ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th November 2020, 09:50 AM   #281
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 13,209
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
[i]
Well, she was an employee... It is not normal for someone to both draw a salary AND get paid as a consultant, since whatever was done under the guise of being a consultant could probably be done under the person's regular work as an employee.
Caveat from the get-go: I don't have any deep knowledge of how Trump Org. is structured, and what follows is complete and utter speculation, intended as a discussion point for a plausible scenario in which a consulting fee could reasonably be paid. I have absolutely zero solid information for this, it is 100% speculation and nothing else.

If Trump Org. is a holding company, it might be okay for Ivanka to be paid as a consultant for work done with one of the subsidiaries, if she were not an employee of that subsidiary specifically.

One of my prior employer was a holding company, and had several subsidiaries of diverse natures. Some of them were customers of another.
For example, one was a reinsurance company, another was a health insurance company, and the reinsurance company sold services to the health insurance company. Similarly, one subsidiary was a brokerage company that sold policies for many insurers, including competitors of the company that was a sibling under the holding company.

There were times where we had to get a bit creative trying to do work between subsidiaries that included competition or potential conflicts of interest. I don't recall specifics, but I could see an argument where an employee of the holding company (or one of the subsidiaries) did work for a different subsidiary on a consulting basis, in order to retain some separation of duties.

Like I said, this is speculative, so grain of salt and all that.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 10:09 AM   #282
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,687
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized. I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office.
If the matter under discussion were solely the crimes alleged to have been committed by Trump while in office, your thoughts would be relevant.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 01:11 AM   #283
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,761
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
No, private companies SOP is to issue dividends to owners, if the taxes work out better. Dividends are taxed differently than earned income, is the rationale.

Just as an example, here in Canada, my wife's company has 10,000 shares, and her parents have a minority stake. The sole reason for this was to issue them dividends to supplement their income. (The expression is "income sprinkling") - this was disallowed 2 years ago and we no longer do this.
A classic example of what happens when politicians look after their rich mates.

In Australia, dividends form part of your taxable income and can put you in a higher tax bracket. The difference is that dividends are tax imputed meaning that part of your taxable dividend has already been sent to the tax man and becomes a credit for tax already paid.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 01:28 AM   #284
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,730
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized. I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office. There is no need for me to delineate each and every President on their offenses, as in some cases it is quite extensive, as this is not a party driven activity... it is a power driven activity that is sanctioned and practiced by the two political parties.
I can't remember Obama being investigated for crimes being committed before or during his time in office. I mean, actual investigations by attorneys general and not just allegations by politicians screaming for their 5 minutes of attention.

There's a reason Trump has fought so desperately to keep his taxes from being released. You don't spend this much money fighting to keep your taxes secret unless you're scared of what they'll reveal. He's a crook.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.