26-05-2003 01:20									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

I dunno, I have never tried, but I doubt it.

	26-05-2003 01:24									#32
	Got spare money?

I somehow thought you were living in Paris RJ...

	26-05-2003 01:51									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

No. I work in Geneva, but live just over the border in France (it's much cheaper).

	26-05-2003 01:54									#34
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ah yes. I have a friend whose parents have done the exact opposite (living near Geneva, worked in France IIRC).
I just loved that they didn't pay French taxes, but my friend went nonetheless to the French public school

	26-05-2003 02:06									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler And remember, the really big incomes don't come from work but from coporate dividends, capital gains, and inheritance. Those three items IMHO should be taxed at a much higher rate than income from salaries. Unfortunately, the GOP has been remarkable successful at convincing people that non-work income should be tax free.

In which Urban Ranger, JohnT, and Sten discuss US corporate tax rates and dividend taxes, therefore coming to the conclusion that

1. Dividends are taxable and they are taxed not as capital gains, but at the higher income tax rates.
2. Dividends are profits remaining after the Federal government takes a 34% chunk (and after the state and local districts take their pickings), meaning that dividends represent income that has already been taxed.

In which Sava, JohnT, and Sten discuss whether Exxon/Mobile pays their "fair share" in taxes. Conclusion: Does $68 billion in taxes before payroll (social security and medicare) and dividend taxes seem fair enough?

The fact is, if paid out as dividends, more than 60% of all pre-tax corporate profits go to governments, Zk, and in some industries, the added cost of government(s) is a full one-third of the total costs in running the business - and that's before you show a profit! How much freakin' more do y'all want?

	26-05-2003 02:28									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

One third is two thirds short of being good

	26-05-2003 03:20									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by JohnT In which Urban Ranger, JohnT, and Sten discuss US corporate tax rates and dividend taxes, therefore coming to the conclusion that 1. Dividends are taxable and they are taxed not as capital gains, but at the higher income tax rates. 2. Dividends are profits remaining after the Federal government takes a 34% chunk (and after the state and local districts take their pickings), meaning that dividends represent income that has already been taxed. In which Sava, JohnT, and Sten discuss whether Exxon/Mobile pays their "fair share" in taxes. Conclusion: Does $68 billion in taxes before payroll (social security and medicare) and dividend taxes seem fair enough? The fact is, if paid out as dividends, more than 60% of all pre-tax corporate profits go to governments, Zk, and in some industries, the added cost of government(s) is a full one-third of the total costs in running the business - and that's before you show a profit! How much freakin' more do y'all want?

It seems as though some people are still in favor of a dividend tax after all this. There's no tax that is good. We have to tax something. I like dividend tax because it isn't as bad as other taxes.

	26-05-2003 04:08									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by JohnT 2. Dividends are profits remaining after the Federal government takes a 34% chunk (and after the state and local districts take their pickings), meaning that dividends represent income that has already been taxed.

Wow, one sentence and you're wrong twice.

1) When the government imposes an income tax upon a person, it usually taxes income. However, corporations are not taxed on their incomes, but on their profits. Wouldst that Uncle Sam would only taxed me on my income after I substracted out all of my expenses. But Uncle Sam loves big corporations more than he loves me.

2) When money goes from one person to another, it is taxed as income. F'instance, when my employer pays me my salary, I have to pay income taxes on it. Thus, when a corporation pays dividends to its shareholders, it is unequitable to exempt them from paying taxes on that income.

(BTW...there is a current system in place now which would permit avoiding these so-called double taxes. Simply convert the corporation into a partnership. Unlike a corporation, a partnership does not qualify as a "person" under the law, and so monies can flow directly to its owners without taxation. Corporate shareholders don't want to do that because it subjects them to personal responsibility for the debts of the corporations.)

	26-05-2003 04:32									#39
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Zkribbler, read the threads.

