Idea for employee compensation..

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fleabag


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.

HOW OLD ARE YOU!!!!

Are you 12? I'm guessing 12.

The spouse or child didn't earn anything. In your scenario they did and would be responsible for paying taxes on it.

Have you EVER filed a tax return?

 

[IronWing]

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.

You still equate compensation with productivity? How old are you?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ironwing

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.

You still equate compensation with productivity? How old are you?

Old enough to understand that you don't pay people for nothing.

 

[Boo Boo]

free hookers and blow

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ironwing

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.

You still equate compensation with productivity? How old are you?

Old enough to understand that you don't pay people for nothing.

You can get paid for doing nothing, just look at the welfare system, where you get paid to have children and do nothing all day long. Don't tell me you can't get paid for nothing when our government is so proud to do just that.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ironwing

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.

You still equate compensation with productivity? How old are you?

Old enough to understand that you don't pay people for nothing.

You can get paid for doing nothing, just look at the welfare system, where you get paid to have children and do nothing all day long. Don't tell me you can't get paid for nothing when our government is so proud to do just that.

This makes your OP all the more understandable. You want what you feel you are entitled to or some how "deserve".

How old are you?

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: 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.

Look up the 2009 tax tables. The income cut offs for married filing separately are 1/2 of the cut offs for married filing jointly, so there is no benefit to filing separately. If there were, everyone would do it.

Giving the money directly to your children creates income for them that must be reported to the IRS. You might be able to dodge some taxes here if the IRS would OK the scheme you've developed. Otherwise it is income tax evasion both on you and your employer. And trust me, the IRS won't let this one slip by. The government wants their slice of your money. They aren't nice people, and they won't let you hold on to more of it unless forced to by a law enacted by congress and signed by the president.

 

[guyver01]

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?

So what you're advocating..

is besides the fact that my wife/children get a part of my $100,000 salary (they are my wife & children.. if they're living at home.. they get a benfit from my salary in terms of room/board/food/electricity/internet/etc that comes from me) they should ALSO get $50,000 a year extra of my money, no strings attached? just for breathing?


BULL FUCKING SHIT.
NO FUCKING WAY.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: 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.

Filing separately likely wouldn't accomplish anything because of the way the tax tables are setup. Giving some of the money directly to the children would likely result in fewer taxes being paid since dependent children don't typically earn anywhere near as much as their parents, but the tax system already has deductions you can take for dependents and expenses related to them, so I don't think your idea would fly.

 

[mcmilljb]

http://www.amazon.com/Prentice...ion-2009/dp/0136067042

Learn something!

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: 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.

Look up the 2009 tax tables. The income cut offs for married filing separately are 1/2 of the cut offs for married filing jointly, so there is no benefit to filing separately. If there were, everyone would do it.

Giving the money directly to your children creates income for them that must be reported to the IRS. You might be able to dodge some taxes here if the IRS would OK the scheme you've developed. Otherwise it is income tax evasion both on you and your employer. And trust me, the IRS won't let this one slip by. The government wants their slice of your money. They aren't nice people, and they won't let you hold on to more of it unless forced to by a law enacted by congress and signed by the president.

That's the idea, the income the children get would be taxed at a lower rate. So instead of giving your children money taxed at 45%, you can have your employer pay them directly which would result in them making money and therefore being taxed, but the aggregate of the money your children receive and you receive will be taxed less than if the money your children receive is just tacked onto your income.

 

[IGBT]

I'll bet your a doper.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Geeze, give the guy a break. He is just starting a conversation about an idea he had.

OP, in my opinion, what you are trying to accomplish only masks the real problem... which is the retarded tax laws we have in this country.

 

[wiredspider]

Spouses and children can be counted as your dependents on your taxes, there by you get "exemptions" for them, you already pay lower taxes as a result.

A single person making $100k, pays more in taxes than a married person with one income of $100k and 2 kids.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
Geeze, give the guy a break. He is just starting a conversation about an idea he had.

OP, in my opinion, what you are trying to accomplish only masks the real problem... which is the retarded tax laws we have in this country.

This must be your first fleabag thread.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

40% tax on what you earn over £37,400 here...

~20% under £37,400

+9% tax for National Insurance...

 

[Krazy4Real]

fail idea is fail

 

[h8red]

Why don't you just come out and say it. You need a kidney. The kidney is $50K on the black market. You thought you could get an easy $50K this way and pay off the kidney.

Was that so hard? (that's what she said)

 

[D1gger]

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?

I don't know tax law in the US, but here in Canada we have a concept called "taxable benefit" any form of earning from an employer to a employee or his family is considered a taxable benefit and is taxed at the employee's rate.

For example: if an employer sends an employee to a trade convention and pays the expenses so the wife can go along, the value of the trip for the wife is included in the employee's earnings and he is taxed on it.

The same would apply to direct money you are shifting to the family members unless they were actively earning the money.

I would bet that the IRS would have the same view and your scheme would end up with the employer and employee in jail and both of them paying back taxes and penalties for years to come.

 

[SonnyDaze]

She gets enough of it as it is. She don't need anymore of my paycheck.

 

[CPA]

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, you have no idea how taxes work, do you?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan


OP, in my opinion, what you are trying to accomplish only masks the real problem... which is the retarded tax laws we have in this country.

Winner!