ARNOLD to OBAMA: You are more than Welcome to compete at the Arnold Classic.

[ASJChaotic]

I bet all these people voted George W Bush back in the white house 4 years ago LOL
I have lost respect for Arnie because of this 

but I admire the success he achieved by his own hand

[Cromespyder]

we have a guy, or a neo-con bush clone.

hooray for american 'democracy'.  looks like this 'country' is in its dying days.

anyone who gets sucked into this false left/right paradigm and thinks that someone with extremely clear and strong support from the powers that be is a good candidate or going to bring real 'change' is a moron.
if you want real change support a candidate who the jew owned media is ignoring and/or demonizing.

[Tapeworm]

First of all, I'm talking about joint-stock companies only.

Once a year you gotta pay corporate income tax on the companies profit (this is after all expenses). It's a flat tax of 25%. What's left is not taxed anymore as long as it's used for the company (it can stay within the company as long as seen necessary for liquidity). However, usually you will see to it that eventually you pay it out (that is, if you continue to make profit), since it has been taxed already with the 25%. That's the big problem with the model of corporate income tax IMO, it hinders re-investment into the company. At least it's better now, a few years back it was 34%.

As soon as you decide to pay out dividends from those profits of the current year or one of the former years, you must pay 25% again. That adds up to about 44% real tax on the dividends. When and how much of the profit of the current or former years is payed out, is a joint decision made by the share holders. The distribution of whatever is payed out is determined by company shares.

It sounds as if they're actually trying to encourage reinvestment by slugging you with another tax if you choose to not do so.

44% is pretty steep.  In Aus it's a 30% flat rate for corporate tax and individual tax varies depending on income.  Sounds like you'd do well to take a salary up until the individual tax rate exceeded 44% on average (it's at about this point in the conversation with my bookkeeper that my eyes glaze over , because it gets a little more involved than just that simple proposal, with mandatory retirement payments, etc).  

Honestly, as a business owner it's embarrassing how little I understand about tax.  Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have jumped into this discussion after all.  

[divcom]

we have a guy, or a neo-con bush clone.

hooray for american 'democracy'.  looks like this 'country' is in its dying days.

anyone who gets sucked into this false left/right paradigm and thinks that someone with extremely clear and strong support from the powers that be is a good candidate or going to bring real 'change' is a moron.
if you want real change support a candidate who the jew owned media is ignoring and/or demonizing.

Bill Clinton clone.  Looks like America will see 8 years of prosperity.

[Cromespyder]

Bill Clinton clone.  Looks like America will see 8 years of prosperity.

first:
we are in a much, MUCH different situation than we were in in the 90s, and not in a good way.  you're delusional if you think we are not headed for some very bad times regardless of whatever puppet is elected, obongo chimpanzee hussein or neo-con mccain.  don't get your hopes up champ.

clinton: gave china most favorable trading nation status,NAFTA, etc.  he was not only a jew puppet but a chinese puppet ontop of that, ever hear of china-gate?

clinton was a traitor and not a good president at all. just because he presided over good times doesnt mean it was his doing, we are now suffering the consequences of many of his actions, compounded with traitor bush/cheneys policies over the past 8 years.

hope this helps!

[wavelength]

It sounds as if they're actually trying to encourage reinvestment by slugging you with another tax if you choose to not do so.

Well, yes it's better than if you e.g. would have to to pay everything up-front. But what would make more sense is to only pay tax on profits that are really payed out. With the corporate tax, you will always try to make your investments before financial statement, because then you don't have to pay any tax, obviously. It makes timely investment a lot harder.

44% is pretty steep.  In Aus it's a 30% flat rate for corporate tax and individual tax varies depending on income.  Sounds like you'd do well to take a salary up until the individual tax rate exceeded 44% on average (it's at about this point in the conversation with my bookkeeper that my eyes glaze over , because it gets a little more involved than just that simple proposal, with mandatory retirement payments, etc).

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: the 44% is total tax in this case. You do not have to pay any individual tax on those dividends anymore. Normal income tax is progressive and goes up to 50%. As you said, there is a point where paying out dividends beats raising wage for company owners (who are also employed at their own company). Not that easy though, since often times, the distribution of wages is different from those of the shares of the owners. Are you saying in Australia you only have to pay 30% total tax on dividends?

