• 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

haymarket said:
Happy to oblige Maggie - but just because its you. :2party: ;) ;)

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.
Click to expand...

These are completely different types of transactions. If you carry your example to it's natural conclusion, the government ends up getting 99.999999% of every dollar. And that's not true. In addition, in your examples using sales tax, completely different animal. Completely different animal.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Haymarket. ;)

(You always make me smile.)
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

You just cannot get over the failure of your own ideology so you resort to personal attacks. That was indeed my definition of liberalism and i stand by it just like I stand by my claims that you, like all other liberals love to delegate responsibility so you can always place blame. your so called spending in the name of compassion never gets compassionate results which make your ideology a complete failure. Admit it and then we can move on.
 
MaggieD said:
These are completely different types of transactions. If you carry your example to it's natural conclusion, the government ends up getting 99.999999% of every dollar. And that's not true. In addition, in your examples using sales tax, completely different animal. Completely different animal.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Haymarket. ;)
Click to expand...

And a corporation making a profit, and a shareholder receiving a dividend are also two completely different types of transactions
 
sangha said:
And again, sometimes those companies don't make a profit. Sometimes it's done to reduce their losses
Click to expand...

Correct, sometimes companies lose money.

But that isn’t the argument. They don’t want to lose money. They want to continue to make money, and to make more money.

Do you think companies invest profits with the intentions to reduce profits in future years?
 
Ill tell you whats more troublesome, and thats double taxation on small businesses. The sole owner gets taxed when he makes a profit and then he gets taxed when he removes equity or capital. Id be for removing that before removing corporate taxes.

Then there is the liability issues small business owners face unless they incorporate. Whoever mentioned LLCs earlier in the thread, thats dang near the only way that a small business owner can grow beyond a single crew doing a single job in most sectors.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Ill tell you whats more troublesome, and thats double taxation on small businesses. The sole owner gets taxed when he makes a profit and then he gets taxed when he removes equity or capital. Id be for removing that before removing corporate taxes.

Then there is the liability issues small business owners face unless they incorporate. Whoever mentioned LLCs earlier in the thread, thats dang near the only way that a small business owner can grow beyond a single crew doing a single job in most sectors.
Click to expand...

Small business owners can easily avoid that double taxation. Stupid if they don't.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please stop the compassion BS. Spending is what drives our economy. Reducing public spending without an equal gain in private spending will weaken the economy. It is simple math.
You want to weaken the economy so you don't have to pay as much taxes. You might be sorry unless you are among the few that acutally benefit from recession.
 
ARealConservative said:
Correct, sometimes companies lose money.

But that isn’t the argument. They don’t want to lose money. They want to continue to make money, and to make more money.

Do you think companies invest profits with the intentions to reduce profits in future years?
Click to expand...

Actually, that was the argument. You claimed that businesses always invest money to make a profit. That isn't true. There's a lot of reasons why businesses invest money.

Saying that businesses want to make money is a meaningless comment in this context. It adds nothing to the discussion, and more importantly, does not support the claim you made

And to answer your question, in todays economy, some corps main focus is on raising the share price, not increasing profits. In those cases, increasing profits is just a means to an end, and if it doesn't serve that end, then it isn't pursued

on edit: And some corps (ex subsidiaries) are founded, not to make a profit, but to reduce the expenses of it's parent corp (see Enron)
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Please stop the compassion BS. Spending is what drives our economy. Reducing public spending without an equal gain in private spending will weaken the economy. It is simple math.
You want to weaken the economy so you don't have to pay as much taxes. You might be sorry unless you are among the few that acutally benefit from recession.
Click to expand...

You need to stop when you are way behind. You have no idea what drives the economy but instead just spout your liberal bs. First you claim dividends are pre tax and now you claim that public spending drives the economy, public spending is offset by public debt, something you don't understand.

You believe people should invest their money into a company out of the goodness of their heart never expecting a return on that investment? That is total ignorance but you do make other liberals proud
 
Conservative said:
You need to stop when you are way behind. You have no idea what drives the economy but instead just spout your liberal bs. First you claim dividends are pre tax and now you claim that public spending drives the economy, public spending is offset by public debt, something you don't understand.

You believe people should invest their money into a company out of the goodness of their heart never expecting a return on that investment? That is total ignorance but you do make other liberals proud
Click to expand...

Most people do not buy stock in order to receive dividends.
 
Double Taxation Definition | Investopedia

Definition of 'Double Taxation'
A taxation principle referring to income taxes that are paid twice on the same source of earned income.

Double taxation occurs because corporations are considered separate legal entities from their shareholders. As such, corporations pay taxes on their annual earnings, just as individuals do. When corporations pay out dividends to shareholders, those dividend payments incur income-tax liabilities for the shareholders who receive them, even though the earnings that provided the cash to pay the dividends were already taxed at the corporate level.

Double taxation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Double taxation' of Corporate dividends
Some comentators assert that shareholders are often also subject to double taxation, as the Corporation they own is taxed on its profit as a legal entity and they are taxed again at the individual level when they receive distributions.

The fact is, no one entity is double taxed on a single transaction.

A simple Google search would have given you folks the answer right away, so I'm a bit shocked that folks are still complaining about something that in truth, is working as intended and is indeed fair. If you want corporations to be treats like separate entities, then there you have it. You can't have your cake and eat it too... sorry.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Ill tell you whats more troublesome, and thats double taxation on small businesses. The sole owner gets taxed when he makes a profit and then he gets taxed when he removes equity or capital. Id be for removing that before removing corporate taxes.

