Manoj Bhargava, richest Indian in US commits 90% earnings to charity

[Developereo]

More and more silliness from people who seem to have trouble reading plain English in the OP.

His company is a privately held company. There are no shareholders, there are no dividends. His earnings are his company's earnings.

Does anyone seriously think he pays himself a salary of half a million dollars/year?

Bottom line, this man is siphoning money from his pre-tax earnings and sending it to India. Sure it's all legal and he is doing charity, but that's at the expense of his American taxation. And, no, siphoning American taxes to spend in India does not improve the image of Indians in America.

Yes, he is a hero to Indians and, yes, he is doing charity work. What I am disputing is the assertion that his charity work is somehow a boon for Americans and promotes a positive image of Indians "wherever they go".

Clutching to straws now, are we?

Don't have anything to say about the perception of the American public, do you?

After all, the whole point you disput4ed was how the American public would take it and I told you that they would take it positively just like they take all kid of charity done upon them or upon others, positively.

Can't debunk that, can you?

Already answered. Try reading again.

 

[rockstarIN]

More and more silliness from people who seem to have trouble reading plain English in the OP.

His company is a privately held company. There are no shareholders, there are no dividends. His earnings are his company's earnings.

Does anyone seriously think he pays himself a salary of half a million dollars/year?

Bottom line, this man is siphoning money from his pre-tax earnings and sending it to India. Sure it's all legal and he is doing charity, but that's at the expense of his American taxation. And, no, siphoning American taxes to spend in India does not improve the image of Indians in America.

.

A fool, I repeat a fool will do business without limited liability company. Do you think million dollor businesses getting prospered as a individual establishment, like Manoj Bhargava & sons?

Please, if you have no expertise in financial matters...do not argue.

 

[The HBS Guy]

More and more silliness from people who seem to have trouble reading plain English in the OP.

His company is a privately held company. There are no shareholders, there are no dividends. His earnings are his company's earnings.

Does anyone seriously think he pays himself a salary of half a million dollars/year?

Bottom line, this man is siphoning money from his pre-tax earnings and sending it to India. Sure it's all legal and he is doing charity, but that's at the expense of his American taxation. And, no, siphoning American taxes to spend in India does not improve the image of Indians in America.

Yes, he is a hero to Indians and, yes, he is doing charity work. What I am disputing is the assertion that his charity work is somehow a boon for Americans and promotes a positive image of Indians "wherever they go".



Already answered. Try reading again.

Seriously?

You are now going to stoop so low as to cast doubt on the earning abilities of a successful entrepreneur in America?

I mean seriously?

God! You would really shoot yourself in the head if i told you what some of my classmates are currently making around the world, let alone America.

 

[indian_jigar]

More and more silliness from people who seem to have trouble reading plain English in the OP.

His company is a privately held company. There are no shareholders, there are no dividends. His earnings are his company's earnings.

Does anyone seriously think he pays himself a salary of half a million dollars/year?

Bottom line, this man is siphoning money from his pre-tax earnings and sending it to India. Sure it's all legal and he is doing charity, but that's at the expense of his American taxation. And, no, siphoning American taxes to spend in India does not improve the image of Indians in America.

Yes, he is a hero to Indians and, yes, he is doing charity work. What I am disputing is the assertion that his charity work is somehow a boon for Americans and promotes a positive image of Indians "wherever they go".



Already answered. Try reading again.

The American tax system is set up this way purposely to encourage businessmen to contribute to charity causes regardless of which nationality he/she is donating to. Do you honestly think that something as basic as this would not have been noticed by the US government by now if they really wanted businessmen in their country from doing charity overseas?

On the bolded part (and most of your analysis), lets just agree to disagree. Please dont worry about our reputation overseas We can take care of that. If our Indian reputation overseas is something to be concerned over, we Indians can discuss it among ourselves. To me, people like him promote a positive image of Indians in America.

 

[Developereo]

Man, its weird logic indeed.

So, you mean to say in order to save his taxes from 'profit' he opened a not-for-profit organisation and give away most of his money as charity so that his net profitable income before tax came down.

First of all, the owner of the company and the 'company' is different as per the Accounting policies. It is the basic concept of Accounting. And if 'he' earns something, it is the dividend from his 'company' which is already 'taxed' and he pays charity from his earning, not from companies....got it?

Here's how a typical private company setup works in America (and most other places).

Company A makes a profit of 1 million dollars.
The owner gives himself a salary of 100,000 dollars. They try to make this amount as small as possible because individual earnings are usually taxes at a much higher rate than corporate profits. However, you can't make it too small or the tax man will pay you a visit.

The remaining 900,000 now belongs to the company and people find creative ways of deriving benefit from it (consult tax accountant for many, many, creative ways.) This is also where non-profit, charitable organizations come into play because everything they spend will reduce the corporation's tax burden. And this is where Mr. B's "Hans Foundation" fits in.

A fool, I repeat a fool will do business without limited liability company. Do you think million dollor businesses getting prospered as a individual establishment, like Manoj Bhargava & sons?

Please, if you have no expertise in financial matters...do not argue.

Already covered in the OP about a privately held company, and I explained in detail above.

Seriously?

You are now going to stoop so low as to cast doubt on the earning abilities of a successful entrepreneur in America?

I mean seriously?

God! You would really shoot yourself in the head if i told you what some of my classmates are currently making around the world, let alone America.

You really don't know much about how private corporations work in the US, do you? Explained above.

 

[The HBS Guy]

Here's how a typical private company setup works in America (and most other places).