A. Corporations are taxed on profits because hardly any individual has negative profits, while corporations do all the time (therefore taxing income would tend to charge them too much because they are already losing money). Further, taxes on incomes would tend to reduce how much corporations would pay employees (in order to get to positive profits).

B. When your employer takes income and pays you, you only pay taxes on that money ONCE, when you get it as income taxes (that's because the corporation is taxes on profits). When corporations give dividends, the corporation's profit (which a dividend basically is) is taxed, and the dividend is taxed!

Dividends, capital gains, and inhertance taxes SHOULD be abolished. The quicker, the better.

	26-05-2003 04:36									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Dividends, capital gains, and inhertance taxes SHOULD be abolished. The quicker, the better.

Poor, poor rich people.
Gotta remove some superfluous healthcare to end this horrendous injustice.

	26-05-2003 04:40									#41
	Get a bigger avatar today!

No, bad bad double taxation. It's simply unfair for one body to tax people twice on the same incomes... and unproductive.

	26-05-2003 04:41									#42
	Suffering from ads?

I'm just waiting for Zr to take a shot then I'll pick it up if he misses anything.

	26-05-2003 09:09									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Wow, one sentence and you're wrong twice. 1) When the government imposes an income tax upon a person, it usually taxes income. However, corporations are not taxed on their incomes, but on their profits. Wouldst that Uncle Sam would only taxed me on my income after I substracted out all of my expenses.

Imran took care of this one... actually, the very threads that I referenced took care of this one.

quote: But Uncle Sam loves big corporations more than he loves me.

Your government doesn't exist to love you.

quote: 2) When money goes from one person to another, it is taxed as income. F'instance, when my employer pays me my salary, I have to pay income taxes on it. Thus, when a corporation pays dividends to its shareholders, it is unequitable to exempt them from paying taxes on that income.

And when the money is tallied up at the end of the year and the corporation earns a profit, that money is taxed as income. Since a corporation is no more than the aggregate class of shareholders for that particular corporation, this means that the individual shareholders are automatically taxed in proportion to the number of shares that they own. To tax the individuals again just for the "right" to transfer after-tax assets from one account to another is preposterous.

The dividend tax is also a factor in the seemingly never-ending quest for bigger, better American corporations - since the major shareholders aren't allowed to cash out the value of the corporation, their only option to increasing their wealth is by increasing their market capitalization - plowing profits back into the corporation, if you will. If you want corporations to become smaller in America, allow people, especially the founders, to more aggressively take their money out of them.

quote: (BTW...there is a current system in place now which would permit avoiding these so-called double taxes. Simply convert the corporation into a partnership. Unlike a corporation, a partnership does not qualify as a "person" under the law, and so monies can flow directly to its owners without taxation. Corporate shareholders don't want to do that because it subjects them to personal responsibility for the debts of the corporations.)

It can also subject you to personal responsibility for the debts of your partners as well, which is not something the 2million+ shareholders of ATT want. And as I'm sure you can figure out, beyond a certain number of shareholders, a partnership becomes untenable.

There's also a system in place to avoid dividend taxes for small Chapter-C corporations with a few shareholders: it's called "bonusing out the profit" and is a common trick in a lot of companies.

	26-05-2003 09:16									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

What taxes do you want to increase JohnT? Taxes are going to have to be increased soon. Which ones do you favor?

	26-05-2003 09:43									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Cutting spending?

Or a re-allocation of current spending... lop $50bil off defense, tack it onto debt reduction, crapola like that.

In another thread quite a while back I linked to an IRS excel spreadsheet that showed percentage of taxes paid by income bracket... and I noted that the top 50% of income earners in this country, according to the IRS itself and not some biased Left/Right site, paid 96% of the Federal Income Tax in this country and 50% of the FICA taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 4% of the income taxes and 50% of the FICA.

I have no problem with the bottom 10, or even 25% paying no federal income tax, but 50??

You could also raise corporate profit taxes by a smaller amount than the dividend tax and watch them squirm as they really can't complain all that much... and, after all, you're the government and you do control the army.

