. Though I hear it's a little different in the US.

Anyone care to shed some light? Particularly if you're originally from a commonwealth country.

Re:Off Topic Rant (5, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971958)

CPA's [wikipedia.org] aren't very smart, that's what CA's [wikipedia.org] are for.

But in all seriousness, CPA is a really easy designation to get. I've got friends who have done both (due to working in firms who were CPA, and CA only), and the CPA is a piece of cake compared to the CA. So, the CPA is far less a symbol of being good at accounting than the CA is. Though I hear it's a little different in the US.

Anyone care to shed some light? Particularly if you're originally from a commonwealth country.

Ummm, since this is a US tax case, the following applies: In the United States, CPAs are five year programs, then passing the unified CPA exam, then a minimum of 2 years experience. That's the equivalent of a Master Degree in Accounting, so unless a CA is the equivalent of a CPA, then I doubt that CPAs aren't very smart and CAs are more technical.

Re:Off Topic Rant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972094)

According to the wikipedia articles he linked, CPA is equivalent to CA. The difference between the two is that CPA is used in the United States, while CA is used in all those countries that add a "u" to many words where a simple "o" works (e.g. colour) and an extra "i" to aluminum, as well as most of them where they drive on the opposite side of the road as the rest of the world.

FWIW, almost every country that is substantially proficient with the English language that is completely surrounded by water does this.

Re:Off Topic Rant (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972268)

aisshoule

Re:Off Topic Rant (2)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972146)

A CA is a CPA, we have both institutions over here. They both operate and certify a level of competency, but the CA is really hard, and the CPA is quite easy in comparison.

Both of them have "similar" requirements, it just seems as if the CPA is less stringent testing them. What you've said above is about the same here.

Though they require experience before hand, you need to be working in accounting at a certified firm, then it's a 4 year program (or longer, depending on you), then you need to maintain your cert.

Re:Off Topic Rant (2)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972472)

Look at paragraph 4 of your second citation
"In the United States the approximate equivalent [of the Chartered Accountant] is the certified public accountant."

In other words, a CA is someone who qualified as an accountant in Scotland and is likely familiar with British tax laws. A CPA is someone who qualified in the US and is likely to be more familiar with American tax laws.

Yes, the British tax code is the most complex in the world, so maybe you do need to be smarter to understand it, but that doesn't mean you know any more than the very basic stuff relating to American tax law.

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (4, Interesting)

Izaak (31329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971760)

As I read it, he had an S-Corp, not an LLC, but paid himself a salary just as you suggest. The problem is that the IRS claims he paid himself too little (which he could have also done with an LLC). The reason he did this was to reduce his payroll tax contributions. This can also reduce your eventual social security benefits, but as a CPA he probably figured he could do better investing the money. As an independent consultant this is the same situation I am in. I take a fixed, modest salary and take any additional income as just profits from the corporation. In year where I book a lot of hours, my income from profit can be more than my salary... which it looks like according to this article could put me in the cross-hairs of the IRS. I guess its time to give myself a raise. :-/

social security benefits (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972400)

This can also reduce your eventual social security benefits

Social security benefits are capped at relatively low levels, he wouldn't get but a small part of those $379k/year after he retired.

According to this link [calcxml.com] he would get about $11k if he paid taxes on $24k/year and about $26k if he paid taxes on $379k.

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971976)

Because the government created a legal framework and will protect your right to get a fair wage for your work, it will also take some of your wage as a compensation for its work.

Feel free to abolish all government and then try make a decent living from being employed!

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972006)

You make it sound like government is just a protection racket. oh wait.....

Re:The Joys of employeehood.... (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972476)

No, the government is one of the methods to do politics, which is understood as "trying to influence society en large or en detail to further your interests". And one of the biggest interests of an employee is to get paid, otherwise an employee would not agree to an employment contract anyway.

Not so Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971664)

These $1.00 salaries are usually morale boosters. . .This article implies they make plenty of money without the salary. I think the difference is if you are just given stock. . .if the company performs you get money, but your taking a big risk.

Re:Not so Easy (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971674)

Damn it, your ruining a great story summary by bringing logic into it.

STOP NOW!

Re:Not so Easy (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972294)

it said "your taking a big risk" instead of "you're taking a big risk". It can be ignored because of the typo.

Re:Not so Easy (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971698)

How may I ask are you taking a risk if your given shares. I mean sure you make way more money if your company does well but if you're given shares for free then you just make less if your company does poorly. Hell even if your company goes under if your the CEO you'll probably see it coming at the very least.

Re:Not so Easy (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971706)

Because the value those shares should reach is your pay, if they don't reach that, you worked for less money.

Re:Not so Easy (2)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971914)

If you are on a fixed salary, you get paid no matter how hard you work (assuming you don't do so little you get fired). If you get paid a $1 salary and your actual income is from stock in the company that you run, then your earnings are directly tied to how hard you work to make the company earn money. Or, to put it another way, you're not earning money unless *everyone* is earning money. It's actually a bit big-S Socialist ;-)

Re:Not so Easy (4, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972342)

How may I ask are you taking a risk if your given shares.

