Corporate tax rate

[kaz]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

 

[Winston]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

 

[Blues Man]

Every dollar that any corporation ears as profit eventually gets taxed.

The corporate tax rate is just a way to double dip and tax the same money twice

Well when you can claim any amount under the total
profit that you want to tax. That's the bullshit. You can take profits and distribute , you can take profits and use for ungodly Bonuses. You can take profits and expand and not pay corporate tax on it. Your double dip remark is total bullshit.

Let's limit this to C corps that are publicly traded because S corp rules are very different.

A C corp gets taxed on all of its profits even the money it pays out in dividends to shareholders then the shareholders get taxed on the dividend they receive. That is taxing the same money twice.

Dividends can only be paid if a profit is realized by the Corp. You can't for example use dividend payouts to reduce the taxable profit.

And all businesses get to use business expenses as a write off it doesn't matter what type of business it is.

Lets not limit it to something that fits one view, we will add income trust. s corporations ,pass-through entity and the point is a company can erase profits easily so it doesn't have to pay any taxes on it. That's the only point , that making the whole system bullshit and you are wrong bussines can pay dividends exceeding profits.

The only way a corp can pay dividends in excess of profits is if they pay them from retained earnings which is money earned in previous years for which taxes have already been paid

 

[jbander]

The ridiculous tax rate for Cap gains is for one group of people in this country,it's a free ride tax rate for the wealthy. It should be taxes as income. How much is it a free ride for the wealthy ? 1/10 of 1% get over half of the benefit. Does anything else have to be said?

You know who believed capital gains should be taxes the same as normal income? Ronald Reagan.
You know who changed capital gains taxes to a special tax rate, lower than normal income for the wealthiest Americans? Bill Clinton.
Ain't that some shit?

ya for a very short time. in 81 he set it at 20% in 86 he raised it to 28 only because of one reason , he lowered the tax rate for individuals from 70 to 28%

 

[jbander]

The ridiculous tax rate for Cap gains is for one group of people in this country,it's a free ride tax rate for the wealthy. It should be taxes as income. How much is it a free ride for the wealthy ? 1/10 of 1% get over half of the benefit. Does anything else have to be said?

You know who believed capital gains should be taxes the same as normal income? Ronald Reagan.
You know who changed capital gains taxes to a special tax rate, lower than normal income for the wealthiest Americans? Bill Clinton.
Ain't that some shit?

The ridiculous tax rate for Cap gains is for one group of people in this country,it's a free ride tax rate for the wealthy. It should be taxes as income. How much is it a free ride for the wealthy ? 1/10 of 1% get over half of the benefit. Does anything else have to be said?

You know who believed capital gains should be taxes the same as normal income? Ronald Reagan.
You know who changed capital gains taxes to a special tax rate, lower than normal income for the wealthiest Americans? Bill Clinton.
Ain't that some shit?

Also your remark about Clinton is a little strange, other then 4 years, cap gains is always lower and ususally way lower then income tax. Well over the last 80 years anyway.

 

[jbander]

Every dollar that any corporation ears as profit eventually gets taxed.

The corporate tax rate is just a way to double dip and tax the same money twice

Well when you can claim any amount under the total
profit that you want to tax. That's the bullshit. You can take profits and distribute , you can take profits and use for ungodly Bonuses. You can take profits and expand and not pay corporate tax on it. Your double dip remark is total bullshit.

Let's limit this to C corps that are publicly traded because S corp rules are very different.

A C corp gets taxed on all of its profits even the money it pays out in dividends to shareholders then the shareholders get taxed on the dividend they receive. That is taxing the same money twice.

Dividends can only be paid if a profit is realized by the Corp. You can't for example use dividend payouts to reduce the taxable profit.

And all businesses get to use business expenses as a write off it doesn't matter what type of business it is.

Lets not limit it to something that fits one view, we will add income trust. s corporations ,pass-through entity and the point is a company can erase profits easily so it doesn't have to pay any taxes on it. That's the only point , that making the whole system bullshit and you are wrong bussines can pay dividends exceeding profits.

The only way a corp can pay dividends in excess of profits is if they pay them from retained earnings which is money earned in previous years for which taxes have already been paid

That would be correct.

 

[Blues Man]

Every dollar that any corporation ears as profit eventually gets taxed.

The corporate tax rate is just a way to double dip and tax the same money twice

Well when you can claim any amount under the total
profit that you want to tax. That's the bullshit. You can take profits and distribute , you can take profits and use for ungodly Bonuses. You can take profits and expand and not pay corporate tax on it. Your double dip remark is total bullshit.

Let's limit this to C corps that are publicly traded because S corp rules are very different.

A C corp gets taxed on all of its profits even the money it pays out in dividends to shareholders then the shareholders get taxed on the dividend they receive. That is taxing the same money twice.

Dividends can only be paid if a profit is realized by the Corp. You can't for example use dividend payouts to reduce the taxable profit.

And all businesses get to use business expenses as a write off it doesn't matter what type of business it is.

Lets not limit it to something that fits one view, we will add income trust. s corporations ,pass-through entity and the point is a company can erase profits easily so it doesn't have to pay any taxes on it. That's the only point , that making the whole system bullshit and you are wrong bussines can pay dividends exceeding profits.

The only way a corp can pay dividends in excess of profits is if they pay them from retained earnings which is money earned in previous years for which taxes have already been paid

That would be correct.

Yes it is

Can Dividends Be Paid in Excess of Retained Earnings? | The Motley Fool

Understanding when a company can't make a dividend payment can be crucial at times of financial stress.

www.fool.com

Can Dividends Be Paid in Excess of Retained Earnings?

Many investors rely on dividends from their investments to provide much-needed income. But companies aren't always allowed to continue making.

www.nasdaq.com

Can a Company Declare a Dividend that Exceeds EPS?

Many well-known Fortune 500 companies have paid dividends in years where they posted negative earnings per share.

www.investopedia.com

Any corp that uses retained earnings to pay a dividend pays taxes on the money before it is paid out and dividends are not tax deductible to the corp

 

[jbander]

Every dollar that any corporation ears as profit eventually gets taxed.

The corporate tax rate is just a way to double dip and tax the same money twice

Well when you can claim any amount under the total
profit that you want to tax. That's the bullshit. You can take profits and distribute , you can take profits and use for ungodly Bonuses. You can take profits and expand and not pay corporate tax on it. Your double dip remark is total bullshit.

Let's limit this to C corps that are publicly traded because S corp rules are very different.

A C corp gets taxed on all of its profits even the money it pays out in dividends to shareholders then the shareholders get taxed on the dividend they receive. That is taxing the same money twice.

Dividends can only be paid if a profit is realized by the Corp. You can't for example use dividend payouts to reduce the taxable profit.

And all businesses get to use business expenses as a write off it doesn't matter what type of business it is.

Lets not limit it to something that fits one view, we will add income trust. s corporations ,pass-through entity and the point is a company can erase profits easily so it doesn't have to pay any taxes on it. That's the only point , that making the whole system bullshit and you are wrong bussines can pay dividends exceeding profits.

The only way a corp can pay dividends in excess of profits is if they pay them from retained earnings which is money earned in previous years for which taxes have already been paid

That would be correct.

Yes it is

Can Dividends Be Paid in Excess of Retained Earnings? | The Motley Fool

Understanding when a company can't make a dividend payment can be crucial at times of financial stress.

www.fool.com

Can Dividends Be Paid in Excess of Retained Earnings?

Many investors rely on dividends from their investments to provide much-needed income. But companies aren't always allowed to continue making.

www.nasdaq.com

Can a Company Declare a Dividend that Exceeds EPS?

