Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Sheldon Adelson tried to buy the Presidency for about $150,000,000. This month he'll save $150,000,000 in taxes by paying himself an early dividend. You do the math   ( cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Micky Arison, free cash flow, share repurchase, special dividend  
•       •       •

14406 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 6:39 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-05 06:41:05 AM  
I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.
 
2012-12-05 06:43:55 AM  
Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.
 
2012-12-05 06:44:21 AM  
But remember, your vote matters.
 
2012-12-05 06:44:39 AM  
I was told there would be no math.
 
2012-12-05 06:45:09 AM  
I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.
 
2012-12-05 06:46:31 AM  
And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama.
 
2012-12-05 06:46:41 AM  
*glances around*
They earned that money!

/runs
 
2012-12-05 06:48:05 AM  
Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.
 
2012-12-05 06:52:04 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

All shareholders benefit from the dividends, of course. But some of the biggest beneficiaries are corporate insiders and large shareholders. The companies paying accelerated dividends have an average insider ownership of 27 percent - higher than the broadermarket, according to Markit

 
2012-12-05 06:52:44 AM  
But you don't understand, the super-duper-uber rich need MORE tax relief, right? (you can't just buy politicians with leftover dividend money... oh, I guess you can)
 
2012-12-05 06:54:40 AM  
Luxury tax.

That is all.
 
2012-12-05 06:54:44 AM  
JOB CREATORS!
 
2012-12-05 06:54:58 AM  
You see:

a) give the super wealthy more money

b) the money "trickles down"

c) jobs are magically created out of thin air regardless of consumer demand or household financial strength
 
2012-12-05 06:55:02 AM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


Hey, keeping slaves dumb and scared isn't as easy as you think. Religion helps though, and its free.

Step 3: Profit
 
2012-12-05 06:55:18 AM  
But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!
 
2012-12-05 06:55:56 AM  
And what's this "small business owner" shiat that supposedly drives the economy?

No basis in reality, at all.
 
2012-12-05 06:57:05 AM  
Very reminiscent:
3.bp.blogspot.com
"Oh, lo'dy, lo'd, he's desp'it! Do what he sayyyy, do what he sayyyy!"

Also, the president is near.
 
2012-12-05 06:57:30 AM  
It's almost as if these major companies view the payment of dividends as not a business decision but as a way to give money to certain interests whenever they want.
 
2012-12-05 06:59:28 AM  
Meh. I remember that cockbag's commercials. "Badmouthing success." "Socialism." All the pavlovian bell-ringing that man did, and he still failed. It makes me smile.
 
2012-12-05 06:59:30 AM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


Dividends. Let's see... is that considered to be earned income, or something else?
 
2012-12-05 07:01:05 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.


I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists.
 
2012-12-05 07:01:32 AM  

jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!


But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.
 
2012-12-05 07:02:46 AM  

jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists.


Preferred stock.
 
2012-12-05 07:03:09 AM  

viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama.


WTF does Obama have to do with CEOs voting each other huge bonuses for nothing? That's been going on since the 1980s, at least.
 
2012-12-05 07:05:37 AM  

BoxOfBees: Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.

Dividends. Let's see... is that considered to be earned income, or something else?


It's funny because the actual $ came from someones grandma playing nickel slots, who most likely lives on cat food. Lol.

Or maybe the cocktail waitress who makes $2.65/hr + hardly any tips and has to whore herself out to buy her kids braces.


USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-12-05 07:06:09 AM  
Remember how all these companies have been sitting on record levels of cash, just waiting to hire people once the economy recovered?

About that.
 
2012-12-05 07:08:39 AM  

PreMortem: BoxOfBees: Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.

Dividends. Let's see... is that considered to be earned income, or something else?

It's funny because the actual $ came from someones grandma playing nickel slots, who most likely lives on cat food. Lol.

Or maybe the cocktail waitress who makes $2.65/hr + hardly any tips and has to whore herself out to buy her kids braces.


USA! USA! USA!


You have to applaud her Bootbrastrappiness, though.
 
2012-12-05 07:10:12 AM  

vinniethepoo: viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama.

WTF does Obama have to do with CEOs voting each other huge bonuses for nothing? That's been going on since the 1980s, at least.


True. My companies CEO once sat on 7 other Dow Jones Co's boards and was on the Presidents Council of Something or Other.

The fix is in, and if you can ignore other peoples suffering, you can have your own G5.
 
2012-12-05 07:10:21 AM  
Money can't buy health.
 
2012-12-05 07:10:48 AM  
This is good news - by taking the money now instead of next year, it means they will start creating jobs sooner rather than later.
 
2012-12-05 07:10:58 AM  

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.


In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread
 
2012-12-05 07:11:51 AM  
'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.
 
2012-12-05 07:12:23 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.
 
2012-12-05 07:13:04 AM  

Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.


"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.
 
2012-12-05 07:13:56 AM  
And anyways, proto-teabagger Ayn Rand died as a "looter", in the end.
 
2012-12-05 07:14:01 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.


Good.
 
2012-12-05 07:14:55 AM  

Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.


They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".
 
2012-12-05 07:16:03 AM  

wraith95: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Good.


Again, IOW "gimme"
 
2012-12-05 07:16:11 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.


Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.
 
2012-12-05 07:16:18 AM  
Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

And their money in the Caymen Islands is creating so many jobs in America!
 
2012-12-05 07:17:28 AM  
I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.
 
2012-12-05 07:18:32 AM  

coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.


Ahead of the what?
 
2012-12-05 07:19:36 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: wraith95: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Good.

Again, IOW "gimme"


The 'gimme' came when dividend income was given a special 15% tax rate.
 
2012-12-05 07:21:24 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


It's not envy fartknocker, its compassion for people who suffer. I don't care if Adelson buys a newspaper and tries to influence public opinion, I do care if someone who works for him has to go into bankruptcy to pay his medical bills.

So what's that? You don't care if people suffer?

Then yeah, I envy you.
 
2012-12-05 07:24:39 AM  
This is what matters, not the income tax rates. The huge gap between the upper income tax rate and the capital gains tax means that the wealthy pay a lower effective rate than high income earners who are trying to become established, and the super wealthy pay a lower effective rate than the middle class.
 
2012-12-05 07:24:42 AM  

Alphax: coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.

Ahead of the what?


Part of the almost tripling in taxes on dividend in 2013 has to do with the new taxes from the ACA (Obama Care) that kick in.
 
2012-12-05 07:25:09 AM  
Boy, it sure is a good thing these poor, put-upon billionaires have a whole political party bending over backwards to protect them from having to shoulder any of the costs of recovery... These folks have no one to speak for them except the brave souls in the GOP, who know the poor and middle classes should be paying for the avarice of the wealthy elite; Poor persecuted victims of crass class warfare that they are.
 
2012-12-05 07:27:21 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.


The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.
 
2012-12-05 07:27:55 AM  

SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.


I'm cool with this. How about long term vs short term gains?
 
2012-12-05 07:28:05 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.


Instead of going to the owners of the farking company, who, you know, are farking entitled to the earnings. Unless you are posting from one of the two countries where communism hasn't collapsed yet.

/besides, in reality companies will just go back to using earnings to buy back stock once the new tax rates are in, instead of paying dividends.
 
2012-12-05 07:29:46 AM  

patent holder: Alphax: coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.

Ahead of the what?

Part of the almost tripling in taxes on dividend in 2013 has to do with the new taxes from the ACA (Obama Care) that kick in.


I see no mention of the ACA in the article.
 
2012-12-05 07:30:32 AM  

SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.


Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.
 
2012-12-05 07:31:33 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.


I'm also fine with allowing that deduction.
 
2012-12-05 07:32:29 AM  
But if we do X, they'll just do Y, so we shouldn't even be talking about any kind of reform, no matter how small, because there's really nothing we can do.
 
2012-12-05 07:32:44 AM  

Alphax: patent holder: Alphax: coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.

Ahead of the what?

Part of the almost tripling in taxes on dividend in 2013 has to do with the new taxes from the ACA (Obama Care) that kick in.

I see no mention of the ACA in the article.


Yeah, he said TFA doesn't mention Costco. But companies are paying dividends now to avoid ACA taxes (and also hikes if the bush cuts expire). It's smart.
 
2012-12-05 07:34:17 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.


My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.
 
2012-12-05 07:36:44 AM  
Debeo, they're not gonna fark you OR give you money..
 
2012-12-05 07:36:52 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

I'm cool with this. How about long term vs short term gains?


I'd still treat it all as income. I'd rather not start trying to create incentives for people to earn certain kinds of income, as that's a slippery slope that will take us right back where we are.

... and as long as I've the wishing crown on, I'd follow this by eliminating tax deductions, while adjusting the brackets and rates to try to keep the amount that most people pay the same.
 
2012-12-05 07:37:05 AM  

coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.


Wait, what?
 
2012-12-05 07:37:41 AM  

GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.


No it's not. You've been misled or you misunderstand. When your employer pays your salary, they deduct your salary from taxable income. Your salary is taxed at your level alone, your employer is not taxed on it.
 
2012-12-05 07:38:41 AM  

GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.


assets.amuniversal.com
 
2012-12-05 07:38:47 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.


Works for me.
 
2012-12-05 07:38:53 AM  
Why isn't this foreskin-come-to-life in court answering bribery charges?
 
2012-12-05 07:39:50 AM  

EyeballKid: Why isn't this foreskin-come-to-life in court answering bribery charges?


It's one of those legal crimes.
 
2012-12-05 07:39:57 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.


Nothing requires corporations to pay out dividends. Indeed there are plenty that don't.
 
2012-12-05 07:40:47 AM  

SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.

Works for me.


Book it. Done.

Fiscal crisis solved. Let's all go get drunk and hire some hookers.
 
2012-12-05 07:41:17 AM  

Mentalpatient87: Debeo, they're not gonna fark you OR give you money..


So I should join the farklib money grab as well? "hey, that guy has more stuff than me! Let's take it!"

You deadbeats can sit around all day in a circle jerk and complain that others have earned more than you and figure out ways to take it. Have fun.
 
2012-12-05 07:42:13 AM  
This is as good a place to ask as any.

Does anyone know if Obama's proposal for the budget allows the Bush tax cut rate on Capital Gains and Dividends to expire? The 'news' only seems to report on the income tax rates and spending cuts. They just ignore one of the biggest parts of this whole debacle.
 
2012-12-05 07:42:37 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.

Works for me.

Book it. Done.

Fiscal crisis solved. Let's all go get drunk and hire some hookers.


Sweet. On my way!
 
2012-12-05 07:42:38 AM  
farklib


Holy farking cats, you are dumb.
 
2012-12-05 07:43:07 AM  
Re: "ACA taxes"

"A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts." (source: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions)

If you're asking us to be upset because Adelson has to pay an extra 4% on his 1.2 billion (with a B) dollars, that he decided to pay himself out of the coffers of the company that he is the CEO of, then you're gonna have a bad time.
 
2012-12-05 07:45:07 AM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


Yawn.
 
2012-12-05 07:46:36 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: This is as good a place to ask as any.

Does anyone know if Obama's proposal for the budget allows the Bush tax cut rate on Capital Gains and Dividends to expire? The 'news' only seems to report on the income tax rates and spending cuts. They just ignore one of the biggest parts of this whole debacle.


They will expire as well, as they are part of the Bush tax cuts.
 
2012-12-05 07:48:26 AM  
So they make some craven, but expected, moves to preserve and protect as much of their precious, precious money. Nothing will change the fact that Adelson and his reprehensible ilk wasted a (fractional, to them) fortune on Romney, and before that, the Primary Crazies.
 
2012-12-05 07:48:57 AM  

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.


yeah the rest of the world looks at us in amazement. it's like a bus full of people letting the retard drive.
they see a huge debt,historically low tax rates. and they say can't these morons figure out the solution to the problem?
why are people in tri corner hats defending the billionaires who are bleeding them dry?
 
2012-12-05 07:49:14 AM  

Vertdang: GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.


I love when people post that cartoon, as it proves my point, contrary to what the poster is thinking.

Hint: count how many times the income of the plumbing business is taxed before it gets in the pockets of owners, likewise the record store business and the bank. One of these things is not like the others.
 
2012-12-05 07:50:31 AM  

EyeballKid: Why isn't this foreskin-come-to-life in court answering bribery charges?


America or China? Attempting to buy a President is perfectly legal, but as of the last time I checked, it's only a matter of time until he's arrested over his Chinese dealings.
 
2012-12-05 07:52:16 AM  
bazinga
 
2012-12-05 07:52:59 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.

Nothing requires corporations to pay out dividends. Indeed there are plenty that don't.


How would you expect investors to get earnings out of their investments, absent dividends?

Would you be on board with deductibility of dividends, so long as dividends and cap gains were taxable at ordinary rates?
 
2012-12-05 07:55:02 AM  
that's okay, he'll pay more next year and every year after that.
 
2012-12-05 07:56:16 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.


Good for the economies of Luxembourg, Switzerland or the Cayman Islands where these guys keep their money. They wouldn't want any Reagan trickle down from banks here where it might fall on 47%er.
 
2012-12-05 08:00:21 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Vertdang: GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.

I love when people post that cartoon, as it proves my point, contrary to what the poster is thinking.

Hint: count how many times the income of the plumbing business is taxed before it gets in the pockets of owners, likewise the record store business and the bank. One of these things is not like the others.


5 times before it gets to the bank owners. so your argument is that 5 times is bad, but 6 is DEATH OF AMERICA?

/one of these things is EXACTLY like the others.
 
2012-12-05 08:00:53 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.

Instead of going to the owners of the farking company, who, you know, are farking entitled to the earnings. Unless you are posting from one of the two countries where communism hasn't collapsed yet.

/besides, in reality companies will just go back to using earnings to buy back stock once the new tax rates are in, instead of paying dividends.


I think he was critiquing this idea that taxes being structured to favor financial investment and lower income tax rates on upper income individuals are good for the economy because they encourage job creation. If anything, we've seen that such policies have lead to increased focus on short-term profits over capital investment by firms because the marginal value of each dollar taken out of the company is higher. It's true that the personal profits don't exist in a vacuum and that personal consumption by the stockholder/owner will stimulate the economy, but the marginal propensity to consume of the investor class means the economic stimulus of these policies is much less than virtually any other policy that has been proposed.

You can make the case that taxes should be lower for the rich than they will be under the law as it is currently written on objectivist grounds or make a moral case, but the "if we eliminated capital gains taxes and cut the top marginal tax bracket to 28% unemployment would drop like a stone" argument doesn't accurately reflect the incentives such policies realisticly provide people.
 
2012-12-05 08:01:51 AM  

LarryDan43: Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.

Good for the economies of Luxembourg, Switzerland or the Cayman Islands where these guys keep their money. They wouldn't want any Reagan trickle down from banks here where it might fall on 47%er.


Cripes. Do you think every dollar deposited in a cayman islands bank account stays in the cayman islands? Do the banks there use them exclusively to finance small business loans to the people that sell trinkets in every corner in the Caribbean?
 
2012-12-05 08:11:23 AM  

Jake Havechek: Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

And their money in the Caymen Islands is creating so many jobs in America!



Like all of George Soros' money, right?


Oh, I forgot. He creates jobs for rent-a-mob protestors and non-profit non-political tax exempt foundations that always suppor left wing causes.
 
2012-12-05 08:11:33 AM  
The bootstrap tugging by these Job Creators is EPIC!
 
2012-12-05 08:12:43 AM  

Roy_G_Biv: Like all of George Soros' money, right?


DRINK!
 
2012-12-05 08:15:26 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: LarryDan43: Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.

Good for the economies of Luxembourg, Switzerland or the Cayman Islands where these guys keep their money. They wouldn't want any Reagan trickle down from banks here where it might fall on 47%er.

Cripes. Do you think every dollar deposited in a cayman islands bank account stays in the cayman islands? Do the banks there use them exclusively to finance small business loans to the people that sell trinkets in every corner in the Caribbean?


Yes. It does. I know that's and exaggeration, but much of it lies there in tax free accounts being serviced by the valient and numerous law firms of the Caymans. Why don't us libs like lawyers in the Caymans? They're just middle class people who benefit from trickle down economics!
 
2012-12-05 08:17:22 AM  
George Soros
George Soros!
 
