What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why do Democrat politicians and some GOP also FORGET... ALL Corporations PAY TAXES

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
35,572
Reaction score
26,604
Points
2,915
The COMMUNISTS in power LIE to manipulate voters.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,543
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
And who believes YOU? NO links. No sources.
There are 67,400,000 results of double taxation so there must be something there.
WHERE IS YOUR proof?
View attachment 548530
I am not impressed with all the results you can get when you google "double taxation". That just tells me that the powers that be work very hard to convince you of the "myth of double taxation". And frankly, unless you are a member of the top one percent of income earners that own half of the total stock market capitalization, you are being little more than a useful idiot.

You want links, then google "myth of double taxation", plenty there to examine. Why don't we first start by you explaining how this is not double taxation,

Let’s suppose that I hire you as a maid. I don’t pay you with my pre-tax salary; I pay you with my post-tax salary. I get paid and I pay my taxes. With the money left over, I pay you, and you too have to pay income taxes.


The difference, nobody gives two shits that the maid has to pay taxes on her income, hell, it is expected. But those wealthy stockholders, they have convinced you that they are somehow "special", and they should not have to pay taxes on their dividend income.

Then there is this,

There is an old myth developed by rich people at some point in the distant past that paying taxes on dividends amounts to “double-taxation.” The argument is that profits are already taxed at the corporate level, so taxing money when it is paid out as dividends to shareholders is taxing the same profit a second time.

Myth, you got that. And here is why,

The trick in this argument is that it ignores the enormous benefits that the government is granting by allowing a corporation to exist as a free standing legal entity. The most important of these advantages is limited liability. If a corporation produces dangerous products or emits dangerous substances that result in thousands of deaths, shareholders in the corporation cannot be held personally responsible for the damage. The corporation can go bankrupt, but beyond that point, all the shareholders are off the hook, the victims of the damage are just out of luck.


I have said it before, we can eliminate the corporate income tax as soon as those corporations are willing to lose their corporate shield. The reality is that the wealthy are more than willing to pay the price for that corporate shield, which is the corporate income tax. Baker put it best here,

The complaint about double taxation is an effort to get the benefits of corporate status for free. It is understandable that rich people would want to get benefits from the government at no cost, just like most of us would prefer not to pay our mortgage or electric bill. But, there is no reason for government to be handing out something of great value (corporate status) for free. If rich people don’t like the corporate income tax, they have a very simple way to avoid it — don’t invest in corporations. The problem is that the rich are just a bunch of whiners.

How ironic is it that you and those of your political persuasion will lament till the cows come home about poor people getting something for free, and yet here you are, seizing on myths specifically constructed to get you to fight like hell for rich people to get something for free. From where I sit, that makes you a fool.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
I am not impressed with all the results you can get when you google "double taxation". That just tells me that the powers that be work very hard to convince you of the "myth of double taxation". And frankly, unless you are a member of the top one percent of income earners that own half of the total stock market capitalization, you are being little more than a useful idiot.

You want links, then google "myth of double taxation", plenty there to examine. Why don't we first start by you explaining how this is not double taxation,

Let’s suppose that I hire you as a maid. I don’t pay you with my pre-tax salary; I pay you with my post-tax salary. I get paid and I pay my taxes. With the money left over, I pay you, and you too have to pay income taxes.


The difference, nobody gives two shits that the maid has to pay taxes on her income, hell, it is expected. But those wealthy stockholders, they have convinced you that they are somehow "special", and they should not have to pay taxes on their dividend income.

Then there is this,

There is an old myth developed by rich people at some point in the distant past that paying taxes on dividends amounts to “double-taxation.” The argument is that profits are already taxed at the corporate level, so taxing money when it is paid out as dividends to shareholders is taxing the same profit a second time.

Myth, you got that. And here is why,

The trick in this argument is that it ignores the enormous benefits that the government is granting by allowing a corporation to exist as a free standing legal entity. The most important of these advantages is limited liability. If a corporation produces dangerous products or emits dangerous substances that result in thousands of deaths, shareholders in the corporation cannot be held personally responsible for the damage. The corporation can go bankrupt, but beyond that point, all the shareholders are off the hook, the victims of the damage are just out of luck.