Because most companies don't give straight shares, they give options.

If the stock price goes up, the owner of those options can exercise them, but actually has to pay for the underlying stock. If the stock price goes down, their owner lets them expire, giving them zero value.

So rather than "free money under a different name", stock options as a form of executive compensation more closely resemble a one-sided bet... If he wins, he wins. If he loses, he doesn't really lose anything.


Tying that all back to the situation in TFA, however, it gets a whole lot shadier when you have a one-person corporation - The owner of the company usually already owns 100% of the stock so can't pay himself with more of it (not can he issue options to himself on it).

More practically, he should have done what most sole proprietorships do to hide money - Pay himself as much as he really needs to live, and use the remaining profits on "capital improvements" that he just happens to personally benefit from, ("company" car, new computer(s), perhaps an "office" (aka "place to spend the night for free") in a remote location that he often visits, if that applies). That way, he also gets the perk of claiming depreciation on those assets over time, which we mere humans don't get to do.

Re:Not so Easy (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972438)

So rather than "free money under a different name", stock options as a form of executive compensation more closely resemble a one-sided bet... If he wins, he wins. If he loses, he doesn't really lose anything.

Exactly. Options mean that he can buy n shares for $m per share. If the current share price is greater than $m, then the options are worth $n*m. He doesn't pay tax on the shares unless he sells them. He can exchange them for other shares, including diversified funds that are very low risk. There are also other tricks possible, like taking out a loan (doesn't count as income) with some shares as collateral, not repaying the loan, and having the shares seized by the lender - effectively, he's sold the shares, but the whole thing is actually written off as a loss and so can be used to offset even more tax...

Re:Not so Easy (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971960)

Actually, $1.00 salaries are very common. Very often, you need to be an employee for various insurance to apply. Paying somebody a $1 salary qualifies them for workmans comp, health insurance, all sorts of liability insurance, etc. It is a way of showing an employer/employee relationship.

Re:Not so Easy (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972552)

That's the point of the article. They get $1 salaries and are compensated in other ways. As a result, they get out of paying Medicare and Social Security taxes. This accountant got in trouble for doing the same thing, why not Jobs?

Karma (1, Interesting)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971692)

At the end of the day the super wealthy can only protect their position by sharing their wealth or suppressing dissent. In an age when everyone on the wage spectrum can dial up stories on how much the super-wealthy earn and how much they give back dissent is likely to grow in times of hardship. While some might argue we need these innovators, innovation is not strictly related to wealth but is very much reliant on the resources and infrastructure funded by tax payers. It's not therefore how good their tax advisors are, it is more what people think. And in the fickle tech world empires could crumble if figure-heads fall foul of public opinion. I would say being a good citizen and being seen to share, to pay a fair contribution, is increasingly the only realistic option.

Wow! Delusional much? (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971730)

Just what the hell did you smoke that created this fairy land?

Tunesia recently revolted after DECADES of abuse by the superrich where they did no longer bother with tax evasion but just stole gold and killed those that protested. Oh and don't forget decades of poverty and a hopeless future for the majority.

If it takes that much negative karma, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and the likes have NOTHING to worry about. The average voter ain't even smart enough to realize that their tax avoidance schemes ultimately cause the non-super rich to pay higher taxes. They just blame Obama and vote in the tea-party. Extended tax-cuts for everyone who has more then a billion folks!

Bread and circusses. The only risk the super-rich face is if the American Dream dies, and that dream is not about actually being able to afford a car, a house and a huge tv, but about being able to work very very hard to get a loan that always puts you one pay check away from loosing it all. Keeps the folks on their toes, unwilling to do anything to risk upsetting the status quo lest they miss a credit card payment and loose it all.

Why do you think ALL the elite were HORRIFIED over the housing crisis? Because poor people lost their home? Yeah right. No, because poor people found out that they aren't all that tied down to their debt. Default and walk away and start over new, maybe somewhere different with a different kind of politician. Don't let the poor money to get themselves in debt and they just might not be in debt anymore and then how do you control them?

But that is not the worry of the super-rich. They are a few hours away from leaving the country anyway. It is the layer below that should be worried but the situation in the west is still far to tempting for the ones to get screwed to ask themselves, is it worth getting it up the ass so hard for the tiniest impossible change to one day strike it rich and screw every one else? 99% of voters in the US? Yes, yes it is.

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971796)

I think most people regard tax as something that needs to be paid... by other people.

I must admire Bush's (or his Republican advisors) political skill in one way. Any politician can pass massive tax cuts to win popularity, that's obvious. But he went one step further. He passed the tax cuts with an expiary date set for the next term, knowing that there was a more than fifty-fifty chance that it would be a democrat who would be in office and thus have to either take the blame when taxes went up, or be forced to extend cuts that were obviously unsustainable.

