Not So Fast. The Rich Pay Their Fair Share

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor.

82

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I presently have 2 LLC s just waiting for the economy to get better . And it is :slight_smile:

[/quote]

What do the 2 LLC s for? I have 3 LLCs, and about to add a 4th this year. All own Income producing assets in them. The CPA lobby wont allow the flat/fair tax. It would put 100’s of thousands if not a million people out of work.[/quote]

Construction and Real Estate I am more optimistic about the economy than in a long time

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

I agree he paid too much in tax , I bet our Beans could have helped him . The 2 points I will make is this is Breitbart and second is Flacco is not your typical person in his income bracket .

A simple tax code would take care of this problem . 1rst $30 k tax free from 30 k to 50k %10 and so on . The reason Flacco had to pay so much is that too many wealthy people pay little or no tax
[/quote]

No Pitt, the reason Flacco will pay this much is because that is how the tax code is written. It has nothing to do with other rich people or how much other rich people pay. That is the whole point of this thread. This is what the majority of the top 10% pay in tax. They don’t live off that magical 15% capital gains rate we hear so much about. Instead 50%+ of thier income is taken, by force, by the various governments they live “under”.

We could simplify the code, have it tiered, with no deductions and he would still pay 50%+. [/quote]

I know a few people that make a million plus a year . One person left America to avoid paying less of a percentage than Mitt’s 14%.

Discussing tax code is not my area of expertise .I doubt it is your either .

My point is tax code needs to be simple enough so you and I to have a conversation with out relying on that RAG called Breitbart Report .

If some one making the same amount as he a paying 8% than that is where the disparity lies . I promise you not every one in his tax bracket pays 52%[/quote]

Everything you need to know is in the code. It can be complicated, but even if you simplified the code by eliminating deducitons and having a tiered system like you’ve said, the amount we pay isn’t going to change. I promise you that the majority in the highest tax bracket are not paying 8%. [/quote]

There are some people that make $500,000+ a year that pay 0, zero, zip, zilch in income taxes. The rich own their assets in businesses and have enough depreciation to bring all their profits to zero, zilch, nada. This is the bad thing about being middle class. We like our W-2 jobs, and that is where the income tax hits hardest. [/quote]

I like my W-2 job because risk is non-existant for me. An important element we tend to forget. [/quote]

Risk is non-existant? What happens tomorrow if you boss calls you into his office and says, “we have to make some cuts, and I chose you.” I have had that happen to me 3 times in my career, and I decided to never let that happen again. Yeah I have a part time W-2 job, but I also have my business and I make as much money from that as I do my W-2, and my business income is more stable. My W-2 position is on commission so changes from month to month. My business is about to purchase an asset that will pay me $60k a year tax free, and might even get some tax write offs from my W-2 income.

Stop thinking middle class, and start to think like a Billionaire.[/quote]

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

I have been self employed for over 20 years of my working life . I had a comparable discussion with beans and found out I know little about tax code and I love my accountant :slight_smile:

But my point is I should not have to have an accountant . the tax code should be simple enough for all to understand .

The part of your explanation about business owners is inconsequential , that business owner has the same right to go work for some one else as well. I presently have 2 LLC s just waiting for the economy to get better . And it is :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Unfortunately business and life are complicated. I shouldn’t need a real estate agent to buy a house, but I don’t want to/have the time to learn all the ins and outs of real estate. Doesn’t mean it’s complicated, it just means it’s time consuming.

84

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am not rich by Obama’s standard and I have a lot of that.

By the way I am not trying to be an ass, just trying to open your mind to the greener side of the fence. And yes it is greener over here than where most of America is now.[/quote]

I am not saying that the code couldn’t be better. I’m saying we should not allow the government to take 50%+ of a persons income. Eventually the gov will take 50% of everyones income. That is my position.

Also, my guess is, only a small % (you included) have these types of issues. The vast majority of people making $50K - $200K have ordinary income and that’s about it.

85

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Where’d you get that list from, Pitt? [/quote]

http://www.h-kcpa.com/custom12.php[/quote]

Thanks

86

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I presently have 2 LLC s just waiting for the economy to get better . And it is :slight_smile:

[/quote]

What do the 2 LLC s for? I have 3 LLCs, and about to add a 4th this year. All own Income producing assets in them. The CPA lobby wont allow the flat/fair tax. It would put 100’s of thousands if not a million people out of work.[/quote]

Construction and Real Estate I am more optimistic about the economy than in a long time
[/quote]

Me to, but not because of the government. Companies have a ton of cash and the playing field seems to be getting set for a while. The best thing for business is a Congress and White House split between two parties and nothing getting done. I am a Fiscal Conservative and Social Libertarian at heart.

87

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.

88

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

I agree he paid too much in tax , I bet our Beans could have helped him . The 2 points I will make is this is Breitbart and second is Flacco is not your typical person in his income bracket .

