Wanna Pay Zero Income Tax?

DaGoose

Gold Member
Nov 16, 2010
4,347
666
153
Illinois
Here's a good case for a flat tax and how the corporations (and wealthy) really do get out of paying their fair share.

There's been a firestorm this week over the news that General Electric (NYSE: GE - News) will pay no tax -- at least, no federal corporate income tax -- on last year's profits.

But if you're like a lot of people, your first reaction was probably: "Hmmm. How can I get that kind of deal?"

You'd be surprised. You might. And without being either a pauper or a major corporation.

Tax News from Yahoo! Finance

.
 
i thought you were going to say get into bed with obama and special interest unions or trade places with jeffery immelt, which is fine according to the democrats new view of taxes and "wars".
 
Last edited:
Looking at it, you can see where corporations have more legal rights than real citizens. The conservatives on the supreme court keep giving them more and more. This is why when electing a president you should vote for a democrat, because the will nominate liberal justices who are not in the pocket of big business. You elect republican senators and representatives because they can keep the democrat president in check with the purse strings.
 
From the link:

Taxable income: just under $17,000. That's on a gross take of $150,000. You'd owe less than $1,700 in federal income tax.

After that, it goes to the absurd because he shows all sorts of things you can claim for tax credits but you have to actually spend that money on those specific things like solar panels, college tuition for kids, student loans and adult education. You cannot spend it on food or heat.

This is why nobody should ever use H&R Block for financial advice. The $150,000 is not "income," it's "revenue." It says that the hypothetical business person can "write off up to $10,000 in startup expenses." Well of course he can write them off, they are legitimate expenses - money actually spent on a business venture. Deducting that from revenue isn't a loophole, it's a necessary expense to generate that revenue.

The article then says that the business can write off other business expenses. Well duh! Again, that $150,000 is not income if the business has to spend money to generate it. That $150,000 is REVENUE.

He also pulls some tricks that don't pass audit. You cannot max out a 401(k) and an IRA at the same time, nor can you write off all health insurance premiums. Well you can write them off, but they will be adjusted and limited if you are audited.

Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income.
 
"Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income."

Definately not a lavish lifestyle, now take it to the next step. How are his employees living or making it? Everyone is quick to show how the business owner is barely making it, but no one speaks about the people he employs who make considerably less in pay and benefits than the owner. So if the owner is barely making it what do you think the average worker is doing?
 
From the link:

Taxable income: just under $17,000. That's on a gross take of $150,000. You'd owe less than $1,700 in federal income tax.
After that, it goes to the absurd because he shows all sorts of things you can claim for tax credits but you have to actually spend that money on those specific things like solar panels, college tuition for kids, student loans and adult education. You cannot spend it on food or heat.

This is why nobody should ever use H&R Block for financial advice. The $150,000 is not "income," it's "revenue." It says that the hypothetical business person can "write off up to $10,000 in startup expenses." Well of course he can write them off, they are legitimate expenses - money actually spent on a business venture. Deducting that from revenue isn't a loophole, it's a necessary expense to generate that revenue.

The article then says that the business can write off other business expenses. Well duh! Again, that $150,000 is not income if the business has to spend money to generate it. That $150,000 is REVENUE.

He also pulls some tricks that don't pass audit. You cannot max out a 401(k) and an IRA at the same time, nor can you write off all health insurance premiums. Well you can write them off, but they will be adjusted and limited if you are audited.

Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income.
To do that you need the cunning of a Televangelist like Pat Robertson.

What you do is pretend to find Jesus like Pat Robertson did and form a ministry that you head. Then donate your house to the ministry and specify that the head of the ministry (you) live in the house. You get a tax deduction for the APPRAISED value of the house, whether it can actually be sold for that amount or not. Now you "donate" the cost of your heat, electric, etc., to your ministry and those living expenses become tax deductions. When you die your child then becomes head of the ministry and gets the house tax free.
Ministries are the perfect tax scam. :eusa_shhh:
 
Last edited:
Wanna Pay Zero Income Tax?


