- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 11,524
- Reaction score
- 6,769
- Location
- Las Vegas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes, I got that, the poster was trying to poke fun at what many complain to be a high rate, but, when applied to Boeing amounts to nothing. I got it..
Well C Corps are only attractive if you want to go public, ie. if you absolutely need to be a C Corp, until then the C Corp is the absolute worst tax structure to be in in the US. I'm not sure how this question even makes sense. I mean you're asking, "How can shareholders be shareholders without a corporation to be a shareholder of?"
Sure, I mean, they would be unit holders in an LLC or shareholders in an S Corp and I can assure you there are methods of ensuring that the money earned in an LLC or S Corp can flow to the shareholders/unit holders/managing members/owners, whatever you want to call them.
No its very apt actually. Many people contribute to the 401(k) with the express intent of deferring taxes on the funds places into the 401(k). The government created a tax vehicle which creates positive incentives to do this and sure enough people do it. People don't say, "Gee, Richie Rich paid less taxes because he took advantage of the 401(k) loopholes". The same logic underpins Boeings actions. The government wants Boeing to make these investment and creates tax incentives, in this case a similar deferral scheme, for them to do so. Shocker, they do and now people are complaining that their current tax liability is zero. All I can say is that they should then remove it and find out if Boeing still finds the activity lucrative enough to engage in.
Well, its the objective if you think a soft command economy is the way to go. It isn't. The corporate income tax shouldn't exist and given that it does the deferral shouldn't either. BUT, the fact is it does exist, so when the government does create the equivalent of subsidies don't be surprised when people take them up on it. But make no mistake about it, what you have is a ridiculous distortion of how our scarce resources should be allocated.
Yes, I got that, the poster was trying to poke fun at what many complain to be a high rate, but, when applied to Boeing amounts to nothing. I got it..
••OK
Well C Corps are only attractive if you want to go public, ie. if you absolutely need to be a C Corp, until then the C Corp is the absolute worst tax structure to be in in the US. I'm not sure how this question even makes sense. I mean you're asking, "How can shareholders be shareholders without a corporation to be a shareholder of?"
Sure, I mean, they would be unit holders in an LLC or shareholders in an S Corp and I can assure you there are methods of ensuring that the money earned in an LLC or S Corp can flow to the shareholders/unit holders/managing members/owners, whatever you want to call them.
••I was referring to the pass through aspect. If each year the shareholders received the money, there would be no capital for growth. The idea of the C Corp is to provide a way to retain earnings.
No its very apt actually. Many people contribute to the 401(k) with the express intent of deferring taxes on the funds places into the 401(k). The government created a tax vehicle which creates positive incentives to do this and sure enough people do it. People don't say, "Gee, Richie Rich paid less taxes because he took advantage of the 401(k) loopholes". The same logic underpins Boeings actions. The government wants Boeing to make these investment and creates tax incentives, in this case a similar deferral scheme, for them to do so. Shocker, they do and now people are complaining that their current tax liability is zero. All I can say is that they should then remove it and find out if Boeing still finds the activity lucrative enough to engage in.
••You may have misread my post. I am in agreement with you. I was just kidding about the value of your 401K although I hope you have billions.
Well, its the objective if you think a soft command economy is the way to go. It isn't. The corporate income tax shouldn't exist and given that it does the deferral shouldn't either. BUT, the fact is it does exist, so when the government does create the equivalent of subsidies don't be surprised when people take them up on it. But make no mistake about it, what you have is a ridiculous distortion of how our scarce resources should be allocated.
••I'd appreciate a bit more explanation.