Tax Bill

[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
In short, everyone should be guarenteed enough substance for a minimally flourishing life.


[/ QUOTE ]

why? what gives you the right to morally justify taking from me to give to someone else? why dont YOU just give something to him, and get your hand out of MY pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution. That's what taxes are. They are taking people's money for the common welfare of the nation (ie: someone else).

Also: you probably don't realize it, but it's in everyone's best interest to have a low level of poverty.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Disagree. In the case of dividends, its an example of double-dipping by the government. First they tax the corporations, Then they tax the after-tax distributions. Either make dividends tax exempt, or eliminate the corporate income tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about my income that I get from working at the corporation? The corporation's income is taxed, and then the money they give me for working there is taxed. That's double-dipping too, right?

I don't see a big difference between the investors in a corporation and the workers in the corporation (from a tax perspective, that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite right. You are paid for your time and effort. The cost incurred by your employer for your services is not taxed at at the corporate level. Your labor is part of the cost the corporation incurs to produce profits.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Disagree. In the case of dividends, its an example of double-dipping by the government. First they tax the corporations, Then they tax the after-tax distributions. Either make dividends tax exempt, or eliminate the corporate income tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about my income that I get from working at the corporation? The corporation's income is taxed, and then the money they give me for working there is taxed. That's double-dipping too, right?

I don't see a big difference between the investors in a corporation and the workers in the corporation (from a tax perspective, that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite right. You are paid for your time and effort. The cost incurred by your employer for your services is not taxed at at the corporate level. Your labor is part of the cost the corporation incurs to produce profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be argued that dividends are part of the cost of capital. A company that doesn't pay them, will find it harder to raise capital... which is a cost the corporation incurs to produce profits.

UPDATE:
Dividends:Investors :: Bonuses:Employees

[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

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Disagree. In the case of dividends, its an example of double-dipping by the government. First they tax the corporations, Then they tax the after-tax distributions. Either make dividends tax exempt, or eliminate the corporate income tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about my income that I get from working at the corporation? The corporation's income is taxed, and then the money they give me for working there is taxed. That's double-dipping too, right?

I don't see a big difference between the investors in a corporation and the workers in the corporation (from a tax perspective, that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite right. You are paid for your time and effort. The cost incurred by your employer for your services is not taxed at at the corporate level. Your labor is part of the cost the corporation incurs to produce profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be argued that dividends are part of the cost of capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but the stock holders own the corporation more or less and thus dividends are their rightfully earned profits. If dividends are paid irregardless of profits then I can see that argument. I believe companies that pay "special dividends" also can designate these dividends as long term capital gains, point being that companies do have some discretion.

[ QUOTE ]
A company that doesn't pay them, will find it harder to raise capital... which is a cost the corporation incurs to produce profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this and it's irrelevant to whether or not dividends represent a corporations net profit to it's shareholders. Theoretically companies that don't pay dividends shouldn't need to raise as much capital btw.


[ QUOTE ]
UPDATE:
Dividends:Investors :: Bonuses:Employees

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally disagree for the most part.

Shareholders == owners of the company.

Owners of the company are entitled to the companys net profits.

Net profits basically consiste of Revenue - (costs + taxes).


A companys net profits or portion thereof are paid out as dividends. For example if we look at REITs they are required by law to pay out 90% or more of their taxable income as dividends. REITS are not taxed at the corporate level. To say that dividends don't represent corporate net profits is baloney.

[SunOfBeach]

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution. That's what taxes are. They are taking people's money for the common welfare of the nation (ie: someone else).


[/ QUOTE ]

reread yours, tough guy. see if you find mention to an income tax, or to welfare, or to any of your other faves.

anyhow, i come out accepting of an income tax in my post: a logical, regressive income tax. as did friedman, at one time.

of course, your other baseless premises don't go into capturing the reason for any form of taxation present in 1776 - i assure you that welfare payments to the lazy arent among them.

[ QUOTE ]
Also: you probably don't realize it, but it's in everyone's best interest to have a low level of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

its even more in everyone's best interest for this to be achieved by the impoverished getting a job, rather than a handout.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but the stock holders own the corporation more or less and thus dividends are their rightfully earned profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

"more or less" meaning they don't really own the corporation. From a tax standpoint, the corporation is it's own entity. If the stock holders want to assume true ownership (and thus financial responsiblity) of the corporation, they should unincorporate it, and set it up as an LLC. Then they won't be taxed twice on the earnings.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution. That's what taxes are. They are taking people's money for the common welfare of the nation (ie: someone else).

[/ QUOTE ]

reread yours, tough guy. see if you find mention to an income tax, or to welfare, or to any of your other faves.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Article XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Article I; Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also: you probably don't realize it, but it's in everyone's best interest to have a low level of poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

its even more in everyone's best interest for this to be achieved by the impoverished getting a job, rather than a handout.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. Teaching a man to fish is better than just giving him a fish. Giving him a fish is better than letting him starve. After all, a dead man can't fish.

[SunOfBeach]

[ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. Teaching a man to fish is better than just giving him a fish. Giving him a fish is better than letting him starve. After all, a dead man can't fish.


[/ QUOTE ]

and a dead man can't take my money, either. it's almost christmas, what about ol' ebenezer scrooge? "better to let them die, and ease the excess population...". whatcha think, bond?