Idea for employee compensation..

[fleabag]

To have a form of compensation/pay for your employees that would benefit their spouses and or children...
Instead of having your employees earn say $150,000 a year, they would instead earn $100,000 a year, and then have the rest of their income ($50,000) be paid directly to their children and or spouse. That way, the money their family gets is taxed at a lower income bracket.


What do you guys think of this?

 

[Nik]

Fail.

 

[spidey07]

Wait...what? So you want to compensate people that AREN'T working, don't produce anything AND penalize ones that actually are producing?

DO NOT WANT.

How about this? Lower taxes for people who are making money, ie producing and let them decide themselves what is best for their family.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: fleabag
To have a form of compensation/pay for your employees that would benefit their spouses and or children...
Instead of having your employees earn say $150,000 a year, they would instead earn $100,000 a year, and then have the rest of their income ($50,000) be paid directly to their children and or spouse. That way, the money their family gets is taxed at a lower income bracket.


What do you guys think of this?

lol get ready to be sued by IRS.

 

[Number1]

How old are you?

 

[zerocool84]

Where do you come up with all these horrible ideas??? Do you just sit at home and brainstorm these ideas??? Every thread you start is just another dumb idea.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Wait...what? So you want to compensate people that AREN'T working, don't produce anything AND penalize ones that actually are producing?

DO NOT WANT.

How about this? Lower taxes for people who are making money, ie producing and let them decide themselves what is best for their family.

Well they don't HAVE to follow this idea, it would just be an option. I mean if you want to give your kids your money for like a college fund or what ever, wouldn't you want it to be taxed at a lower income tax bracket, etc.? This idea wouldn't be mandatory but would be an option for the employee.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: spidey07
Wait...what? So you want to compensate people that AREN'T working, don't produce anything AND penalize ones that actually are producing?

DO NOT WANT.

How about this? Lower taxes for people who are making money, ie producing and let them decide themselves what is best for their family.

Well they don't HAVE to follow this idea, it would just be an option. I mean if you want to give your kids your money for like a college fund or what ever, wouldn't you want it to be taxed at a lower income tax bracket, etc.? This idea wouldn't be mandatory but would be an option for the employee.

/facepalm

There are already tax incentive programs for what you're talking about, specifically dealing with higher education. Your idea has so much fail written on it I honestly don't know how to respond. How old are you?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Wait...what? So you want to compensate people that AREN'T working, don't produce anything AND penalize ones that actually are producing?

DO NOT WANT.

How about this? Lower taxes for people who are making money, ie producing and let them decide themselves what is best for their family.

Oh come on, built-in wealth re-distribution, you have to love it.

Didn't papa ever give you an allowance?

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
Wait...what? So you want to compensate people that AREN'T working, don't produce anything AND penalize ones that actually are producing?

DO NOT WANT.

How about this? Lower taxes for people who are making money, ie producing and let them decide themselves what is best for their family.

Oh come on, built-in wealth re-distribution, you have to love it.

Didn't papa ever give you an allowance?

Well some parents would prefer their family getting their money outright instead of waiting until they're dead to give them the money. This would also help with the death tax issue.

 

[slayer202]

you're retarded

 

[alkemyst]

They need to start taxing families with more than two adults living at home MORE not less. Both income and property.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Well some parents would prefer their family getting their money outright instead of waiting until they're dead to give them the money. This would also help with the death tax issue.

WTF! How old are you?

What do you mean their family getting "their" money. The family doesn't deserve shit, they're not working. It's up to the earner to decide how and what to do with their labor and in turn HIS money.

Are you 12?

 

[Uhtrinity]

Get your employer to pay for your dependents health insurance in lieu of a raise. Mine pays for my son. Helps keep taxable income down.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: fleabag

Well some parents would prefer their family getting their money outright instead of waiting until they're dead to give them the money. This would also help with the death tax issue.

WTF! How old are you?

What do you mean their family getting "their" money. The family doesn't deserve shit, they're not working. It's up to the earner to decide how and what to do with their labor and in turn HIS money.

Are you 12?

And the earner has decided to give a part of his money to his family, except instead of it first being tax at the higher rate, it's given directly to his family so that it's taxed at the lower rate.... What is so damn hard to comprehend? It's it difficult to understand that some people like to give money to their family?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fleabag

And the earner has decided to give a part of his money to his family, except instead of it first being tax at the higher rate, it's given directly to his family so that it's taxed at the lower rate.... What is so damn hard to comprehend? It's it difficult to understand that some people like to give money to their family?

As I said, there already many, many ways for this to happen. My guess is you've never filed a tax form otherwise you'd know about these things.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: slayer202
you're retarded

 

[SandEagle]

Originally posted by: fleabag
To have a form of compensation/pay for your employees that would benefit their spouses and or children...
Instead of having your employees earn say $150,000 a year, they would instead earn $100,000 a year, and then have the rest of their income ($50,000) be paid directly to their children and or spouse. That way, the money their family gets is taxed at a lower income bracket.


What do you guys think of this?

Mr. Fleabag, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

/billymadison

 

[BoomerD]

fleabitten...you go ahead and try this plan of yours. When the IRS bends you over the table for tax avoidance...and maybe gives you a lengthy reservation in one of the Federal Crossbars Hotels where you room with Bubba...don't say you weren't warned...

If you have non-employees getting paid...don't they have to have payroll taxes withheld? Doesn't the company then have to pay the appropriate taxes such as unemployment, workers compensation...and FICA on them?

Your silly scheme would be illegal in so many ways it's not even amusing.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: fleabag
To have a form of compensation/pay for your employees that would benefit their spouses and or children...
Instead of having your employees earn say $150,000 a year, they would instead earn $100,000 a year, and then have the rest of their income ($50,000) be paid directly to their children and or spouse. That way, the money their family gets is taxed at a lower income bracket.


What do you guys think of this?

If your children/spouse are living with you, typically you will file a single return and all of the income gets lumped back together and taxed at a single rate (according to the graduated income tax scale). I am single and I'm in the 28% bracket (before deductions). If I were married and my spouse didn't work I would be in the 25% bracket. However, if I were married and my spouse made as much as I do, we would be in the 33% bracket (yikes!).

There is actually a tax penalty for being married that phases in if both you and your spouse are in the 25% tax bracket (or higher) when you tie the knot.

Edit: Bonus points to whoever can bracket my income range. Info is based on the 2009 tax brackets.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: fleabag
To have a form of compensation/pay for your employees that would benefit their spouses and or children...
Instead of having your employees earn say $150,000 a year, they would instead earn $100,000 a year, and then have the rest of their income ($50,000) be paid directly to their children and or spouse. That way, the money their family gets is taxed at a lower income bracket.


What do you guys think of this?

If your children/spouse are living with you, typically you will file a single return and all of the income gets lumped back together and taxed at a single rate (according to the graduated income tax scale). I am single and I'm in the 28% bracket (before deductions). If I were married and my spouse didn't work I would be in the 25% bracket. However, if I were married and my spouse made as much as I do, we would be in the 33% bracket (yikes!).

There is actually a tax penalty for being married that phases in if both you and your spouse are in the 25% tax bracket (or higher) when you tie the knot.

Edit: Bonus points to whoever can bracket my income range. Info is based on the 2009 tax brackets.

Exactly. There is no tax benefit for this. Giving money to your dependents is pretty much the same as giving money to you in the eyes of the IRS.

As for the death tax thing, there's ways around it. You just have to plan ahead.

Fleabag, seriously though, you've never answered how old you are. From your questions I'm betting you're about 16.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: rgwalt


If your children/spouse are living with you, typically you will file a single return and all of the income gets lumped back together and taxed at a single rate (according to the graduated income tax scale). I am single and I'm in the 28% bracket (before deductions). If I were married and my spouse didn't work I would be in the 25% bracket. However, if I were married and my spouse made as much as I do, we would be in the 33% bracket (yikes!).

There is actually a tax penalty for being married that phases in if both you and your spouse are in the 25% tax bracket (or higher) when you tie the knot.

Edit: Bonus points to whoever can bracket my income range. Info is based on the 2009 tax brackets.

You are the 100-140K person, if your wife made the same you're stuck in the 33% bracket.

Basically you're getting fucked and are indeed running into the marriage penalty.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: fleabag
To have a form of compensation/pay for your employees that would benefit their spouses and or children...
Instead of having your employees earn say $150,000 a year, they would instead earn $100,000 a year, and then have the rest of their income ($50,000) be paid directly to their children and or spouse. That way, the money their family gets is taxed at a lower income bracket.


What do you guys think of this?

No.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: fleabag

Well some parents would prefer their family getting their money outright instead of waiting until they're dead to give them the money. This would also help with the death tax issue.

WTF! How old are you?

What do you mean their family getting "their" money. The family doesn't deserve shit, they're not working. It's up to the earner to decide how and what to do with their labor and in turn HIS money.

Are you 12?

And the earner has decided to give a part of his money to his family, except instead of it first being tax at the higher rate, it's given directly to his family so that it's taxed at the lower rate.... What is so damn hard to comprehend? It's it difficult to understand that some people like to give money to their family?

I don't understand this. If you're married filing jointly, the income from either spouse will count toward the same total. What does your provision accomplish? The married couple would be paying the same amount of taxes either way.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: fleabag

Well some parents would prefer their family getting their money outright instead of waiting until they're dead to give them the money. This would also help with the death tax issue.

WTF! How old are you?

What do you mean their family getting "their" money. The family doesn't deserve shit, they're not working. It's up to the earner to decide how and what to do with their labor and in turn HIS money.

Are you 12?

And the earner has decided to give a part of his money to his family, except instead of it first being tax at the higher rate, it's given directly to his family so that it's taxed at the lower rate.... What is so damn hard to comprehend? It's it difficult to understand that some people like to give money to their family?

I don't understand this. If you're married filing jointly, the income from either spouse will count toward the same total. What does your provision accomplish? The married couple would be paying the same amount of taxes either way.

Couldn't they file separately? Also what about giving the money to your kids? They would be getting a check from the employer directly so it wouldn't or shouldn't be taxed at the higher rate.