Tax Bill

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We need to go to a flax tax system if we want to be fair. I hate that BS line of "The rich should pay their fair share!". Incremental tax brackets are inherently unfair. Just admit it. If you want to tax rich people extra, Fine but be honest about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the rich do pretty well with their tax shelters. I'm for a flat tax, too. I think it should be something like:

TAX = TAX% * (Income - Cost_of_Living)

Still somewhat progressive, in that someone at or below poverty level will not be paying any taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like it. You bring up a good point about the tax shelters. The convoluted code makes it easier for the rich to "hide" money. If we had a very simple tax code with a flat tax then people would be paying a standard rate and it would smoothing thing out. There would be no "tax shelters".

Receipts would go up for the government just like in the majority of countries that have gone to flat taxes.

-Gryph

[lehighguy]

I'd say at least have of business in investment banking is helping companies avoid taxes. They spend so much money and do such wierd things to avoid taxes. You can't blame them, they are playing by the rules given. But the rules are pretty stupid.

[adios]

Actually if this passes you'll see less money paid in dividends FWIW as corporations have other alternatives than paying cash dividends like buying back stock. Therefore you may actually see a decline in revenue from taxes on dividends. As Kurn mentioned it's double taxation and before we get into another argument about the ethics of double taxation, just because double taxation exists in other areas doesn't legitimize it IMO. Corporations will tend to do the "tax effecient" thing.

As far as capital gains taxes, I think you'd be likely to see less investment in economic growth but I'm sure others would reply that there's no proof of that. Depends on how much you tax something would be my response. Tax investments at double the rate of anything else and see if it leads to significantly less investment in business and thus significantly less economic growth. When does the impact on the economy become "significant" i.e. when does job growth slow by 20%?

What should the distribution of income be among the tax payers? I don't support tax increases of any kind without answering this basic question.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually if this passes you'll see less money paid in dividends

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning?

[adios]

There will be more tax effecient ways to distribute profits to shareholders.

[ QUOTE ]
There will be more tax effecient ways to distribute profits to shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following you. If dividends aren't taxed, they would be a more efficient way to distribute profits. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There will be more tax effecient ways to distribute profits to shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following you. If dividends aren't taxed, they would be a more efficient way to distribute profits. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say dividends aren't taxed??????????????????????

Where did I say that if dividends aren't taxed that it's a necessarily a less efficient way to distribute profits to shareholders?

Dividends aren't necessicarily the most effecient way to distribute profits even if the current 15% on dividend distributions was removed but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that a higher tax rate that 15% on dividend distributions could very likely lead to less revenue tax revenue to the government from dividend distributions.