I have said it before, we can eliminate the corporate income tax as soon as those corporations are willing to lose their corporate shield. The reality is that the wealthy are more than willing to pay the price for that corporate shield, which is the corporate income tax. Baker put it best here,

The complaint about double taxation is an effort to get the benefits of corporate status for free. It is understandable that rich people would want to get benefits from the government at no cost, just like most of us would prefer not to pay our mortgage or electric bill. But, there is no reason for government to be handing out something of great value (corporate status) for free. If rich people don’t like the corporate income tax, they have a very simple way to avoid it — don’t invest in corporations. The problem is that the rich are just a bunch of whiners.

How ironic is it that you and those of your political persuasion will lament till the cows come home about poor people getting something for free, and yet here you are, seizing on myths specifically constructed to get you to fight like hell for rich people to get something for free. From where I sit, that makes you a fool.
Double taxation clearly can be costly.
There are two justifications offered for taxing corporate profits twice.
  • First, the tax on corporate profits is seen as justified because businesses organized as corporations are separate legal entities.
  • Second, levying individual taxes on dividends is seen as necessary to keep wealthy shareholders from paying no income taxes.
Both of the above JUSTIFICATIONS address your really provincial, Marxist attitude about corporations.
The issue of legal liability addressed point 1... those wealthy evil 1% getting dividends... #2.
For a reality check...
Let's assume Winston is the sole owner of a corporation. 100% share holder.
A) Winston's corporation pays federal corporate taxes on corporate profits is 21 percent.
B) After deducting the taxes, Winston's corporation pays a dividend to shareholder Winston.
The top marginal individual tax rate is 37 percent on the dividends paid by Winston's corporation.

Is that not double taxation on Winston? He owns 100% the corporation that paid corporate taxes and
then Winston gets dividends which are then taxed at 37%!
Explain to me why Winston's personal income was reduced by 58%, i.e. corporate taxed and dividends taxed.
"Double Taxation". Sorry no other way to describe it!
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,543
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
Double taxation clearly can be costly.
There are two justifications offered for taxing corporate profits twice.
  • First, the tax on corporate profits is seen as justified because businesses organized as corporations are separate legal entities.
  • Second, levying individual taxes on dividends is seen as necessary to keep wealthy shareholders from paying no income taxes.
Both of the above JUSTIFICATIONS address your really provincial, Marxist attitude about corporations.
The issue of legal liability addressed point 1... those wealthy evil 1% getting dividends... #2.
For a reality check...
Let's assume Winston is the sole owner of a corporation. 100% share holder.
A) Winston's corporation pays federal corporate taxes on corporate profits is 21 percent.
B) After deducting the taxes, Winston's corporation pays a dividend to shareholder Winston.
The top marginal individual tax rate is 37 percent on the dividends paid by Winston's corporation.

Is that not double taxation on Winston? He owns 100% the corporation that paid corporate taxes and
then Winston gets dividends which are then taxed at 37%!
Explain to me why Winston's personal income was reduced by 58%, i.e. corporate taxed and dividends taxed.
"Double Taxation". Sorry no other way to describe it!
Simple, Winston's corporation produces an inferior product that ends up killing a dozen people. The corporation goes bankrupt, loses everything. But Winston still gets to keep his 10.000 square foot home on the golf course and his 100 foot yacht anchored in Charleston.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
Simple, Winston's corporation produces an inferior product that ends up killing a dozen people. The corporation goes bankrupt, loses everything. But Winston still gets to keep his 10.000 square foot home on the golf course and his 100 foot yacht anchored in Charleston.
So what does that have to do with "Double taxation"? NOTHING! Once again the pompous, Marxist, supposedly "oh I care" mentality is totally irrelevant. The FACTS are there was double taxation.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,543
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
So what does that have to do with "Double taxation"? NOTHING! Once again the pompous, Marxist, supposedly "oh I care" mentality is totally irrelevant. The FACTS are there was double taxation.
Then when are you going to explain how the maid in my example is not double taxation? And if you can't, then why is it OK for the maid to be double taxed but not shareholders? I mean at least the shareholders get the perk of the corporate shield, what does the maid get? And no, there is no damn double taxation. Money is taxed multiple times through the money cycle. The purpose of taxes is not to capture the money at one specific point and then forget about it. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government, and they do that by assessing various taxes at various points. I mean the people that bought the product from the corporation paid taxes on that money, now the corporation pays it again, and then the shareholders pay it again, and then they pay sales taxes on it, or use it to pay the maid, and she pays taxes again. I mean how stupid is your argument.

You have been manipulated. What do you say about being manipulated in order for wealthy shareholders to get the corporate shield for free, and yet you would bitch like hell if a poor person got a free Obama phone. How does that make sense? Throughout history the world has used useful idiots like yourself to conduct unfair practices or slant the playing field one way or another. Sorry you can't see it even though it is right in front of your face. And you started this idiot thread by proclaiming that since all corporations paid the FICA tax for their employees the claim that corporations did not pay taxes is false. But now you want to talk about the difference in income taxes and sales taxes, or even make them the same, like the corporate tax and the income tax are equivalent. I mean you are all over the place, no consistency whatsoever, contorting yourself into a pretzel to appease your masters. Like I said, what a fool.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
Then when are you going to explain how the maid in my example is not double taxation? And if you can't, then why is it OK for the maid to be double taxed but not shareholders? I mean at least the shareholders get the perk of the corporate shield, what does the maid get? And no, there is no damn double taxation. Money is taxed multiple times through the money cycle. The purpose of taxes is not to capture the money at one specific point and then forget about it. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government, and they do that by assessing various taxes at various points. I mean the people that bought the product from the corporation paid taxes on that money, now the corporation pays it again, and then the shareholders pay it again, and then they pay sales taxes on it, or use it to pay the maid, and she pays taxes again. I mean how stupid is your argument.

You have been manipulated. What do you say about being manipulated in order for wealthy shareholders to get the corporate shield for free, and yet you would bitch like hell if a poor person got a free Obama phone. How does that make sense? Throughout history the world has used useful idiots like yourself to conduct unfair practices or slant the playing field one way or another. Sorry you can't see it even though it is right in front of your face. And you started this idiot thread by proclaiming that since all corporations paid the FICA tax for their employees the claim that corporations did not pay taxes is false. But now you want to talk about the difference in income taxes and sales taxes, or even make them the same, like the corporate tax and the income tax are equivalent. I mean you are all over the place, no consistency whatsoever, contorting yourself into a pretzel to appease your masters. Like I said, what a fool.
Boy are you truly an economic illiterate!
Are you saying the "maid's wages" are paid out of AFTER TAX money? Because you imply that the
maid has double taxation, i.e. that the maid's wages are deducted AFTER income taxes calculated. RIGHT?
YOU said it ... the maid was double taxed. WHERE? The maid's wages aren't calculated in the corporate taxes, i.e. the maid is PAID from before corporate taxes.
But now the only place left is the lump sum paid to the paid.

Pre-Tax Deduction List​

The federal government may change the rules regarding pre-tax deductions on an annual basis. Regulations and limits are also subject to change. Be sure to check for updated information regarding pre-tax deductions before making changes to payroll. Here’s a list of items that currently qualify as pre-tax deductions:
  • Healthcare Insurance
  • Health Savings Accounts
  • Supplemental Insurance Coverage
  • Short-Term Disability
  • Long-Term Disability
  • Dental Insurance
  • Child Care Expenses
  • Medical Expenses and Flexible Spending Accounts
  • Life Insurance
  • Commuter Benefits
  • Retirement Funds
  • Tax-Deferred Investments
  • Vision Benefits
  • Parking Permits

Do Pre-Tax Deductions Reduce Taxable Income?​

Yes, pre-tax deductions will almost always reduce taxable income for an employee.
This occurs because the money is taken out of the employee’s gross pay before taxes are withheld
NOW Winston you dummy... If all of the above are deducted BEFOREthe individual taxes (including FICA) are calculated, how is the maid "double taxed"?
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,543
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
Boy are you truly an economic illiterate!
Are you saying the "maid's wages" are paid out of AFTER TAX money? Because you imply that the
maid has double taxation, i.e. that the maid's wages are deducted AFTER income taxes calculated. RIGHT?
YOU said it ... the maid was double taxed. WHERE? The maid's wages aren't calculated in the corporate taxes, i.e. the maid is PAID from before corporate taxes.
But now the only place left is the lump sum paid to the paid.