Frankly, the only way to do that is to not earn any income.
Not true, televangelists are multimillionaires.
To pay no income taxes you must understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. You only pay taxes on what you own, not what you control. You simply have to set up a "charitable" vehicle that you CONTROL to OWN what you earn.
 
I strive to pay as little tax as I can, but I do it legally. That guy in the article, (as asterism stated better than I could), is awful "creative" and would likely do some time, eventually, if he practiced accounting like that.
 
Wanna Pay Zero Income Tax?


Frankly, the only way to do that is to not earn any income.
Not true, televangelists are multimillionaires.
To pay no income taxes you must understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. You only pay taxes on what you own, not what you control. You simply have to set up a "charitable" vehicle that you CONTROL to OWN what you earn.

I own my cat, but I do not control it. Can the state tax my cat?...say with a license fee?

Maybe I can set up a catcharitable trust.
 
"Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income."

Definately not a lavish lifestyle, now take it to the next step. How are his employees living or making it? Everyone is quick to show how the business owner is barely making it, but no one speaks about the people he employs who make considerably less in pay and benefits than the owner. So if the owner is barely making it what do you think the average worker is doing?

Show where this hypothetical included employees. It didn't. Now if you are asking how other employees are getting by on $1900 per month, well they are doing just that - getting by. Perhaps they should do something about it like maybe start their own businesses. Or than can choose to live with less, which this business owner must do to fulfill the example.
 
From the link:

Taxable income: just under $17,000. That's on a gross take of $150,000. You'd owe less than $1,700 in federal income tax.
After that, it goes to the absurd because he shows all sorts of things you can claim for tax credits but you have to actually spend that money on those specific things like solar panels, college tuition for kids, student loans and adult education. You cannot spend it on food or heat.

This is why nobody should ever use H&R Block for financial advice. The $150,000 is not "income," it's "revenue." It says that the hypothetical business person can "write off up to $10,000 in startup expenses." Well of course he can write them off, they are legitimate expenses - money actually spent on a business venture. Deducting that from revenue isn't a loophole, it's a necessary expense to generate that revenue.

The article then says that the business can write off other business expenses. Well duh! Again, that $150,000 is not income if the business has to spend money to generate it. That $150,000 is REVENUE.

He also pulls some tricks that don't pass audit. You cannot max out a 401(k) and an IRA at the same time, nor can you write off all health insurance premiums. Well you can write them off, but they will be adjusted and limited if you are audited.

Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income.
To do that you need the cunning of a Televangelist like Pat Robertson.

What you do is pretend to find Jesus like Pat Robertson did and form a ministry that you head. Then donate your house to the ministry and specify that the head of the ministry (you) live in the house. You get a tax deduction for the APPRAISED value of the house, whether it can actually be sold for that amount or not. Now you "donate" the cost of your heat, electric, etc., to your ministry and those living expenses become tax deductions. When you die your child then becomes head of the ministry and gets the house tax free.
Ministries are the perfect tax scam. :eusa_shhh:

Or do that same operating a non-profit bird sanctuary. Yet another perfect tax scam if that's the intent of the operator.
 
Wanna Pay Zero Income Tax?


Frankly, the only way to do that is to not earn any income.
Not true, televangelists are multimillionaires.
To pay no income taxes you must understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. You only pay taxes on what you own, not what you control. You simply have to set up a "charitable" vehicle that you CONTROL to OWN what you earn.

You mean like RFK Jr.? He always gets lucky enough to be able to catch a ride by himself on some private jet to speak about how the jet-setting lifestyle (or worse, the SUV-driving lifestyle) is killing the planet.
 
So just to make sure were all on the same page, by following the law created by our leftwing tax crazy liberals these people are wrong........?

From the link:

Taxable income: just under $17,000. That's on a gross take of $150,000. You'd owe less than $1,700 in federal income tax.

