- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why not?.....
It's the law
Why not?.....
BTW, I support higher tax rates on the rich, and I happen to be rich. Your claim is nothing but self-serving fiction
Wrong again
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 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 lied about that being a definition. That is something you simply puled out of your own belief system.......... or worse.
You have two different legal entities in your example. Each pays tax once on his obligations and income. There is no person paying double taxation.
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
You are entitled to hold your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts
Fortunately for you, as has been incessantly pointed out by my friends on the left, anybody can be anything on an anonymous debate forum.
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.
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.
nobody claimed a person is directly paying the double tax.
the profit is taxed twice, which is a net drain on the economy.
He’s floundering and searching for a way to worm random numbers into his next post.:mrgreen:
It's the law
nobody claimed a person is directly paying the double tax.
the profit is taxed twice, which is a net drain on the economy.
nobody claimed a person is directly paying the double tax.
the profit is taxed twice, which is a net drain on the economy.
To quote a poster here who put it so eloquently:
Thank your for being so hypocritical.
Wrong again
Some rightwingers have definitely claimed that a person is paying taxes twice. Pay attention
It sounds like you're talking about your ability to divine the intentions of everyone who supports higher taxes for the rich
I see - more attacks against me in the hopes your constant and continual errors will be overlooked in the mad desire to attack back. Sorry - not working.
So where is the authoritative 'source' for this 'definition' you pulled from somewhere?
You lied. This is no DEFINITION. You made it up..... and in other breaking news - the sun sets in the west tonight.
There's a law against shareholders being eligible for dividends? Please quote said law.
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?
in this thread that is not the argument I was defending.
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?
This thread isn't about you and the arguments you are making
No, the word "loopholes" when applied to taxation has a definite meaning. Not every deduction has the qualities that make them "loopholes"
Thanks for being so obtuse
HUH? I have no idea what other's intentions are unless they voiced them personally.
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.