Honestly, as a business owner it's embarrassing how little I understand about tax.  Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have jumped into this discussion after all.  

Same here, luckily we have a CFO for boring stuff like that.

[Tapeworm]

Well, yes it's better than if you e.g. would have to to pay everything up-front. But what would make more sense is to only pay tax on profits that are really payed out. With the corporate tax, you will always try to make your investments before financial statement, because then you don't have to pay any tax, obviously. It makes timely investment a lot harder.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: the 44% is total tax in this case. You do not have to pay any individual tax on those dividends anymore. Normal income tax is progressive and goes up to 50%. As you said, there is a point where paying out dividends beats raising wage for company owners (who are also employed at their own company). Not that easy though, since often times, the distribution of wages is different from those of the shares of the owners. Are you saying in Australia you only have to pay 30% total tax on dividends?

Same here, luckily we have a CFO for boring stuff like that.

Hmmm, ok here's the part where someone comes along and owns me because I don't know what I'm talking about.  My understanding is that once the company pays its tax it can distribute its profits as the director chooses without any further tax liability of it's own.  These are called "franked dividends" here.  I think an individual could receive that money tax free up until that individual breached the 30% tax bracket, then they'd have to pay the difference.  In my case, I plan on paying dividends into a trust which can receive them (tax free I believe), and hold the $, invest it, or distribute it to a beneficiary (who would again be liable for personal income in excess of the 30%).  The reason I'm so hazy is that I've been basically living on director's loans for awhile and leaving the remainder (what little there is on it  ) in the company because it's the only way around having to pay 9% of individual gross income into a retirement account as legislated by Aus law, but they've convinced me that my tax liability will be decreased if I just bite the damn bullet and take a salary up to that 30% level and pay out the 9% in 'superannuation.'

So in essence the tax burder falls upon the one who receives the money, rather than the entity that is paying it out.

[wavelength]

Hmmm, ok here's the part where someone comes along and owns me because I don't know what I'm talking about.  My understanding is that once the company pays its tax it can distribute its profits as the director chooses without any further tax liability of it's own.  These are called "franked dividends" here.  I think an individual could receive that money tax free up until that individual breached the 30% tax bracket, then they'd have to pay the difference.  In my case, I plan on paying dividends into a trust which can receive them (tax free I believe), and hold the $, invest it, or distribute it to a beneficiary (who would again be liable for personal income in excess of the 30%).  The reason I'm so hazy is that I've been basically living on director's loans for awhile and leaving the remainder (what little there is on it  ) in the company because it's the only way around having to pay 9% of individual gross income into a retirement account as legislated by Aus law, but they've convinced me that my tax liability will be decreased if I just bite the damn bullet and take a salary up to that 30% level and pay out the 9% in 'superannuation.'

So in essence the tax burder falls upon the one who receives the money, rather than the entity that is paying it out.

Ah I see. We don't have to pay income tax on the difference to the 44%. Bonus payments is another way of course, that's also done here, since it is taxed lower (if certain conditions apply). But as I said, leave the boring stuff to the accountants.

Unfortunally, laws are always made just complicated enough so that one needs financial advisory.

[ATHEIST]

Responded Wurzelbacher, "the reason I ask you about the American dream, I mean I've worked hard. I'm a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream."


But he's not.  He never was.  He lied to Obama.

JTP has no credibility now.  Men don't look another man in the eye and LIE.

all politicians lie. Joe may have lied but there are a lot of "Joe's" out there who would get affected

[Tapeworm]

Ah I see. We don't have to pay income tax on the difference to the 44%. Bonus payments is another way of course, that's also done here, since it is taxed lower (if certain conditions apply). But as I said, leave the boring stuff to the accountants.

Unfortunally, laws are always made just complicated enough so that one needs financial advisory.

Haha, too true!

