Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
These two are blatant double taxations. Why do want more tax? How about less tax and more efficient application?

As a side note: technically I am against alimony as a concept, so, since we are in a la la land anyway, let's assume alimony is outlawed in the Flat Tax Reform Bill.

Dividends are only double taxation if you accept the argument that they should not be taxed at both the corporate and shareholder level. If corporations can no longer deduct wages, why should they, in effect, be able to deduct dividends? Either everything gets taxed in each taxpayer's hands, or nothing gets taxed in each taxpayer's hands.

[Replaced_Texan]

I have been planning my evacuation from this part of the state for months now, but the mayor of Galveston just issued a voluntary evacuation notice in preparation for (what soon will be) Hurricane Rita.

While I have personal reasons for ya'll's prayers that this bitch veers left towards Corpus or Brownsville, I'm hoping your self-interest will kick in and you'll realize that the majority of the refineries in the nation that weren't taken out by Katrina are in the possible trajectory of Rita.

Maybe, after hurricane season is over, assuming we all survive it, we should start thinking about other places to put our oil refineries?

ETfix unnecessary capitalization.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the difference is setting someone up with cushy lobbying gigs or speech circuits is different than cooking the books such that one client's commodity trading account takes a hit to funnel cash to another more preferred client's account. Why not make insider trading legal too then? (which, actually, I am in favour of).

Why isn't that no one on the left can ever criticise the Clintons blatantly illegal behaviour? Sad.

I'm not trying to defend the Clinton's behavior. I'm simply suggesting that the futures account scheme was no different ethically or morally (and I can't comment on legality only because we don't have the facts) than the special allocations Bush I and Jim Baker get from the Carlyle Group or the special allocations Bush II got from the Rangers limited partnership.

In each case the same thing happens: the favored party gets a distribution of cash, and someone looking to buy influence takes the economic hit.

Either way, gov't is for sale on both sides of the aisle and it's only the public that gets fucked.

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Dividends are only double taxation if you accept the argument that they should not be taxed at both the corporate and shareholder level. If corporations can no longer deduct wages, why should they, in effect, be able to deduct dividends? Either everything gets taxed in each taxpayer's hands, or nothing gets taxed in each taxpayer's hands.

Isn't the question here more fundamental than a tax question? The government has determined that it has the power to establish separate entities, whether they are corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies, and bestow them with special privileges. These special privileges benefit those who invest, whether by limiting their liability or providing them with the ability to sell interests in a market as a mere investment, and the question is, should there be any payment for these privileges?

The battle over whether incorporation would be available to all or a privilege only for the established few was one of the big battles fought by Jacksonian Democrats, but I think they would be horrified at the idea that people could avail themselves of the privilege of incorporation without any benefit accruing to the public. Casting this as a "double taxation" issue seems to assume an inalienable right to incorporate.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
I have been planning my evacuation from this part of the state for months now, but the mayor of Galveston just issued a voluntary evacuation notice in preparation for (what soon will be) Hurricane Rita.

While I have personal reasons for ya'll's prayers that this bitch veers left towards Corpus or Brownsville, I'm hoping your self-interest will kick in and you'll realize that the majority of the refineries in the nation that weren't taken out by Katrina are in the possible trajectory of Rita.

Maybe, after Hurricane season is over, assuming we all survive it, we should start thinking about other places to put our oil refineries?

ANWR?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
ANWR?

I vote for the colonies.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you're implying that i control the sock- I'm offended, either by the falsehood, or the outing of the sock. Take your pick.

Penske, how does one join the insurgency?

Know any photoshopping Jewesses?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
Isn't the question here more fundamental than a tax question? The government has determined that it has the power to establish separate entities, whether they are corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies, and bestow them with special privileges. These special privileges benefit those who invest, whether by limiting their liability or providing them with the ability to sell interests in a market as a mere investment, and the question is, should there be any payment for these privileges?

The battle over whether incorporation would be available to all or a privilege only for the established few was one of the big battles fought by Jacksonian Democrats, but I think they would be horrified at the idea that people could avail themselves of the privilege of incorporation without any benefit accruing to the public. Casting this as a "double taxation" issue seems to assume an inalienable right to incorporate.

I've made that point many times in the past on this board. Unfortunately, it seems to be beyond the ken of many of the posters, and disingenuously overlooked by many others.

In any event, you've picked one of very few posters to make that point who can honestly say you're preaching to the choir.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Captain
Isn't the question here more fundamental than a tax question? The government has determined that it has the power to establish separate entities, whether they are corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies, and bestow them with special privileges. These special privileges benefit those who invest, whether by limiting their liability or providing them with the ability to sell interests in a market as a mere investment, and the question is, should there be any payment for these privileges?

The battle over whether incorporation would be available to all or a privilege only for the established few was one of the big battles fought by Jacksonian Democrats, but I think they would be horrified at the idea that people could avail themselves of the privilege of incorporation without any benefit accruing to the public. Casting this as a "double taxation" issue seems to assume an inalienable right to incorporate.

The question is not whether the government has the power to tax this income, but rather, whether it should. The only way this cannot be viewed as double taxation is if you really view the corporation separate and apart from its owners. The corporation (or other entity) pays a tax on its income. But really, the individual owners of the corporation are each paying a portion of that tax based on their percentage ownership. When the owners also pay a tax on the amounts that are dividended up, it is a second tax on the same income.

Wonk, I know you are in favor of the dividend tax, but are you really taking the position it is not double taxation?

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've made that point many times in the past on this board. Unfortunately, it seems to be beyond the ken of many of the posters, and disingenuously overlooked by many others.

In any event, you've picked one of very few posters to make that point who can honestly say you're preaching to the choir.

Well, perhaps someone else would like to explain why it is "double" taxation to expect an entity that has taken great pains to become "separate" and a distinct "corpus" to be treated as a separate distinct corpus for tax purposes?

To me, the double tax argument seems to be a rephrasing of having one's cake and eating it, too.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The question is not whether the government has the power to tax this income, but rather, whether it should. The only way this cannot be viewed as double taxation is if you really view the corporation separate and apart from its owners. The corporation (or other entity) pays a tax on its income. But really, the individual owners of the corporation are each paying a portion of that tax based on their percentage ownership. When the owners also pay a tax on the amounts that are dividended up, it is a second tax on the same income.

Wonk, I know you are in favor of the dividend tax, but are you really taking the position it is not double taxation?

Thank you for responding; my reply below yours was written without seeing yours.

Will the owners also pay a separate share of that corporation's liabilities, or will they expect them to be limited to the corporation's assets? If we are treating the corporation's taxes as those of the shareholder, why should we not do so across the board?

I know, I can be a bit of a throwback to 19th century ways of thinking, but it strikes me as important here to remember how much the government is giving them, and how artificial these privileges are.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The question is not whether the government has the power to tax this income, but rather, whether it should. The only way this cannot be viewed as double taxation is if you really view the corporation separate and apart from its owners. The corporation (or other entity) pays a tax on its income. But really, the individual owners of the corporation are each paying a portion of that tax based on their percentage ownership. When the owners also pay a tax on the amounts that are dividended up, it is a second tax on the same income.

Wonk, I know you are in favor of the dividend tax, but are you really taking the position it is not double taxation?

If they don't want the double taxation, why don't the owners just set it up as a partnership? Pass-through taxation -- no dividends issue, I think (wanker could speak to this better).

Oh, because they want to be shielded from liability. Right. So they actually do really want the corporation to be viewed as separate and apart from them.

Cake, eating, having, like el capitan said.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If they don't want the double taxation, why don't the owners just set it up as a partnership? Pass-through taxation -- no dividends issue, I think (wanker could speak to this better).

Oh, because they want to be shielded from liability. Right. So they actually do really want the corporation to be viewed as separate and apart from them.

Cake, eating, having, like el capitan said.

You socialist taxers make me naseaus. Why don't you just move to France or Gaza already and leave America for the capitalists. Like Club and Spanky. And W.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You socialist taxers make me naseaus. Why don't you just move to France or Gaza already and leave America for the capitalists. Like Club and Spanky. And W.

It is my impression that "W" rather likes to spend taxpayers' money. I'm not saying that is a particularly bad thing given his position, I am simply noting that he does seem to spend a lot of money.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Captain
It is my impression that "W" rather likes to spend taxpayers' money. I'm not saying that is a particularly bad thing given his position, I am simply noting that he does seem to spend a lot of money.

Yes, but he's taking less of mine (relatively). More money to invest in the armaments.