Bogføring, regnskab, moms, skat m.m.

Svar: WHich pays least tax in the long run? Businessman or employee?

Fashion-Seller — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:27:04 GMT

Fama:

But if people took a moment to think about it, they surely would come to the conclusion that while many successful people have written books about how to be a success, almost none of them became themselves successful by reading a friggin' self-help book ;)

Thats right!

Svar: WHich pays least tax in the long run? Businessman or employee?

Technocowboy — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:06:31 GMT

Fama:

Well..... Where would the business man be without his employees?

You can stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Kiyosaki! ;)

Nowhere i guess, but that is really not the point. There will always be employers and employees. The difference is which one YOU choose to be....

And no - it will never happen that everybody chooses to be a business man.

And i really like the basic idea - dont work for money - let the money work for you. But as with everything else in this world, grab the things you like and implement it your way, then skip the rest.

Jan

Svar: WHich pays least tax in the long run? Businessman or employee?

Fashion-Seller — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:58:06 GMT

Fama:

Well..... Where would the business man be without his employees?

You can stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Kiyosaki! ;)

Or turn it around ;D

Where would the employees be without the business man... ;D

Svar: WHich pays least tax in the long run? Businessman or employee?

Fama — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:48:20 GMT

Well..... Where would the business man be without his employees?

You can stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Kiyosaki! ;)

Svar: WHich pays least tax in the long run? Businessman or employee?

Technocowboy — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:35:35 GMT

Phillip:

Could I please steal 2 minuts and grab an answer to this,

Just a bit curious.

From what I heard in australia it is better to be a businessman in this regard.

what about here in DK?

(getting a bit insprired by Robert Kiyosaki)

Mvh Phillip

That is an interresting question, however, not easy to answer.

If you pay an employee 1 mill. dkk, and a businessman takes the same amount from his company for personal use, it will be the same.

But when it comes to employee benefits, the businessman has a couple more opportunities than the employee (given that the employee isn't in a position to decide his own benefits) - but they will still be taxed the same amount if they recieve the same benefits.

Now - the big difference will be in the assets and liabilities columns (following the Kioysaki definition of assets and liabilities :o) as, the corporations will pay lower tax of the income, and then will be able to invest more of that income into new assets, than the employee will be able to if he made the same investments. Also when it comes to liabilities, the corporations will be able to pay these before tax deductions, which the employee can't.

So, in some terms Kiyosaki is right - you will build your assets quicker in a corporation than as an employee, however all the real estate rules in the states differs a lot from the danish rules.

But if you stick to the idea of putting more focus to your assets than to your income, and try to balance your assets and liabilities you are on the right track :o)

Jan

WHich pays least tax in the long run? Businessman or employee?

Phillip Dyhr Hobbs — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:13:55 GMT

Could I please steal 2 minuts and grab an answer to this,

Just a bit curious.

From what I heard in australia it is better to be a businessman in this regard.

what about here in DK?

(getting a bit insprired by Robert Kiyosaki)

Mvh Phillip