Many well-known Fortune 500 companies have paid dividends in years where they posted negative earnings per share.

www.investopedia.com

Any corp that uses retained earnings to pay a dividend pays taxes on the money before it is paid out and dividends are not tax deductible to the corp

Were are you going with this , I agreed with you. My statement was responding only to what you said here. This is what you said "Dividends can only be paid if a profit is realized by the Corp."

 

[kaz]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

 

[Winston]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

 

[kaz]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

I covered this at the beginning of the conversation, moron.

So if you and your buddy start a business in your garage, and you each put in half the money, you and your buddy then did NOT pay the businesses taxes. That's what you're claiming. Even though the value of your business went down exactly by the identical amount of the taxes you paid and the money came out of the money you paid to buy your business.

I am only humoring you. I have a degree and career in business, economics and finance and have owned several businesses. Your only qualification for this discussion is that you are Cliff Clavin and you know everything. You lecture your doctor on how to practice medicine, you lecture your mechanic how to fix your car and you call the network every time an astrophysicist comes on to explain what he got wrong.

You're a know it all ass. But you are amusing, just because you think you know so much more than you do even though you have zero reason to think that. My favorite is that you think it's not double taxation because of limited liability, as if that makes any sense at all

 

[Winston]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

I covered this at the beginning of the conversation, moron.

So if you and your buddy start a business in your garage, and you each put in half the money, you and your buddy then did NOT pay the businesses taxes. That's what you're claiming. Even though the value of your business went down exactly by the identical amount of the taxes you paid and the money came out of the money you paid to buy your business.

I am only humoring you. I have a degree and career in business, economics and finance and have owned several businesses. Your only qualification for this discussion is that you are Cliff Clavin and you know everything. You lecture your doctor on how to practice medicine, you lecture your mechanic how to fix your car and you call the network every time an astrophysicist comes on to explain what he got wrong.

You're a know it all ass. But you are amusing, just because you think you know so much more than you do even though you have zero reason to think that. My favorite is that you think it's not double taxation because of limited liability, as if that makes any sense at all

If you have a degree in business or finance I would suggest seeking a refund. Economics, maybe, George Mason? If my buddy and I start a business it would probably not be incorporated so we wouldn't pay corporate income taxes. It would be a partnership and income would be taxed once, on our personal income tax statements. Even if we formed an LLC, the taxes would still be paid as personal income taxes divided per the partner agreement. No double taxation. Your scenario is not applicable to the discussion at hand, and frankly, anyone that owned a business greater than a lemonade stand in the front yard, would know better. So I am calling bullshit.

 

[Staidhup]

Apparently few people responding understand GAAP and basic accounting, nor the advantages and disadvantages of the various corporate structures. However what alarms me just as much is the fact that people do not comprehend the fundamental fact that the stockholders own the business not the Board of Directors nor the CEO, furthermore that the Board of Directors is elected to represent the will of the stockholders and insure the financial health of the corporation.

 

[jbander]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

Apparently few people responding understand GAAP and basic accounting, nor the advantages and disadvantages of the various corporate structures. However what alarms me just as much is the fact that people do not comprehend the fundamental fact that the stockholders own the business not the Board of Directors nor the CEO, furthermore that the Board of Directors is elected to represent the will of the stockholders and insure the financial health of the corporation.

That use to be their jobs.

 

[Staidhup]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

Apparently few people responding understand GAAP and basic accounting, nor the advantages and disadvantages of the various corporate structures. However what alarms me just as much is the fact that people do not comprehend the fundamental fact that the stockholders own the business not the Board of Directors nor the CEO, furthermore that the Board of Directors is elected to represent the will of the stockholders and insure the financial health of the corporation.

That use to be their jobs.

If your reference is that of the Board of Director’s they have improved, somewhat, however, still have a long ways to go. Regretfully the fear of being seen as confrontational, unwilling to challenge management, demanding accountability, is not why they were nominated by the nominating committee or in their DNA, yet believe it or not it’s what they demanded of their junior executives in the company’s they run or ran, how they arrived on the Board in the first place. Most CEO’s see themselves as indispensable.