A simple tax code would take care of this problem . 1rst $30 k tax free from 30 k to 50k %10 and so on . The reason Flacco had to pay so much is that too many wealthy people pay little or no tax
[/quote]

No Pitt, the reason Flacco will pay this much is because that is how the tax code is written. It has nothing to do with other rich people or how much other rich people pay. That is the whole point of this thread. This is what the majority of the top 10% pay in tax. They don’t live off that magical 15% capital gains rate we hear so much about. Instead 50%+ of thier income is taken, by force, by the various governments they live “under”.

We could simplify the code, have it tiered, with no deductions and he would still pay 50%+. [/quote]

I know a few people that make a million plus a year . One person left America to avoid paying less of a percentage than Mitt’s 14%.

Discussing tax code is not my area of expertise .I doubt it is your either .

My point is tax code needs to be simple enough so you and I to have a conversation with out relying on that RAG called Breitbart Report .

If some one making the same amount as he a paying 8% than that is where the disparity lies . I promise you not every one in his tax bracket pays 52%[/quote]

Everything you need to know is in the code. It can be complicated, but even if you simplified the code by eliminating deducitons and having a tiered system like you’ve said, the amount we pay isn’t going to change. I promise you that the majority in the highest tax bracket are not paying 8%. [/quote]

There are some people that make $500,000+ a year that pay 0, zero, zip, zilch in income taxes. The rich own their assets in businesses and have enough depreciation to bring all their profits to zero, zilch, nada. This is the bad thing about being middle class. We like our W-2 jobs, and that is where the income tax hits hardest. [/quote]

I like my W-2 job because risk is non-existant for me. An important element we tend to forget. [/quote]

Risk is non-existant? What happens tomorrow if you boss calls you into his office and says, “we have to make some cuts, and I chose you.” I have had that happen to me 3 times in my career, and I decided to never let that happen again. Yeah I have a part time W-2 job, but I also have my business and I make as much money from that as I do my W-2, and my business income is more stable. My W-2 position is on commission so changes from month to month. My business is about to purchase an asset that will pay me $60k a year tax free, and might even get some tax write offs from my W-2 income.

Stop thinking middle class, and start to think like a Billionaire.[/quote]

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

I have been self employed for over 20 years of my working life . I had a comparable discussion with beans and found out I know little about tax code and I love my accountant :slight_smile:

But my point is I should not have to have an accountant . the tax code should be simple enough for all to understand .

The part of your explanation about business owners is inconsequential , that business owner has the same right to go work for some one else as well. I presently have 2 LLC s just waiting for the economy to get better . And it is :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Unfortunately business and life are complicated. I shouldn’t need a real estate agent to buy a house, but I don’t want to/have the time to learn all the ins and outs of real estate. Doesn’t mean it’s complicated, it just means it’s time consuming.[/quote]

I don’t mean to sound all Republican on you :slight_smile: but you don’t have to buy a house but you do have to pay taxes :slight_smile:

89

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

You can lose your house without putting it up as collateral. If you’re a sole proprietorship you can lose everything you own when you go out of business. Creditors can and will take it all.

90

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I don’t mean to sound all Republican on you :slight_smile: but you don’t have to buy a house but you do have to pay taxes :slight_smile:
[/quote]

The power to tax is in the constitution.

91

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

You can lose your house without putting it up as collateral. If you’re a sole proprietorship you can lose everything you own when you go out of business. Creditors can and will take it all. [/quote]

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.

92

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I am a contractor , I try to do everything I can but I have to use them occasionally

93

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.[/quote]

That may be true, I don’t know much about bankruptcy law.

94

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I am a contractor , I try to do everything I can but I have to use them occasionally
[/quote]

I employ contractors all the time, but I should have been more precise and said independent contractors (tax, attorney, contractors, real estate agents (not because I have to, I just do not have the time to find the properties my self), plumbers, electricians, flooring, painters, roofing, education, and many many more. Capitalism at is finest. The Abundance Mentality at its finest.

95

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.[/quote]

That may be true, I don’t know much about bankruptcy law. [/quote]

Just listen to me for a moment. You are a smart guy, and I am only 36 so not too much older than you. This is why I employ a lot of people to know this for me. I just want to know the 10,000 foot view of the information. I do not need to know the detailed information, but over a course of 10-20 years you will learn a bunch about it, usually when you mess up. I pay these people to keep me out of those messes. Again this is the mentality of the Middle Class. The Middle Class wants to do it all their selves to save a couple of bucks, but it bites them in the ass 10 fold of what they would have paid a professional to do it.

There are a lot of smart people on this site on many topics, so listen to them. I do have a Masters of Business Administration in Finance. I only care to know how much money I have and how can I put that money to work efficiently to make me the most money. I hire everything else.