Company A makes a profit of 1 million dollars.
The owner gives himself a salary of 100,000 dollars. They try to make this amount as small as possible because individual earnings are usually taxes at a much higher rate than corporate profits. However, you can't make it too small or the tax man will pay you a visit.

The remaining 900,000 now belongs to the company and people find creative ways of deriving benefit from it (consult tax accountant for many, many, creative ways.) This is also where non-profit, charitable organizations come into play because everything they spend will reduce the corporation's tax burden. And this is where Mr. B's "Hans Foundation" fits in.

You are talking absolutes in an article mentioning percentages.

Even if he made $100 in income. Fact remains that he is donating 90 of those to charity.

and fact also remains that Americans are bound to view it positively.

Im still waiting for your answer on why they wouldn't.

 

[Developereo]

The American tax system is set up this way purposely to encourage businessmen to contribute to charity causes regardless of which nationality he/she is donating to. Do you honestly think that something as basic as this would not have been noticed by the US government by now if they really wanted businessmen in their country from doing charity overseas?

I never, ever, said that what he is doing is illegal, merely immoral, considering he has lived in the US since 1967 and has made his fortune from American consumers.

 

[rockstarIN]

Here's how a typical private company setup works in America (and most other places).

Company A makes a profit of 1 million dollars.
The owner gives himself a salary of 100,000 dollars. They try to make this amount as small as possible because individual earnings are usually taxes at a much higher rate than corporate profits. However, you can't make it too small or the tax man will pay you a visit.

The remaining 900,000 now belongs to the company and people find creative ways of deriving benefit from it (consult tax accountant for many, many, creative ways.) This is also where non-profit, charitable organizations come into play because everything they spend will reduce the corporation's tax burden. And this is where Mr. B's "Hans Foundation" fits in.

Lol. Salary is paid not from taxes An employee gets salary, an owner (shareholder) get dividend which is already taxed at company level.

Very hard to you to digest, not your fault...it is the basics of accounting principles.
Check with any of our friends who has some knowledge in these matters.

 

[Splurgenxs]

already posted this in the Indian economy sticky thread.

 

[Developereo]

Im still waiting for your answer on why they wouldn't.

I already gave you the answer.

Expanding on my example above, the corporation with 900,000 earnings now owes, let's say 25%, 225,000 in US taxes.
But Mr. B. gave 90% of it to India as a charity, so the corporation's earnings are only 90,000 and it will pay 25,000 in US taxes.

So, effectively, Mr. B. has siphoned 200,000 of American payable taxes to India.

 

[rockstarIN]

I already gave you the answer.

Expanding on my example above, the corporation with 900,000 earnings now owes, let's say 25%, 225,000 in US taxes.
But Mr. B. gave 90% of it to India as a charity, so the corporation's earnings are only 90,000 and it will pay 25,000 in US taxes.

So, effectively, Mr. B. has siphoned 200,000 of American payable taxes to India.

You are making yourself fool man...it is not work that way..its not that straightforward. Do you think fools are sitting in Revenue departments in all the countries?

Its too complicated to you to understand.

 

[The HBS Guy]

I already gave you the answer.

Expanding on my example above, the corporation with 900,000 earnings now owes, let's say 25%, 225,000 in US taxes.
But Mr. B. gave 90% of it to India as a charity, so the corporation's earnings are only 90,000 and it will pay 25,000 in US taxes.

So, effectively, Mr. B. has siphoned 200,000 of American payable taxes to India.

Keyword: Example

You start your argument with an assumption and then you portray the conclusion as a fact.

Nowhere does the article talk about Mr. B's or his corporation's Earnings before taxes and Earning's after taxes.

What is Mr. B's stake in the ownership. What is his personal contribued capital? How much has he cashed in on his personal share? How much of that has he paid in taxes?

I suggest you dig up his Co's SEC filings to understand what you're talking about.

Oh God! You really deserve an award for inventing facts from assumptions.

 

[Developereo]

You are making yourself fool man...it is not work that way..its not that straightforward. Do you think fools are sitting in Revenue departments in all the countries?

Its too complicated to you to understand.

It does work that way. Like I wrote, what he is doing is perfectly legal.

Keyword: Example

You start your argument with an assumption and then you portray the conclusion as a fact.

Nowhere does the article talk about Mr. B's or his corporation's Earnings before taxes and Earning's after taxes.

Oh God! You really deserve an award for inventing facts from assumptions.

The numbers are for example, but the structure of companies, salaries and tax management is 100% correct.

 

[rockstarIN]

It does work that way. Like I wrote, what he is doing is perfectly legal.



The numbers are for example, but the structure of companies, salaries and tax management is 100% correct.

Whats your qualification? I'm a finance professional working for in this damn SOX, IFRS taxation matrix more than a decade.

Here you are a think tank does not imply you are more qualified in all matters. This is not for layman.

 

[The HBS Guy]

The numbers are for example, but the structure of companies, salaries and tax management is 100% correct.

What you call 100% correct is a generic way in which corporations behave to evade tax.

However, you are assuming that this is a tax-evasion move.

A man is simply donating a large chunk of his personal savings for charity just like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates or any other philanthroper in America.

You have awfully failed to link his personal saving to tax evasion.

You do not have the SEC filings.

You do not have the various financial data of the company and its owners wealth.

...and here you are to cast doubts on a man's intentions and somehow trying to malign his intentions.

Trying to belittle even a good human endeavour form a person of the enemy country is quite typical for a low-life hater.

I had better expectations of you.

You come here and indulge in non-stop slander against a humanitarian effort.

FAIL!