Wells Hall Off Topic Board

Pervis, perhaps libs should focus on eliminating all these deductions and level the playing field for all. There is support for eliminating all the complexity and special interest deductions from the tax code in exchange for lower tax rates across the board. Harping about raising dividend and investment taxes is a red herring ..since that income is already taxed heavily after it is taxed twice..unlike wages and salaries.

You're still stuck on the double-taxation fallacy. I'm all for eliminating gifts to certain special interests, but it's time that you recognize that among the biggest special interest gifts is the preferential treatment of investment income. You hitched your wagon to Bullwrinkle in this thread. If you go through the thread I linked, you'll see how his views on taxation are indefensible - or at least, indefensible by him.

My synopsis wasn't wrong; it was just brief. I didn't even bother to include the account of how you desperately tried to get k9 on your side when he joined the thread. He and I actually ended up having a much more interesting conversation than you're capable of.

My answer to your question is "no". Unlike you, I won't pretend later that I didn't say that; I'll stand by my answer. Thanks again for reminding me of that old thread that's been stuck in your craw. Your complete humiliation was a pleasure to read again.

Conservatives try to pass off the double-taxation bit any time someone points out that some very wealthy people enjoy some very low tax rates. It's the same with inheritance taxes. "That money has already been taxed!" you'll whine. Your own example of the paycheck could spur the same complaint: why should you have to pay taxes on your paycheck when your company already pays taxes? When an entity receives money, the entity should be responsible for paying taxes on it. A dollar isn't what's being taxed - it's the entity that receives it.

I've seen conservatives on this board (possibly including you) say that it's the consumers who pay corporate taxes, because the corporations just pass it along in the price of goods. That's utter bullshit, too. But you guys should at least find a victim and stick with it. Changing the complaint to suit every victimhood claim undermines your credibility.

Its true that inheritance tax is double taxation. Except the 2nd taxation normally happens well down the road. With dividends the tax is paid twice in the same year. And that money goes right into the govt coffers more quickly. Anyway you cut it ..its a double tax. If corporations didn't pay it, then dividends would be much higher and people could pay an equal rate to salary income. I am not saying it needs to change. Just that when libs complain about dividend income being taxed at 15% they are completely ignorant. Because the income tax paid on that money is at least 35-45% in that year. That is NOT the case with salary income. Money that is paid in salary is only taxed at a rate of 0%-35% in the same year. That is the truth and you can't deny it.

You're trying to explain the incredibly difficult concept of double taxation to a dolt who just said yet again that corporate taxes aren't regressive. Good luck Lars, you'd have better success teaching Sanskrit to a basset hound.

You'll have to provide actual quotes to back up your claim. I don't remember saying that I believe a corporate tax is a regressive tax. So I'll wait for that quote, but I won't hold my breath.

Settle down there little fella, I asked you if corporate taxes were regressive. You answered no. Just read up the page a bit. Then maybe we'll start over on your economic edumucation again.

Uhg.. ...You are mixing state or county sales tax and federal income taxes. The buyer doesn't pay any tax to the federal govt on the car purchase. But the dealer does on profits. The dealer gets to write off all his expenses (salaries, overhead, rent and any business expense) against that profit on that sale. He then pays tax on what is left over. If he then distributes that profit to himself or other owners in the business..they pay tax again.

You're deflecting. I'm not talking about the buyer's tax, and I never implied that. The dealer must pay taxes on the profit - as I clearly mentioned. So is that also double taxation, since the buyer already paid federal income tax on the money he spent on the car?

Also, do you have any response to the rest of my post? Your position raises some issues that you seem unwilling to address.

You still won't even touch my last point, but I'll get to that later.

Your problem is that you're still confusing the corporation with the shareholders. They are different entities, just as a company and its employees are, a car-buyer and a dealership are, and a dead guy and those who receive the inheritance are. There is no reason that an entity shouldn't be responsible for paying taxes for money it receives.

As for your claim about the screaming, the only screamer here is you. I'm merely pointing out that life isn't as horribly unfair for Mitt Romney as you think. He gets preferential treatment because he doesn't work for a living. Good for him.

Now, for my last point, you continue to operate under the apparent assumption that all corporate profits go to the shareholders. That's why you don't realize that corporations might choose to decrease their dividend payments if there were no corporate tax. This may be news to you, but some corporations don't pay dividends.

Any claims you make about me will require evidence. You're boring me.

So what is it that you want? Do you want to eliminate the corporate tax or do you want to allow corporations to write off dividend payouts?

Offhand, I'd imagine that creating a big tax incentive for dividend payments might have some serious repurcussions on the stock values by decreasing reinvestment, stock buybacks and other uses of corporate profits. I'm sure there'd be other effects that don't immediately come to mind. It would be interesting to see projections on that.

There is no double tax on wages, and there still wouldn't be if a company couldn't write salaries off. If I took a job for a certain salary, I'd get that salary minus the taxes I'd have to pay. It would be the business owner who'd have a problem with that.