96

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.[/quote]

That may be true, I don’t know much about bankruptcy law. [/quote]

Just listen to me for a moment. You are a smart guy, and I am only 36 so not too much older than you. This is why I employ a lot of people to know this for me. I just want to know the 10,000 foot view of the information. I do not need to know the detailed information, but over a course of 10-20 years you will learn a bunch about it, usually when you mess up. I pay these people to keep me out of those messes. Again this is the mentality of the Middle Class. The Middle Class wants to do it all their selves to save a couple of bucks, but it bites them in the ass 10 fold of what they would have paid a professional to do it.

There are a lot of smart people on this site on many topics, so listen to them. I do have a Masters of Business Administration in Finance. I only care to know how much money I have and how can I put that money to work efficiently to make me the most money. I hire everything else. [/quote]

My wife would love this post, beleive me, I am all for hiring someone else that is an expert :slight_smile:

All I was saying is the informaiton is there. Beleive me, I understand how much informaiton it is, but that doesn’t make it rocket science. If you’re really good at something else, like rocket science, and you’re successful hire an expert to do your taxes. All I’m saying is, if the folks at H&R block can do it, so can everyone else.

Please don’t think me to be a, “know it all,” I am fully aware I know about as much as a child when it comes to life.

97

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I did not know that you always had that choice.

Silly me.

98

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.[/quote]

That may be true, I don’t know much about bankruptcy law. [/quote]

Just listen to me for a moment. You are a smart guy, and I am only 36 so not too much older than you. This is why I employ a lot of people to know this for me. I just want to know the 10,000 foot view of the information. I do not need to know the detailed information, but over a course of 10-20 years you will learn a bunch about it, usually when you mess up. I pay these people to keep me out of those messes. Again this is the mentality of the Middle Class. The Middle Class wants to do it all their selves to save a couple of bucks, but it bites them in the ass 10 fold of what they would have paid a professional to do it.

There are a lot of smart people on this site on many topics, so listen to them. I do have a Masters of Business Administration in Finance. I only care to know how much money I have and how can I put that money to work efficiently to make me the most money. I hire everything else. [/quote]

My wife would love this post, beleive me, I am all for hiring someone else that is an expert :slight_smile:

All I was saying is the informaiton is there. Beleive me, I understand how much informaiton it is, but that doesn’t make it rocket science. If you’re really good at something else, like rocket science, and you’re successful hire an expert to do your taxes. All I’m saying is, if the folks at H&R block can do it, so can everyone else.

Please don’t think me to be a, “know it all,” I am fully aware I know about as much as a child when it comes to life. [/quote]

I love to learn, but tax law changes all the time, and an expert is suppose to have continuing education to keep up on those changes. Most people at H&R Block took a two day class to learn how to do a 1040EZ which is very EZ. You put in your W-2 income, take the standard deduction subtract the amount in taxes paid, and bam you are done.

Once you get into itemized deductions, K-1s, Trusts, and some many other things please hire a professional. It takes a full time job to keep up and learn this stuff.

Keep learning and you can do it.

99

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I did not know that you always had that choice.

Silly me.[/quote]

what choice? There is always that choice, but most people do not know that. They just make the wrong choice.

100

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.[/quote]

That may be true, I don’t know much about bankruptcy law. [/quote]

Just listen to me for a moment. You are a smart guy, and I am only 36 so not too much older than you. This is why I employ a lot of people to know this for me. I just want to know the 10,000 foot view of the information. I do not need to know the detailed information, but over a course of 10-20 years you will learn a bunch about it, usually when you mess up. I pay these people to keep me out of those messes. Again this is the mentality of the Middle Class. The Middle Class wants to do it all their selves to save a couple of bucks, but it bites them in the ass 10 fold of what they would have paid a professional to do it.

There are a lot of smart people on this site on many topics, so listen to them. I do have a Masters of Business Administration in Finance. I only care to know how much money I have and how can I put that money to work efficiently to make me the most money. I hire everything else. [/quote]

My wife would love this post, beleive me, I am all for hiring someone else that is an expert :slight_smile:

All I was saying is the informaiton is there. Beleive me, I understand how much informaiton it is, but that doesn’t make it rocket science. If you’re really good at something else, like rocket science, and you’re successful hire an expert to do your taxes. All I’m saying is, if the folks at H&R block can do it, so can everyone else.

Please don’t think me to be a, “know it all,” I am fully aware I know about as much as a child when it comes to life. [/quote]

I love to learn, but tax law changes all the time, and an expert is suppose to have continuing education to keep up on those changes. Most people at H&R Block took a two day class to learn how to do a 1040EZ which is very EZ. You put in your W-2 income, take the standard deduction subtract the amount in taxes paid, and bam you are done.

Once you get into itemized deductions, K-1s, Trusts, and some many other things please hire a professional. It takes a full time job to keep up and learn this stuff.

Keep learning and you can do it.[/quote]

I’ve got a pro at home, my wife has an M.S. in Taxation :slight_smile: