Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Wonk, I'm sure, will say that it's not fair to have some people pay more of the corporation's value than others, depending on their income.

I've never suggested anything of the sort. My main issue w/r/t dividends has always been that it is inherently unfair to give tax breaks on dividends or capital gains relative to wages.

[Spanky]

The House yesterday passed an anodyne resolution commemorating the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It extended sympathy to the victims and survivors; honored the military, first responders, and others who helped; thanked foreign leaders for their support; declared that America is not waging war "on any people or any faith"; reaffirmed a commitment to the global war on terrorism; and vowed "never [to] forget the sacrifices made" on 9/11 or to "bow to terrorist demands." No one could disagree with that, right? Not quite. The House vote for the resolution was 402-6; here are the six far-left Democrats who voted "no":

John Conyers (Mich.) Barbara Lee (Calif.) Jim McDermott (Wash.) Cynthia McKinney (Ga.) Pete Stark (Calif.) Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As it is, companies engage in all sorts of accounting shenanigans (or, to Wonk, GAAP-approved accounting procedures) to shift income from one year to another, or to make it disappear altogether).

I have no idea where you got the idea that I supported, approvied of, or engaged in any of this. whatever the source, you were misinformed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk

If we are to look at things in the context of the curent tax regime, then I agree that dividends are a form of double taxation.

I was speaking of the current regime as well.

[Spanky]

One nice thing is a lot of foreign countries are helping us out. Like today, France sent a donation. They sent a truckload of white flags for people to wave when they're waiting to be rescued.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have no idea where you got the idea that I supported, approvied of, or engaged in any of this. whatever the source, you were misinformed.

Nice Section 230 cover.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Isn't the registration and yearly fees that all entities must pay to their state of incorporation/organization and any other state in which they do business a sufficient fee for having the privilege or incorporating/organizing?

Yes. Just like the $10 I pay to renew my driver's license every three years is exactly the amount needed to cover the cost of the burden I impose on the highway system, environmental costs, the portion of our military budget devoted to protect a secure supply of oil, etc.

What the hell have I been thinking all these years?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not really correct. A GP of an LP does not have unlimited liability. It's liability is akin to the liability a director has in a corporation.

The point I was making is that we allow LPs and LLCs to shield themselves from unlimited liability, but we retain only 1 level of taxation (i.e., at the ownership level). So if we are willing to do this for these entities, I don't see a rational purposes for not extending that to corporate entities.

You are wrong on this. The GP has unlimited liability. The only cap on this is the fact that the shareholders of a corporate GP have limited liability, so if the corporate GP goes belly up, the shareholders aren't on the hook.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't even know where to start with this one.

I guess you don't like taxing the rich.

Originally posted by sgtclub Cite please? The rich do not send their kids to public schools, they do not take public transportation, and they are not on welfare. They don't need food stamps, perscription drug benefits, or social security. Yes, they have more assets to protect than the poor, but I think it's at least an even use of resources.

They do get prescription drug benefits and social security and it is obscene. My parents get social security checks and both checks don't even cover their weekly wine bill. Both those programs should be means tested.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hence, the need for a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment (Hi Penske!)

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would bet by any empiracle study, the overwhelming majority of legal resources are used by the poor in this country. The rich, for example, don't need (or want) a PD.

I believe the criminal defense budget is a small part of the entire legislative budget. Most of it is spent on civil trials and most people can't afford to be involved in a civil trial. Welfare and food stamps is a way of stopping poor people from robbing the rich. If people are allowed to starve to death they are not going to go silently into the night. The rich depend more on the police, on fire, - hell everything.

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is true only if that 1 util remains stagnant. In the real world, a rich person turns 1 util into 1 million utils.

The key is to put the money into the poor persons hand and get them to invest it. That is the best utilization of the money for everyone involved. If my trust fund cousin spends it on Crystal, not so much help.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Good luck trying to balance that equation.

The joy of public policy. That is why I support people to run for office and don't run myself.

[Spanky]

Oops

[Spanky]

oops

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You are wrong on this. The GP has unlimited liability. The only cap on this is the fact that the shareholders of a corporate GP have limited liability, so if the corporate GP goes belly up, the shareholders aren't on the hook.

You are correct. I was thinking of a manager of an llc.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't even know where to start with this one.



Cite please? The rich do not send their kids to public schools, they do not take public transportation, and they are not on welfare. They don't need food stamps, perscription drug benefits, or social security. Yes, they have more assets to protect than the poor, but I think it's at least an even use of resources.



Hence, the need for a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment (Hi Penske!)

Hi!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
They could, but they have no incentive to do so. That's why the government imposes taxes. On the other hand, if you feel so strongly that government provides too much, why don't you offer to take on some of the burden yourself? Pay for the paving and maintenance of your street and relieve the city of Seattle of the burden, allowing them to reduce their overall need to soak the taxpayers?

I am not necessarily complaining about local taxes. The benefit there is more tangible and there is more of an oportuntity to address local government on issues. I am talking about the Feds.

[ltl/fb]

is one effect of not allowing a deduction for dividends that it encourages (all else being equal) a co to reinvest in itself rather than pay dividends? If so, might the taxation thing be partly a policy to encourage that?

Are dividends received taxed at a different rate than regular income?

The things I don't remember . . .

I agree with Spanky's comment on the flat tax, adding that I think if you set the base amount (if you make less than that, no tax) at a reasonable place, the rate has to be really quite a bit higher than people expect in order to be able to have it be flat (esp. if you want to get rid of estate/gift tax, corp tax, etc.)

I can't believe I almost missed an opportunity to comment on flat tax.