Pre-Tax Deduction List​

The federal government may change the rules regarding pre-tax deductions on an annual basis. Regulations and limits are also subject to change. Be sure to check for updated information regarding pre-tax deductions before making changes to payroll. Here’s a list of items that currently qualify as pre-tax deductions:
  • Healthcare Insurance
  • Health Savings Accounts
  • Supplemental Insurance Coverage
  • Short-Term Disability
  • Long-Term Disability
  • Dental Insurance
  • Child Care Expenses
  • Medical Expenses and Flexible Spending Accounts
  • Life Insurance
  • Commuter Benefits
  • Retirement Funds
  • Tax-Deferred Investments
  • Vision Benefits
  • Parking Permits

Do Pre-Tax Deductions Reduce Taxable Income?​

Yes, pre-tax deductions will almost always reduce taxable income for an employee.
This occurs because the money is taken out of the employee’s gross pay before taxes are withheld
NOW Winston you dummy... If all of the above are deducted BEFOREthe individual taxes (including FICA) are calculated, how is the maid "double taxed"?
Seriously. You have a job. You earned income and paid taxes on that income. Then you pay the maid with your after tax income. But the maid, she has to pay taxes on her income.

The corporation has a job. The corporation earns income and pays taxes on that income. Then the corporation pays the shareholders with their after tax income. But the shareholders, they have to pay taxes on their income.

Looks like the same thing to me. You have your head so far up your ass that you can't see that the maid is paid from HER EMPLOYERS after tax income, not hers. Just like the shareholders are paid with the CORPORATIONS after tax income, not theirs. So try again, tell me how they are different.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
Seriously. You have a job. You earned income and paid taxes on that income. Then you pay the maid with your after tax income. But the maid, she has to pay taxes on her income.

The corporation has a job. The corporation earns income and pays taxes on that income. Then the corporation pays the shareholders with their after tax income. But the shareholders, they have to pay taxes on their income.

Looks like the same thing to me. You have your head so far up your ass that you can't see that the maid is paid from HER EMPLOYERS after tax income, not hers. Just like the shareholders are paid with the CORPORATIONS after tax income, not theirs. So try again, tell me how they are different.
You don't see the difference between a shareholder and a maid do you? You are stuck on the premise that the shareholders are double taxed.
What is the major difference between a shareholder and a maid?
The shareholder has already paid a tax on the net income and then from the net income now here's the complication you may not comprehend... the shareholder uses part of that previously taxed net income to what... BUY SHARES in the corporation. Actually take money out of the bank and buy SHARES.
Now the maid has done nothing. Hasn't received money from other sources and put it into the corporation.
The maid's investment is 40 hours a week. After which the maid gets paid. The maid spent NO MONEY of the wages for stock in the company that paid dividends do people that took their own, already taxed money and bought shares intending to gain revenue i.e. DIVIDENDS that come from after tax payment profits. Now the investor has to pay taxes on the dividends that were earned from money invested in the corporation.
I know this is hard for an economically illiterate person to comprehend. But to summarize:
The investor paid taxes on money invested in the corporation. Investor received dividends AFTER the corporation paid taxes. Now the investor declares the dividends and pays taxes. That's double taxation.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,543
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
You don't see the difference between a shareholder and a maid do you? You are stuck on the premise that the shareholders are double taxed.
What is the major difference between a shareholder and a maid?
The shareholder has already paid a tax on the net income and then from the net income now here's the complication you may not comprehend... the shareholder uses part of that previously taxed net income to what... BUY SHARES in the corporation. Actually take money out of the bank and buy SHARES.
Now the maid has done nothing. Hasn't received money from other sources and put it into the corporation.
The maid's investment is 40 hours a week. After which the maid gets paid. The maid spent NO MONEY of the wages for stock in the company that paid dividends do people that took their own, already taxed money and bought shares intending to gain revenue i.e. DIVIDENDS that come from after tax payment profits. Now the investor has to pay taxes on the dividends that were earned from money invested in the corporation.
I know this is hard for an economically illiterate person to comprehend. But to summarize:
The investor paid taxes on money invested in the corporation. Investor received dividends AFTER the corporation paid taxes. Now the investor declares the dividends and pays taxes. That's double taxation.
Oh yeah, I see a big difference. The only thing the "investor", and that is a misnomer,, buying stock on the public exchange is not "investing" it is saving. You are purchasing a vehicle that you expect, at some point, to sell at a profit. No damn different than buying a CD. The money you "invest" does not go to the company, is not used for capital investment, is merely sent to another so-called "investor" as a return on his SAVINGS. But the only thing that "investor" does is throw some money out. But damn whoop. The maid, the maid contributed TIME you asshole. The maid contributed sweat, work, effort, so yeah, I am seeing a big damn difference. And your sorry ass says the maid has contributed nothing. You are a real piece of shit.

