Still Hating America.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Under that theory, it should be taxed at the difference between the corporate tax rate and the individual tax rate. The income has already been taxed at the corporate level, right?

Depends on whether the income is based on dividends or is from selling interests (as in the private equity example). If the latter, no, there hasn't been any tax at the corporate level.

Even in the dividend example, I wonder if income was fully taxed at the corporate level. I seem to remember a lot of complaints that corps were issuing dividends and yet their various write-offs, shelters, etc. helped them avoid any taxes in the first place.

If we were truly concerned about double taxation, and not just about giving extra breaks to passive income, then I would think the right approach would be to tax dividends to the shareholder just like any other income, but to allow the corporation to deduct any dividends (or, at least, any dividends to shareholders subject to US income tax) from their taxable income.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I've missed you, Wonk, you miserable fuck.

I love you, too, Gracie.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That is ass backward. You're fixing the revenue target when you ought to be instead fixing the revenue stream. This gets to the heart of the starving the beast approach...

Sorry, I didn't read past this. The "starving the beast" approach has been an abject failure for 27 years. When you mention it, you pretty much put a big red flag over your post that says "EVERYTHING IN HERE IS BULLSHIT, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME READING IT"

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Gee, hossss... thanks. I weren't aware of them arguments.

It's not a return on your labor. It's an acccrual of income on the already taxed return on your labor.

Wait, now it is only labor that should be taxed? I thought a second ago you said that it was money that was taxed, comrade.

[/quote]
In the case of the average person who works and has investments, it's making up the amount of your intial income lost to taxes. [/QUOTE]

This is just silly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sorry, I didn't read past this. The "starving the beast" approach has been an abject failure for 27 years. When you mention it, you pretty much put a big red flag over your post that says "EVERYTHING IN HERE IS BULLSHIT, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME READING IT"

When has it been tried? Certainly not in this administration.

And what's the better option? Just allow your govt to grow more and more prescription drug benefits, agencies, etc...? I'd enjoy hearing your reasoned solution to our profligate spending.

Do you have any? No, you don't. You just want to goose the tax system to figure out how to capture more money from sectors of people you know very well will hire armies of people - some of whome you probably work down the hall from - to avoid those revenue increasing efforts.

Here's a tip - Any solution you offer which involves taxing the rich is not a solution because in the practical real world THAT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENS.

All you do is wind up defining "rich" downward and taxing the upwardly mobile.

Now, I'm all ears on your solution.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I presume the rich people getting SS today paid in when they were working.

Sort of, but the tax rate was much lower and the amount taxed was much lower during the earning life of most retirees. For example, in 1960 the rate was 3% on the first $4,800, for a total annual tax paid of $144. Now, it is 6.2% on $90,000, for an annual tax of $5,580. Thus, even accounting for inflation, a current retiree is getting much more out than they paid in. http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1106848348.shtml

But, in some study of workers born between 1940 and 1949, the lowest fifth of earners were getting paid almost 2 to 1 on their contributions, while the highest fifth were getting back only $1 for each $1.63 they contributed, so social security does appear to ultimately be net accretive to the poor, rather than vice versa.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/issu...9--Tax-Cap.htm

LessinMontevideo, Uruguay

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
When has it been tried? Certainly not in this administration.

Oh, please. Conservatives have been touting tax cuts as the path to spending cuts -- the "starve the beast" approach -- since the first days of the Reagan Administration.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. All I'm saying is that the bulk of the Bush tax cuts were subsidies for the rich. That's what I have been disagreeing with all along.

True, in the sense that the rich saved more than the poor in gross dollars, but that follows from the fact that they pay much more in gross dollars. Slave is also correct that it removed a lot of poorer people from the rolls entirely.

The problem was that spending wasn't cut. No lie Bush told about Iraq can top his claim of fiscal conservatism. He and his R Congress are worse than the New Deal and New Frontier combined.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Under that theory, it should be taxed at the difference between the corporate tax rate and the individual tax rate. The income has already been taxed at the corporate level, right?

You could do that or allow corporations a deduction for dividends paid. That makes more sense to me, but a dividends received deductioncould work too.

Integration of the corporate and individual tax would also require other adjustments, too. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it isn't just a simple matter of enacting a deduction.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

A while back, we had a discussion of who sucked worse at getting budget bills done on time. The evidence is in. They all suck:

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Integration of the corporate and individual tax would also require other adjustments, too. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it isn't just a simple matter of enacting a deduction.

Why is there even a corporate tax at all? Assuming the right individual tax rate, why not tax dividends and k gains at the individual level only? Corps. just engage in accounting chicanery anyway. Why tax them on the fact they had a good year, when whatever income they earn will be taxed at the individual level either because they paid dividends or because their retained earnings increased their stock's value? (again, assuming we can agree on the appropriate tax rate)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, please. Conservatives have been touting tax cuts as the path to spending cuts -- the "starve the beast" approach -- since the first days of the Reagan Administration.

"Tout."

Shall I look up the definition of the word and juxtapose how one "touts" something against what it means to actually implement it?

Is it worth me noting that none of the "Republicans" actually did the starving he claimed he would, either because he was unable to because of a Democrat Congress, or because he was not a real conservative like our present Dear Leader?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
True, in the sense that the rich saved more than the poor in gross dollars, but that follows from the fact that they pay much more in gross dollars. Slave is also correct that it removed a lot of poorer people from the rolls entirely.

The problem was that spending wasn't cut. No lie Bush told about Iraq can top his claim of fiscal conservatism. He and his R Congress are worse than the New Deal and New Frontier combined.

