I think they care more than the GOP or tea partiers do. To be honest I haven't paid much attention to Kerry since 2004. But Barbara Boxer, I'm more familiar with because I used to live in California and have followed her career since she was first elected. So yes, I think she cares a helluva lot more than Fiornia and judging from the polls, it appears that most Californians see that, too.do you believe uber-wealthy dems like Boxer, Kerry, etc care about you other than pandering to you to get your vote by pretending that they want to stick it to the "rich"?
An adulter who legislates against labeling formaldehyde, which has been proven to cause cancer, just to protect the chemical industry? If you or your family are dying of cancer or dead, why would you care about taxes? Your idea of economic freedom = freedom to kill for profit.an adulterer who is not going to jack up my taxes, further destroy American economic freedom etc is far preferrable to a chaste marxist tax hiking schemer
It was. Unless you think that calling a state's registration office up and asking them for public information and then using the internet to access the freely avaliable IRS code is a crime.
Maybe you think that me posting the legally required to be public 990 was a crime too?
It is possible to have a discussion with people who have demonstrated a massive raging ignorance of the subject coupled with hatred of actually learning about the relevant legal code?
Know why I'm making fun of you? Because reasonable people would have first looked up to see if what the administration said was illegal. None of you did that. You just assumed they violated the law and ran with it.
Koch Industries are listed as an S corporation and it says right here in Wikipedia that S corporations don't pay federal taxes....Really? So the state has tax records of private companies that are freely open to anyone that calls??? NO, they do not. Privately held companies don't have to publicly divulge any tax information, which begs the question of how Obama knows or thinks Koch doesn't pay corporate income tax. Private companies are NOT REQUIRED TO DIVULGE TAX INFORMATION !! Registration data is not private, but whether Koch paid taxes or not IS private.
Is Microsoft privately held?? No, didn't think so.
Now, what were you saying about ignorant people??
In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes....
Payments to S shareholders by the corporation are distributed tax-free to the extent that the distributed earnings were not previously taxed. Also, certain corporate penalty taxes (e.g., accumulated earnings tax, personal holding company tax) and the alternative minimum tax do not apply to an S corporation....
S corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Koch Industries are listed as an S corporation and it says right here in Wikipedia that S corporations don't pay federal taxes....
No one had to look at the Koch's tax records to know or say they don't pay federal taxes. The entire allegation by the Koch's lawyers is a red herring.
Here is what Obama said.....
"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base."
Wow, I post the facts and you post baloney. How typical of you.You're totally misintereting that. S-corps do pay federal taxes, they don't pay self employment taxes.
And, if Obama really beleives that there is any corporation that doesn't pay federal income taxes, then he is way-too-damned-stupid to be president.
Koch Industries are listed as an S corporation and it says right here in Wikipedia that S corporations don't pay federal taxes....
No one had to look at the Koch's tax records to know or say they don't pay federal taxes. The entire allegation by the Koch's lawyers is a red herring.
Here is what Obama said.....
"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base."
TIGTA Agrees to Probe Possible Breach of Taxpayer Info by Obama Administration
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has agreed to the request from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and six other committee members to conduct an investigation of whether Obama Administration officials illegally accessed and disclosed confidential taxpayer information involving a particular taxpayer.
The inquiry comes after media reports quoted a senior Obama administration official describing the tax structure of Koch Industries, Inc., a prominent financial supporter of the Tea Party Movement. Taxpayer confidentiality laws are strict, in part to prevent the use of tax information for political gain. The official appeared to indicate knowledge of Koch Industries’ tax structure beyond what is publicly available.
“The statement that Koch is a pass-through entity implies direct knowledge of Koch’s legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation of section 6103,” the senators wrote. “Alternatively, if the statement was based on speculation, it raises the question of whether the Administration speculating about any specific taxpayer’s liability is appropriate.”
Wow, I post the facts and you post baloney. How typical of you.
What's baloney, is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes. S-corps pay federal income taxes, only the taxes are filed on the 1040 of the owner(s).
To all our non-expert-expert tax attorneys out there:
.
the s corp profit is not taxed until it's distributed. so no corporate income tax is paid, and any distribution of profit to the shareholders is paid at an individual rate.
so, it IS different than publicly held companies, whose dividends are taxed twice.
The money gets taxed, just the same. It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.
The difference is whether not a corporation is an s-corp, or a c-corp. Being public, or private doesn't have anything to do with it.
If a privately owned corporation had a choice to be an S-corp or a C-corp, which do you think they would chose? Duh, they would chose to be an S-corp of course. Especially, a privately owned company like Koch Industries who are extremely outspoken against paying taxes, which is why it's a no brainer to see they are an S corporation. Because if all the dividends and profits from the company go to the Koch brothers, do you seriously believe they would want double taxation on their earnings? Puuuulease, get real.The money gets taxed, just the same. It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.
The difference is whether not a corporation is an s-corp, or a c-corp. Being public, or private doesn't have anything to do with it.
But Edwards didn't run on a platform of "conservative family values" and he isn't running for office now. But the LYING, CHEATING, SCUMBAG, ADULTERER, SEN. DAVID VITTER, is.....
David Vitter - Prostitution Scandals
Vitter was chased down and exposed by Larry Flynt, the owner of HUSTLER MAGAZINE and the guy who saved free speech so the Enquirer could keep exposing their thang.
Who helps fund David Vitter? Why da Koch's do, who else?
How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer - ProPublica
Do you really believe these tea bag politicians give a fig about you?