I mean the maid paid taxes on the money she spent to put gas in her car to drive to your sorry ass's house. She paid money to buy clothes to wear, probably even bought her own mop and broom, cleaning supplies, and gloves. Hell, if she has kids she has paid money to put them in daycare so you could be at your damn house. And the dude that buys the stock just threw a little bit of money out. I mean wow, your lack of respect for "labor" is insulting, and really kind of sad.

Here is the deal. I have tens of millions of dollars under management. I have been in the "business" for more than two decades. Not a single one of my clients has lost a dime, not a damn dime. I know how the system works. I am paid handsomely for that knowledge. I don't seek out clients, they seek me out. And both me, and my clients know, the engine that drives that success is not the damn businesses in which they invest, but the people within those businesses. That is what I evaluate. That is how I protect my clients from losses. But your sorry ass thinks that what drives the economy is the people that have money. BULLSHIT. They don't drive the economy, they extort it.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
Seriously. You have a job. You earned income and paid taxes on that income. Then you pay the maid with your after tax income. But the maid, she has to pay taxes on her income.

The corporation has a job. The corporation earns income and pays taxes on that income. Then the corporation pays the shareholders with their after tax income. But the shareholders, they have to pay taxes on their income.

Looks like the same thing to me. You have your head so far up your ass that you can't see that the maid is paid from HER EMPLOYERS after tax income, not hers. Just like the shareholders are paid with the CORPORATIONS after tax income, not theirs. So try again, tell me how they are different.
You wrote "paid from HER EMPLOYERS after tax income"!
Obviously you've never had a business much less paid FICA...
Here is an expert to straighten you out:

Salaries and Wages as Tax-Deductible Expenses​

Generally speaking, the salaries, wages, commissions, and bonuses you have paid to the employees of your small business are tax-deductible expenses if they are deemed to be:
So just in case you don't understand..
A) Employer pays FICA, etc, and employee wages
B) Employer pays IRS AFTER deducting wages.
That simple
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,543
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
You wrote "paid from HER EMPLOYERS after tax income"!
Obviously you've never had a business much less paid FICA...
Here is an expert to straighten you out:

Salaries and Wages as Tax-Deductible Expenses​

Generally speaking, the salaries, wages, commissions, and bonuses you have paid to the employees of your small business are tax-deductible expenses if they are deemed to be:
So just in case you don't understand..
A) Employer pays FICA, etc, and employee wages
B) Employer pays IRS AFTER deducting wages.
That simple
Holy God but you are flippin ignorant. Do you believe a household is a small business and treated as such? Why in the hell would the government subsidize your damn maid by allowing you to deduct their expense from your income? I mean if you are really stupid enough to believe that horseshit I have some advice for you. Never, ever, post in a thread about taxes, business, or economics. You are totally out of your element. Do yourself a favor and sling away.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top