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (-1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972144)

This skill is a little less amazing than you say. The congress ( both houses ) was controlled by Democrats who did not want to go along. The compromise was the expiration. Bush would have much preferred permanence. You are saying that those in control of writing the actual bills were willing to take a chance of wearing all of the egg. If this is true, then the Dems of the time were just plain stupid, and Bush should get no credit for picking on people dumber than him.

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972332)

The congress ( both houses ) was controlled by Democrats...

The first part of the Bush Tax cuts were passed in 2001.
Senate 50-50
House: 222-210-2 (R-D-vacant)

The second part was passed in 2003.
Senate: 51-49 (R-D)
House: 229-205 (R-D)

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972384)

This skill is a little less amazing than you say. The congress ( both houses ) was controlled by Democrats who did not want to go along. The compromise was the expiration. Bush would have much preferred permanence. You are saying that those in control of writing the actual bills were willing to take a chance of wearing all of the egg. If this is true, then the Dems of the time were just plain stupid, and Bush should get no credit for picking on people dumber than him.

No, when the Bush tax cuts were passed both houses of congress were controlled by the Republicans e.g. 2001 & 2003 (look it up). The tax cuts in the senate had to be passed by reconciliation, because the republicans didn't have the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster hence the 10 year limit on the tax cuts.

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972622)

ok, you are correct. I hate talking to cowards, but I have to give credit to you. The main basis of my point, which would stand better if i had my facts straight, is that the idea of expiration wasnt a devious plan by Bush, but a condition forced by the structure of our government. The basic concept still stands, just that reconciliation to get through the filibuster was the requirement, not an opposition controlled congress.

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972206)

No, the true skill was in convincing people that the expiry of the tax cuts would have a substantial impact on their finances. Most (Read 95% of) Americans would have paid little, if any, extra taxes if the cuts had expired; all the $1800/year figures that were floating around were mean averages that were massively distorted by including the top 5% of earners in the calculations and then pretending that said "averages" were representative for everyone in the country.

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (2)

WoodstockJeff (568111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971938)

What I don't understand is the outrage over NOT paying into two government schemes (medicare and social security) that this person is also NOT going to depend upon payments from, even though he was continuing to pay the OTHER taxes.

Corporate income tax rate is 15% across the board, with a lot fewer deductions than personal taxes. And, if the business is considered a "personal services" corporation, even more rules apply. When I still had my own companies, we took what we could in salaries and bonuses, rather than profit, because it netted us a lot more cash!

Re:Wow! Delusional much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972586)

About 40% of people in the US pat absolutely NO federal income tax. A decent % of those 40% actually make money when they file. Yes, blaming the rich makes good headlines and rallies the people behind a political candidate with their pitch forks but it is not the solution to the problem. It would be hard to get elected if those 40% of the voters were told they would have to start paying their fair share of taxes and the politicians know that. They use them as pawns and the problem will not get fixed. I know people are against a national sales tax to replace the "income" tax but the more I read about it, the more sense it makes. It would encourage more people saving money (something big companies hate) and tax everyone more fairly then the system we have now.

Re:Karma (3, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971792)

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." --Napoleon Bonaparte

the world needs more atheists...

Re:Karma (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971908)

You're forgetting that today we have mass media to replace or enhance the effect of organised religion.

Re:Karma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34971920)

The rich vs. poor thing is overrated. While it would be nice for someone to become rich, I think the real issue is the following...

Higher education
Health care
Affordable housing
Fair pricing of goods (food and gas prices I think are inching up here in the USA)

If no one had to worry about those four things, I think people would be better off.

Re:Karma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972012)

You know who never has to worry about those things?

The rich.

Re:Karma (3, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972166)

don't forget, you ARE rich to somebody, while somebody else is rich to you.

As an atheist, I am not about to go on a killing spree, I don't care that there are people who are richer, I WANT there to be rich people rather than poor people.

I want people to compete, to create better products/services and if they become rich in the process, I am all for it, as long as I get the spoils of that competition through lower prices/higher quality/more new interesting stuff - that's economic growth.

I don't even need a lot of money, I just need real competition in the market. Real competition, without government intervention. Why is that? Because I want to see companies compete in cut throat environment, where things are deflating in price.

I want prices to fall, I want deflation. I want deflation. Deflation. Deflation of money supply - that's what I want. I want money to become more and more expensive and more and more scarce.

Why is that? Because prices for everything go down as money become more expensive. I don't want inflation. Will the labor prices go down as well? Of-course! But in real competitive market the number of competing entities is so high, that whatever money I have will buy more and more every day.

Those were the actual realities of the USA in 19 century, even though even in those times the US gov't was doing something terrible - helping some people with their monopolies. The robber barons, the tycoons, whatever, those were gov't created. But the prices were falling. New products were created. New industries were created. Entire new job segments were created. Nobody had to work in the field farming 15 hours a day just to feed themselves. More leisure time was created.

--

Do you know what is good? It's when you do not have to work at all or work very very little to feed yourself, so you'd have much more leisure time.
Do you know how that can be achieved?
Through massive automation of production, through new efficiencies and competition.

