• 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

sangha said:
No, and I didn't say that. Re-read my post. I said that shareholders are not entitled to any profits
Click to expand...

OK, entitled. So there is a law that says companies that I am a shareholder in do not HAVE to pay me dividends? Really? Again, quote said law.
 
haymarket said:
You do realize that money is taxed multiple times over and over and over and over again potentially each time it changes owners?

That seems perfectly okay until you get to capital gains. What is so sacred about them to you that you make an exception for them?
Click to expand...

Oh, stop it.

My salary is deductible to the company and taxed to me.
A gift is taxed to the giver and tax-exempt to the receiver.
Alimony is deductible by the giver and taxed at the receiving end.
Child support is tax-exempt to the receiver....taxed to the giver.
Estate tax is paid by the estate and tax-exempt to the beneficiary.

Give me another example of the same exact pile of money taxed and then taxed again.
 
ARealConservative said:
what are you blabbering about. This thread isn't about a person being double taxed, so it is your nonsense that doesn't belong in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, the entire thread isn't about the myth of double taxation, but several posters have claimed that their money is being double-taxed, no matter how many times you make the dishonest claim that they haven't
 
Okay, so again, dividends are taxed at the corporate and individual level. So what? Aren't we constantly told by conervatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on? That corporations don't really pay taxes?
 
sangha said:
Then why did you claim that people who supported raising taxes on the rich were being selfish?
Click to expand...

Actually go back and read Hay's comment. I merely countered his hyperbolic comment with one just as equal.
 
Dickieboy said:
Just for my edification can you define specifically ‘loophole’ and ‘deduction’ as it regards to taxation.



You're welcome...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Loophole Definition | Investopedia
Definition of 'Loophole'
A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law or restriction without directly violating the law. Used often in discussions of taxes and their avoidance, loopholes provide ways for individuals and companies to remove income or assets from taxable situations into ones with lower taxes or none at all.

Loopholes are most prevalent in complex business deals involving tax issues, political issues and legal statutes. They can be found within contract details, building codes, tax codes, among others.





Investopedia explains 'Loophole'
A person or company utilizing a loophole isn't considered to be breaking the law, but circumventing it in a way that was not intended by the regulators or legislators that put the law or restriction into place.
Click to expand...
 
Dickieboy said:
OK, entitled. So there is a law that says companies that I am a shareholder in do not HAVE to pay me dividends? Really? Again, quote said law.
Click to expand...

No, there is no law which says the corps you are a shareholder of have to pay anyone dividends. IOW, there is no requirement for a corp to pay dividends, and in fact, many corps do not pay any dividends
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, stop it.

My salary is deductible to the company and taxed to me.
A gift is taxed to the giver and tax-exempt to the receiver.
Alimony is deductible by the giver and taxed at the receiving end.
Child support is tax-exempt to the receiver....taxed to the giver.
Estate tax is paid by the estate and tax-exempt to the beneficiary.

Give me another example of the same exact pile of money taxed and then taxed again.
Click to expand...

Money is never taxed. Transactions are taxed
 
AdamT said:
Okay, so again, dividends are taxed at the corporate and individual level. So what? Aren't we constantly told by conervatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on? That corporations don't really pay taxes?
Click to expand...

No, dividends are taxed when received.
 
Conservative said:
You almost make me want to move to Michigan so I can work hard to defeat the politician that you work for. You are getting paid to delegate your responsibilities to a Federal Bureaucrat instead of doing your job and helping solve local problems.
Click to expand...

More personal attacks in the hopes they hide your errors regarding the so called definition of LIBERALISM that you pulled from your own mind - or elsewhere three feet lower.

You lied. You were caught in that lie. And now you go on the attack hoping nobody sees your error. Here is a clue for you - the longer you prolong this the worse it gets for you.

Just admit you made it up and move on for heavens sake.
 
ARealConservative said:
the problem is you are defining technicality to fit your ideology.

I'm suggesting that rich politicians intend for these deductions to lower their tax rate, so it wasn't a technicality, it was by design.
Click to expand...

Only a wingnut would think that I made that definition when it clearly is linked to Investopedia :cuckoo:
 
sangha said:
Only a wingnut would think that I made that definition when it clearly is linked to Investopedia :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

next personal attack will be reported.

prove a loop hole was unintentional. you can pick any "loophole", just prove it was not intended.
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, stop it.

My salary is deductible to the company and taxed to me.
A gift is taxed to the giver and tax-exempt to the receiver.
Alimony is deductible by the giver and taxed at the receiving end.
Child support is tax-exempt to the receiver....taxed to the giver.
Estate tax is paid by the estate and tax-exempt to the beneficiary.

Give me another example of the same exact pile of money taxed and then taxed again.
Click to expand...

Happy to oblige Maggie - but just because its you.

I get paid and pay tax on that money - all of my salary is taxed. So I take $100 dollars of it - write HAYMARKET on it and go to the store with it. I buy something for $100 and hand my bill with my name on it to the cashier who charges me 6% tax on that purchase. My $100 dollar bill - of which I was already taxed in income tax from my salary - is now subject to another tax. It is taxed twice.

So the cashier turns it over to the store. Later, a supplier who insists on being paid in cash, makes a delivery and part of his payment is my $100 bill. He signs a receipt and acknowledges that he is responsible for his own taxes on the money. So he pays tax on my $100 bill also. He goes to the gas station and fills up his truck and the cost is $100.00 which he pays for with my bill with my name on it. Some 15 to 20% of what he paid for is tax.

The gas station owner takes the bill and pays a snow plow driver the next day to plow out the station after five inches of snow. He pays income tax on his income of the $100 bill.

And on and on and on it goes.
 
sangha said:
So IOW, you made a statement that even you didn't believe in

I guess I shouldnt be surprised
Click to expand...

No more suprised than I was when you stated 'its against the law' only to retract to 'no, there is no law'.
 
sangha said:
Wrong again

Sometimes businesses invest to retain market share.

Most rightwingers don't understand business
Click to expand...

You need to try harder to understand the person you are debating

I said reinvenstment is sometimes done to continue profitability, which is another way of saying to protect market share.

You want so badly to be right, you aren’t even understanding what you are arguing any longer.
 
Dickieboy said:
No more suprised than I was when you stated 'its against the law' only to retract to 'no, there is no law'.
Click to expand...

That would make sense if I had said "it's against the law".

Or was that just another post of yours that you made even though you don't believe what you said?
 
ARealConservative said:
You need to try harder to understand the person you are debating

I said reinvenstment is sometimes done to continue profitability, which is another way of saying to protect market share.

You want so badly to be right, you aren’t even understanding what you are arguing any longer.
Click to expand...

No, you argued that reinvestment was ALWAYS done to increase profits

You were wrong. Sometimes retaining market share results in reduced profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom