dividend tax rate?

[Care4all]

Unspoken here is that the tax cut produced MORE revenue for the Treasury, not less. Thus raising the rate will produce LESS revenue. Obama appears not to get this very simple concept, btw. He was asked about it specifically during hte campaign and basically said I dont know and I dont care.

it was not until 2005 before we slightly passed what we were collecting in taxes in the year 2000, before the initial 2001 tax cuts... and when taxes are not cut, tax revenues do not go down each year, they continue to go up in unison with our gdp growth....

we have not made up in tax revenues since 2005... when our gvt FINALLY pulled in a little more in revenues than in 2000, what we lost in tax revenues that would have been collected without the tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.... was what was found in my last review of it.

 

[dilloduck]

Unspoken here is that the tax cut produced MORE revenue for the Treasury, not less. Thus raising the rate will produce LESS revenue. Obama appears not to get this very simple concept, btw. He was asked about it specifically during hte campaign and basically said I dont know and I dont care.

it was not until 2005 before we slightly passed what we were collecting in taxes in the year 2000, before the initial 2001 tax cuts... and when taxes are not cut, tax revenues do not go down each year, they continue to go up in unison with our gdp growth....

we have not made up in tax revenues since 2005... when our gvt FINALLY pulled in a little more in revenues than in 2000, what we lost in tax revenues that would have been collected without the tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.... was what was found in my last review of it.

(If you got paid for researching you could afford a stove)

 

[Care4all]

Unspoken here is that the tax cut produced MORE revenue for the Treasury, not less. Thus raising the rate will produce LESS revenue. Obama appears not to get this very simple concept, btw. He was asked about it specifically during hte campaign and basically said I dont know and I dont care.

it was not until 2005 before we slightly passed what we were collecting in taxes in the year 2000, before the initial 2001 tax cuts... and when taxes are not cut, tax revenues do not go down each year, they continue to go up in unison with our gdp growth....

we have not made up in tax revenues since 2005... when our gvt FINALLY pulled in a little more in revenues than in 2000, what we lost in tax revenues that would have been collected without the tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.... was what was found in my last review of it.

(If you got paid for researching you could afford a stove)

hahahahaha! no kidding! i wouldn't need the wood stove at all though....i would just be able to afford my central heat!

 

[Care4all]

One's private business ventures, when operated through an LLC and trust structures.

private business ventures in limited liability corporations is a business investment or taxes are paid on investment money that earned a profit verses money made from your own labor...

i don't see the difference? invest in a large corporation, get a dividend...invest in a small corporation, get a dividend?

 

[The Rabbi]

Unspoken here is that the tax cut produced MORE revenue for the Treasury, not less. Thus raising the rate will produce LESS revenue. Obama appears not to get this very simple concept, btw. He was asked about it specifically during hte campaign and basically said I dont know and I dont care.

it was not until 2005 before we slightly passed what we were collecting in taxes in the year 2000, before the initial 2001 tax cuts... and when taxes are not cut, tax revenues do not go down each year, they continue to go up in unison with our gdp growth....

we have not made up in tax revenues since 2005... when our gvt FINALLY pulled in a little more in revenues than in 2000, what we lost in tax revenues that would have been collected without the tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.... was what was found in my last review of it.

How is any of that a refutation of anything I wrote?

 

[Oddball]

One's private business ventures, when operated through an LLC and trust structures.

private business ventures in limited liability corporations is a business investment or taxes are paid on investment money that earned a profit verses money made from your own labor...

i don't see the difference? invest in a large corporation, get a dividend...invest in a small corporation, get a dividend?

Or invest your own labors, under the auspices of the LLC and trust.....A great shelter from both taxes and predatory litigation.

 

[Care4all]

One's private business ventures, when operated through an LLC and trust structures.

private business ventures in limited liability corporations is a business investment or taxes are paid on investment money that earned a profit verses money made from your own labor...

i don't see the difference? invest in a large corporation, get a dividend...invest in a small corporation, get a dividend?

Or invest your own labors, under the auspices of the LLC and trust.....A great shelter from both taxes and predatory litigation.

true...but sad though, that some can mask their labor, or EVEN HAVE TO is sad as well, while others....can not.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're bemoaning the fact that some people are more clever and capable than others>?

 

[Care4all]

So you're bemoaning the fact that some people are more clever and capable than others>?

so you support our income tax system as it is?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love how these raise taxes posts never seem to mention as an option that the government spend less of our money.

