• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of the Union Address

MaggieD said:
Haymarket, dividends are taxed twice. The tax is being paid by two separate entities. I imagine you would have a different outlook if your pension fund had to pay tax on its profits, and then you had to pay tax on them when you received them....for that would mean you would receive substantially less than you do.

Gift tax. Tax paid by the giver. Received by the giftee tax-free.
Inheritance tax. Paid by the estate. Received by the beneficiary tax-free.
Alimony. Deducted by the payer. Taxable to the receiver.
Salary. Deducted by the business. Taxable to the employee.
Health Insurance Premiums. Deducted by the business. Not taxed to the employee. Oops. (A pet peeve of mine, by the way.)
OEM businesses. No tax paid on purchases for the purpose of manufacturing. Tax collected when the manufactured item is sold.
And on and on and on.

Capital gains are treated as an anomoly. Taxed twice.
Click to expand...

Maggie - it matters not to me if the same pile of money is taxed fifty times. As long as each time it changes hands from one entity to the other that is fine and good and there is no problem with it not no double taxation on the taxpayer.
 
haymarket said:
Maggie - it matters not to me if the same pile of money is taxed fifty times. As long as each time it changes hands from one entity to the other that is fine and good and there is no problem with it not no double taxation on the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

So in other words it is never about how the money is spent but the importance of getting more and more tax dollars? Thanks for explaining liberalism so well.
 
liblady said:
SOMETIMES the corporation pays taxes...
Click to expand...

And why is that? Considering the OP topic didn't BHO propose to further corporate tax exemptions? And that is suddenly acceptable now?
 
haymarket said:
Maggie - it matters not to me if the same pile of money is taxed fifty times. As long as each time it changes hands from one entity to the other that is fine and good and there is no problem with it not no double taxation on the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

That is a fair statement. Trying to argue that dividends are not taxed twice is not.
 
haymarket said:
Maggie - it matters not to me if the same pile of money is taxed fifty times. As long as each time it changes hands from one entity to the other that is fine and good and there is no problem with it not no double taxation on the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

I believe this explains some of the difference in our opinions. I feel that my ownership of stock is ownership of company. When a consumer pays for G/S to the company they are paying ME thus money changes from their hand to MY hand, being a fractional owner of the company. Yes, company liabilities are separate from me via corporate law but the same liabilities are also satisfied, in part, with MY money, either via revenue from consumer OR my stock purchase.
 
liblady said:
exactly. SOMETIMES the corporation pays taxes, sometimes they don't. then, the individual pays, once.
Click to expand...

Bingo, actual corporate tax rates are around 18%, half of what some claim they are paying.

20111105_INC034.gif
 
Conservative said:
So in other words it is never about how the money is spent but the importance of getting more and more tax dollars? Thanks for explaining liberalism so well.
Click to expand...

Your comment meant to attack me is absurd. I state a legal principle that is how it is in the world of reality and you have the unmitigated gall to attack me for it!?!?!?!?!?

Amazing.
 
iguanaman said:
Bingo, actual corporate tax rates are around 18%, half of what some claim they are paying.

20111105_INC034.gif
Click to expand...

Your "bingo" is no surprise to those who understand the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates.
 
Dickieboy said:
And why is that? Considering the OP topic didn't BHO propose to further corporate tax exemptions? And that is suddenly acceptable now?
Click to expand...

i think targeted deductions to drive behavior are fine.
 
TurtleDude said:
If someone lives off of investments Obama wants to double (at least) their taxes if they are making a million a year.

are you of the opinion that someone who has a million in income and spends at a level consistent with other people is not going to be hurt if their federal income taxes go from 150K to 300K (and of course they are also paying massive state income taxes and property taxes most likely as well)
Click to expand...

Well, not sure your numbers or correct, but largely, yes, studies show their spending habits don't change.
 
Dickieboy said:
I believe this explains some of the difference in our opinions. I feel that my ownership of stock is ownership of company. When a consumer pays for G/S to the company they are paying ME thus money changes from their hand to MY hand, being a fractional owner of the company. Yes, company liabilities are separate from me via corporate law but the same liabilities are also satisfied, in part, with MY money, either via revenue from consumer OR my stock purchase.
Click to expand...

You can feel anything you want to feel. You can believe anything you want to believe. That does not change anything about the law or the reality of the situation.

The fact is that a corporation is one legal entity with its own obligations and that includes paying its taxes on its profit as a corporation and as its own legal entity.
You as a owner of some shares in that corporation have limited rights as the owner of those shares and among them are dividends paid to you. The law says that you are a different legal entity and the money paid to you in dividends is now income and you pay tax on it.

This idea that you are an OWNER OF THE COMPANY may be partially valid in a very limited sense of the term in that the company has been divided up into a very large number of pieces and you own a piece of paper or title to one very small part of it. You obviously do not have OWNERSHIP of the company in the same way that a single owner does over their company or even a partner does in a company. So to use the term OWNER without qualifying just what your limited rights are, is a bit of a intentional three card montie game.