2012-12-05 08:21:06 AM  
What the FARK! A successful business man making a shrewed business move to save money? We can not have that in America! It will ruin this country!
 
2012-12-05 08:21:10 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: No it's not. You've been misled or you misunderstand.


Fact shields are at 100%, keptin!
 
2012-12-05 08:22:51 AM  
Awesome - that's $150 million Libs will not get to encourage women to have children out of wedlock who they will raise to kill me.
 
2012-12-05 08:24:24 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: Money can't buy health.


It sure can move you up on the organ waiting list...
 
2012-12-05 08:24:54 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


Wait 5 years and tell me more about "bitter envy", bud.
 
2012-12-05 08:26:36 AM  

beta_plus: Awesome - that's $150 million Libs will not get to encourage women to have children out of wedlock who they will raise to kill me.


"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

-- Pat Robertson, 1992
 
2012-12-05 08:27:38 AM  
After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.
 
2012-12-05 08:30:23 AM  
Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.
 
2012-12-05 08:30:53 AM  

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.


The taxes in England are much flatter. The rich pay less of a total share. The vat is regressive.

So you are arguing for a less progressive tax code. Want to make sure you know what you are saying. The tax base is much broader in most of Europe.
 
2012-12-05 08:31:03 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-05 08:32:44 AM  

Jake Havechek: George Soros!


i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-05 08:35:03 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.

Nothing requires corporations to pay out dividends. Indeed there are plenty that don't.

How would you expect investors to get earnings out of their investments, absent dividends?

Would you be on board with deductibility of dividends, so long as dividends and cap gains were taxable at ordinary rates?


Imma actually agree with this one though. Dividends (properly) are likely the most legitimate form of stock payout.

I give company X 2,000 dollars for 100 shares at 20 dollars apiece.
Compay X increases its valuation by 50%, my $2000 is actually worth $3000.

The way dividends are structured isn't equitable though. I wouldn't actually get that thousand bucks. I'd get a proportion of the total increased value of the stock equal to the proportion of total shares I own. When used in conjunction with share-repurchasing, this allows those who start with the most to acquire the most the fastest. Further, when a company doesn't actually grow, or produce anything, or have any sort of revenue, I'm left to wonder at how an investment could have been *used* by that company to increase their value, leaving an investor with any sort of dividend.

But then, IANAProfessionalTrader, so who knows.

CEOs have their cake, eat it, harvest their own feces, and use it as fertilizer to grow more wheat to make additional cakes with.
 
2012-12-05 08:40:58 AM  
Do you know who REALLY wins here? Those overpaid bastards at the Yacht Builders Union. We need to increase their taxes and take away their right to collective bargaining.
 
2012-12-05 08:41:07 AM  

ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.



It's still a problem, because it completely skewed and boosted the viability of an insubstantial and dangerous candidate. Just because it wasn't enough to win the election this time, it's no reason to assume it isn't incredibly problematic.
 
2012-12-05 08:44:07 AM  

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.


Adelson's father drove a taxi. He was born in the dugout and hit a homerun.
 
2012-12-05 08:45:14 AM  
Think about this for one second...

Las Vegas Sands makes most of their money in Macau off Chinese tourists. Adelson owns 51 percent of the company. He decides to accelerate a dividend payout to avoid the likelihood of a 2013 tax increase. Never mind that he still will be paying taxes on this payout. A payout largely earned off the backs of Chinese tourists.

Tell me how that is not American.
 
2012-12-05 08:46:01 AM  

Scerpes: Adelson's father drove a taxi. He was born in the dugout and hit a homerun.


And did it all really honestly and with no questions regarding the legality of his actions whatsoever. 你好!
 
2012-12-05 08:46:40 AM  
15% on dividends.
 
2012-12-05 08:47:17 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.

Instead of going to the owners of the farking company, who, you know, are farking entitled to the earnings. Unless you are posting from one of the two countries where communism hasn't collapsed yet.

/besides, in reality companies will just go back to using earnings to buy back stock once the new tax rates are in, instead of paying dividends.


They're entitled to the earnings that came from someone else's labor? Where have I heard that before?

They may (in part) own the company, but if they aren't working for it they didn't earn the income and aren't "entitled" to any of it.
 
2012-12-05 08:47:33 AM  
So basically he's back at zero.
 
2012-12-05 08:47:51 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: This is as good a place to ask as any.

Does anyone know if Obama's proposal for the budget allows the Bush tax cut rate on Capital Gains and Dividends to expire? The 'news' only seems to report on the income tax rates and spending cuts. They just ignore one of the biggest parts of this whole debacle.

They will expire as well, as they are part of the Bush tax cuts.


They're set to expire, but is keeping them in place part of the current Obama deal. All I've seen so far is the Obama plan will keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone except the upper bracket income tax payers, which reads as only affecting income tax. It's been difficult to find anyone's plans for the Calital gains and dividends.
 
2012-12-05 08:49:08 AM  
Can we put the whole 'they earned that much money because they're successful businessmen' nonsense now? If you have to spend 150 million to unsuccessfully unseat an incumbent, you're not that smart or that savvy.

And 'foreskin come to life' is an accurate description of this load.
 
2012-12-05 08:52:13 AM  

Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.


No you don't.
 
2012-12-05 08:52:28 AM  
We must really be jealous of Joe Sixpack since we're taking 30% of his income as taxes.
 
2012-12-05 08:52:47 AM  
A few years back, Lewis Black: 'Three people took a billion dollars. Three people. A billion dollars. What are they going to do, start their own space program?!'

From the article: "The biggest dividend payday this quarter is for Sheldon Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands. He'll receive about $1.2 billion from the company's dividend."

That's one guy.
 
2012-12-05 09:04:17 AM  
Ignoring the fact that Adelson may be indicted under FCPA now that Romney lost, in the minds of many of these billionaires who were told that ROMNEY WAS A GUARANTEED 100% LOCK TO WIN IF THEY GAVE MONEY - that's the key, because we know now in post-election analysis that the entire Romney campaign as well as the Rovians considered a loss as a zero-percent probability event - it made perfect sense for them to "invest" this money.

I'm sure Rove put it like this. "Look, Rich White Guy...if we can raise a billion to blanket the country with ads for this guy, he's gonna win. Look at my data. There no chance he's gonna lose, if you help us out. When Romney wins, and we take the Senate, we're gonna ELIMINATE the capital gains tax, and ELIMINATE the estate tax. That will save you hundreds of millions if not BILLIONS of dollars. If Obama wins, the Bush tax cuts expire and both the estate tax and capital gains rates go up. That will COST you billions of dollars over and above what it is now. So how about it - "invest" $100 million now, so Romney can save you more than a billion when he wins."

When he puts it that way, why wouldn't "Papa" John and Adelson and the like give him the money? Of course, Romney lost and the money ended up lining their pockets, but it also explains why Rove was shiatting his pants come Election Eve. He guaranteed - not just expected, not just promised to fight hard for, GUARANTEED - a win in exchange for these millions, and didn't deliver.
 
2012-12-05 09:05:56 AM  

G. Tarrant: When he puts it that way, why wouldn't "Papa" John and Adelson and the like give him the money? Of course, Romney lost and the money ended up lining their pockets, but it also explains why Rove was shiatting his pants come Election Eve. He guaranteed - not just expected, not just promised to fight hard for, GUARANTEED - a win in exchange for these millions, and didn't deliver.


I was hoping Rove would get dragged off to Hell after that, like the Shadowman in the Princess & the Frog.
 
2012-12-05 09:07:07 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.


No.

Some of the companies took near 0% interest loans to back the dividend payment and will write their earnings down on the dividend payment AND the loan value repayment. I'm trying to remember the companies cited on the radio but they were pretty big ones. If I do, or find it, I'll post the citation.
 
2012-12-05 09:08:06 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.


Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.
 
2012-12-05 09:08:10 AM  
Uh, no one noticed that submitter pulled his numbers out of a hat, to link them in a way that doesn't even make sense?
 
2012-12-05 09:10:30 AM  

Isildur: Uh, no one noticed that submitter pulled his numbers out of a hat, to link them in a way that doesn't even make sense?


self correction: I see where the 150M number came from for the election, but not for the dividend.
 
2012-12-05 09:12:53 AM  
income, is income, is income. Don't care where you made it or how you made it.