 

[kaz]

I covered this at the beginning of the conversation, moron.

So if you and your buddy start a business in your garage, and you each put in half the money, you and your buddy then did NOT pay the businesses taxes. That's what you're claiming. Even though the value of your business went down exactly by the identical amount of the taxes you paid and the money came out of the money you paid to buy your business.

I am only humoring you. I have a degree and career in business, economics and finance and have owned several businesses. Your only qualification for this discussion is that you are Cliff Clavin and you know everything. You lecture your doctor on how to practice medicine, you lecture your mechanic how to fix your car and you call the network every time an astrophysicist comes on to explain what he got wrong.

You're a know it all ass. But you are amusing, just because you think you know so much more than you do even though you have zero reason to think that. My favorite is that you think it's not double taxation because of limited liability, as if that makes any sense at all

If you have a degree in business or finance I would suggest seeking a refund. Economics, maybe, George Mason? If my buddy and I start a business it would probably not be incorporated so we wouldn't pay corporate income taxes. It would be a partnership and income would be taxed once, on our personal income tax statements. Even if we formed an LLC, the taxes would still be paid as personal income taxes divided per the partner agreement. No double taxation. Your scenario is not applicable to the discussion at hand, and frankly, anyone that owned a business greater than a lemonade stand in the front yard, would know better. So I am calling bullshit.

Yes, business schools need to teach Marxism or they are incompetent.

Question dodged, like you dodge every point.

But then you said a business is a person, obviously you were stupid when this started. I pointed that out at the time and said this is just for fun.

It's dull now. If you want to continue the discussion with me, you're going to have to start answering my questions. In the meantime, ride on Cowboy

 

[jbander]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

Apparently few people responding understand GAAP and basic accounting, nor the advantages and disadvantages of the various corporate structures. However what alarms me just as much is the fact that people do not comprehend the fundamental fact that the stockholders own the business not the Board of Directors nor the CEO, furthermore that the Board of Directors is elected to represent the will of the stockholders and insure the financial health of the corporation.

That use to be their jobs.

If your reference is that of the Board of Director’s they have improved, somewhat, however, still have a long ways to go. Regretfully the fear of being seen as confrontational, unwilling to challenge management, demanding accountability, is not why they were nominated by the nominating committee or in their DNA, yet believe it or not it’s what they demanded of their junior executives in the company’s they run or ran, how they arrived on the Board in the first place. Most CEO’s see themselves as indispensable.

Yes , add in the fact that they set wages on positions that they are trying to achieve themselves. They are generally people who perceive value and self value in dollars and cents. What surprises me is how little pressure is put on them by the stockholders or how management has control of them.

 

[Winston]

I covered this at the beginning of the conversation, moron.

So if you and your buddy start a business in your garage, and you each put in half the money, you and your buddy then did NOT pay the businesses taxes. That's what you're claiming. Even though the value of your business went down exactly by the identical amount of the taxes you paid and the money came out of the money you paid to buy your business.

I am only humoring you. I have a degree and career in business, economics and finance and have owned several businesses. Your only qualification for this discussion is that you are Cliff Clavin and you know everything. You lecture your doctor on how to practice medicine, you lecture your mechanic how to fix your car and you call the network every time an astrophysicist comes on to explain what he got wrong.

You're a know it all ass. But you are amusing, just because you think you know so much more than you do even though you have zero reason to think that. My favorite is that you think it's not double taxation because of limited liability, as if that makes any sense at all

If you have a degree in business or finance I would suggest seeking a refund. Economics, maybe, George Mason? If my buddy and I start a business it would probably not be incorporated so we wouldn't pay corporate income taxes. It would be a partnership and income would be taxed once, on our personal income tax statements. Even if we formed an LLC, the taxes would still be paid as personal income taxes divided per the partner agreement. No double taxation. Your scenario is not applicable to the discussion at hand, and frankly, anyone that owned a business greater than a lemonade stand in the front yard, would know better. So I am calling bullshit.