Sure Bush ran up a 1/2 billion dollar deficit but Obama more than doubled down and ran it to multi- trillions but that's OK because he has a plan to pay it off. No one seems to think that Obama's numbers are based on consecutive years of 4% plus increases in GDP is a problem even though consecutive years of 4% growth is as likely to happen as winning consecutive 100 million dollar power ball lotteries.

The answer for our fiscal problems is not giving the government more money.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're bemoaning the fact that some people are more clever and capable than others>?

so you support our income tax system as it is?

I'm not sure how you managed to mangle that out of anything I wrote.

 

[editec]

In 2003; Bush admin have signed a law that decreased the tax-dividend from 35% to 15%..

it seems that it will last until 2010- do you agree rising this tax-rate again in its original value?

Yes.

We gave the rich a huge tax savings to stimulate the ecoomy.

How'd that work out for us?

 

[The Rabbi]

How did it work out?
Six years of large increases in GDP and a market that rewarded many.
Why do you ask?

 

[Care4all]

How did it work out?
Six years of large increases in GDP and a market that rewarded many.
Why do you ask?

sigh...you are being so narrow minded and oviously are just sticking to a partisan without THOUGHT Rab...

Let me give you a hint....

The HOUSING BUBBLE

Now go get some coffee....

we lost 11 trillion in gdp overnight with the stock market crash last year....

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BRAG ABOUT with the economy, under president Bush....it was PHONY, FAKE, A BUBBLE.

Care

 

[Care4all]

I love how these raise taxes posts never seem to mention as an option that the government spend less of our money.

Sure Bush ran up a 1/2 billion dollar deficit but Obama more than doubled down and ran it to multi- trillions but that's OK because he has a plan to pay it off. No one seems to think that Obama's numbers are based on consecutive years of 4% plus increases in GDP is a problem even though consecutive years of 4% growth is as likely to happen as winning consecutive 100 million dollar power ball lotteries.

The answer for our fiscal problems is not giving the government more money.

Under president Bush's reign we added NEARLY 7 TRILLION to the National Debt...$7TRILLION WAS BORROWED for their spending....

PLEASE get a handle on what the numbers REALLY ARE, before you spout off on it....

President bush did NOT include the afghan war costs in his budget.

President Bush did not include the 100 billion for the katrina help in his budget.

President Bush did not include the cost of the Iraqi war in his budget.

President Bush also had huge social security surplusses that he spent....they PEAKED under his administration, there will only be less and less SS surplus to spend for the obama administration.

Under president Bush, we bailed out banks and insurance companies for OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS, and NONE OF THAT SPENDING was put in his budget where they would show as deficits.

But the MONEY SPENT on these things did show up in our NATIONAL DEBT.

For 8 years president Bush DECEIVED us, by NOT putting these things in the budget so that they WOULD NOT SHOW UP AS DEFICITS of the Budget, but you can't fool mother nature....look at the National Debt increases and you will see what president Bush's REAL DEFICIT OF HIS BUDGET WAS....

President Obama and under the Democrats has put every penny of spending in to the Budget, there is nothing HIDDEN....he does deserve credit for this....even if his numers are mind blowing.

Also, Obama's FIRST budget began 4 days ago.... what was spent in the budget for 2009 began october 1st 2008 ending september 30, 2009 and IS NOT OBAMA'S budget, it is president Bush's.

 

[Care4all]

So you're bemoaning the fact that some people are more clever and capable than others>?

so you support our income tax system as it is?

I'm not sure how you managed to mangle that out of anything I wrote.

How about answering the question?

And i got the question out of YOUR SUPPORT for some people being able to pay less in taxes than the guy next to him making the same net income...

i got it from your SUPPORT of our tax system through your support of the person that got to only pay 15% on what he makes, verses the secretary having to pay 25% on what she makes...you attributed this to being SMART.... instead of this being another unfair thing in our tax system....put in the IRS CODE by the wealthiest, for the wealthiest...

don't worry, we got your song right Rab....we know where you stand.

 

[Oddball]

private business ventures in limited liability corporations is a business investment or taxes are paid on investment money that earned a profit verses money made from your own labor...

i don't see the difference? invest in a large corporation, get a dividend...invest in a small corporation, get a dividend?

Or invest your own labors, under the auspices of the LLC and trust.....A great shelter from both taxes and predatory litigation.

true...but sad though, that some can mask their labor, or EVEN HAVE TO is sad as well, while others....can not.

Too bad, so sad.....Just another argument in favor of junking all taxation of labor.

 

[The Rabbi]

How did it work out?
Six years of large increases in GDP and a market that rewarded many.
Why do you ask?

sigh...you are being so narrow minded and oviously are just sticking to a partisan without THOUGHT Rab...

Let me give you a hint....

The HOUSING BUBBLE

Now go get some coffee....

we lost 11 trillion in gdp overnight with the stock market crash last year....

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BRAG ABOUT with the economy, under president Bush....it was PHONY, FAKE, A BUBBLE.

Care

No, you are the one who cannot accept reality.
US GDP 2000:9,764,800,000,000
US. GDP 2008:14,204,322,000,000
Hmm $9.7T to $14.2T. Sounds like a 46% increase. Versus a maybe 10% decrease since the recession started.
I'[d suggest going back and checking your numbers. Check your stupid liberal assumptions at the door while you're at it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love how these raise taxes posts never seem to mention as an option that the government spend less of our money.

Sure Bush ran up a 1/2 billion dollar deficit but Obama more than doubled down and ran it to multi- trillions but that's OK because he has a plan to pay it off. No one seems to think that Obama's numbers are based on consecutive years of 4% plus increases in GDP is a problem even though consecutive years of 4% growth is as likely to happen as winning consecutive 100 million dollar power ball lotteries.

The answer for our fiscal problems is not giving the government more money.

Under president Bush's reign we added NEARLY 7 TRILLION to the National Debt...$7TRILLION WAS BORROWED for their spending....

PLEASE get a handle on what the numbers REALLY ARE, before you spout off on it....

President bush did NOT include the afghan war costs in his budget.

President Bush did not include the 100 billion for the katrina help in his budget.

President Bush did not include the cost of the Iraqi war in his budget.

President Bush also had huge social security surplusses that he spent....they PEAKED under his administration, there will only be less and less SS surplus to spend for the obama administration.

Under president Bush, we bailed out banks and insurance companies for OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS, and NONE OF THAT SPENDING was put in his budget where they would show as deficits.

But the MONEY SPENT on these things did show up in our NATIONAL DEBT.

For 8 years president Bush DECEIVED us, by NOT putting these things in the budget so that they WOULD NOT SHOW UP AS DEFICITS of the Budget, but you can't fool mother nature....look at the National Debt increases and you will see what president Bush's REAL DEFICIT OF HIS BUDGET WAS....

President Obama and under the Democrats has put every penny of spending in to the Budget, there is nothing HIDDEN....he does deserve credit for this....even if his numers are mind blowing.





Also, Obama's FIRST budget beg 4aysys a ago.... what was spt in t the budget for 2009 began october 1st 2008 ending ptberer 3 30, 2009 and INOOBAMAMA'S'S budget, it is prent B Busush's.

URL="hthttp://www.forbes.com/2009/03/20/federal-budget-deficit-business-washington-budget.html"]http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/20/federal-budget-deficit-business-washington-budget.html[/URL]

The CBO Says Barack Obama's Budget Would Increase the Deficit by $2.3 Trillion More Than Expected - WSJ.com

Deficits soar even with rosy Obama budget assumptions | McClatchy

The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt

The simple fact is that in your stumbling to defend our current spender in chief is that every lying scum bag power hungry corrupt mother ****** who has parked his slimy ass in the oval office has spent more of our money than his predecessor and you would rather defend one over another

 

[Hum Dinger]

Back to the original question:

The Conservative point of view has been that taxing corporation's net income, then taxing dividends is double taxation, and therefore dividends should not be taxed.

My point of view is that that taxing corporation's net incomes, half as much as would otherwise be taxed, then collecting the second half of the taxes when dividends are declared creates incentive not to declare dividends, but to reinvest a large part of the net income back into the company.

This encourages growth, expansion and job creation. Which in turn increases the over all value of the stock and help stimulate the economy in general. In the end, the stock holder stands more to gain.

Unfortunately, the wisdom of this system is lost on short-sighted Conservatives.

The Bush tax reductions on dividends correspond to a marked lack of economic growth with simultaneous high profits.

But gutting the economy for the sake of immediate personal profits seems to be the Conservative modus operandi.

I guess 'Trickle-Down' was just a big joke on us all!