We see examples of this: computers, TVs, cars, any technologies, some forms of medical attention, and many more things tend towards that because there is real competition there. Who could afford THEIR OWN COMPUTER 50 years ago? Who does not have a computer in their phone or PDA or TV today?

Was this done by poor people? Was this done by governments and monopolies? Or was this done by people who became also insanely rich in the process?

So why would we want to punish success? What we need is to punish FAILURE. And government is not punishing failure, it's punishing success with taxes and it's rewarding failure with money and positions of power.

All of those banks that were gov't created monopolies, that enjoyed gov't FDIC insurance, that had all that cheap money from gov't, that had all those regulations destroying their competition by gov't, all those banks failed. They are failures, yet they are rewarded. The GE CEO now has a high power position in the US government. WHY? Under his watch the valuation of GE fell by over 50%, maybe more, that's insane to reward that!

But that's the way it is - the gov't creates inequality by destroying competitive environment, it promotes FAILURE it denounces success and it's causing the society to be poorer and poorer all the time, but hey, at least we can blame the rich for this.

This is Why (5, Informative)

matunos (1587263) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971694)

It's because this guy paid himself the same amount, he just funneled a lot of it through his corporation, of which he owned the dominant share (if he was going through an S-Corp, he only needs at least one other shareholder, I believe). S-Corps don't pay corporate taxes either. Google, Apple, et al are public corporations which pay corporate taxes (though not much, usually, by taking advantage of various loopholes). Most of them don't even pay a dividend, so even if Steve Jobs does have a significant number of Apple shares, he's not getting any direct payment of the company profits.

Re:This is Why (4, Informative)

Izaak (31329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971780)

You can have an S-Corp with only one shareholder (at least here in WI and most other states I know of). That's how I do my consulting. It involves more paperwork that being a sole proprietor, but their are liability and tax advantages to having a real corp over going sole proprietor. An LLC is also a good option; it lacks some of the advantages of an S-Corp but involves less paperwork.

Income tax is not based on any law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972184)

The real news is that there is no law which requires you to pay federal income tax.
There are supreme court cases backing up the claim. See for yourself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173# [google.com]

Re:Income tax is not based on any law (1)

Lershac (240419) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972310)

Tell that to Mr Snipes.

Re:Income tax is not based on any law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972610)

Exactly. You don't have to pay, they IRS will just kindly take whatever they feel entitled to, oh, yeah, and through you in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison. Don't get that part. That's what those tax evaders don't like to mention. You cannot get away with it, unless you have friends in very high places, and that usually means insane amount of money.

Re:This is Why (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972522)

Hence the need for fundamental tax reform. Alas, they are likely to make it MORE complicated than it is now as it's in the governments best interest for the majority of us not to be able to decipher just how much we're being taxed.

Why Jobs and Ellison don't get in trouble (5, Informative)

jonatha (204526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971720)

The distinction between Mr. Watson and Mssrs. Jobs, Ellison, Brin, et al, is that the salaries of the latter are set by independent boards of directors of public companies. Mr. Watson set his own salary, which the court found was not commensurate with the market rate for that sort of work.

Re:Why Jobs and Ellison don't get in trouble (4, Insightful)

mallydobb (1785726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971736)

and managing a multi-billion tech company is only worth being paid $1? While the salaries of your examples may be set by a board their official pay is not accurately describing the value of what they bring to the company. Sorry, can't agree w you there.

Re:Why Jobs and Ellison don't get in trouble (1)

jonatha (204526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971754)

Oh, they get paid a lot more than $1. But it's in forms that isn't subject to FICA (e.g., incentive stock options).

Re:Why Jobs and Ellison don't get in trouble (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972110)

Right... but that is precisely the same sort thing this CPA tried to do from the look of things... except he didn't get away with it...

Re:Why Jobs and Ellison don't get in trouble (5, Insightful)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972524)

This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. The $1 salaries taken by high-tech execs isn't about avoiding taxes - it's about leadership and morale.

It's actually a voluntary decrease in their compensation from previous years, they aren't shifting their salary into bonuses or other forms of pay. You can't accuse them of trying to get around paying taxes because they're not coming out ahead financially.

Now if you want to blame them for not contributing as much tax as they could, you may have a technically correct point, but good luck trying to frame a valid argument in your effort to make them look bad. And if you do, try not to keep confusing value with compensation- the value a company gets from an employee is not taxable.

Re:Why Jobs and Ellison don't get in trouble (4, Informative)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972056)

No, the difference is that the guy in this case took a low salary, and took the rest as a profit distribution. In the case of Jobs et al., they take a salary of $1 and take the rest as Stock. Its a whole different accounting ball game.

A read through the article... (3, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971724)

will tell you that the company in question falls under different tax law than Google or Apple. Apparently, companies with more than 100 shareholders are subject to an additional level of taxation on profits. I don't know any details, but I think that it would be worth looking into before crying foul. At the very least, one would expect the submitter to have read the article, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:A read through the article... (5, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971818)

All the more reason it's time to simplify the 8000+ page tax code.

Re:A read through the article... (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972554)

When you volunteer to double your personal share of the tax burden you can make it as simple as you like. Until then keep dreaming but do try to stay on topic.

Re:A read through the article... (1)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971978)

Of course theodp didn't read the article. Or, if he did, he was hoping you didn't. Reading the article would ruin his narrative.

Re:A read through the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972076)

will tell you that the company in question falls under different tax law than Google or Apple. Apparently, companies with more than 100 shareholders are subject to an additional level of taxation on profits. I don't know any details, but I think that it would be worth looking into before crying foul. At the very least, one would expect the submitter to have read the article, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Basically what MS and Google, etc. do in terms of the taxes boils down to the number just being in a different ledger column; the taxes still get paid.

What this guy did was avoid the payroll taxes by not paying himself, but adding it to company profits, and since he == the company, therefore he only paid tax on the income.

Or to put it another way, before anybody really gets whipped into a righteous frenzy stop and realize that MS, Google, and the other "$1 CEO's" are not actually getting any kind of a tax break at all. Sure, they aren't paying as much in income tax, but that's because they aren't making as much, and since they're still in the top bracket their tax rate doesn't change either.

Re:A read through the article... (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972386)

At the very least, one would expect the submitter to have read the article, which doesn't seem to be the case.

The submitter is theodp, and it's easy to spot his submissions because they are screechy rants filled with ton of links.

Wrong - Jobs awarded options by board (5, Insightful)

tm2b (42473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971738)

Don't let reality stand in the way of your snark, but a major portion of Steve Jobs' reward is later granted by the board as stock options.

Options awarded in this way are a very different topic than hiding income as Sub S profit.

Publishing this article this way is as stupid as publishing Paris Hilton whining about network protocols would be.

Re:Wrong - Jobs awarded options by board (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972604)

Options awarded in this way are a very different topic than hiding income as Sub S profit.

Yea, like the basic fact that you have to pay taxes on stocks, so he'll have to pay the taxes on the difference between the option price and the sales price. Any options he buys and doesn't sell immediately would also be taxed on the difference between option price and current valuation at the time the options were exercised and again when sold based on his gains between exercise price and final sales price.

Stocks (and/or stock options) don't get you out of any taxes in any way I've seen unless you get options you never exercise ... in which case you didn't get any payment either so it doesn't really matter does it?

Corporations are like magic fairy dust (0)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971790)

They make laws go "poof".

I wish (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971808)

I wish a judge would rule that I don't make enough commensurate with the market. Maybe this tax season the IRS will see that I don't make enough.

Is what you make "commensurate"? (1)

jonatha (204526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971882)

Re:Is what you make "commensurate"? (2)

jonatha (204526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971904)

TFA says he's in Des Moines and claimed $24K in salary for 2002 and 2003. The BLS website shows that the mean annual income for "Accountants and auditors" in Des Moines for those two years was $46K and $49K, respectively.

We are the super-wealthy (5, Insightful)

paylett (553168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971810)

Half the world lives on less than $2.50 a day. [globalissues.org]
80% lives on less than $10 a day.

We are the super wealthy.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (1, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971836)

I don't agree with that value - and here's why.

Capitalism dictates that the price of things depend on the demand and the supply.

In Libya, you can get your car filled up with petrol for 5 euros or so. In most other countries, it'll cost you 20-25 euros.

So that 2.50 a day doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you're talking about very poor countries, then the price of basic goods will cost less than what Americans would pay for. Its as simple as that. So I don't know about how this value was calculated, but 2.50 will definitely buy you more stuff in a poor country, and less stuff in a rich one. Money is relative.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972044)

Dude where can I fill the car for 20 euros? A full tank here (central europe) costs around 70-80 euros.

Your point still stands - I just wanted to point out that the difference is actually even bigger. Americans are lucky.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972180)

Libya, thats where. And 5 Euros would fill up your tank in LIbya. Its 10 cents a liter.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972592)

Dude where can I fill the car for 20 euros?

Anywhere that accepts euros. Just be sure to fill your car up more often.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972058)

You don't say. $2.50 a day is less of fuck all than it would be in the developed world but it's still fuck all.

Have you spent any time in a poorer country? (5, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972270)

Have you spent any time in a poorer country? If so you'll know what a precarious living a lot of people have, and how many literally die on the streets from starvation or disease. 2.50 might get you more, but not a lot more.

People rioted this year in India over the price of onions rising. People have rioted in Tunisia and Algeria over the prices of cooking oil and flour. These are not wealthy people. These are not people rioting over not being able to put enough gas in their 8 litre SUV, or not being able to upgrade to the latest games console.

These are people rioting over not being able to eat enough to live. Onions, cooking oil, flour.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Or at least offer to live on the equivalent salary in your own country, a living so close to starvation that if the price of onions goes up you might die.