The rich have more to loose thus should pay a higher rate
(the army is here to protect the wealth of the nation).

That being said, making $125,000 in New York City does not equal $125,000 made in Yuma Arizona.
 
2012-12-05 09:14:19 AM  
Are these the magic loopholes Romney was talking about? I doubt it.
 
2012-12-05 09:15:01 AM  

ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens hundreds of millions of dollars and got...nothing.


FTFY
 
2012-12-05 09:15:10 AM  

WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.


Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.
 
2012-12-05 09:18:27 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


Ahh pedantry. The corporate tax, which was paid by Mitt Romney NEVER counts as tax on Mitt Romney, the individual.


Pop-a-shot taxation.


Mitt Romney never claimed he paid anywhere near 40% in taxes, so for you to claim he did is hilarious. Thanks for admitting that you're a partisan shill with no interest in furthering legitimate debate.
 
2012-12-05 09:18:42 AM  

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.


Huh? I just went and checked Wikipedia. His dad was a taxi driver and his mom ran a knitting store.

Doesn't sound like the dude came from money to me.
 
2012-12-05 09:20:10 AM  
The companies are doing the smart thing for their owners in getting the money out now before the tax rates go up massively.

Which also means there is going to be much less to be taxed this way next year. So tax receipts will be down.

After this they'll prob just stop/slow down paying dividends and use the money to buy back their own stock etc.
 
2012-12-05 09:20:39 AM  

ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.


Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)
 
2012-12-05 09:20:54 AM  
bazinga!!!
 
2012-12-05 09:21:04 AM  

BHShaman: Debeo Summa Credo: These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.

No.

Some of the companies took near 0% interest loans to back the dividend payment and will write their earnings down on the dividend payment AND the loan value repayment. I'm trying to remember the companies cited on the radio but they were pretty big ones. If I do, or find it, I'll post the citation.


Wow. If you find the citation, please read it first. Your "facts" are laughably wrong.

Dividends are not currently deductible from corporate taxable income (hence such income is taxed twice), and companies can't deduct repayments of debt.

They'd be able to deduct any interest on the debt, which of course there wouldn't be with your mythical 0% borrowings.
 
2012-12-05 09:21:59 AM  
I can feel it trickling down already!
 
2012-12-05 09:22:05 AM  

beta_plus: Awesome - that's $150 million Libs will not get to encourage women to have children out of wedlock who they will raise to kill me.


Republicans are morons. This cant be said enough.
 
2012-12-05 09:23:15 AM  

WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.

Ahh pedantry. The corporate tax, which was paid by Mitt Romney NEVER counts as tax on Mitt Romney, the individual.


Pop-a-shot taxation.


Mitt Romney never claimed he paid anywhere near 40% in taxes, so for you to claim he did is hilarious. Thanks for admitting that you're a partisan shill with no interest in furthering legitimate debate.


Hmm. Your fact shields seem to be working perfectly but maybe turn down the dial on your stupidity blaster, your getting it all over the place.
 
2012-12-05 09:26:02 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.

Ahh pedantry. The corporate tax, which was paid by Mitt Romney NEVER counts as tax on Mitt Romney, the individual.


Pop-a-shot taxation.


Mitt Romney never claimed he paid anywhere near 40% in taxes, so for you to claim he did is hilarious. Thanks for admitting that you're a partisan shill with no interest in furthering legitimate debate.

Hmm. Your fact shields seem to be working perfectly but maybe turn down the dial on your stupidity blaster, your getting it all over the place.


awww are you mad that you got called out on your bullshiat?
 
2012-12-05 09:27:27 AM  
Only one solution:

National Property Tax


Move the tax burden from labor to capital. Move the tax burden from the working class to the investment class. No way to avoid the tax since it doesn't matter who owns the property, corporation, trust, or individual. My napkin math says that at the federal level a national property tax of ~2.3% would be revenue neutral with the current tax scheme.

In addition to "real" property the tax needs to include intellectual property and "paper" wealth like bank accounts, stocks, and other investments.

No more corporations hiding from taxes by not having profits on paper.

Take away power from politicians since a single tax rate can't be used to help their friends and punish their enemies.

A possible problem is with farms where the value of the land and equipment is much greater than the value of any crop. One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.
 
2012-12-05 09:28:29 AM  
Gee, how can they possible survive with a higher tax-rate on their dividends?

i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-05 09:30:39 AM  

viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama Everyone in the leadership of both parties.


FTFY, because you obviously have not been following this issue at all. This deal was cut so that the issue would be out of the way for the election and to be taken up again so soon after the election that they'd have time to cut a deal that screws the middle class long before the next election cycle. But President Obama is way smarter than John Boehner. Obama sucked that fool right into a trap he cannot get out of without damaging his party. Boehner was counting on a back-room deal, while he postured in front of the cameras. Obama took the show on the road, pleading his case with the American people. It's working and Boehner looks like an obstructionist idiot. He's now on the wrong side of the issue. If he doesn't cave, we go into another recession and then Obama holds all the cards. He can have the Democratic leadership introduce legislation to give tax breaks to the middle class and increase defense spending, and leave the pre-Bush tax rate in place for the very wealthy. And, he can spin both as national security priorities. Obama has the Senate and a sizable caucus in the House. He's in a very strong negotiating position and he'll get more of what he wants than he will have to give away. But make no mistake about it, Obama is going to give away a lot that is important to the middle class. We will see a back-door tax increase in the form of eliminated or capped deductions. This has happened in every revenue negotiation since 1986. Boehner and his party will be the ones who suffer the most. The deal is going to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth and the GOP will walk away with support only from mouth-breathers, who won't be affected either way. Boehner has really screwed the pooch on this one.
 
2012-12-05 09:34:05 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.



So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

i780.photobucket.com

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out
 
2012-12-05 09:35:02 AM  

JackieRabbit: viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama Everyone in the leadership of both parties.

FTFY, because you obviously have not been following this issue at all. This deal was cut so that the issue would be out of the way for the election and to be taken up again so soon after the election that they'd have time to cut a deal that screws the middle class long before the next election cycle. But President Obama is way smarter than John Boehner. Obama sucked that fool right into a trap he cannot get out of without damaging his party. Boehner was counting on a back-room deal, while he postured in front of the cameras. Obama took the show on the road, pleading his case with the American people. It's working and Boehner looks like an obstructionist idiot. He's now on the wrong side of the issue. If he doesn't cave, we go into another recession and then Obama holds all the cards. He can have the Democratic leadership introduce legislation to give tax breaks to the middle class and increase defense spending, and leave the pre-Bush tax rate in place for the very wealthy. And, he can spin both as national security priorities. Obama has the Senate and a sizable caucus in the House. He's in a very strong negotiating position and he'll get more of what he wants than he will have to give away. But make no mistake about it, Obama is going to give away a lot that is important to the middle class. We will see a back-door tax increase in the form of eliminated or capped deductions. This has happened in every revenue negotiation since 1986. Boehner and his party will be the ones who suffer the most. The deal is going to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth and the GOP will walk away with support only from mouth-breathers, who won't be affected either way. Boehner has really screwed the pooch on this one.


The GOP only wants the support of mouthbreathers. There's no room for negotiation. Their idea of bi-partisanship is "get in line".
 
2012-12-05 09:35:33 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".


Bullshiat. Normal income over $388,351 is taxed at 35%. That's their fair share. Explain how paying less than half as much tax as everybody else is fair.

I make a pretty good living and I pay 28% taxes. He just got as much money as I'll make in 1000 years. I, and 998 other people making as much as I do are paying double so this twatwaffle can pay less than half his fair share.
 
2012-12-05 09:37:49 AM  

PreMortem: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out


Had Romney claimed he paid 40% of his income to taxes, he would have been laughed off stage every time.
 
2012-12-05 09:38:19 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Only one solution:

National Property Tax

Move the tax burden from labor to capital. Move the tax burden from the working class to the investment class. No way to avoid the tax since it doesn't matter who owns the property, corporation, trust, or individual. My napkin math says that at the federal level a national property tax of ~2.3% would be revenue neutral with the current tax scheme.

In addition to "real" property the tax needs to include intellectual property and "paper" wealth like bank accounts, stocks, and other investments.