Then there is the liability issues small business owners face unless they incorporate. Whoever mentioned LLCs earlier in the thread, thats dang near the only way that a small business owner can grow beyond a single crew doing a single job in most sectors.
Click to expand...

Both are totally separate forms of income, how is that double taxation?
 
sangha said:
Actually, that was the argument. You claimed that businesses always invest money to make a profit. That isn't true. There's a lot of reasons why businesses invest money.
Click to expand...

You just changed your statement significantly. Business’s don’t always make money, but they always want to make money.

on edit: And some corps (ex subsidiaries) are founded, not to make a profit, but to reduce the expenses of it's parent corp (see Enron)
Click to expand...

reduce expenses is a means to an end. You know what the end is? Yep… profit
 
Tettsuo said:
Double Taxation Definition | Investopedia

Definition of 'Double Taxation'
A taxation principle referring to income taxes that are paid twice on the same source of earned income.

Double taxation occurs because corporations are considered separate legal entities from their shareholders. As such, corporations pay taxes on their annual earnings, just as individuals do. When corporations pay out dividends to shareholders, those dividend payments incur income-tax liabilities for the shareholders who receive them, even though the earnings that provided the cash to pay the dividends were already taxed at the corporate level.

Double taxation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Double taxation' of Corporate dividends
Some comentators assert that shareholders are often also subject to double taxation, as the Corporation they own is taxed on its profit as a legal entity and they are taxed again at the individual level when they receive distributions.

The fact is, no one entity is double taxed on a single transaction.

A simple Google search would have given you folks the answer right away, so I'm a bit shocked that folks are still complaining about something that in truth, is working as intended and is indeed fair. If you want corporations to be treats like separate entities, then there you have it. You can't have your cake and eat it too... sorry.
Click to expand...

Another liberal lacking reading comprehension.

Nobody in this thread is challenging the separate entity thing.

One ignorant poster claims double taxation didn’t exist.
 
sangha said:
Most people do not buy stock in order to receive dividends.
Click to expand...

That must be why stocks there are stocks with high dividends, because people dont want dividends. Most yes, not all.
 
ARealConservative said:
You just changed your statement significantly. Business’s don’t always make money, but they always want to make money.



reduce expenses is a means to an end. You know what the end is? Yep… profit
Click to expand...

No, you're the one who changed his statement. You originally argued that businesses always reinvested to make more money or continue making money. Now, you've changed it to "businesses always want to make money". And ironically, even that is not true, as my subsidiary example shows. Some businesses aren't designed to make a profit. They're designed to increase the profits of a different corp.
 
ARealConservative said:
Another liberal lacking reading comprehension.

Nobody in this thread is challenging the separate entity thing.

One ignorant poster claims double taxation didn’t exist.
Click to expand...

If you don't stop making personal attacks, I'm going to hit the alert button on you!!! :lol:

And plenty of rightwingers have challenged the seperate entity "thing". They have said it doesn't matter. Please stop posting such dishonest fictions

Also, severala posters have pointed out that double taxation doesn't exist. If you can't keep up with the discussion, you should bow out. Your dishonest posts are destroying your credibility
 
sangha said:
No, you're the one who changed his statement. You originally argued that businesses always reinvested to make more money or continue making money. Now, you've changed it to "businesses always want to make money".
Click to expand...

I didn’t change anything. You foolishly pointed out that sometimes business lost money as if that is a defense for anything. I pointed out that yes, sometimes they do lose money. But they don’t invest in the company with the motivation being to lose money. No position change occurred. You are wrong again.

And ironically, even that is not true, as my subsidiary example shows. Some businesses aren't designed to make a profit. They're designed to increase the profits of a different corp.
Click to expand...

But even in this case, they take actions hoping the net gain is a profit. They have one holding lose money so that it effects the tax brackets and overall profitability of the other entity.
 
sangha said:
I didn't say "no one buys stocks in order to receive dividends"

Reading comprehension is fundamental
Click to expand...

So you didnt have a point. Understood. Just because only some people buy stocks for dividends doesnt mean its ok to tax the crud out of them.

Lets go over profit in a small business for a moment...where do you suppose the money that the business owner withdraws comes from, if not profit? A money tree?
 
iguanaman said:
Both are totally separate forms of income, how is that double taxation?
Click to expand...

Say I am Mike, and I own Mike's Lemonade Stand.

Mike's Lemonade Stand LLC did well this year, and brought in 1 Million Dollars. I must be doing well, the company brought in a MILLION!!! I am going to pay myself monthly payments of $8333.33, because I think I am worth it. After all, I did start a business that contributes to society. That is going to give me a yearly income of 100,000 and the government is going to tax that too. Uncle Sam is going to get 35,000 before the day is done. That is ok though...my company still brought in 900,000. Then there are my employees and general cost of business. Let's assume I am running a 30% margin. That allows for expansion and overall good feelings. So out of the 1 Million my company brought in, about 300,000 of that was profit. Not bad. Uncle Sam will surely want a piece. Now that profit is at 195,000 as Uncle Sam took 35% or $105,000. Ok. We still have 195,000 to build the business with, and that isn't anything to sneeze at. But then again, I did work 80 hour weeks for 3 years, didn't eat for 2 of those, and slept at my desk since I couldn't afford an appartment when I started. I should buy myself a small cottage on the mountain, something to enjoy after all of my efforts, because if I failed, I wouldn't have a damn thing and no one would take care of me. So I take out 100,000 in profits to pay the investors...me. Uncle Sam wants 15,000 from that too. So in the course of the year, my income was taxed, my companies income was taxed, and then when I paid myself for my risk, that got taxed to the tune of $155,000. Not to mention, before I gave myself a risk reward, the pile of money was taxed by the government.

Double Taxation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom