• 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!

Ap survey: Us income gap is holding back economy

winston53660 said:
Oh hogwash TD. The money is taxed when the individual gets it and it is taxed again when the individual spends it.

And screw your envious crap that is just a cop out on your part
Click to expand...

your weak argument is just that.

there is no two transactions for value. You are just upset that others have investment income. There is no way to rationally justify the same government taking two cuts of the same pile of money. tell us why you support such actions and don't lie
 
cpwill said:
Actually TD is right on this one - since shareholders own a company and its' assets, the existence of both corporate and dividend taxes does mark a form of double-taxation.

It'd be like if you paid income tax when your money hit your bank account, and then again when you drew it out. Same money. Getting taxed twice.
Click to expand...

exactly
 
cpwill said:
Actually TD is right on this one - since shareholders own a company and its' assets, the existence of both corporate and dividend taxes does mark a form of double-taxation.

It'd be like if you paid income tax when your money hit your bank account, and then again when you drew it out. Same money. Getting taxed twice.
Click to expand...

Hahahahha shareholders own a company? We ain't talking Warren Buffets here BTW
 
winston53660 said:
Hahahahha shareholders own a company? We ain't talking Warren Buffets here BTW
Click to expand...

uh. yes. they do. that's sort of kind of the definition of share holder.

Investopedia said:
Definition of 'Shareholder'

Any person, company or other institution that owns at least one share of a company’s stock. Shareholders are a company's owners. They have the potential to profit if the company does well, but that comes with the potential to lose if the company does poorly. A shareholder may also be referred to as a "stockholder".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
uh. yes. they do. that's sort of kind of the definition of share holder.
Click to expand...

why do people who don't understand corporations spend so much time whining about them? its amazing-its almost as bad as the gun threads where the less people know about the subject the more they want to regulate the guns
 
TurtleDude said:
your weak argument is just that.

there is no two transactions for value. You are just upset that others have investment income. There is no way to rationally justify the same government taking two cuts of the same pile of money. tell us why you support such actions and don't lie
Click to expand...

I didn't say what I support to begin with. I just busted your double taxation BS.
 
cpwill said:
uh. yes. they do. that's sort of kind of the definition of share holder.
Click to expand...

Good and the executive decisions the average shareholder makes are? And the liability of the average shareholder is?
 
winston53660 said:
I didn't say what I support to begin with. I just busted your double taxation BS.
Click to expand...

:shrug: It is double taxation, at the nominal rate of 50%. Now, we may say that we want double taxation, or that we want to discourage the dispersal of dividends (in favor, for example, of reinvestment), or that we think it is a good policy for whatever set of reasons, but it is our policy.
 
winston53660 said:
I didn't say what I support to begin with. I just busted your double taxation BS.
Click to expand...

you didn't bust anything and you got schooled by CP

it is double taxation because its the same owners being taxed twice by the same entity
 
winston53660 said:
Good and the executive decisions the average shareholder makes are?
Click to expand...

None - they have Executive Employees to do that for them.

It's worth noting that savvy activist groups have actually used this as a forum. Purchasing a share of stock allows you to go to the annual (or whatever) stock owners meeting, where you can get to raise motions and vote on the future of the company. Usually only the largest holders do, because it's in their interest to do so; but activist groups have begun purchasing stocks in order to own part of the company, allowing them to argue (often successfully) in favor of making social-oriented-changes to how or where the company does business.

And the liability of the average shareholder is?
Click to expand...

The same as any other owner?
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: It is double taxation, at the nominal rate of 50%. Now, we may say that we want double taxation, or that we want to discourage the dispersal of dividends (in favor, for example, of reinvestment), or that we think it is a good policy for whatever set of reasons, but it is our policy.
Click to expand...

Now you are just babbling
 
winston53660 said:
Uhmm no not really he is on the same idealogical rampage you always are.
Click to expand...

we both are usually right-you are almost always wrong:mrgreen:

Later dude-tomorrow you can rant about capital gains rates!
 
winston53660 said:
Now you are just babbling
Click to expand...

:shrug: there are plenty of reasons to design tax policy - but we need to be honest about our tax policy if we want to be intentional with it.
 
winston53660 said:
Uhmm no there is corporate indemnity protecting stock holders
Click to expand...

their houses and cars and bank accounts, sure. but their property in the company is definitely liable.
 
cpwill said:
No they aren't, they are supposed to pay what they are legally required to pay.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Which is because of our corporate tax code which was lobbied beyond belief by special interests (US chamber of commerce and various other pro business groups), now includes a ton of tax loopholes which favors these big business entities .
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree.
Which is because of our corporate tax code which was lobbied beyond belief by special interests (US chamber of commerce and various other pro business groups), now includes a ton of tax loopholes which favors these big business entities .
Click to expand...

Once you begin legislating buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators.

As for "big business"... not always. Wal-Mart, for example, pays pretty damn close to the nominal tax rate. For some reason, people forget that when they excoriate her for daring to offer jobs to those in our populace who most need them.
 
TurtleDude said:
if they are supposed to pay 35% why should stockholders pay 15% or more on dividends
Click to expand...
Why? Because in its current form a corporation is a legal entity. Saying that a corporation in its current form is separate from its owners, and being separate from its owners it has the right to use public good like me and you, AKA an individual. And because a public good is provided by the rest of us it has a marginal cost of zero to the corporation at the expense of us all. The corporation can use the public good while not providing anything to the public good if this dividend was 0%. Therefore if it was 0% it would create a free loader problem. . The tax code is based on the concept that individual economic units pay taxes based on their income. Corporations are individual economic units and, like individuals, have income.


the 35% is set by law and if by that law they can pay less there is no issue
Click to expand...
I see there is a big issue especially if they can afford to pay that, and they are also getting massive tax breaks, and even sometimes subsidies by the government.
 
cpwill said:
Thank you :). Can I assume that your non-answer is an implicit admission that you were incorrect to suggest that the minimum wage can be used as an indicator for broad income quintiles?
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how that was a "non-answer"? Because im 10% positive i answered to your rebuttal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom