Economy Biden wants to increase your taxes, but owes 500k in back taxes

Seems he attempted to use a loop hole to avoid taxes on speeches and book sales. Taxes that would go to fun Medicare and Obamacare

"Banks said the report indicated that Biden improperly used "S corporations" while he and first lady Jill Biden raked in over $13 million on speaking fees and book sales in 2017 and 2018, but counted less than $800,000 of it as a salary that could be taxed for Medicare."

"But when the Bidens released their tax returns during his presidential campaign, they showed that the couple saved up to $500,000 by avoiding the 3.8% self-employment tax with the S corporations."

In before "oh the right likes taxes, returns being public, and the IRS now"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-owe-up-to-500k-in-back-taxes-report-says.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...00-taxes-IRS-avoiding-pay-Medicare-years.html

"Biden wants to increase your taxes"

Source for that claim?
 
The backbone of the "make the rich pay their fair share" idea is that if loopholes exist then those with the means to take advantage of them will, so those loopholes should be eliminated. Right? Wonder if those loopholes are included in the "free rides" Biden mentioned.
 
It boggles my mind to see Biden or Tom Daschle, under fire for their taxes, receiving fire from people who supported Trump or Romney.
 
"Banks said the report indicated that Biden improperly used "S corporations" while he and first lady Jill Biden raked in over $13 million on speaking fees and book sales in 2017 and 2018, but counted less than $800,000 of it as a salary that could be taxed for Medicare."

Assuming this is true, do you guys agree that Biden should pay more taxes? @cottagecheesefan @ShadowRun @Whippy McGee @foxnewsfan @b34stmode

Curious to know your thoughts on what Biden owes the country.
 
Just to add some more context to this conversation - speeches made during speaking engagements are copyrightable (this was litigated surrounding MLKs "I have a dream" speech).

So, a company that owns the copyrights of a speaker's performances is fairly common when discussing well known speakers. This gives them more control over people republishing aspects of their speech. Celebrity X owns the copyright to their speech (written in advance) through Company Q. They give the speech at Corporate Event Y. Someone at Corporate Event Y goes to put an excerpt from the speech on a website. Company Q can use the copyright to prevent this use.

All of this matters when deciding if the salary components of Company Q are reasonable.

I don't think MLK's "I have a dream" speech should be used as an excuse for every politician to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their speeches. MLK didn't see any of that money, nor did any of his family. And he would almost certainly be against it, given his values. Personally I highly dispute the capitalizing and profiteering of possibly the most important speech of the past 100 years.
 
Hmm, Fox News and The Daily Mail. Get some better sources.
 
Back
Top