Profit Question

[Gungnir]

Just to be clear

Revenue is what a company brings in.
Profit is the Revenue not spent by a company on Expenses.
Profit Margin is the Profit divided by the Expenses.

Profit can be used for capital development and further investments.
That which is left from Profit is Income.

Wages are not Income (per SCOTUS, unless you are the IRS) but a fair and equitable compensation for labor provided.


Am I wrong on any of the above?

 

[Ravi]

Just to be clear

Revenue is what a company brings in.
Profit is the Revenue not spent by a company on Expenses.
Profit Margin is the Profit divided by the Expenses.

Profit can be used for capital development and further investments.
That which is left from Profit is Income.

Wages are not Income (per SCOTUS, unless you are the IRS) but a fair and equitable compensation for labor provided.


Am I wrong on any of the above?

Revenue is what a body brings in.
Profit it the Revenue not spent by a body on expenses.

Profit can be used for bodily development and further investments.

So, yes, wages are income.

 

[cbi0090]

Just to be clear

Revenue is what a company brings in.
Profit is the Revenue not spent by a company on Expenses.
Profit Margin is the Profit divided by the Expenses.

Profit can be used for capital development and further investments.
That which is left from Profit is Income.

Wages are not Income (per SCOTUS, unless you are the IRS) but a fair and equitable compensation for labor provided.


Am I wrong on any of the above?

Your basically right but profit is not just used for capital improvement and investments it is also used to pay back loans, if it is a private company, or loans and share holders, if a public company. Loans and company shares are often dominated, depending on the size of the company of course, by pension funds, IRA accounts, etc. or basically retirement funds.
Wages are an operating expense to the company.

 

[Paulie]

This is a good thread topic. I wanted to expand on the idea, so I made a new thread about it here in Economy. Hope you don't mind me possibly "jacking your swagger". It's something I've thought about for a while now myself.

 

[Care4all]

Just to be clear

Revenue is what a company brings in.
Profit is the Revenue not spent by a company on Expenses.
Profit Margin is the Profit divided by the Expenses.

Profit can be used for capital development and further investments.
That which is left from Profit is Income.

Wages are not Income (per SCOTUS, unless you are the IRS) but a fair and equitable compensation for labor provided.


Am I wrong on any of the above?

FYI

Yes, you are wrong on one thing....

Profit margin: is the profit dollars divided in to the Total Revenues generated and not in to the Expenses. It is the percentage of your revenues retained in profit.

Care

 

[indago]

Black's Law Dictionary, second edition, 1910, declares a difference between the economic term "income", and the term "income" as used in the income tax, the economic term meaning the same as a revenue, or that which comes in, while the term used in the income tax means yearly profits.

"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income"" — United States Supreme Court

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Income as used in the 16th Amendment means wages.

More importantly the Government already has the right to tax with out the 16th Amendment. Section 8 Article I is clear, the Government can tax anything they want so long as it is uniform across the States.

The argument fails when one tries to fight the IRS and the Government. It fails in all courts across the board. And it has failed for almost 100 years. Across every administration since Wilson's.

The argument is not can the Government tax , it is what is reasonable for the Government to tax.

 

[Paulie]

The argument is not can the Government tax , it is what is reasonable for the Government to tax.

No shit. That's why I'm making the argument about wage tax. It is unreasonable to take money from me when I traded an equal amount of labor to obtain that money. It would be no different if I changed your spark plugs and you mowed my lawn in return. Neither of us gained, because each of us had to give something up...either our time and labor, or money out of our pockets.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No shit. That's why I'm making the argument about wage tax. It is unreasonable to take money from me when I traded an equal amount of labor to obtain that money. It would be no different if I changed your spark plugs and you mowed my lawn in return. Neither of us gained, because each of us had to give something up...either our time and labor, or money out of our pockets.

And I disagree. The Government must have revenue to run. Apportioning amongst the several States did not work well and simply moved the burden of taxation to the States to pay the Federal Government. Which technically is a violation of the requirement that Federal revenue be uniform through out the States.

You are basicly arguing for the elimination of taxes except on business and imports. What about a Sales tax? Why is that fair? Why does the State get to determine a percentage of every sale you paid for from your money, gained in what ever fashion, belongs to them?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Income Tax on wages earned. And the code even requires that you pay tax on your barter system, just isn't cost effective in the vast majority of cases to go after people that do not.

Government exists and works for the people, making the people pay a reasonable share in taxes is legal and acceptable and a big reason Government does not tax more than they do. If they did the people WOULD vote them out and change the law.

I suggest that in fact a majority of the American people agree that income tax IS acceptable, lawful and needed. I further suggest that the American people do in fact control the Government through Congress. Congress IS effected by the mood and opinions of the MAJORITY of the voting public ( including those able to vote that opt out) That would be why taxes go up and down. AND that would be why there has been no wide spread revolt by ballot against income tax.

I further suggest that the recent CRIMINAL proceedings against Wesley Snipes and Cohorts is further proof the code does in fact explain how and why income is taxed. 12 Jurors AGREED that "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" those men evaded paying INCOME TAX.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

Income as used in the 16th Amendment means wages.

More importantly the Government already has the right to tax with out the 16th Amendment. Section 8 Article I is clear, the Government can tax anything they want so long as it is uniform across the States.

The argument fails when one tries to fight the IRS and the Government. It fails in all courts across the board. And it has failed for almost 100 years. Across every administration since Wilson's.

The argument is not can the Government tax , it is what is reasonable for the Government to tax.

Are you denying those factual statements?

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

Apportioning amongst the several States did not work well and simply moved the burden of taxation to the States to pay the Federal Government. Which technically is a violation of the requirement that Federal revenue be uniform through out the States.

