51–60 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm SE and there are quite a few tax breaks available, especially if you structure as a S-Corp. The hard part is figuring out what all tax breaks are available as they're constantly changing, like last year you can deduct dental insurance premiums. I still pay an eye watering amount, and being SE shows you the brutality of the system (estimated taxes are insane, especially the payment schedule for them when you're NE…
> estimated taxes are insane, especially the payment schedule for them when you're NET 30/60 Total layman understanding here, but can you not do cash basis plus schedule AI?
As someone who ran his own business for over eight years paying close to 30% tax (and is soon going to do it again), I have very mixed feelings about companies using tricks to reduce their tax burden. I mean, I like it when I do it, and I feel justified because there isn't that much that I can claim tax relief from, but seeing a big company paying such low tax rate feels wrong (even though it may be completely legal)…
As someone who ran his own business for over eight years paying close to 30% tax (and is soon going to do it again), I have very mixed feelings about companies using tricks to reduce their tax burden. I mean, I like it when I do it, and I feel justified because there isn't that much that I can claim tax relief from, but seeing a big company paying such low tax rate feels wrong (even though it may be completely legal)…
It is easy to excuse paying taxes. The issue that that taxes fundamentally bind two moralities: and individual and social one. Societies generally thrive better when there is a certain level of equality. Not a hundred percent, but enough for social mobility and for people to be aspirational. No or low taxes remove that opportunity. It bears people from taking an education and forces them in poverty.
Given Depreciation this is expected. And ... the intent of the law, to prompt capital investment.
What's the scandal, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's from this: https://itep.org/meta-tax-breaks-trump-mark-zuckerberg/
Interesting. Wouldn’t surprise me if there are different ways to report the same numbers to make the situation seem more or less favorable. Statisticians and accountants are both professional liars (speaking as a statistician married to an accountant).
Yeah -- accurately, and inaccurately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more likely your attitude rather than your quest for verification that gets you downvotes.
My intentions are sincere, maybe it is the wording.
As someone who ran his own business for over eight years paying close to 30% tax (and is soon going to do it again), I have very mixed feelings about companies using tricks to reduce their tax burden. I mean, I like it when I do it, and I feel justified because there isn't that much that I can claim tax relief from, but seeing a big company paying such low tax rate feels wrong (even though it may be completely legal)…
Would it still be justified if we replaced "taxes" with "judgement in the afterlife"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could but then it would show that the effective tax was not 30% but 3% and there is a strong lobby in Washington against that.
You think public companies are just lying in their audited financial statements?
1. The audited financial statement meets all requirements and is accurate according to the relevant definitions, stating that the effective federal tax rate is 30%.
2. They pay an effective federal tax rate of 3%.