I'm no tax lawyer, but this seems to indicate to me that the "rich" are picking up their fair share of the tab (the whole article's below)...

"Taxpayers with an AGI of at least $328,049, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, accounted for 19 percent of total AGI, representing an increase in income share of 2.2 percentage points from the previous year. These taxpayers accounted for 36.9 percent of the total income tax reported, an increase from 34.3 percent in 2003."

IRS Issues Winter 2006-2007 Statistics of Income Bulletin

IR-2007-55, March 12, 2007


WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced the release of the Winter 2006-2007 issue of the Statistics of Income Bulletin. Highlights include articles on individual income taxes, split-interest trusts and tax-exempt organizations.
Preliminary data for tax year 2005 indicate that taxpayers filed 134.5 million U.S. individual income tax returns, an increase of 1.6 percent from the preliminary estimate of 132.4 million returns filed for tax year 2004. Adjusted gross income (AGI) increased by 8.9 percent from the previous year to $7.4 trillion for 2005 and taxable income increased 9.5 percent to $5.1 trillion. The alternative minimum tax rose 31.6 percent to $15.9 billion, while total income tax increased 11.8 percent to $928.3 billion. Other notable changes were: net capital gains, the second largest component of adjusted gross income, rose by 36.7 percent to $604.4 billion; statutory adjustments to total income increased 10.2 percent, from $94.5 billion to $104.2 billion; total deductions increased 8.4 percent to $1,665.6 billion; and total tax credits used to offset income tax liabilities increased 5.7 percent to $54.3 billion. The total earned income credit, including the refundable portion, increased 6.1 percent to $43.1 billion for tax year 2005.

In addition, the Bulletin contains articles with the following information:

For tax year 2004, taxpayers filed 132.2 million returns, of which 89.1 million (or 67.4 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents an increase of 0.2 percent in the number of taxable returns from tax year 2003. Adjusted gross income (AGI) on these taxable returns rose 9.0 percent to $6,266 billion, while total income tax showed the first increase in 4 years, rising 11.2 percent. Also for the first time in 4 years, the average tax rate for taxable returns rose, increasing 0.3 percentage points to 13.3 percent for 2004. Taxpayers with an AGI of at least $328,049, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, accounted for 19 percent of total AGI, representing an increase in income share of 2.2 percentage points from the previous year. These taxpayers accounted for 36.9 percent of the total income tax reported, an increase from 34.3 percent in 2003.


In filing year 2005, some 124,292 Split-Interest Trust Information Returns (Form 5227) were filed, an increase of 0.8 percent from filing year 2004. Charitable remainder unitrusts continued to be the most common trust type, increasing by 1.6 percent, or 1,450 returns, between 2004 and 2005. Charitable lead trust filings increased the most, 9 percent, to 6,168 in 2005. The number of returns filed for charitable remainder annuity trusts decreased by 4.2 percent between 2004 and 2005. Total net income reported for charitable remainder trusts (CRTs) increased by 67.4 percent from 2004 to 2005, primarily due to an exceptionally large increase in the value of capital gains reported in 2005. Total net capital gains reported for CRTs increased by 119.2 percent from filing year 2004 to filing year 2005.


During calendar years 2004 and 2005, tax-exempt organizations filed an estimated 36,064 Forms 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, for tax year 2003, ending a 4-year decline in annual Form 990‑T filings. After offsetting $8.4 billion of total gross unrelated business income (UBI) with a nearly equal amount of total deductions, the resulting unrelated business taxable income (less deficit) for 2003 was $23.2 million. Positive unrelated business taxable income reported on Form 990‑T increased by 20.5 percent between tax years 2002 and 2003, totaling $780.1 million, and the associated unrelated business income tax (UBIT) rose 13.3 percent, to $219.9 million. After adjusting UBIT with certain credits and other taxes, the resulting total tax reported on Form 990‑T was $220.9 million.
About 3.8 percent of the 263,353 Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organizations that filed Forms 990/990‑EZ, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax/Short Form Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, also filed Forms 990-T to report UBI. Overall, nonprofit charitable organizations that filed Forms 990/990-EZ reported an aggregate $1,072.2 billion of total revenue for tax year 2003, of which under one-half of 1 percent, or $4.2 billion, was attributable to UBI.

The Bulletin includes historical data on income, deductions, and tax reported on returns filed by individuals, corporations, and unincorporated businesses, with selected data presented for estates. Statistics are also presented on tax collections, including excise taxes by type, and refunds for recent years.

The Statistics of Income Bulletin is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. The annual subscription rate is $53 ($74.20 foreign). Single issues cost $39 ($48.75 foreign). For more information about these data, write the Director, Statistics of Income (SOI) Division, RAS:S, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 2608, Washington, DC 20013-2608; call the SOI Statistical Information Services office at (202) 874-0410; or fax to (202) 874-0964. To access the Winter 2006-2007 Statistics of Income Bulletin, on the front page of this Web site, click on “Tax Stats” under “Information About.” From the Tax Stats page, select “SOI Bulletins” under “Products, Publications, and Papers.” Or click on the link below.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm no tax lawyer, but this seems to indicate to me that the "rich" are picking up their fair share of the tab (the whole article's below)...

I find it difficult to believe that there are people out there that don't realize that if you make more money, you will pay more taxes.

But then, I guess Richard Hatch is sitting in jail right now for not getting that basic point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm no tax lawyer, but this seems to indicate to me that the "rich" are picking up their fair share of the tab (the whole article's below)...

I agree, but there's a lot of room for debate as to what is a "fair share".