Yes, business schools need to teach Marxism or they are incompetent.

Question dodged, like you dodge every point.

But then you said a business is a person, obviously you were stupid when this started. I pointed that out at the time and said this is just for fun.

It's dull now. If you want to continue the discussion with me, you're going to have to start answering my questions. In the meantime, ride on Cowboy

A business is not a person, a corporation is. Since Roman times a corporation has been considered a juristic person. The Supreme Court has confirmed.

Bank of United States v Baltimore
Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad v Letson
Mashall v Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
County of Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad
Smyth v Ames
Hale v Henkel
Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States
United States v Martin Linen Supply Co.
Citizens United v. FEC
Burwell v Hobby Lobby

I am willing to bet you celebrated the last two decisions from the modern era.

 

[kaz]

You and your friend start a business in your garage. You pay for the business together.

You earn $1.

The government charges tax on the $1 on the pool you and your friend created.

You split the money that's left.

The government charges you taxes on the same money again.

That's double taxation. Get your stupid shit out of here

That is like the tax on dividends. That is not applicable to the corporate tax. Plus, it is two different people. The people that is the corporation and the people that is me. The double tax argument is still STUPID. And you are still a dumbass

After this ignorant diatribe ^^^, you have some gall calling anyone a dumbass, Dumbass.

The Democrats are a party of Cliff Clavins. They know nothing about business, and they think that leftist lawyers know more than economists and finance people.

When he said corporate taxes and dividends are paid by different people, wow, Cliff Clavin filled the sky with his stupid ignorant shit. both are clearly paid by the owners of the company, which are clearly the SAME PEOPLE.

The shit that Cliff Clavins like Winston make up. Then there's his username when he loves Big Brother. I'd say he's confused, but he's just more a lying idiot ... Cliff Clavin ...

Yes, they are different people. I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corporations are considered a separate entity than the owners themselves. Part of that is called the corporate shield, hell, for some it is the primary reason to form a corporation. But then there is the whole Citizens United ruling, which made the claim that corporations were "Individuals" with a right to free speech. So, you can't call the corporation and the owners one in the same when it suits your purpose, and then turnaround and claim they are different people when it suits your purpose. Again, remove the corporate shield, put the same limit on political contributions on corporations as individuals, and hell, I am there. No corporate tax. Of course you remove the corporate shield and the stock market crash that follows will make Black Monday look like a bull market.

You're an idiot. So has your doctor taken your instruction on how medicine works, Cliff Clavin?

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a car doesn't pay to register a car, the car pays that.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, the owner of a house doesn't pay property taxes on a house, the house pays it.

Cliff Clavin / Winston: Well you see, kaz, you don't pay sales taxes when you buy gum, the gum pays it.

Yes, you are that big a moron

Good God Almighty but you are dense. In the case of the car. You wreck the car and hurt someone who gets sued? Why you do. You wreck a corporation and hurt someone in the process who gets sued? Why the corporation does and the only assets in jeopardy are those of the corporation, not yours. Why? Because you and the corporation are

TWO FUCKING SEPERATE ENTITIES

Now STFU and go watch a Lifetime movie. You are not intelligent enough to carry on a conversation here.

You don't know what profits are, God you're stupid.

Winston: You see kaz, if you have limited liability, that means you don't have to pay bills!

Limited liability means, quite simply, that only the assets of the corporation are subject to any litigation losses. It is called the corporate shield because the fact that it is a corporation, or in your example, an LLC, it "shields" the assets of the owners from losses due to litigation against the company they own. I know this well because I have made it a competitive advantage for decades. While most my competitors operate through an LLC, I refuse. I don't need the corporate shield because I am not going to screw up and get sued. And I am a pretty ripe target, which you probably have no clue as to what that means. But I can't count the times that my refusal to incorporate has resulted in me gaining the client against those chickenshit LLC's.

God you're stupid. I know what limited liability means. You keep talking about limited liability in terms of somehow that means that different people pay a company's expenses than the owners of the company. You're a moron

If you cannot understand the value of the corporate shield the STFU and go fix dinner.

