 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Nope, the 100k from sitting on his ass person now pays much less in tax than the 100k salary person. |
Incorrect.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/CDA03-02.cfm
quote:
Corporations pay dividends to investors out of after-tax profits, yet these dollars are then subject to another tax: the personal income tax paid by the individuals who receive them. This multiple taxation of dividends discourages investors from finding equity investments that pay a steady stream of income and encourages corporations to retain profits and seek debt financing solely for tax purposes rather than financing their operations with equity |
|
Thanks Imran! I was starting to get pretty worked up over the notion of reverse progressive taxation being implemented. I wasn't quite ready to accept that was the case.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
If an individual collects 100k in stock dividends, he'll pay less federal income tax than an individual who earns a 100k in salary. |
Only after the Bush plan... before that they paid the same. |
Imran the article was too old to say if the plan was implemented. Do you know what the current situation is? Also is there a reason that dividends would no longer be counted towards income while interest would continue to be counted towards income?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
in fact, we have to conclude that I dont care if someone who makes 100K in salary or 100 K in investment, we need the least taxes possible and by getting rid of double taxation, we get one step closer. we can also conclude that I also support getting rid of 100% of the sales taxes, as well as most of the income taxes (if all is not practical)
can any other conclusions be drawn? did i miss any? |
so if a law was cynically passed that removed all taxes on any person making 100k or more while leaving the tax burden unchanged on those making less and no change in spending was first implemented you would support that?
Or what if a tax break was given just for spammers would you be ok with that?
Last edited by Geronimo on 09-11-2004 at 12:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AnnC
Geronimo, interest income is taxed like earned income. But "qualified dividends" are taxed as long-term capital gains.
Here's the 2003 version of Form 1040: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-03/f1040.pdf
Note that qualified dividends, line 9b, are not added to adjusted gross income. Qualified dividends are paid out of a corporation's after-tax income, e.g. dividends paid to holders of most common stocks (those are the stocks that trade on the major exchanges).
For all the gory details, see Publication 17. |
This tax plan is such total bullshit. The idea of making it possible for someone to be taxed less for earning income by not working than they would be taxed for earning the income through working is so wrong and so infuriating it would have had me campaigning hard against every congressman who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. I dislike tax brackets and 'progressive' taxation because it is unfair and therefore unjust. However if there is anything worse than 'progressive' taxation it is reverse progressive taxation.
It is truly a monstrous anti utilitarian and anti meritocracy policy if someone is rewarded for doing nothing and punished for earning income. This is badly badly Fvcked up. It bothers me almost as much that in all the crap I read published by those campaigning against Bush I don't remember anybody spelling out this awful policy.
It was always just boiled down to 'the rich got a bigger income tax cut than the rest of the populace'. There's certainly nothing wrong with that (as far as it goes) so it never bothered me. Afterall, the income taxes the rich were paying were still higher than everybody else's so no harm no foul. It is a far different situation when people get to pay less taxes simply becuase they didn't earn any of their money. Unbelivable. I wish to hell I'd known before election day. I would've made damn sure i wasn't voting for any cogressmen involved and instead of a protest vote for badnarik I would've certainly voted for Kerry to send a stronger signal.
The democrats apparently were too stupid to spin this issue even in a way to make it visible.
Last edited by Geronimo on 09-11-2004 at 12:37
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AnnC
Oh lordie, Geronimo.... Democrats did make a big issue out of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Kerry brought it up whenever he discussed domestic policy. And Edwards builts a whole stump speech around the issue, where he talked about how the guy who sat by a swimming pool reading brokerage statements was paying less taxes than the guy who went to work every day. How could you have missed it? |
That's not what I said. The problem was that they said 'tax cuts for the wealthy'. Tax cuts for wealthy are not a problem so long as the wealthy don't pay less than people who aren't wealthy. It was easy to check the income tax cuts the dems were always droning about to see that in fact the wealthy still paid higher taxes than everybody else. So long as they were still paying higher taxes what on earth was there for me to get worked up over? No, sorry the dems presented the issue very poorly. Even on websites where they had the luxery of presenting all the details I didn't see this reverse progressive taxation refered to. All they harped about was that 80% of the tax cut went to the wealthiest 10% which doesn't mean anything really.
I'm pissed that they never said anything about the fact that the taxes also meant that non earned income would be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. this is in fact the first time I've seen that mentioned.
You are assuming that 'tax cuts for the wealthy' means 'unearned income taxed less than earned income'. There are totally different.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
C'mon Che, aren't you happy?
It is getting closer. I can't believe these doofuses (doofi?). |
It's doofuses. Why exactly would you expect Che to be happy?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2004 10:50
i hope he's been listening...
good grief. I guess I shouldn't be surprised now.
|