Originally posted by no1marauder I've heard that ridiculous argument for years. A corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its shareholders. That's the whole point of incorporation. The "double taxation" claim is bogus.
Income is income and in a logical system would be taxed the same. It isn't because it favors the rich to not do so. As a sycophant for th ...[text shortened]... xplained. Please re-read my posts regarding the funding of the ACA and address the point raised.
The double taxation claim isn't bogus. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation and thus the whole entity "the corporation" is being taxed and then each piece "the shareholder is being taxed" Your insistence that dividends should be taxed the same way as income is simply contrary to logic also. Different taxes have different rates. Should gift tax, sales tax, real estate, commuter tax all have the same rate? No one thinks so.
The fact that most Americans don't contribute to the ACA is yet another travesty of the program. It is a huge entitlement program and when people are insulated from its costs, then there is nothing to prevent its costs from being astronomical.
Originally posted by quackquack The double taxation claim isn't bogus. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation and thus the whole entity "the corporation" is being taxed and then each piece "the shareholder is being taxed" Your insistence that dividends should be taxed the same way as income is simply contrary to logic also. Different taxes have different rates. Should g ...[text shortened]... re insulated from its costs, then there is nothing to prevent its costs from being astronomical.
All "double taxation" claims are bogus. Every dollar is taxed a gazillion times as it moves around.
Originally posted by no1marauder I continue to try to puzzle out how anyone could claim that it was "progressive" policies that caused the economic morass which the nation got itself into over the thirty years prior to the financial meltdown of 2008. The policies adopted consisted of huge tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the wealthy, massive deregulation (including that of th ...[text shortened]... ressive laws enacted under FDR or even before.
Progressive policies? Where? When?
2008 was caused by lax lending standings. Business who wanted to make loans and Joe six packs who purchased things homes and other items that they otherwise would not be afford. Regulators simply pretended that real estate could never go down in value.
To blame the wealthy when the masses took advantage of deals that they never could afford is simply inaccurate.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra All "double taxation" claims are bogus. Every dollar is taxed a gazillion times as it moves around.
The question is how many times it is fair to tax the same dollar and I certainly do not believe the government is short changed on dividend income. Furthermore, dividend income is easy to track so the gross amount is clearly declared until individual who have cash incomes and who hide large amounts of their gross.
Originally posted by quackquack The question is how many times it is fair to tax the same dollar and I certainly do not believe the government is short changed on dividend income. Furthermore, dividend income is easy to track so the gross amount is clearly declared until individual who have cash incomes and who hide large amounts of their gross.
So what's the "fair" level of dividend taxation and how have you determined it?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra So what's the "fair" level of dividend taxation and how have you determined it?
I don't feel there is an answer to the fairness level of one tax.
I would like taxes as a whole to be lower and would be willing to accept the fact that government likely would provide fewer services.
I object to the idea that fairness requires taxes to be modified so that the wealthy (who already have the highest tax bill) pay even more.
I also object to non-use taxes that effect small segments of our society and pay for broader programs. I believe that when everyone pays something we look at both benefits and costs. When segment do not contribute at all for a program, there is no incentive to eliminate waste. Thus even if a program is grossly inefficient and only has minimal benefits, programs will continue if people get any benefit even if it is disproportionally low.
Testifying before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf said of Obamacare, “[T]he act creates a disincentive for people to work.” He declared, “[B]y providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work—relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act
What Obamacare is creating is a top level of income for those who are struggling to achieve. Once you make a dollar more you can get hit with huge increases in premiums.
Originally posted by quackquack 2008 was caused by lax lending standings.
To blame the wealthy when the masses took advantage of deals that they never could afford is simply inaccurate.
My understanding was that the lax lending standings were a result of policies encouraged by the rich.
My understanding is also that the rich are the primary beneficiaries of the whole fiasco.
Originally posted by twhitehead My understanding was that the lax lending standings were a result of policies encouraged by the rich.
My understanding is also that the rich are the primary beneficiaries of the whole fiasco.
If by the rich, you mean by the government ruling class then I'd agree with you.
Obamacare costs US 2 million jobs
06 Feb '14 18:39
Back to Top