	26-05-2003 09:46									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor One third is two thirds short of being good

Additudes like that are why France's economy is the unemployment backet case it is today.

	26-05-2003 09:46									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: and, after all, you're the government and you do control the army.

	26-05-2003 11:35									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Cutting spending?

Not gonna happen. Anyway 90% of spending is absolutely needed.

quote: Originally posted by JohnT In another thread quite a while back I linked to an IRS excel spreadsheet that showed percentage of taxes paid by income bracket... and I noted that the top 50% of income earners in this country, according to the IRS itself and not some biased Left/Right site, paid 96% of the Federal Income Tax in this country and 50% of the FICA taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 4% of the income taxes and 50% of the FICA. I have no problem with the bottom 10, or even 25% paying no federal income tax, but 50?? You could also raise corporate profit taxes by a smaller amount than the dividend tax and watch them squirm as they really can't complain all that much... and, after all, you're the government and you do control the army.

So you want to tax the middle class on their wages and salaries and cut out the dividend tax. Do you really think that's fair.

Let me use my family as an example. My family came over the Sierra Nevadas in a covered wagon and bought up a bunch of land dirt cheap. That land is now worth a lot of money. We could sell that land and buy stocks that pay dividends and assuming there were no dividend tax, not pay any tax. Maybe we would have enough money not to have to work. So you think a middle class family should pay our tax just because my great great great grandfather bought some land for dirt cheap?

	26-05-2003 18:47									#49
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Since we're pulling examples out of our lives, let me give you one...

Suppose you're a 73 year old woman living on Social Security, her husbands $1,500/month pension, and $20,000 of dividends from his holdings in various stocks that they've accumulated over 50 years of marriage. Because of recent medical problems, her monthly medical bill comes to $1,834/month, or $22,000 a year. You want some family of five who makes $50,000/year require that she cover their tax burden? That's your definition of "fair"?

You think about rich people... I think about retirees. You think about money being denied the government... I think about money being denied the elderly.

The fact is that this country needs a serious adjustment to the issues of becoming an aging society, and one of the biggest problems we need to face is the problem of retirement... and our tax code is geared against the idea of "idle" income and wealth. With a long-term failure of the social security system more than probable, one of the ways that you attract Americans to save is to remove taxes on savings.

Let me make myself clear: I truly believe that there needs to be a serious reduction in capital gains and dividend taxes, not because I'm a wealthy nob but because demographic trends towards an aging society demands it. Otoh, I do agree that there should be a ceiling on dividend/capital gains income, and once that ceiling is reached then the excess should be taxed... say, the first $50,000/year is tax free while the excess is taxed at 35%+? That way, your family can pay a proper tax on their land holdings while leaving 80-90% of retirees tax free.

Oh, I know, it'll help a few rich people too, but I'm not worried about them... I'm just worried about me and where I'll be in 40 years.

Last edited by JohnT on 26-05-2003 at 19:10

	26-05-2003 19:18									#50
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui No, bad bad double taxation. It's simply unfair for one body to tax people twice on the same incomes... and unproductive.

What people?? The government taxes a corporation once on it's profits...not it's income. The government taxes the shareholders on their income.

No one seems to be able to deal with the concept that, under the law, a corporation is a separate person. Passing money to the shareholders is the functional equivalent of passing money to the employees--it's a transfer of funds and, as such, should be taxed.

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Your government doesn't exist to love you.

No, it obviously exists to love big corporations.

quote: Originally posted by JohnT I'm just worried about me and where I'll be in 40 years.

On that's an easy one. You'll be working two jobs to pay the taxes needed to pay down the deficits run up by the Republicans 40 years earlier.

	26-05-2003 19:38									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Suppose you're a 73 year old woman living on Social Security, her husbands $1,500/month pension, and $20,000 of dividends from his holdings in various stocks that they've accumulated over 50 years of marriage. Because of recent medical problems, her monthly medical bill comes to $1,834/month, or $22,000 a year. You want some family of five who makes $50,000/year require that she cover their tax burden? That's your definition of "fair"?