Re:Have you spent any time in a poorer country? (0)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972414)

I never claimed that there are no poor people, I just complained about the metric he used to compare poverty.

2.50 gets you a coffee in an expensive country, but if you sell it at that price in a 3rd world one, nobody will afford it.

Yeah I realise poor countries have it tough, I was just complaining about using dollars/day as a metric of poverty.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972526)

But apparently it costs €1.20 for a kg of sugar there compared with 68p in England, so not everything is cheaper.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972566)

I don't think I've ever managed to fill the tank of any car with 25 euros here, but your point is still invalid: 2.5 euros is not much anywhere. Living with that amount means very bad conditions anywhere in the world (and I've been to places like Somalia, I know a bit about extreme poverty): keeping healthy and happy would be very difficult and any kind of health problem or natural catastrophy would lead to life threatening problems. Keeping your family safe and well fed for longer periods of time would be a practical impossibility.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (1)

cbraescu1 (180267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972634)

You are confusing market forces with capitalism. Even tho they are usually going hand in hand, they do not equate each other.

Re:We are the super-wealthy (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972540)

While I won't argue that we live far better than the majority of the world.

$2.50 to me isn't the same as $2.50 to a native Australian in the outback. $2.50 relates to some amount of work that I can use to purchase something less than a pack of smokes. Probably not even a full meal.

$2.50 to the native Australian may have absolutely 0 value as they have absolutely no way to spend it, regardless of how you physically hand it to them or give them credit.

Just because you can find some exchange rates that eventually give you some numbers to compare that let you generate some silly statistics like you've posted doesn't mean the statistics are a realistic representation of what you think they represent.

Wealth in America is a completely different concept than it is to a native Australian, Eithiopian someone from the jungles of South America or the East.

As a general rule, we seem to value money and possessions where as they seem to value living. There are many places where you could come in and tell them you're going to give them everything they need to live the rest of their lives without ever working again, and you'll get asked to leave because they wouldn't understand why anyone would ever WANT to live that way.

You can't compare wealth around globe because wealth is a completely different concept depending on where you live.

Stop trying to make the world an 'equal' place, no one wants 'equal', most just want to be left the fuck alone. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the starving or in times of emergancy, just that we need to stop thinking our way of life is the right way of life and stop pushing our view of what people want on people who don't actually want it ...

Another day, another... (1)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971902)

The rich aren't different from us. They just have more cents than we do.

Steve Jobs will never use Medicare (1)

satuon (1822492) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971956)

If he gets sick he'll just pay out of pocket. So if he's taxed for it, it's not like insurance - it's just paying other people's Medicare or Social Security.

Re:Steve Jobs will never use Medicare (1)

thebian (1218280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34971994)

If his doctor takes Medicare, he'll use it. So will Gates, Ellison and anyone else.

Who said that thing: The rich are different from you and me. They have more money.

Re:Steve Jobs will never use Medicare (1)

satuon (1822492) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972292)

Those people probably have private doctors - i.e. doctors who are looking after them and them only. I mean they're billionaires, they can buy themselves a hospital if they want to.

Re:Steve Jobs will never use Medicare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972148)

Because it is a horrible idea to help other people...

Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (0, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972080)

Tell me something, do you honestly believe that the rich NEED the SS?

The rich need the EI?

The rich need the Medicare?

Anybody, do you think that Bill Gates needs to pay SS and EI and Medicare contributions?

Why?

I hear a lot of people argue that they are paying the SS and EI and thus they should get it back for some reason even though they are wrong, those are not insurance programs, where money is saved and invested and just sitting there invested, those are welfare programs, and the money are gone immediately to pay those on top of these pyramid scams, while the rest of the money is used to pay for whatever your politicians promised you, so you can't have your same dollar paid twice to you - once on some program/war and then the second time - to you, if you need SS/EI/Medicare etc. All of those programs are unfunded liabilities, they are all debt based, to 'fund' them US gov't must sell the US bonds first and that's debt. There is no money there.

But tell me something: WHY SHOULD ANY RICH PERSON PAY INTO SS?

By that same logic that people apply, when they argue that their SS payments are somehow actual insurance payments, by that very logic anybody who does not need to get any of that money because they have enough, shouldn't be paying into that pot. But it IS a scam, it IS a pyramid, this is NOT about insurance, this is about taking your money and buying a very expensive gov't, that does not do what you want, but does whatever it wants, that's why the richest people now are found in the government, in Senate, in House, in White House, even under the president's table sucking his cock.

--

It is time for the sheeple to realize they are being scammed. It is time to stop paying all taxes to the US government and to revolt and take the government down or at least, it is time for the separate States to declare annulment of the federal government. Federal government is a cancer of the society, it is eating all of the lunch, it is printing all of the dollars.

