Sure it is, that's why I referred to "his lawful earnings", as I understand the claims the rub is that while he claimed a small percentage of the earnings as income which were subject to payroll taxes the S corp allows him to claim the remainder over upcoming years as disbursements which are not subject to payroll taxes. All perfectly legal but the insufferable part is that during the Obama/Biden administration as well as now he's promoting tax policies to prevent others from doing the same thing in the future, while at the same time promoting the same 12.4% payroll tax for all income over $400,000 which he can avoid by simply taking disbursements prior to any change of the law.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Maybe I didn't say this clear enough or loud enough the first time:
The maximum wage income that Social Security tax can be charged on is $142,800. That means if Biden declared at least $142,800 in wages, he actually paid the maximum amount of Soc Sec tax possible. So where did you get the ridiculous idea that he somehow avoided paying $500,000 of Social Security/Medicare tax by having an S Corporation?
Because he purposely created an S Corp for the tax benefits they enjoy and funneled the money through that entity so they could then be disbursed in future years where they will be subject to income taxes (but at lower rates than if they were collected as income at the time of earning them) but will be excluded from payroll taxes on the disbursements. And as I pointed out in the original post, it's perfectly legal and I applaud him for doing so, but it goes against the "fair share" doctrine he's promoting and moralizing about for everyone else, which in my mind makes him one of the "insufferable elites".
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Alan makes a valid point. For all the bloviating from lots of people about the importance of work it’s curious that our tax code rewards ‘not work’ income with a lower tax rate.
You still haven't cited any sources of your information or numbers, so I did some digging. You seem to be referring to a Wall Street Journal article. So I'll refer you to this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr...h=6850d1f462b6 that takes the WSJ to task for mischaracterizing the situation.
The WSJ implied there is something sinister about taking advantage of whatever legitimate tax breaks are available, and that seems to be the same point you keep harping on. The difference is that you keep talking about Biden avoiding Social Security and Medicare taxes. But according to the article cited above, the S corporation paid the Bidens less than $800,000 in salary. And as I have already said, the maximum amount subject to Social Security and Medicare tax is only $142,800, so the salary they received and were taxed on each year was apparently above the max and thus the S corporation didn't reduce their Soc Sec or Medicare tax at all.
Make believe accusations about how much Soc Sec and Medicare tax they would have paid if their total profit was taxed are pure fantasy because the $142,800 maximum limits how much income can be taxed for Soc Sec and Medicare.
I'm not a fancy tax accountant, and I don't even play one on tv, but unless there is something in this situation that makes the $142,800 limit not apply, the Bidens paid the maximum Soc Sec and Medicare tax possible in those years.
I'm not sure where you get the idea I think it's sinister to take advantage of legitimate tax breaks, I think I've mentioned several times it's the insufferableness of the "the rich must pay their fair share" diatribes while taking pains not to do so himself.
The difference is that you keep talking about Biden avoiding Social Security and Medicare taxes. But according to the article cited above, the S corporation paid the Bidens less than $800,000 in salary. And as I have already said, the maximum amount subject to Social Security and Medicare tax is only $142,800, so the salary they received and were taxed on was above the max and thus the S corporation didn't reduce their Soc Sec or Medicare tax at all. Make believe accusation of how much Soc Sec and Medicare tax they would have paid if their total profit was taxed are pure fantasy based on what would happen if that $142,800 maximum didn't exist.
And you're missing the point that by funneling income into the S corp for purposes of limiting income tax liability he's not claiming the entire amount as income now but will be collecting income in the form of disbursements later which gives him double benefit, one being those future disbursements will be subjected to lower tax rates in our progressive tax system, and the second being that those future disbursements are not counted as payroll under current tax law which enables him to avoid the current 12.2% self-employment payroll tax on the income he'll be claiming each year.
Again, I applaud him for playing the tax game to his advantage, as we all should. The insufferable elite part comes into play when he actively plays the system to his advantage while telling us daily that he intends to close those benefits to everyone else and implies that "the rich" are selfishly getting away with something. Of course, that is mostly just an attempt to satisfy the progressive wing of his base who believe that every extra dollar in a rich person's hands is a dollar taken away from the government's re-distribution efforts, which is pretty damn insufferable on its own.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I’m not sure what the “fat chance” refers to, the S Corp changing or Alan changing it, but either way it’s been scrutinized for change. Our President is proposing that the S Corp. go away.They were chattering about it on Mr. Money mustache, so I Googled it and this is the first hit I saw. I’m sure there are many others:
https://www.burr.com/blogs/tax-law-i...-corporations/
Perhaps daddy Joe after utilizing it saw that it was far too good a deal for any one else to take advantage of, so he’s cutting it.
So we should expect politicians to not take advantage of current tax law prior to changing it? Personally I’d view more harshly a politician who changes a tax law to be more favorable for themselves. Of course I’d also view more harshly a politician who uses information about a burgeoning pandemic and the likely economic consequences to sell off investments in anticipation of a big downturn. But a number of elite politician people did that last January/February.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)