I should mention that the top personal tax rate in Aus is 48.5%, and that you could live on the money you'd make if you only paid 30%, but you wouldn't be having much fun.  Anyway, one of my hairbrained schemes is to let the trust purchase the house I'd live in, then pay as low a rent as I can get away with to the trust, so that the major expense of housing is somewhat reduced since the mortgage and possibly all of my remaining expenses (which would make me pretty happy) could be paid by money that has only been taxed at 30%.

I primarily set up the trust to find some indemnity from lawsuit tho, not really for tax benefit.

[CQ]

All this tax talk is why as boring as this island is [and boy it is boring] when I think of moving and see the tax I would have to pay, I swiftly reconsider and take boredom over taxation.

And the Arnold thing was cute, just saw it on the news.

[wavelength]

Haha, too true!

I should mention that the top personal tax rate in Aus is 48.5%, and that you could live on the money you'd make if you only paid 30%, but you wouldn't be having much fun.  Anyway, one of my hairbrained schemes is to let the trust purchase the house I'd live in, then pay as low a rent as I can get away with to the trust, so that the major expense of housing is somewhat reduced since the mortgage and possibly all of my remaining expenses (which would make me pretty happy) could be paid by money that has only been taxed at 30%.

I primarily set up the trust to find some indemnity from lawsuit tho, not really for tax benefit.

Good thinking. Real estate should always be protected from lawsuit. As long as such protection is legally available, one would be stupid not to utilze such possibilities. I would always do it that way, owned by a second company (not vulnerable to lawsuit) or a fund and rented by the first. You got the right advises, smart man.

[wavelength]

All this tax talk is why as boring as this island is [and boy it is boring] when I think of moving and see the tax I would have to pay, I swiftly reconsider and take boredom over taxation.

And the Arnold thing was cute, just saw it on the news.

What is that island you are talking about?

[Cromespyder]

What is that island you are talking about?

don't expect an answer.  CQ always talk about her country/island and how great it is etc. but refuses to name it.  it's ridiculous.  apparently she's afraid people will find out who she is

[JimmyThomson]

Rob......a little FYI. $250,000 a year isn't alot of of money for a contracting business. As I have said before, the profit margin on that GROSS amount might be about 18% at best, that's about $45000. if the business is ran right, approximatly 25-30% should be re-invested back into the business for growth, he's taking home about $33,000. Rob, that's $250,000 in SALES not profit. Now he would be getting taxed on the $33k.

DO THE MATH. Rob, I know how the contracting business works backwards and forwards.

Coach I am a retired acccountant and have experience as CFO of a group which included american subsidiaries so I am more than familiar with US GAP and I can honestly tell you I have never read such shite in my life.
When a company "makes" $250,000 that means PROFIT not SALES. Sales are totally irrelevant when it comes to tax. The amount a business then decides to reinvest (in other words undistributed dividends) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to corporation tax. The business owner is taxed personally on his salary from the business plus the dividends he receives. The business is then taxed on the profit it generates before dividends with retained cash being totally IRRELEVANT as it would merely credit reserves and debit cash balance in other words you get no P&L debit (and tax reduction) .  
It pretty obvious you DON'T have an MBA.




 

[wavelength]

don't expect an answer.  CQ always talk about her country/island and how great it is etc. but refuses to name it.  it's ridiculous.  apparently she's afraid people will find out who she is

That I can understand.

[wavelength]

Coach I am a retired acccountant and have experience as CFO of a group which included american subsidiaries so I am more than familiar with US GAP and I can honestly tell you I have never read such shite in my life.
When a company "makes" $250,000 that means PROFIT not SALES. Sales are totally irrelevant when it comes to tax. The amount a business then decides to reinvest (in other words undistributed dividends) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to corporation tax. The business owner is taxed personally on his salary from the business plus the dividends he receives. The business is then taxed on the profit it generates before dividends with retained cash being totally IRRELEVANT as it would merely credit reserves and debit cash balance in other words you get no P&L debit (and tax reduction) .  
It pretty obvious you DON'T have an MBA.

I thought that's basic knowledge.
Would be very strange if it was different in the US.

[musclecenter]

". . . I want to invite Sen. Obama to the gym . . . We have to do something about his skinny legs!"
"He has to do squats."

see the videohttp://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008/news/politics/arnold_kicks_sand_in_skinny_obamas_face_136282.htm

[240 is Back]

no worries joe

But I do think JTP was a plant, and his sole purpose was to create an everyday joe character for mccain to use in the debate.