No more corporations hiding from taxes by not having profits on paper.

Take away power from politicians since a single tax rate can't be used to help their friends and punish their enemies.

A possible problem is with farms where the value of the land and equipment is much greater than the value of any crop. One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.


National sales tax or VAT. Move the tax from production to consumption. Encourage savings and investment. Broaden the tax base. Make it progressivity neutral by exempting food and clothing under a certain price and giving credits to all to offset the tax on the first X thousand dollars in purchases.

Never happen. Just like your idea.
 
2012-12-05 09:39:39 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.


How conveniently nebulous. If you want to throw random things into the mix (and count property taxes, sales taxes, social security, etc) then you can spot Romney that 27% and I probably still pay more.
 
2012-12-05 09:40:37 AM  

Grungehamster: ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.

Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)


Not saying this is wrong but I'd be curious about the source if you have it. Romney out spent Obama on advertising.

Link
 
2012-12-05 09:42:07 AM  

clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

Bullshiat. Normal income over $388,351 is taxed at 35%. That's their fair share. Explain how paying less than half as much tax as everybody else is fair.

I make a pretty good living and I pay 28% taxes. He just got as much money as I'll make in 1000 years. I, and 998 other people making as much as I do are paying double so this twatwaffle can pay less than half his fair share.


Jesus Christ. Every investment in a corporation is taxed at that level before it becomes income to the investor. An investors tax rate isn't 15%, it's 44.75% if the corp pays taxes at 35%!!

For those who seem hellbent on ignoring the corporate income tax, as if it doesn't exist, ask yourselves who would benefit if the corporate income tax was eliminated. Would the overall progressivity of the tax code be increased or decreased if we got rid of the corporate tax?
 
2012-12-05 09:42:27 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Only one solution:

National Property Tax

Move the tax burden from labor to capital. Move the tax burden from the working class to the investment class. No way to avoid the tax since it doesn't matter who owns the property, corporation, trust, or individual. My napkin math says that at the federal level a national property tax of ~2.3% would be revenue neutral with the current tax scheme.

In addition to "real" property the tax needs to include intellectual property and "paper" wealth like bank accounts, stocks, and other investments.

No more corporations hiding from taxes by not having profits on paper.

Take away power from politicians since a single tax rate can't be used to help their friends and punish their enemies.

A possible problem is with farms where the value of the land and equipment is much greater than the value of any crop. One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.


A banking tax might accomplish the same thing. Pay 0.1% every time money changes investment instrument. People making their money by gaming the system should have to pay a gaming fee.
 
2012-12-05 09:44:21 AM  

WSUCanuck: PreMortem: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out

Had Romney claimed he paid 40% of his income to taxes, he would have been laughed off stage every time.


He did correctly state that his actual tax rate is up in the 40s. Found with quick google search.
 
2012-12-05 09:45:06 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Only one solution:

National Property Tax

Move the tax burden from labor to capital. Move the tax burden from the working class to the investment class. No way to avoid the tax since it doesn't matter who owns the property, corporation, trust, or individual. My napkin math says that at the federal level a national property tax of ~2.3% would be revenue neutral with the current tax scheme.

In addition to "real" property the tax needs to include intellectual property and "paper" wealth like bank accounts, stocks, and other investments.

No more corporations hiding from taxes by not having profits on paper.

Take away power from politicians since a single tax rate can't be used to help their friends and punish their enemies.

A possible problem is with farms where the value of the land and equipment is much greater than the value of any crop. One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.


And you screw over all the small businesses (kinda like the farms)
 
2012-12-05 09:46:10 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

Bullshiat. Normal income over $388,351 is taxed at 35%. That's their fair share. Explain how paying less than half as much tax as everybody else is fair.

I make a pretty good living and I pay 28% taxes. He just got as much money as I'll make in 1000 years. I, and 998 other people making as much as I do are paying double so this twatwaffle can pay less than half his fair share.

Jesus Christ. Every investment in a corporation is taxed at that level before it becomes income to the investor. An investors tax rate isn't 15%, it's 44.75% if the corp pays taxes at 35%!!

For those who seem hellbent on ignoring the corporate income tax, as if it doesn't exist, ask yourselves who would benefit if the corporate income tax was eliminated. Would the overall progressivity of the tax code be increased or decreased if we got rid of the corporate tax?


despite all your crying, not even Mitt Romney nor his advisors claimed his tax rate was at 45%.

Hell, you seem to want to raise his tax rates more than anyone. You first had Romney paying 40%, now its 45%!

By the time you leave the thread, you'll say Romney pays an 85% tax rate!

Poor Romney!
 
2012-12-05 09:46:39 AM  

WSUCanuck: The GOP only wants the support of mouthbreathers. There's no room for negotiation. Their idea of bi-partisanship is "get in line".


And this is a strategic error of huge proportions. It will be a losing strategy in the next election and their own strategists are almost screaming it at them. The GOP must have moderate support. Moderates want the GOP of Eisenhower, not Rove. The mouth-breathers will not be enough and they will probably form their own party, because the GOP cannot move any farther to the right without a Reichstag fire. I don't see them doing that.

Personally, I'd like to see the old GOP again. I cannot support this one.
 
2012-12-05 09:46:45 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: PreMortem: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out

Had Romney claimed he paid 40% of his income to taxes, he would have been laughed off stage every time.

He did correctly state that his actual tax rate is up in the 40s. Found with quick google search.


"found with quick google search"
but i'm not going to link it because im completely lying.
 
2012-12-05 09:46:53 AM  

Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.


How conveniently nebulous. If you want to throw random things into the mix (and count property taxes, sales taxes, social security, etc) then you can spot Romney that 27% and I probably still pay more.


How about we just include income taxes, you know, like we're discussing.

Would you think it fairer if investors paid ordinary tax rates on income, but corporate taxes were eliminated? How about if dividends were taxed at ordinary rates, but we're deducted from corporate taxable income?
 
2012-12-05 09:48:43 AM  

WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: PreMortem: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out

Had Romney claimed he paid 40% of his income to taxes, he would have been laughed off stage every time.

He did correctly state that his actual tax rate is up in the 40s. Found with quick google search.

"found with quick google search"
but i'm not going to link it because im completely lying.


On my phone, so no good link, but here you go:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411746/romney-tax-rate-sp i n-50-percent/?mobile=wp
 
2012-12-05 09:49:38 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.


How conveniently nebulous. If you want to throw random things into the mix (and count property taxes, sales taxes, social security, etc) then you can spot Romney that 27% and I probably still pay more.

How about we just include income taxes, you know, like we're discussing.

Would you think it fairer if investors paid ordinary tax rates on income, but corporate taxes were eliminated? How about if dividends were taxed at ordinary rates, but we're deducted from corporate taxable income?


except you're not 'just including income taxes', you're including a corporate tax in claiming your 40/45/85% Romney rate.

I understand that "Corporations are people too, my friend", but Corporations pay income tax just like Homer doesn't pay the homer tax.

Its a home*own*er tax.
 
2012-12-05 09:50:28 AM  

WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

Bullshiat. Normal income over $388,351 is taxed at 35%. That's their fair share. Explain how paying less than half as much tax as everybody else is fair.

I make a pretty good living and I pay 28% taxes. He just got as much money as I'll make in 1000 years. I, and 998 other people making as much as I do are paying double so this twatwaffle can pay less than half his fair share.

Jesus Christ. Every investment in a corporation is taxed at that level before it becomes income to the investor. An investors tax rate isn't 15%, it's 44.75% if the corp pays taxes at 35%!!

For those who seem hellbent on ignoring the corporate income tax, as if it doesn't exist, ask yourselves who would benefit if the corporate income tax was eliminated. Would the overall progressivity of the tax code be increased or decreased if we got rid of the corporate tax?

despite all your crying, not even Mitt Romney nor his advisors claimed his tax rate was at 45%.

Hell, you seem to want to raise his tax rates more than anyone. You first had Romney paying 40%, now its 45%!

By the time you leave the thread, you'll say Romney pays an 85% tax rate!

Poor Romney!


Lol. When you manage to figure out googling enough to get to the thinkprogress link I posted above, please come back and tell us whether you are lying or stupid.
 
2012-12-05 09:51:50 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: PreMortem: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out

Had Romney claimed he paid 40% of his income to taxes, he would have been laughed off stage every time.