How would the taxation look in your example?

	26-05-2003 19:41									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler No one seems to be able to deal with the concept that, under the law, a corporation is a separate person. Passing money to the shareholders is the functional equivalent of passing money to the employees--it's a transfer of funds and, as such, should be taxed.

You can trust me to understand the concept of legal personality. But I don't get your point. The corp pays its employees, which reduces its taxbase. If you as an individual recieve say 1000$ for a service and pay 500$ to people helping you perform that service, that reduces your taxbase (at least it does here, I'm virtually sure it does in the United States of Deductions).

So what is that income/profit point supposed to be?

	26-05-2003 20:04									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Suppose you're a 73 year old woman living on Social Security, her husbands $1,500/month pension, and $20,000 of dividends from his holdings in various stocks that they've accumulated over 50 years of marriage. Because of recent medical problems, her monthly medical bill comes to $1,834/month, or $22,000 a year. You want some family of five who makes $50,000/year require that she cover their tax burden? That's your definition of "fair"?

In my definition of a civilized country, her health bill would be paid by the community, and as such I don't see why the old lady shouldn't pay her taxes on her dividends.

	26-05-2003 20:46									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Irrelevant, because in the real (US) world, only a portion of her health care is paid for by the community. Since she doesn't live in Spifforland, comparisons to Spifforland are baseless.

	26-05-2003 20:47									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Herr, to figure out her tax payments you'd essentially have to fill out a 1040 with my assumptions thrown in there and see what comes out. I'd do it, but I don't have the time right now. Maybe later...

	26-05-2003 20:52									#56
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Irrelevant, because in the real (US) world, only a portion of her health care is paid for by the community. Since she doesn't live in Spifforland, comparisons to Spifforland are baseless.

There is no need for Spifforland when you have civilized countries like Sweden around.

	26-05-2003 20:59									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Let me use my family as an example. My family came over the Sierra Nevadas in a covered wagon and bought up a bunch of land dirt cheap. That land is now worth a lot of money. We could sell that land

-20% for a capital gains tax.

quote: and buy stocks that pay dividends and assuming there were no dividend tax, not pay any tax. Maybe we would have enough money not to have to work. So you think a middle class family should pay our tax just because my great great great grandfather bought some land for dirt cheap?

Well, I'm for a 100% inheritence tax (excepting personal items of sentimental value).

	26-05-2003 21:01									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Herr, to figure out her tax payments you'd essentially have to fill out a 1040 with my assumptions thrown in there and see what comes out. I'd do it, but I don't have the time right now. Maybe later...

Just very roughly.

	26-05-2003 21:02									#59
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Since we're pulling examples out of our lives, let me give you one... Suppose you're a 73 year old woman living on Social Security, her husbands $1,500/month pension, and $20,000 of dividends from his holdings in various stocks that they've accumulated over 50 years of marriage. Because of recent medical problems, her monthly medical bill comes to $1,834/month, or $22,000 a year. You want some family of five who makes $50,000/year require that she cover their tax burden? That's your definition of "fair"?

Hmmm.. Seeing how the elderly will be getting the lion share of the transfer payments and govt services in the near future I support the dividend tax even more. Thanx JohnT. I hadn't thought of that.

	27-05-2003 02:09									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: What people?? The government taxes a corporation once on it's profits...not it's income. The government taxes the shareholders on their income.

The Shareholder's income, from dividends, IS the corporation's profits. That's like your employer being taxed all the money he takes in, and then the rest of the money, a part of which he gives to you, is then taxed. But we don't do that. In order to promote higher salaries, we only tax on profits. If we taxed on income, your salary would undoubtably fall.

The dividend tax simply prevents dividends from being given out. That hurts the economy because a portion of those increased number of divident payments would be spent on goods and services.