I am not saying you are doing this - but it is obvious that it is indeed a meme of those who argue this double taxation on capital gains - that they want to trumpet this "I own the company" so they can them make a case for stringing a bunch of connect the dots together to claim it is them that are being taxed twice.

The law says otherwise and the basic principle of a corporation says otherwise.

I own stock in Disney. I have taken my family there many times. Not once did I get in free as an OWNER of Disney. Not once did I even get a free meal as an OWNER of Disney. I did not get so much as a lousy pair of mouse ears as an OWNER of Disney.

I own stock in a major brewery also. No free beer either.

What I own is not the company but shares of stock which give me limited rights. But that is good because my liability and obligations are also limited. That would not be the case if I was the true OWNER of the company.
 
Dickieboy said:
You are profoundly correct with this statement. Those espousing ‘fair’ and ‘tax the rich’ are equally placing the ultimately priority on THEIR personal gain over anything else.

Thank you for that.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. Top marginal rates were considerably higher in the 70s and 80s and are now extremely low by historical standards.
 
iguanaman said:
Bingo, actual corporate tax rates are around 18%, half of what some claim they are paying.

20111105_INC034.gif
Click to expand...

Tell us again how dividends are paid pre profits? What are taxes so important to you and not how those dollars are spent? Spending in the name of compassion appeals to your heart but ignores the failed results of that spending which is recognized by your brain.
 
haymarket said:
Your comment meant to attack me is absurd. I state a legal principle that is how it is in the world of reality and you have the unmitigated gall to attack me for it!?!?!?!?!?

Amazing.
Click to expand...

The world of reality is always considered a personal attack by a liberal. My comments weren't a personal attack on you but defined liberalism quite well. All liberals ever care about is getting more money never how that money is wasted
 
liblady said:
i don't think deductions for creating jobs are loopholes.
Click to expand...

So some deductions are loopholes and others are not? See I just disagree with this. It is another example of government meddling in the (supposed) free market. These are EXACTLY the activities that distort markets and promote the boom/bust cycle.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that's accurate. Top marginal rates were considerably higher in the 70s and 80s and are now extremely low by historical standards.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to explain the Tax Relief Act of 1997 on tax revenue since you are quick to claim that higher tax rates create lower deficits?
 
Look there is no denying that dividends are taxed at the corporate level and at the investor level. Personally I don't see why they aren't deductible at the corporate level as are other business expenses. It would certainly encourage more dividend paying. But they should be taxed as regular income to the holder of the dividends. What would the net effect be? Probably not much.
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you to explain the Tax Relief Act of 1997 on tax revenue since you are quick to claim that higher tax rates create lower deficits?
Click to expand...

What's there to explain? There always has to be a balance in taxation so that we can maintain a sufficient revenue stream, but without overburdening the economy. In '97 they decided that the Clinton tax hikes had gone a little too far, so they rolled them back a little. Much as Reagan raised taxes about a dozen times after his initial, too-large tax cuts. I would argue that Reagan didn't raise taxes enough, and Clinton cut them too much in '97. But it is always a balance. Taxes can be too high and they can be too low.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
The world of reality is always considered a personal attack by a liberal. My comments weren't a personal attack on you but defined liberalism quite well. All liberals ever care about is getting more money never how that money is wasted
Click to expand...

That is just silly as well as false. I never defined liberalism.

Perhaps you can quote my definition and prove that you are not lying?
 
AdamT said:
Look there is no denying that dividends are taxed at the corporate level and at the investor level. Personally I don't see why they aren't deductible at the corporate level as are other business expenses. It would certainly encourage more dividend paying. But they should be taxed as regular income to the holder of the dividends. What would the net effect be? Probably not much.
Click to expand...

WOW, I had never thought of that. Sounds like a pretty good alternative. It COULD compel companies to ‘share the wealth’ with their stockholders thus stimulating more investment. The ‘double taxation’ would be reduced, especially on those of us who don’t pay at the ‘35%’. I would expect the net effect to be substantial. More investment into markets, more economic growth, more tax receipts.
 
AdamT said:
What's there to explain? There always has to be a balance in taxation so that we can maintain a sufficient revenue stream, but without overburdening the economy. In '97 they decided that the Clinton tax hikes had gone a little too far, so they rolled them back a little. Much Reagan raised taxes about a dozen times after his initial, too-large tax cuts. I would argue that Reagan didn't raise taxes enough, and Clinton cut them too much in '97. But it is always a balance. Taxes can be too high and they can be too low.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at diversion, you claimed that higher tax rates led to more tax revenue and a reduced deficit. Clinton claimed a surplus AFTER the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which reduced tax rates after having higher deficits prior to August 1997, That destroys your argument
 
haymarket said:
That is just silly as well as false. I never defined liberalism.

Perhaps you can quote my definition and prove that you are not lying?
Click to expand...

Yes, you did without knowing it. Oh, look, another personal attack because again I showed that you continue to care more about more tax revenue vs. how tax dollars are spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom