Did the NYT article point out that Biden got around paying tens of thousands of dollars of Medicare taxes by claiming very little salary in his pass-through business where he was the only employee and the only stockbroker while he brought in millions of dollars? The IRS publicly declined to audit Biden on this precise issue probably because he was the President and because so many others do the exact same thing. The challenge is in defining what is a “reasonable” salary. However, when your business which consists of no one other than yourself is bringing in millions and you are claiming a salary of only around or under the social security wage ceiling, you are clearly cheating the Medicare system out of legitimate tax revenue, as Medicare taxes have no wage ceiling. To claim a relatively low salary when the business consists of nothing other than one person in all respects, is to engage in Medicare tax evasion, and should be treated accordingly.
It’s probably obvious to you, but not to most journalists, that partnerships involve not only paying taxes on income, but also the real risk of losses. While Uncle Sam is there to collect on the profits, he isn’t there to chip in when business goes south. It’s a one-way street.
No wonder a significant amount of tax accountancy is devoted to the single act of creating losses (legally) to offset gains, so as to avoid hefty tax bills.
One such method is to donate assets to nonprofits -- assets purchased at a fraction of their current value -- and take credit for the value of the donation at the market price, thereby creating a massive tax deduction far greater than the cost of the initial investment. But it gets even better -- a massive donation creates a halo effect for the donor, which itself is a form of untaxed compensation.
A wealthy person could thereby purchase something they value highly and would pay for – social praise and opprobrium as well as political and cultural influence – by donating an asset they originally purchased for a pittance but which has risen in value to a nonprofit. It's even better when that nonprofit employs people who rail against the wealthy’s tax avoidance strategies. The donor not only gets praise for donating to a cause that has a patina of social respectability, he also reduces his own income tax bill by a considerable amount.
This isn’t a Rube Goldbergian contrivance or rare cynical ploy – it happens all the time, everywhere. Especially universities.
There may be an easy fix for the shutdown problem in structuring financing so that funding doesn't stop with a government shutdown, e.g., Social Security checks didn't stop. But of course we should avoid shutdowns in the first place and President Trump is correct that our Founders were smart enough to not construct a system with a 60% rule in the Senate. The concerns about SCOTUS packing and creating new states with a 51-50 vote could be dealt with higher thresholds for such issues that could be enumerated as special.
Did the NYT article point out that Biden got around paying tens of thousands of dollars of Medicare taxes by claiming very little salary in his pass-through business where he was the only employee and the only stockbroker while he brought in millions of dollars? The IRS publicly declined to audit Biden on this precise issue probably because he was the President and because so many others do the exact same thing. The challenge is in defining what is a “reasonable” salary. However, when your business which consists of no one other than yourself is bringing in millions and you are claiming a salary of only around or under the social security wage ceiling, you are clearly cheating the Medicare system out of legitimate tax revenue, as Medicare taxes have no wage ceiling. To claim a relatively low salary when the business consists of nothing other than one person in all respects, is to engage in Medicare tax evasion, and should be treated accordingly.
I meant stockholder not stockbroker.
Schwidetzky and Duehren earned Masters Degrees from the You-Didn't-Build-That School of Economics.
It’s probably obvious to you, but not to most journalists, that partnerships involve not only paying taxes on income, but also the real risk of losses. While Uncle Sam is there to collect on the profits, he isn’t there to chip in when business goes south. It’s a one-way street.
No wonder a significant amount of tax accountancy is devoted to the single act of creating losses (legally) to offset gains, so as to avoid hefty tax bills.
One such method is to donate assets to nonprofits -- assets purchased at a fraction of their current value -- and take credit for the value of the donation at the market price, thereby creating a massive tax deduction far greater than the cost of the initial investment. But it gets even better -- a massive donation creates a halo effect for the donor, which itself is a form of untaxed compensation.
A wealthy person could thereby purchase something they value highly and would pay for – social praise and opprobrium as well as political and cultural influence – by donating an asset they originally purchased for a pittance but which has risen in value to a nonprofit. It's even better when that nonprofit employs people who rail against the wealthy’s tax avoidance strategies. The donor not only gets praise for donating to a cause that has a patina of social respectability, he also reduces his own income tax bill by a considerable amount.
This isn’t a Rube Goldbergian contrivance or rare cynical ploy – it happens all the time, everywhere. Especially universities.
When the idea of privatizing air traffic control came up a few decades ago, I opposed it because a private monopoly would be no better than a government entity. A recent WSJ letter details some of the problems that Canada had with such privatization: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-case-against-freeing-air-traffic-control-duffy-canada-9bbbed72?st=HX7zDg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
There may be an easy fix for the shutdown problem in structuring financing so that funding doesn't stop with a government shutdown, e.g., Social Security checks didn't stop. But of course we should avoid shutdowns in the first place and President Trump is correct that our Founders were smart enough to not construct a system with a 60% rule in the Senate. The concerns about SCOTUS packing and creating new states with a 51-50 vote could be dealt with higher thresholds for such issues that could be enumerated as special.