[JimmyThomson]

Meaning you should know the difference between gross sales and profit. Sorry if I offended you. For him to even make a $130,000k he would have to do a million in sales on which he gets taxed, then he gets taxed on personal income. Yes, he WILL get taxed up the ass. He would have to do almost $3mil in SALES to come close to $250,000 in profit.

Holly shite it get worse. " he would have to do a million in sales on which he gets taxed" . OMG I can't believe a businessman like Coach could be soooooo dumb.    Who gets taxed on sales ?  Are you paying tax on sales?   You have just been owned so bad I am mortified for you.
Please Coach I am interested. What is your line of business where you get taxed on sales?
  

[wavelength]

on topic:

[Tapeworm]

All this tax talk is why as boring as this island is [and boy it is boring] when I think of moving and see the tax I would have to pay, I swiftly reconsider and take boredom over taxation.

And the Arnold thing was cute, just saw it on the news.

Guess it all comes down to your earning potential elsewhere and if it's enough of a difference to take the sting out of the tax.  Maybe you could even set it up so that you got paid on your island even though you happen to be working somewhere else (even if it's only for a minimal amount to keep the local gov happy, then the bigger chunk could be transfered to your home account).

Good thinking. Real estate should always be protected from lawsuit. As long as such protection is legally available, one would be stupid not to utilze such possibilities. I would always do it that way, owned by a second company (not vulnerable to lawsuit) or a fund and rented by the first. You got the right advises, smart man.

You're, um... not going to believe this but... I got it (or at least the idea) from Kiyosaki books that my old man sent me!    Flame away!  

Construction contracting is a minefield when it comes to suit, but not because I'm a bastard or anything!  I'm an honest guy in a crooked world!  My biggest fear is an injured worker (or a bullshit injury claim) or some granny who wanders onto site and gets hurt.  The insurance companies have done all they can to engineer a system where they basically never have to pay a claim (even though it's the law that you have to pay them every month    what a racket), and there have been a LOT of precedents set here where personal assets of a director get nabbed when the suit has to do with injury.  I might rent major plant from the trust as well, but I need a lawyers advice as to whether that would be wise.

Lol, when I set all this up I was wondering if someone as small potatoes as me really needed it.  Honestly, it's total overkill for the laughable amount I earn, but I hope it'll yield a tax benefit one of these days and at least I'll have some peace of mind.

[Cromespyder]

no worries joe

But I do think JTP was a plant, and his sole purpose was to create an everyday joe character for mccain to use in the debate.

if he was a plant dont you think they would have used someone who could withstand a basic vetting, someone who is actually a plumber?  just food for thought.

[Cromespyder]

That I can understand.

me also, if your country has 12 people.

[wavelength]

You're, um... not going to believe this but... I got it (or at least the idea) from Kiyosaki books that my old man sent me!    Flame away!  

Construction contracting is a minefield when it comes to suit, but not because I'm a bastard or anything!  I'm an honest guy in a crooked world!  My biggest fear is an injured worker (or a bullshit injury claim) or some granny who wanders onto site and gets hurt.  The insurance companies have done all they can to engineer a system where they basically never have to pay a claim (even though it's the law that you have to pay them every month    what a racket), and there have been a LOT of precedents set here where personal assets of a director get nabbed when the suit has to do with injury.  I might rent major plant from the trust as well, but I need a lawyers advice as to whether that would be wise.

Lol, when I set all this up I was wondering if someone as small potatoes as me really needed it.  Honestly, it's total overkill for the laughable amount I earn, but I hope it'll yield a tax benefit one of these days and at least I'll have some peace of mind.

All businesses are crooked. As soon as you start making a little money, the maggots come crawling out. Unfortunally, that's how it is. Be prepared that when your business takes off, there will be lawsuits. It's part of the business. Again, smart move to start thinking about such things early. As far as lawyers go, I would make sure to always get one who has actual experience in your field of endeavour. Additionally, I would always look up the corresponding laws myself as currently in effect.