You think Obama has lowered your taxes, right? But what about the gigantic, enormous tax of INFLATION? The Fed is printing the US dollar, inflating it away (it's also amusing to see how the US is complaining that China is manipulating currency, while it is simply trying to anchor their money to something, and is making a mistake of anchoring it against another currency rather than against gold. Many countries are anchoring their money against US dollar, the problem US has with China is that China also produces all of the goods that USA is consuming. It is in the best interest of China to no longer peg their currency to the US dollar and to appreciate their currency, but USA will be FUCKED. FUCKED. USA has no production capacity to supply itself with almost anything anymore, except for weapons of mass destruction.)

So do yourself a FAVOR, move all your money out of US dollar - this will help you to avoid the BIGGEST TAX that USA government is imposing on you.

Also realize, that the US gov't is the cause of all of the economic disasters and it's crashing the economy, destroying capital and jobs, and without productive jobs USA is fucked. However you can avoid the biggest tax of all - inflation - by moving your money into other flawed currencies or into something tangible - monetary metals or FOREIGN equities. That's right, foreign equities, not USA equities, because eventually the US gov't will be bailing out its monopolies and will be destroying competition completely but the companies that still will have some profit because they are catering to the foreign consumers will most likely be taxes more - windfall taxes, and you will NOT see your dividends.

You are robbed blind by your government, do something about it.

Stop giving it money, cut all spending by 99.9%. Fire all government workers. Stop all government contracts. Dismantle all government institutions and departments. Repeal all government laws.

All of this needs to stop and money must be made solid again, it must be saved in order to have real credit. Money cannot be printed to get credit, and that's what USA is doing.

It does not matter at this point how much USA collects in taxes, it could even be 0% of your income, but the gov't will not stop - it will print and destroy all of your money. Save it by getting out of the dollar. But do not forget - by doing this you are risking that your gov't will come after you, just like it did when it caused the Great Depression and came after people's gold. It will happen again. You will become prisoners of your government, you better believe it, that's what all this home-land nonsense all about, all the wars, all the spending - you are being herded so you can be made into a sacrificial lamb.

Do not fall for this class war, which is promoted by the government. Stealing money from 'the rich' only satisfies your craving for punishment of those, who have it better than you, it only gives food and fodder to your jealousy, but it does absolutely NOTHING to improve your economy and society. Competition should be promoted, not gov't monopolization and oligarchy. Competition is the only true engine of economy - when you and you and you and you go out and do your own thing and create something, some failing and some succeeding. Only this creates wealth, only this drives forward economy, not this fake idea of cooperation, where the gov't steals wealth, creates class warfare and promotes POVERTY.

Government can only create poverty, it cannot create wealth. Government can only borrow money, it cannot generate wealth. Government can only spend money, it cannot create jobs. And any jobs that gov't can create, take away from private sector jobs. Gov't jobs should not even exist.

Gov't is a spending item and it is a luxury and can be only tolerated when society is rich already. But when society is getting poorer and poorer, all thanks to the cancerous growth of the government, the government itself must be stopped. Its spending must be cut. Its power must be taken away. Cancer treatment will cause pain, but it will save the patient.

Do not be in denial - cancer kills if you do not treat it.

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972168)

Currency inflation only hurts the rich.

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972216)

No. Currency inflation hurts the society that deals in that currency.

The 'rich' will not suffer from inflation because they can and they do own investments, that are NOT currency based.

The poor on the other hand will suffer because they are living paycheck to paycheck or government check to government check, and all of those checks come in in those inflated dollars. Inflated dollars buy less and less every day.

But eventually those inflated dollars will buy nothing at all. That's what happened in Zimbabwe, in USSR, in Argentina, in Weimar Germany, in Emperor's Rome and so on.

Currency inflation hurts the people who buy food and energy, because food and energy are getting more and more expensive with every new printed dollar.

Do you know who is happy to see inflation - those who are promoting and causing it - the biggest debtors of all times - the government of US of A, the State governments, who have enormous unfunded liabilities - all the pensions they promised to all those government workers and municipalities.

They want inflation.

But what they will get will be hyper-inflationary depression/stagflation, because it's one thing when you just have CURRENCY inflation and you still HAVE production, but it's another thing altogether, when you have inflation and you have NO production and you borrow money from producers to buy products of those producers.

and this will not simply 'hurt', it will cause massive amounts of pain and suffering to the middle class and the poor, who will not be able to buy anything at all.

Imagine not being able to buy food for a year, even if you have a full barrel of hundred dollar bills. Imagine that. That will hurt.

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (1)

ShnowDoggie (858806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972258)

You forgot about the mind control part!

{tin foil hats for all!}

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972328)

So, how is that "jersey's shore" thing going? While controlling the mind directly is maybe out of rich for now, controlling the impulses and behavior is not that hard. Bread and circuses wasn't invented in the last 100 years, you know.

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (-1, Flamebait)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972636)

You missed the point, genius. Your rant is off topic and excessively rant-y. Nobody here wants to debate with you because you're bat-shit crazy. You should seek professional help or at least a hobby where you don't interact with strangers.

