Re: An interesting issue

de Mark Carter 05/09/2006 10:06

POKO wrote:

> I didn't call it a charity, it was:
> From: Mark Carter <me@privacy.net>

If it's not a charity, then I humbly apologise. Admittedly, I didn't go
into the why-and-wherefors, and assumed that if it had tax-exempt
status, then it was probably a charity or charity-like organisation.

> But if I
> receive 50 million from someone, I expect to have to pay a bit of tax on
> it.

Well, I'm sure they pay as much as they "need" to. I have no fear that
the IRS isn't getting what it considers to be its "fair" share.

> Today's "creative accounting practices" piss me off.

Agreed - although I'm from Britain, so we probably do our creative
accounting practices slightly differently here. And I'd probably be more
concerned with the practices as regards giving investors meaningful
information about the state of the company's affairs, rather than the
taxman.

It's difficult to guage to what extent manipulated earnings affect the
final tax bill. Earnings are adjusted by the IRS in all sorts of ways -
and the IRS will have excellent access to the books - so once again,
please don't lay awake at night worrying that the IRS are not getting
their full whack.

Big business
> should be paying more taxes to take some of the pressure off us little
> guys. The days of companys with a soul are long gone - Corporate America
> only concerns itself with paying as little tax as they can without
> having to go to jail and to hell with everyone else.

Well, maybe, but look at it this way: when was the last time *you*
voluntarily paid more tax than you needed to?