If a privately owned corporation had a choice to be an S-corp or a C-corp, which do you think they would chose? Duh, they would chose to be an S-corp of course. Especially, a privately owned company like Koch Industries who are extremely outspoken against paying taxes, which is why it's a no brainer to see they are an S corporation. Because if all the dividends and profits from the company go to the Koch brothers, do you seriously believe they would want double taxation on their earnings? Puuuulease, get real.
Really? So the state has tax records of private companies that are freely open to anyone that calls?
NO, they do not.
Privately held companies don't have to publicly divulge any tax information
which begs the question of how Obama knows or thinks Koch doesn't pay corporate income tax.
Private companies are NOT REQUIRED TO DIVULGE TAX INFORMATION!
Registration data is not private, but whether Koch paid taxes or not IS private.
Is Microsoft privately held?? No, didn't think so.
Now, what were you saying about ignorant people??
You're totally misintereting that. S-corps do pay federal taxes, they don't pay self employment taxes.
And, if Obama really beleives that there is any corporation that doesn't pay federal income taxes, then he is way-too-damned-stupid to be president.
It would all depend. There are pros and cons to both. I, personally, choose a c-corp, because as an s-corp, I would have to keep track of a ****load of payroll taxes.
You wanna see real trouble with the IRS? **** up your payroll taxes and you'll get exactly that.
Ultimately, all corporations are double taxed--which is bull****. An s-corp has to deal with tons of payroll taxes and a c-corp has to deal with self employment taxes.
At least with a c-corp, there are more gray areas to dabble in for right offs.
The issue is NOT their filing status, it's whether they paid any corporate taxes or not.
Filing status is public information, taxes paid, if any, is private information that no one should have legal access to when the corporation is a privately held S-Corp. Profits from S Corps is paid as individual income.
Do you want Obama, or anyone else having access to your private tax records ??
What's baloney, is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes. S-corps pay federal income taxes, only the taxes are filed on the 1040 of the owner(s).
The money gets taxed, just the same.
It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.
Really, there's not that much of a difference aside from the pass through aspect.
Fail again.
S-corps don't pay corporate income tax. They do pay special S-corp related taxes, such as passive investment (once they hit a certain level of passive income to non-passive) and built in gains tax. Furthermore, no non-person entity pays self employment tax. Self employment tax is by definition paid by someone self employed.
There are plenty of corporations that don't pay federal income taxes. S-corps for one if they are non-electing. Corporations that don't make money don't pay federal income taxes. The recession saw likely thousands of corporations not pay federal income taxes. Luckily for them, Dear Ol' Obama enacted a special 5 year NOL carry back! And people say he's anti-business.
Really, how many times do you have to learn to stop talking about this stuff?
You have to keep track of payroll taxes regardless of what entity you are if you employing people. What are you talking about?
There are relatively few reasons to pick a C-corp over an S-corp if you are privately held. An S-corp is taxation wise, superior. It makes little sense for Koch to organize as a C-corp when the main shareholders are the brothers. In their case, a C-corp is another layer of taxation that is functionally unnecessary. And considering how the Koch Brothers are anti-tax, it makes absolutely no sense for them to pick the higher tax system when the benefits of a C-corp just don't exist for them. They don't need the capital raising aspects of the C, nor do they likely need 101 shareholders.
The only real reason I can think of as to why Koch would organize as a C would be for estate purposes as they could slowly gift out their shares in the corporation to their beneficiaries. But considering how large their stakes in Koch Industries are, they'd need a colossal number of beneficiaries to actually make a dent while avoiding gift tax. And that would effectively dilute the value of the voting shares. Doesn't seem to fit with their style. It does not make sense for Koch to organize as a C-corp.
Not really. C-corps have payroll taxes as a function of their employees. As do all firms. Where did you get this crackpot notion that C-corps don't deal with payroll taxes? Why would they be exempted from it? And self employment only affects the active partners which is pretty easy to compute as there generally aren't more then a handful. While big service firms like PwC have a large number of equity partners and therefore have a sizable amount of self employed people, most pass throughs don't have that problem.
And you got this notion where? An S-corp is functionally a C-corp in most ways.
it sounds like you are making **** up about the differences between an S and C corp.
The real problem with S-corps and C-corps is in valuation.
C Corporation vs S Corporation vs LLC
Really, there's not that much of a difference aside from the pass through aspect.
It's amusing to watch you argue that adamantly anti-tax folks deliberately choose the higher tax structure when the benefits did not outweigh the cost.
Read what I wrote. I never said that s-corps pay corporate taxes.
In my case, some of my coporations don't emply anyone.
With those companies, I choose to operate as a c-corp, because there's less accounting involved.
if those companies were s-corps, there would be more accounting, since any money that was transferred out of the company account would have to have payroll taxes taken out, on top of the rest of the accounting that goes along with my annual filing.
That's matter of opinion and since I'm actually out here in the real world, running my own companies, my opinion carries much more weight than that of someone who reads about it in textbooks.
Not saying it's the best thing to do, but it works for me and that's really all that matters.
You just said that S-corps pay federal income taxes.
Note: "What's baloney" , is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes."
Except that corporate taxes on income are included in federal income taxes.
I get that you don't understand what you are talking about. That is pretty evident.
Incorrect. There's less accounting because it's a holding corporation. Not because it's a C-corp.
Come again? How would there be more accounting on a S-corp holding vs a C-corp holding? If neither is employing anyone, there is no payroll taxes to account for at all. You still have to deal with PHC test for C-corp and the passive activity tax for S-corp, but neither are payroll related.
Because the activity your holding corporations are doing is preferable to be held as a C-Corp. You aren't employing anyone. Koch is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?