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972598)

Yes, the rich need to give something back to the rest of us. If not we'll take it. And I think they'll like that even less than paying for our social security. It's the rich who wage class warfare on all of us by not paying us what our labor is really worth. They should be gracious enough to realize how fortunate they are, and not take so much that the people are left dying alone and hungry.

Re:Why should the Rich pay Medicare and SS and EI? (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972654)

The rich got wealthy off the backs of the middle class, you ass clown. Without a 290 million person pool of consumers to sell shit to, just within the Continental US, the Rich are Poor. Keep thinking that a wealthy person doesn't owe their entire wealth to the fact the consumers redistributed part of their wealth to them for a good or service. Then bitch when the well dries up and your good or service is no longer worth squat and the principle value of the currency is worthless. All that wealth becomes pennies on the dollar.

C-corp versus S-corp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972118)

The rules for C-corporations and S-corporations are different. Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and Larry Page all work for C-corporations. If David Watson wants to take a $1 salary he too should set up a C-corporation. But he'd probably come out ahead by taking a reasonable salary, paying the extra 15% SS tax, and keeping is S-corporation status. An S-corporation pays no tax; instead the tax liability flows down to the shareholders. In a C-corporation, both the corporation and the shareholders pay taxes on profits - double taxation. So the S-corporation really has the better deal. But there are restrictions on S-corporations, such as a limited number of shareholders (24 is the number that pops into my mind, but it might be more) and the fact that officers must take reasonable salaries.

You have to follow the rules. You can't pick and choose (unless you want to end up in tax court like Mr. Watson).

IRS corrupted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972126)

I am sure that anyone in the 'much-ballyhooed $1 Executive club' who is not pursued by the IRS has been giving contributions to the party in power or to members of congress that are connected with IRS oversight. Our American government, as well as all other governments in the world, have become completely corrupted.

Isn't this '[a] Disguised Employee / Employment'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972152)

While I'm from the UK - and occasional poster, trying to offer real information rather than Pro-{whatever} rhetoric - and so unaware of the full implications of this to the USA; I believe that the concept of IR35 / 'disguised employee' is relevant to the discussion.
For those of you interested in real information (and the patience / skill to read a whole article): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR35

I recall a lot of IT contractors getting stung for this in the UK when the concept was introduced 10+ years ago. Even sub-contracting through a 2nd company has become less protected as the Inland Revenue (now: HM Revenue & Customs) found it easier to target these larger money-routers rather than individual contractors.

The tax 'avoidance' isn't as lucrative in the UK as the USA as I think corporations still have to pay 21% tax on profits upto £300K (but can still pay their employees upto the top of their personal 20% tax rate).

These "taxes" were poorly designed (1)

nroets (1463881) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972160)

These taxes and compulsory schemes were poorly designed and now the judicial system is being asked to make sense of the mess.

Most economists agree that a consumption tax combined with some state sponsored welfare system is far, far better.

With Steve, things are always special (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972176)

A couple weeks ago, while taking my asian girlfriend shopping at the local mall, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Steve Jobs -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the Apple Corporation security guards wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal thinker and had been an Apple customer since 1984. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting Jobs, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Steve Jobs, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman, and thrusting my pink iPod Shuffle into my ass. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Steve Jobs wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than reading an Apple press release!

Profit vs. Income?!?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34972232)

Why isn't "profit" considered "income"?

Re:Profit vs. Income?!?? (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972664)

Why isn't "profit" considered "income"?

Obvious. Because corporations aren't peo....

Err... Can I get back to you on that?

The IRS isn't as dumb as we thought (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972448)

The reason it doesn't go after $1 CEOs is because the IRS realized a long time ago that CEOs are really only worth a few bucks anyway.

The only problem the IRS has now is they can't for the life of them figure out why the hell anyone gives CEOs any money at all considering they aren't accountable for anything either.

Really? (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972488)

You only get taxed on SS and Medicade up to a tiny portion of what somebody like Jobs makes. And yet who will argue that what Jobs has done hasn't employed thousands of people at Apple, all of which who pay taxes? Who would argue that there is not a thriving business for iPhone accessories and "app for that" apps again putting food on many, many people's plates? How many people does that CPA employ? Is it really that unfair? One could argue that people like Jobs produce so much more for the economy and many, many people than that lowly CPA does. Now is that fair?!? We need Jobs - many, many more jobs!

Welcome to an over complicated tax system. (3, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972616)

A simple consumption tax system would rid us of these problems, but Congress would lose their power to grant favors and impose penalties on entities of their choosing.

An income based tax system with this many different requirements and exceptions is designed to be abused. A consumption system is not because what good is their wealth if they don't spend it. If you want to soak the rich you simply implement a consumption tax and void all taxes paid up to a specified amount. As in, you determine the amount of spending required to keep people happy and whole and refund it, all beyond that goes into the coffers. This includes taxing services as consumption as well so that getting around the system becomes less likely.

He should have paid attention to the law changes (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34972632)

The rules for an S-Corp and much more have changed in the past year. He should have done his homework.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>