• 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

And another dishonest post from TD

Dividends are only taxed when received. That's just one time, not two

dividends represent corporate profit, so they are hit with corporate income tax and an individual income tax

1+1=2.
 
Perhaps you should ask someone who actually understands corporate ownership

yes you are, and maybe you should ask Haymarket why he supports the government taking say 350K out of a corporate profit of one million and then the same government taking 40% of the dividends paid to the OWNERS (assuming they are "rich"). What this means is

start with one million and it is reduced by 350 to 650

then apply a 40% income tax (Haymarket wants dividends treated the "same" [he ignores this first cut of taxation which of course doesn't apply to your salary] to the 650 distributed as dividends. that is another 260K taken by the government

so the one million made by the private corporation is diminished by 610 thousand leaving only 390K for the owners

that pretty much defines a parasitic tax system

No, he's not.

If he were an owner, he'd be able to have some control over the corps assets. A stockholder does not control a corps assets

Once again, TD is posting fiction
 
dividends represent corporate profit, so they are hit with corporate income tax and an individual income tax

1+1=2.

For a good reason though, wouldn't you prefer the company use those profits to expand rather than just sending out profits to shareholders?
 
For a good reason though, wouldn't you prefer the company use those profits to expand rather than just sending out profits to shareholders?

dividends are good, double taxation is a net drain on our economy
 
remind me of the number of corporations you own and your stock holdings (rounded to the nearest hundred k)

The answer is "More than you ever will"


we understand why the big government types try to justify this double taxation

but the fact remains

the same pool of money is subjected to TWO CUTS by the government and since you want the tax on dividends to be the same as earned income tax (40% for people like me) that means the GOVERNMENT takes more than 60% of that pool of money

you can pretend its different entities BEING taxed but it is the same ENTITY TAKING the money

You can spew that you EXPLAINED IT and you still cannot figure out that this does not JUSTIFY such parasitic activity

Now I will EXPLAIN to you that I am tired of being told that its OK for the government to take that much money to make those who don't have the skill or productivity to actually invest money feel better

And once again, TD has resorted to posting fiction, even though it's been explained that the corp is taxed once, and the stockholder is taxed once
 
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.

Tell that to Warren Buffet

BTW, I support higher tax rates on the rich, and I happen to be rich. Your claim is nothing but self-serving fiction
 
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.

What you feel has nothing to do with reality
 
dividends are good, double taxation is a net drain on our economy

How are dividends "good"? What rational makes them preferable to reinvesting in the company? They are a way of sending additional profits to investors which is neither good or bad but just not preferable.
 
Liberalism is defined by the concept of spending IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION but never getting compassionate results which mean solving an actual social problem. I am still waiting for you to explain how a Bureaucrat in D.C. who you want to get more tax dollars can solve a local problem in your community whereas you cannot do what you have been hired to do. Guess it is easier blaming an unknown bureaucrat in D.C. versus taking personal responsibiliy in your own state and community.

Really? I have a degree in political science and taught Government for over three decades and never ever saw that definition in any authoritiave text. Woul you please link to the source of that definition please so we know you are just not making it us as you go along?
 
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.

Yes, some deductions are loopholes and others are not. You are entitled to hold your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts

And the "free market" is just another rightwing fiction. It doesn't exist, and it never has
 
Really? I have a degree in political science and taught Government for over three decades and never ever saw that definition in any authoritiave text. Woul you please link to the source of that definition please so we know you are just not making it us as you go along?

From your posts if you were a teacher that explains why were are in the problems we are today. Did you teach your students that it was the Federal Taxpayers Responsibility to pay for their personal responsibility issues? Did you teach them that the Federal govt. can solve local and state problems better than you can being closer to the problem?
 
A businesses' revenue is not taxes. It's profit (or more accuratey, it's "income") is taxed. Then if the company is a publically owned corp, it can choose to distribute it's profit to its' shareholders as dividends. If it chooses to do so, those dividends are taxes when received. This tax is only applied one time (when received), not twice

The "original distribution" is not taxed twice. It's not even taxed once. The PROFIT (not the revenue) is taxed one time, and only one time. If you don't want to pay a divident tax, you can avoid it very simply. Simply don't accept the dividend. Tell the corp to keep it and re-invest it to build the business.

You seem to insinuate that I stated that revenue is profit. Please re-read my post and point it out.
 
How are dividends "good"? What rational makes them preferable to reinvesting in the company? They are a way of sending additional profits to investors which is neither good or bad but just not preferable.

the purpose of a business is to profit.

reinvestment is done only as a way to continue being profitable.

so why are dividends good? because profit is good.
 
From your posts if you were a teacher that explains why were are in the problems we are today. Did you teach your students that it was the Federal Taxpayers Responsibility to pay for their personal responsibility issues? Did you teach them that the Federal govt. can solve local and state problems better than you can being closer to the problem?

You WILL NOT be allowed to slink away into your hidey hole and attempt to attack me in the hopes I forget your boast. Aint gonna work this time dude.

So again, are you lying about this so called definition of liberalism or can you quote the authoritative text you got it from?

Liberalism is defined by the concept of spending IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION but never getting compassionate results which mean solving an actual social problem.

You lied about that being a definition. That is something you simply puled out of your own belief system.......... or worse.
 
Last edited:
dividends represent corporate profit, so they are hit with corporate income tax and an individual income tax

1+1=2.

More dishonest fictions from a rightwinger

Dividends do not "represent corporate profit". Plenty of corps make plenty of profits without paying any dividends
 
Yes, some deductions are loopholes and others are not. You are entitled to hold your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts

And the "free market" is just another rightwing fiction. It doesn't exist, and it never has

loop hole is just a buzzword. all deductions are loopholes.
 
More dishonest fictions from a rightwinger

Dividends do not "represent corporate profit". Plenty of corps make plenty of profits without paying any dividends

dividends are derived from corporate profit. a corporation has to declare a profit in order to pay dividends. it seems you are arguing something I am not even saying

so because they declare profit, they pay a tax on that profit

then the dividend is sent, and the individual pays a tax.

that is a double tax.
 
You seem to insinuate that I stated that revenue is profit. Please re-read my post and point it out.

I re-read it, and you're right. You didn't say that.

However, the pertinent point (that dividends are only taxed once, and the "original transfer" is often not even taxed once) I made is still accurate
 
You WILL NOT be allowed to slink away into your hidey hole and attempt to attack me in the hopes I forget your boast. Aint gonna work this time dude.

So again, are you lying about this so called definition of liberalism or can you quote the authoritative text you got it from?

You need to grow some thicker skin, you can attack everyone else here and yet you don't seem to understand that when I confuse you with facts, logic, and common sense those aren't attacks.

You can continue to call me a liar until hell freezes over but that will never change the fact that your ideology is a failure probably just like you were a failure in the private sector. you are part of the problem and not part of the solution, never will be as long as you promote higher federal taxes and delegation of personal responsibility to a federal bureaucrat. That is liberalism, spending in the NAME of compassion yet never getting compassionate results meaning solving a problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom