3 ms·
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. In the case you mentioned, there's an extra cost, but neither the business nor the employees are pa
by byrneseyeview 17y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. In the case you mentioned, there's an extra cost, but neither the business nor the employees are paying it. In the case I'm talking about, all he ended up doing was making the choice to pay corporate taxes instead of paying approximately the same amount in higher wages.
It's like breaking into a store in order to steal something, and then leaving behind enough money to pay for it. Pointlessly flouting the law.
- invisible 17y agoWhat's you seem to be missing (I think) is that you do not pay taxes on buying a coin for $950 even if it's only worth (face value) is $50.
- tptacek 17y agoHuh? You don't pay taxes on buying a $50 item for $950, because you've just taken a $900 loss. If you sell something for which you paid $50 for $950, you absolutely do pay taxes for the gain.
- byrneseyeview 17y agoThat's not the transaction for which you would be taxed. But if you're paying your workers something that you claim is worth $50, for which you spent $950, that $900 difference is money that would be an expense if you paid them normally. Instead, it's profit, and you owe $300 in taxes on it -- even though you have the negative cash flow from your $950 coin. That's what's missing from the story. Either we're reading it wrong, or what he committed was a conventional tax fraud with a gold-bug spin.
- stcredzero 17y agoWhy isn't the extra $900 dollars he pays for every $50 of payroll just like the extra expense of the satin ribbon?