He did correctly state that his actual tax rate is up in the 40s. Found with quick google search.

"found with quick google search"
but i'm not going to link it because im completely lying.

On my phone, so no good link, but here you go:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411746/romney-tax-rate-sp i n-50-percent/?mobile=wp


So Mitt Romney is a corporation now?
 
2012-12-05 09:55:59 AM  

Alphax: G. Tarrant: When he puts it that way, why wouldn't "Papa" John and Adelson and the like give him the money? Of course, Romney lost and the money ended up lining their pockets, but it also explains why Rove was shiatting his pants come Election Eve. He guaranteed - not just expected, not just promised to fight hard for, GUARANTEED - a win in exchange for these millions, and didn't deliver.

I was hoping Rove would get dragged off to Hell after that, like the Shadowman in the Princess & the Frog Umbridge in Harry Potter 6.


Because I don't know the nerdery of which you speak.

// and also - Karl Rove raped by centaurs is too funny an image to let go of
// I can haz shoop?
 
2012-12-05 09:57:17 AM  
Hey everyone! All those taxes you pay on *anything*? you can now count those as income taxes! Thanks, debeo summa credo!
 
2012-12-05 09:59:37 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".


I'm not rich but I am a small business owner. I avoid paying a LOT of taxes by claiming a significant portion of my income as dividends. That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15%. Also, most of my expenses related to work that you pay for *after* taxes I get to pay for *before* taxes. Highlights include 10% of my mortgage and utilities, gas and tolls to and from work, etc. I generally make 50% more than the guy sitting next to me doing the same work and pay less in taxes, and I don't just mean the rate.. I mean in nominal dollars I pay less. If we assume that the guy sitting next to me is paying his "fair share" then I am not. Of course I'm paying my "legally required" share, but it's probably not fair compared to what he pays while making less income to do the same work. And that's just me, the 'little guy' running a small business without a full time accountant wrangling out off shore accounts and other nonsense to minimize my taxes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-12-05 10:02:06 AM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I'm not rich but I am a small business owner. I avoid paying a LOT of taxes by claiming a significant portion of my income as dividends. That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15%. Also, most of my expenses related to work that you pay for *after* taxes I get to pay for *before* taxes. Highlights include 10% of my mortgage and utilities, gas and tolls to and from work, etc. I generally make 50% more than the guy sitting next to me doing the same work and pay less in taxes, and I don't just mean the rate.. I mean in nominal dollars I pay less. If we assume that the guy sitting next to me is paying his "fair share" then I am not. Of course I'm paying my "legally required" share, but it's probably not fair compared to what he pays while making less income to do the same work. And that's just me, the 'little guy' running a small business without a full time accountant wrangling out off shore accounts and other nonsense to minimize my taxes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.


but think about all the money you could be making! Instead it never gets to your wallet, therefore its an income tax!

You could be making 17,000,000 a year, but since you don't, you clearly pay a 99% income tax rate.
 
2012-12-05 10:02:42 AM  

the_geek: That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15 10.2%.


Unless they ditch the payroll tax cut, in which case it goes up to 12.4%. And if you make over ~$110k, that percentage starts to drop as a higher percentage of your salary is exempt from FICA.

Being a savvy small businessperson with no accountant, I'm sure you knew that.
 
2012-12-05 10:03:42 AM  

Dr Dreidel: the_geek: That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15 10.2%.

Unless they ditch the payroll tax cut, in which case it goes up to 12.4%. And if you make over ~$110k, that percentage starts to drop as a higher percentage of your salary is exempt from FICA.

Being a savvy small businessperson with no accountant, I'm sure you knew that.


I assume he's including HI (medicare) on that rate.
 
2012-12-05 10:04:46 AM  

PreMortem: Interesting...

Interdasting...

C'mon, man.
 
2012-12-05 10:04:57 AM  

WSUCanuck: Hey everyone! All those taxes you pay on *anything*? you can now count those as income taxes! Thanks, debeo summa credo!


Are you trying to play some kind of game where each successive post is incrementally stupider than your last? Amazing.
 
2012-12-05 10:08:06 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.


Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?
 
2012-12-05 10:08:26 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Hey everyone! All those taxes you pay on *anything*? you can now count those as income taxes! Thanks, debeo summa credo!

Are you trying to play some kind of game where each successive post is incrementally stupider than your last? Amazing.


I'm not the one claiming corporate tax as a personal income tax. So I'm trying to talk down to your level of bullshiat since that is all you understand.
 
2012-12-05 10:08:40 AM  

mrshowrules: Grungehamster: ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.

Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)

Not saying this is wrong but I'd be curious about the source if you have it. Romney out spent Obama on advertising.

Link


This Atlantic Wire article from Election Day, which seems a little light in the source department, sadly. The link you shared looks like it only covers TV ad spending; chances are a good chunk of the difference was from Obama having a lot more campaign offices and other non-TV related advertising.
 
2012-12-05 10:08:52 AM  
How does this guy keep escaping Madame Tussauds?
 
2012-12-05 10:09:07 AM  

clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?


EVERYTHING IS INCOME TAX!
 
2012-12-05 10:12:38 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


See that the thing, it's not envy. Let's say the Sand's Casino empire employs 100,000 people, $150,000,000 could give each of those people a $1500 dollar bonus, which for most people, would be enormous. Plus, a large percentage of it would go back into the economy instead of just sitting in the bank account of someone already worth 20 something billion.

Or that money could be taxed at a normal income rate of 35% which would be and extra 33 million towards things like roads, teachers, police, firefighters, etc. Essentially, going to Adelson, that money is wasted. Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful, helps no one, and is just part of a rich guy dick measuring contest.

Do I wish I had $150 million personally, sure that'd be cool, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I am, however, very worried about the state of the education system in America as well as the state of our healthcare system. It's just a stupid waste to be subsidizing guys like that.
 
2012-12-05 10:15:18 AM  

clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?


The argument (and it's silly) is that the corp never "held" that money - it comes in as revenue and before it's available to them to spend or invest or give away as dividends, it's potentially subject both to the dividend tax and the corporate tax rate (as well as many other taxes).

The part that gets dividended out is taxed, and the part that gets absorbed into the company's bottom line as profit is taxed. If none of that revenue makes it to either one of those, it doesn't get taxed - that is, I think, what DSC is missing.

Though the fact that his opinion hasn't changed in the year or more I've seen him argue this leads me to believe he either really likes dividends or he really and truly believes it's double taxation (despite the year's worth of arguments against). Either way, the 9,476,948,761,486th time will not be the charm that magically settles this.
 
2012-12-05 10:15:21 AM  

hobberwickey: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

See that the thing, it's not envy. Let's say the Sand's Casino empire employs 100,000 people, $150,000,000 could give each of those people a $1500 dollar bonus, which for most people, would be enormous. Plus, a large percentage of it would go back into the economy instead of just sitting in the bank account of someone already worth 20 something billion.

Or that money could be taxed at a normal income rate of 35% which would be and extra 33 million towards things like roads, teachers, police, firefighters, etc. Essentially, going to Adelson, that money is wasted. Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful, helps no one, and is just part of a rich guy dick measuring contest.

Do I wish I had $150 million personally, sure that'd be cool, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I am, however, very worried about the state of the education system in America as well as the state of our healthcare system. It's just a stupid waste to be subsidizing guys like that.


those employees should be blaming the government for not seeing any part of that 150,000,000. If it weren't for the government taking it away as income tax, it'd be going to them!
 
2012-12-05 10:17:05 AM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


doubly so for Las Vegas boy. but people know the odds are stacked against them, and still they flock to the land of tacky garish losing my paycheck heaven. go figure.
 
2012-12-05 10:17:54 AM  
This big the election narrative is very ironic considering no candidate ever spent as much Obama.
 