After that, it goes to the absurd because he shows all sorts of things you can claim for tax credits but you have to actually spend that money on those specific things like solar panels, college tuition for kids, student loans and adult education. You cannot spend it on food or heat.

This is why nobody should ever use H&R Block for financial advice. The $150,000 is not "income," it's "revenue." It says that the hypothetical business person can "write off up to $10,000 in startup expenses." Well of course he can write them off, they are legitimate expenses - money actually spent on a business venture. Deducting that from revenue isn't a loophole, it's a necessary expense to generate that revenue.

The article then says that the business can write off other business expenses. Well duh! Again, that $150,000 is not income if the business has to spend money to generate it. That $150,000 is REVENUE.

He also pulls some tricks that don't pass audit. You cannot max out a 401(k) and an IRA at the same time, nor can you write off all health insurance premiums. Well you can write them off, but they will be adjusted and limited if you are audited.

Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income.
 
If you are a CEO for a non-profit like the Red Cross, and you make six figures a year, is that considered "earned" income? I mean the red cross and other Non profit entities launder billions of dollars a year in what is supposed to be donated money. So this means that these so called non-profit CEO's, get six figures worth of money that was donated to the poor. Now that is a racket.
 
From the link:

After that, it goes to the absurd because he shows all sorts of things you can claim for tax credits but you have to actually spend that money on those specific things like solar panels, college tuition for kids, student loans and adult education. You cannot spend it on food or heat.

This is why nobody should ever use H&R Block for financial advice. The $150,000 is not "income," it's "revenue." It says that the hypothetical business person can "write off up to $10,000 in startup expenses." Well of course he can write them off, they are legitimate expenses - money actually spent on a business venture. Deducting that from revenue isn't a loophole, it's a necessary expense to generate that revenue.

The article then says that the business can write off other business expenses. Well duh! Again, that $150,000 is not income if the business has to spend money to generate it. That $150,000 is REVENUE.

He also pulls some tricks that don't pass audit. You cannot max out a 401(k) and an IRA at the same time, nor can you write off all health insurance premiums. Well you can write them off, but they will be adjusted and limited if you are audited.

Really though this article shows that if you max out all your retirement and pay $1000 per month in mortgage interest, you can indeed not pay much in taxes on $150,000 in revenue that profits $133,000 income but only if you and everyone in the household can eat, drive, be clothed and have lights and heat on less than $1900 per month. Hardly a lavish lifestyle and certainly not the implication of a six figure income.
To do that you need the cunning of a Televangelist like Pat Robertson.

What you do is pretend to find Jesus like Pat Robertson did and form a ministry that you head. Then donate your house to the ministry and specify that the head of the ministry (you) live in the house. You get a tax deduction for the APPRAISED value of the house, whether it can actually be sold for that amount or not. Now you "donate" the cost of your heat, electric, etc., to your ministry and those living expenses become tax deductions. When you die your child then becomes head of the ministry and gets the house tax free.
Ministries are the perfect tax scam. :eusa_shhh:

Or do that same operating a non-profit bird sanctuary. Yet another perfect tax scam if that's the intent of the operator.
Not necessarily.
When the charity scam first began you could create any charity for any reason and pack the board with family members. You certainly would not want non family members on your board if you plan to donate your wealth to the charity. The Rockefeller Foundation is a perfect example. However to prevent people like you and me from copying the super wealthy like the Rockefellers, Mellons, DuPonts, etc., the law was changed so that there had to be more non family members on the board than family members with the exception of the charities already established before the law was changed. The 60 super wealthy families with these established charities to protect their wealth are today known as The Establishment.

It wasn't until Pat Robertson graduated from Yale tax law school, specializing in religious tax law, and then successfully argued that the government cannot tell a ministry who can and cannot sit on its board that average people could take advantage of the charity scam, but only through a religious charity.

So it depends on when and who created that bird sanctuary as to whether it would serve as an effective tax dodge.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top