God you're stupid. We are discussing TAXES.

That is a total non-sequitur to that I "don't understand the value of the corporate shield

You're a special kind of stupid

OK, please try to follow along.

We were not discussing taxes. We were discussing the claim of double taxation, specifically, when the claim is made concerning income taxes on dividends because corporations have already paid the corporate tax on the money that is distributed as dividends.

My position is that it is not double taxation because the tax is assessed to two different entities. First, the corporate tax is paid by the corporation. Then the income tax on the dividends, again, usually at a preferred rate, is paid by the stockholders, or the owners if you like. Then you want to jump and yell, sling insults, call people stupid, because you say the owners and the corporation are the same person.

In this thread I have said no fewer than THREE TIMES, eliminate the corporate shield and I will be in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. I have also said, in this thread, that you can't have your cake and eat it to, meaning, you can't claim the corporation is a separate entity from the shareholders when it comes to litigation and then turn around and claim they are the same when it come to taxation.

And when you get down to it, that double taxation is the price the corporations are more than willing to pay in order to have the corporate shield.

Amazon product ASIN 0195326199
Honestly, this is basic business. I mean you might not touch on it in those introductory accounting classes at the community college, but you get into your junior year at a real university, they teach you this shit. The problem is, like the redefining of a "free market", wealthy and powerful individuals have attempted to manipulate the gullible and the uneducated, into believing this "double taxation" myth as a means of manipulating public opinion to the point that they can keep that corporate shield, that they were more than willing to pay for initially, for free.

Apparently few people responding understand GAAP and basic accounting, nor the advantages and disadvantages of the various corporate structures. However what alarms me just as much is the fact that people do not comprehend the fundamental fact that the stockholders own the business not the Board of Directors nor the CEO, furthermore that the Board of Directors is elected to represent the will of the stockholders and insure the financial health of the corporation.

That use to be their jobs.

Yes, businesses are the property of the owners of the company.

The dumbest shit is Winston saying a company is a person and that the owners of a company aren't paying the businesses expenses. He said literally that they are "different people."

Companies aren't mentioned in the Constitution. They are a thing. An asset. The owners have the same rights over their corporation as they have over their homes and their horses and other property. The right to life, liberty and property cannot be violated without due process of law

 

[kaz]

Apparently few people responding understand GAAP and basic accounting, nor the advantages and disadvantages of the various corporate structures. However what alarms me just as much is the fact that people do not comprehend the fundamental fact that the stockholders own the business not the Board of Directors nor the CEO, furthermore that the Board of Directors is elected to represent the will of the stockholders and insure the financial health of the corporation.

That use to be their jobs.

If your reference is that of the Board of Director’s they have improved, somewhat, however, still have a long ways to go. Regretfully the fear of being seen as confrontational, unwilling to challenge management, demanding accountability, is not why they were nominated by the nominating committee or in their DNA, yet believe it or not it’s what they demanded of their junior executives in the company’s they run or ran, how they arrived on the Board in the first place. Most CEO’s see themselves as indispensable.

Yes , add in the fact that they set wages on positions that they are trying to achieve themselves. They are generally people who perceive value and self value in dollars and cents. What surprises me is how little pressure is put on them by the stockholders or how management has control of them.

Corporations are investments, of course they are measured in dollars and cents.

When you buy a car, you buy it to DRIVE. You aren't buying a car to say life is all about driving, just that you want to get from one place to another.

Businesses are to make a living. That is one part of life. It doesn't make it your whole life. Yes, COMPANIES measure dollars and cents. Just like cars measure MPG's.

My car gets 30 MPGs, what does that say about my religion? My friends? My self worth? Nothing, it says your CAR gets 30 MPGs.

And the Board of Directors doesn't set salaries other than upper management. And they are typically part time, there is no comparison to salaries they "want to make themselves."

You're babbling about things that don't make any sense