You are confusing the direct tax system with the indirect tax system, as laid out in the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

You are confusing the direct tax system with the indirect tax system, as laid out in the Constitution.

READ the 8th section of Article I. You and the other loons that claim the Government has no power to tax income have a major reading comprehension problem.

The Government could tax the air you breath if they thought the people would not vote them out for doing it. The fact that "we the people" have NOT eliminated Income Tax in almost 100 years is proof that, at least so far, the majority agree it is fair and reasonable and further that it is in fact a power clearly given the Federal Government.

 

[Care4all]

Income as used in the 16th Amendment means wages.

More importantly the Government already has the right to tax with out the 16th Amendment. Section 8 Article I is clear, the Government can tax anything they want so long as it is uniform across the States.

The argument fails when one tries to fight the IRS and the Government. It fails in all courts across the board. And it has failed for almost 100 years. Across every administration since Wilson's.

The argument is not can the Government tax , it is what is reasonable for the Government to tax.

Article 1 section 8 states that the taxes they impose must be proportionate doesn't it? that the taxes must be uniformed means proportionate.....?

So without the 16th amendment which was never ratified, (was it?) an imposed income tax would not be approportionate and uniformed... would it be?

Why was the 16th amendment needed?

article 1, section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

16th amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

sooooo, i don't think your comment regarding our income tax and article 1 section 8 is *incorrect ret sgt on income taxes?

care

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

READ the 8th section of Article I. You and the other loons that claim the Government has no power to tax income have a major reading comprehension problem.

The Government could tax the air you breath if they thought the people would not vote them out for doing it. The fact that "we the people" have NOT eliminated Income Tax in almost 100 years is proof that, at least so far, the majority agree it is fair and reasonable and further that it is in fact a power clearly given the Federal Government.

Read Article 1 §9 cl. 4. It boldly declares: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

 

[Paulie]

READ the 8th section of Article I. You and the other loons that claim the Government has no power to tax income have a major reading comprehension problem.

The Government could tax the air you breath if they thought the people would not vote them out for doing it. The fact that "we the people" have NOT eliminated Income Tax in almost 100 years is proof that, at least so far, the majority agree it is fair and reasonable and further that it is in fact a power clearly given the Federal Government.

I disagree. Most people complain about their taxes. That most don't do anything about it, is because most feel they have no power personally. Apathy holds us back as a civilization, from making REAL political changes. I've heard enough people say their voice won't make a difference, to realize at least THAT.

We lived without an income tax for 137 years. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve Act, where paper money was to be printed out of thin air, that extra taxation became necessary. Add in all the entitlement spending, the worldwide military empire, and decades of people becoming accustomed to the tax, that it now SEEMS necessary to pay an income tax....when in reality, a proper amount of spending restraints (the ones YOU advocate for, due to unconstitutionality), would ease the burden back to not needing the income tax anyway.

You argue against the unconstitutional spending, when it is THAT SPENDING that is requiring us to pay the income taxes that you are advocating.

You don't see a paradox there?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article 1 section 8 states that the taxes they impose must be proportionate doesn't it? that the taxes must be uniformed means proportionate.....?

So without the 16th amendment which was never ratified, (was it?) an imposed income tax would not be approportionate and uniformed... would it be?

Why was the 16th amendment needed?





sooooo, i don't think your comment regarding our income tax and article 1 section 8 is correct ret sgt?

care

Wrong, the Amendment WAS ratified, you can check out the ratification process I believe on the very same site, if not there are sites that show you the process.

Further an income tax IS uniform through out the several States. No State gets a break from it or special rules for it. Uniformly every person that has Income is subject to the Income Tax code. And that Code is Uniform as to how and why and when taxes are collect in EVERY State.

The 16th Amendment was created and passed because the Government wanted to ensure they would have no problems. It however was not needed. And as evidenced by you and others even it is no promise people won't make claims that simply are not true.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

I further suggest that the recent CRIMINAL proceedings against Wesley Snipes and Cohorts is further proof the code does in fact explain how and why income is taxed. 12 Jurors AGREED that "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" those men evaded paying INCOME TAX.

Wesley Snipes was not found guilty of income tax evasion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

Wesley Snipes was not found guilty of income tax evasion.

LOL.

 

[Care4all]

Wrong, the Amendment WAS ratified, you can check out the ratification process I believe on the very same site, if not there are sites that show you the process.

Further an income tax IS uniform through out the several States. No State gets a break from it or special rules for it. Uniformly every person that has Income is subject to the Income Tax code. And that Code is Uniform as to how and why and when taxes are collect in EVERY State.

The 16th Amendment was created and passed because the Government wanted to ensure they would have no problems. It however was not needed. And as evidenced by you and others even it is no promise people won't make claims that simply are not true.

The uniformity is by PERSON, no person should have to pay more than another person within each state....

you are wrong that Article 1/8 covers a progressive income tax, it does NOT cover a personal graduated income tax and without the 16th amendment, an income tax would be unconstitutional.

article 1 section 9

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The uniformity is by PERSON, no person should have to pay more than another person within each state....

you are wrong that Article 1/8 covers a progressive income tax, it does NOT cover a personal graduated income tax and without the 16th amendment, an income tax would be unconstitutional.



care

Wrong again. Your logic is faulty. No person is required to pay more than any other person in the exact same situation as them self, no matter where they live.

Further we have the 16th which eliminates any doubt about section 9's meaning. So it is a moot point.

I suggest you research the Amendment. It was the opinion of most legal minds and Constitutional scholars at the time and since that the 16th was unneeded.

But again moot point. The 16th exists. It was duly ratified and became a part of the Constitution per the requirements of said Constitution. It has never been repealed by another Amendment.

I strongly suggest you get educated before you start refusing to pay your income tax.