2012-12-05 10:18:35 AM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I'm not rich but I am a small business owner. I avoid paying a LOT of taxes by claiming a significant portion of my income as dividends. That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15%. Also, most of my expenses related to work that you pay for *after* taxes I get to pay for *before* taxes. Highlights include 10% of my mortgage and utilities, gas and tolls to and from work, etc. I generally make 50% more than the guy sitting next to me doing the same work and pay less in taxes, and I don't just mean the rate.. I mean in nominal dollars I pay less. If we assume that the guy sitting next to me is paying his "fair share" then I am not. Of course I'm paying my "legally required" share, but it's probably not fair compared to what he pays while making less income to do the same work. And that's just me, the 'little guy' running a small business without a full time accountant wrangling out off shore accounts and other nonsense to minimize my taxes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Lol. If you are cheating on your taxes, that's your own problem. Don't let the IRS know that you consider the 10% of your gas and utilities something that any non-businessowner would have to pay. That deduction is supposed to be for expenses that you wouldn't have incurred if not for the business. Also, you can't get away with not paying yourself a salary subject to self employment taxes. If you do, or pay yourself too little, then the IRS can come after you. And of course, as your contributions to SS largely determine your benefit, you may be paying less but that means you get smaller benefits as well.

Practically speaking, I believe you that you are able to minimize your taxes. Personally I believe small business owners are the biggest tax cheats out there. The IRS doesn't have the resources to come to your house and verify that you only use a certain segment of your house for business, etc. They should. I think audits should be done much more frequently.

Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.
 
2012-12-05 10:21:45 AM  
Plenty of money to undermine America and Sheldon will probably have enough left over to buy an illegal settlement or two in his real country.
 
2012-12-05 10:23:01 AM  

JackieRabbit: WSUCanuck: The GOP only wants the support of mouthbreathers. There's no room for negotiation. Their idea of bi-partisanship is "get in line".

And this is a strategic error of huge proportions. It will be a losing strategy in the next election and their own strategists are almost screaming it at them. The GOP must have moderate support. Moderates want the GOP of Eisenhower, not Rove. The mouth-breathers will not be enough and they will probably form their own party, because the GOP cannot move any farther to the right without a Reichstag fire. I don't see them doing that.

Personally, I'd like to see the old GOP again. I cannot support this one.


Turning back the evolution of a greed driven, sociopathic, totalitarian political party is going to be this much I..I harder than cutting co2 production.
Shake your fists and spray your window cleaner!
This point in time is a logical progression of the Fascist element rotting this country since 1930's.
You do realize how close the USA was to siding with Germany. do you not? You do realize where Hitler's funding came from, eh?

/only The Way of the Gun can solve your issues at this point, that would be why your keepers are afraid of you having the gunz.
Git er dun
 
2012-12-05 10:24:23 AM  

MyRandomName: This big the election narrative is very ironic considering no candidate ever spent as much Obama.


Here's the take-away message from the election: both candidates spent enormous amounts of money (Obama slightly more). The affect? None. Hundreds of millions of dollars were utterly wasted. The outcome would have been the same had they both only spent $10M.
 
2012-12-05 10:25:31 AM  

hobberwickey: Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful


What is he putting it under his mattress or something? He's got it in a bank / hedge fund / etc that is using that money to do something.
 
2012-12-05 10:26:56 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.


Funny how people like you only call it "class warfare" when the middle class fights back.
 
2012-12-05 10:27:31 AM  

lelio: hobberwickey: Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful

What is he putting it under his mattress or something? He's got it in a bank / hedge fund / etc that is using that money to do something.


Operative word is useful.

Putting money in a hedge fund is arguably not useful.
 
2012-12-05 10:28:33 AM  
The real gift to Shelly is the $5 bil. per year we donate to Israel to prop up Bibi's waremonger aparteidist corrupt regime.
 
2012-12-05 10:28:35 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Alphax: G. Tarrant: When he puts it that way, why wouldn't "Papa" John and Adelson and the like give him the money? Of course, Romney lost and the money ended up lining their pockets, but it also explains why Rove was shiatting his pants come Election Eve. He guaranteed - not just expected, not just promised to fight hard for, GUARANTEED - a win in exchange for these millions, and didn't deliver.

I was hoping Rove would get dragged off to Hell after that, like the Shadowman in the Princess & the Frog Umbridge in Harry Potter 6.

Because I don't know the nerdery of which you speak.

// and also - Karl Rove raped by centaurs is too funny an image to let go of
// I can haz shoop?


Oh, the villain of that movie practiced voodoo, and made bargains with dark spirits. When his talisman was broken, it was time to pay up, in the only form of payment the dark spirits take as payment..
 
2012-12-05 10:31:32 AM  

clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.


Myth. Average effective corporate tax rate is mid to high 20%.

Link
 
2012-12-05 10:31:34 AM  

lelio: hobberwickey: Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful

What is he putting it under his mattress or something? He's got it in a bank / hedge fund / etc that is using that money to do something.


Am I remembering wrong, or was Lelio Lestat de Lioncourt's original name?

Been decades since I read that book.
 
2012-12-05 10:35:36 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.


Good thing for us then that we don't figure our taxes based on how much you get out of government spending.
 
2012-12-05 10:38:30 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

Myth. Average effective corporate tax rate is mid to high 20%.

Link


To believe in the highest debt? This looks like some kind of religious thing to me. Like you're pretending to be a fiscal conservative technocrat, when in reality you're a fundamentalist religious conservative who "believes in the highest debt," like the one owed to Jesus or something.

Just a theory.
 
2012-12-05 10:40:12 AM  

MyRandomName: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

The taxes in England are much flatter. The rich pay less of a total share. The vat is regressive.

So you are arguing for a less progressive tax code. Want to make sure you know what you are saying. The tax base is much broader in most of Europe.


The wealth base is also FAR broader in most of Europe.
 
2012-12-05 10:42:07 AM  

Dr Dreidel: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?

The argument (and it's silly) is that the corp never "held" that money - it comes in as revenue and before it's available to them to spend or invest or give away as dividends, it's potentially subject both to the dividend tax and the corporate tax rate (as well as many other taxes).

The part that gets dividended out is taxed, and the part that gets absorbed into the company's bottom line as profit is taxed. If none of that revenue makes it to either one of those, it doesn't get taxed - that is, I think, what DSC is missing.


No, what you are missing is that the 'bottom line' you are referring to is before dividends.. We had this exact discussion a year ago and you actually had an epiphany, IIRC. Dividends do not reduce corporate taxable income. All that revenue doesn't end up in 'either of those', rather dividends end up being taxed in 'both' of those.

For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

Though the fact that his opinion hasn't changed in the year or more I've seen him argue this leads me to believe he either really likes dividends or he really and truly believes it's double taxation (despite the year's worth of arguments against). Either way, the 9,476,948,761,486th time will not be the charm that magically settles this.

I thought you and I settled it, at least partially, the 1,450,321,877th time. But I'll ask you the same question I asked upthread: would it satisfy you if we permitted deductibility of dividends at the corporate level, if all dividends were taxed at ordinary rates to individuals?
 
2012-12-05 10:42:53 AM  
Subby?

How much did that egomaniac, POS and well known 'Man Behind The Curtain' George Soros spend?

Get back to me when Leftists spending millions upon millions of dollars on electing other Leftists bothers you as much as Conservatives spending money on electing Conservatives.
 
2012-12-05 10:44:44 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Lol. If you are cheating on your taxes, that's your own problem. Don't let the IRS know that you consider the 10% of your gas and utilities something that any non-businessowner would have to pay. That deduction is supposed to be for expenses that you wouldn't have incurred if not for the business. Also, you can't get away with not paying yourself a salary subject to self employment taxes. If you do, or pay yourself too little, then the IRS can come after you. And of course, as your contributions to SS largely determine your benefit, you may be paying less but that means you get smaller benefits as well.


I have an in-home office. So if I have to travel anywhere, like a customer site which I do nearly every day, I can claim all of that. And my home office is 10% of my house by square feet.. so 10% of the mortgage and utilities are tax deductible. I do pay myself a market rate salary. The rest, what is not considered business expenses, is company profit.. Since I'm the sole shareholder I claim the rest as dividend income. I do have an accountant, just not a full time one that sets up complex tax shelters for me like a wealthy person would. I'm not cheating on my taxes. Wealthy people have lobbied for tax breaks that benefit them and they've been codified into the tax law. I am taking advantage of a tiny tiny fraction of those. Cheating implies I'm doing something illegal. All I've done is change the way I do things a bit to minimize my taxes. And once again, I'm the little guy. If you think what I'm doing is 'cheating' I don't know how you can think that the complex tax avoidance schemes the wealthy use is somehow legitimate.

Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.


Investment income is *NOT* taxed twice. Money is taxed every time it changes hands. I pay income tax, then I pay an independent plumber, then he pays income tax, then he pays Ford for a car and Ford pays taxes, then Ford pays its manufacturing workers and the worker pays taxes, etc. etc. Corporate person-hood offers a lot of benefits and a very very few downsides. One of those downsides is that most forms of corporations count as a 'hand' in the context of money changed hands so it's usually going to be taxed somehow. I have an S-Corp so my corporation is exempt from taxation, all of the 'profit' is considered my (dividend) income and the money is taxed that way. Furthermore, a wealthy person has disproportionately benefited from the government with respect to the laws and regulations that protect them and their assets. If you have nothing then you benefit very little from having protection from theft. If you own a lot then you benefit a lot from having your things protected. The entire world of contract law disproportionately benefits the wealthy. The things that benefit the poor and middle class (medicare, medicaid, and social security) are primarily funded by the poor and middle class as separate income tax line items which are nearly unavoidable even for very low income people. And really the poor are getting screwed there because they generally die before getting to claim medicare or SS. It's a net loss for them and a net gain for upper middle class white people that seem to live forever. The only really big remaining spending programs is the military, which obviously is funded from the federal income tax... so the wealthy potentially disproportionately pay for military spending. If they want lower taxes they should lobby to reduce military spending because that's where the income tax is going.
 
2012-12-05 10:45:14 AM  

snocone: JackieRabbit: WSUCanuck: The GOP only wants the support of mouthbreathers. There's no room for negotiation. Their idea of bi-partisanship is "get in line".

And this is a strategic error of huge proportions. It will be a losing strategy in the next election and their own strategists are almost screaming it at them. The GOP must have moderate support. Moderates want the GOP of Eisenhower, not Rove. The mouth-breathers will not be enough and they will probably form their own party, because the GOP cannot move any farther to the right without a Reichstag fire. I don't see them doing that.

Personally, I'd like to see the old GOP again. I cannot support this one.

Turning back the evolution of a greed driven, sociopathic, totalitarian political party is going to be this much I..I harder than cutting co2 production.
Shake your fists and spray your window cleaner!
This point in time is a logical progression of the Fascist element rotting this country since 1930's.
You do realize how close the USA was to siding with Germany. do you not? You do realize where Hitler's funding came from, eh?

/only The Way of the Gun can solve your issues at this point, that would be why your keepers are afraid of you having the gunz.
Git er dun


The US did not support the Nazis. Some people in the GOP thought that the state-business-religious alliance of the regime was attractive and some, such as Sen. Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandpa) financially supported the regime through companies in which he had interests. But let's not get carried away. Naziism is alive and well in America; it has never gone away.
 
2012-12-05 10:46:29 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.


The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.
 
2012-12-05 10:47:00 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?

The argument (and it's silly) is that the corp never "held" that money - it comes in as revenue and before it's available to them to spend or invest or give away as dividends, it's potentially subject both to the dividend tax and the corporate tax rate (as well as many other taxes).

The part that gets dividended out is taxed, and the part that gets absorbed into the company's bottom line as profit is taxed. If none of that revenue makes it to either one of those, it doesn't get taxed - that is, I think, what DSC is missing.

No, what you are missing is that the 'bottom line' you are referring to is before dividends.. We had this exact discussion a year ago and you actually had an epiphany, IIRC. Dividends do not reduce corporate taxable income. All that revenue doesn't end up in 'either of those', rather dividends end up being taxed in 'both' of those.

For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

Though the fact that his opinion hasn't changed in the year or more I've seen him argue this leads me to believe he either really likes dividends or he really and truly believes it's double taxation (despite the year's worth of arguments against). Either way, the 9,476,948,761,486th time will not be the charm that magically settles this.

I thought you and I settled it, at least partially, the 1,450,321,877th time. But I'll ask you the same question I asked upthread: would it satisfy you if we permitted deductibility of dividends at the corporate level, if all dividends were taxed at ordinary rates to individuals?


So in your example of $100 dollars being taxed, you're admitting that corporate income is different from personal income?
 
2012-12-05 10:47:30 AM  

Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.

Good thing for us then that we don't figure our taxes based on how much you get out of government spending.


Just responding to those who claim the rich aren't paying 'their fair share'. "Fair share" is inherently subjective, granted, but the rich objectively pay in much more than they get from govt spending. You are correct that we obviously don't figure tax rates based on how much you get out of got spending. If we did, sales and poll (per-capita) taxes would be much more prominent.
 
2012-12-05 10:49:05 AM  
See now corporations pay tax on their income. Corporations also pay their employees. Employees are then taxed on THAT income.


ZOMG SUPER SECRET DOUBLE TAXATION.
 
2012-12-05 10:49:08 AM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.


Salaries to whom? shareholders/owners?
 
2012-12-05 10:50:40 AM  
Had that corporation NOT gotten taxed on the $100, then Mitt Romney would have received MORE than $40, because underpants gnomes!

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.
 
2012-12-05 10:52:02 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.

Good thing for us then that we don't figure our taxes based on how much you get out of government spending.

Just responding to those who claim the rich aren't paying 'their fair share'. "Fair share" is inherently subjective, granted, but the rich objectively pay in much more than they get from govt spending. You are correct that we obviously don't figure tax rates based on how much you get out of got spending. If we did, sales and poll (per-capita) taxes would be much more prominent.


Well, when some working class slob is paying a higher tax percentage than Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney then either one is paying too much or the other is not paying their fair share. You can't compare tax fairness by total taxes paid, you have to use percentages.
 
2012-12-05 10:52:51 AM  

mittromneysdog: Debeo Summa Credo: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

Myth. Average effective corporate tax rate is mid to high 20%.

Link

To believe in the highest debt? This looks like some kind of religious thing to me. Like you're pretending to be a fiscal conservative technocrat, when in reality you're a fundamentalist religious conservative who "believes in the highest debt," like the one owed to Jesus or something.

Just a theory.


I know I shouldn't, but I gots to know. WTF are you talking about?
 
2012-12-05 10:57:46 AM  

Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.

Good thing for us then that we don't figure our taxes based on how much you get out of government spending.

Just responding to those who claim the rich aren't paying 'their fair share'. "Fair share" is inherently subjective, granted, but the rich objectively pay in much more than they get from govt spending. You are correct that we obviously don't figure tax rates based on how much you get out of got spending. If we did, sales and poll (per-capita) taxes would be much more prominent.

Well, when some working class slob is paying a higher tax percentage than Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney then either one is paying too much or the other is not paying their fair share. You can't compare tax fairness by total taxes paid, you have to use percentages.


Well, Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney aren't paying lower taxes than some working class slob, see the rest of this thread for that discussion. But regardless, comparing percentages or flat dollars in assessing fairness is subjective as well. Just as you could make a case that taxes should be based on income, because a functioning country allows for the making of income, a case could be made that we should all chip in an equal amount, under the assumption that govt spending benefiss everyone equally, like when you and 2 friends chip in for pizza. Either argument could be called 'fair'.
 
2012-12-05 10:58:31 AM  

WSUCanuck: hobberwickey: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

See that the thing, it's not envy. Let's say the Sand's Casino empire employs 100,000 people, $150,000,000 could give each of those people a $1500 dollar bonus, which for most people, would be enormous. Plus, a large percentage of it would go back into the economy instead of just sitting in the bank account of someone already worth 20 something billion.

Or that money could be taxed at a normal income rate of 35% which would be and extra 33 million towards things like roads, teachers, police, firefighters, etc. Essentially, going to Adelson, that money is wasted. Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful, helps no one, and is just part of a rich guy dick measuring contest.

Do I wish I had $150 million personally, sure that'd be cool, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I am, however, very worried about the state of the education system in America as well as the state of our healthcare system. It's just a stupid waste to be subsidizing guys like that.

those employees should be blaming the government for not seeing any part of that 150,000,000. If it weren't for the government taking it away as income tax, it'd be going to them!


You're still missing my point, it's not about who has what, it's about where that money get's moved around the most (i.e. where it's most useful), and that's not in the pockets of billionaires.
 
2012-12-05 10:59:49 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.

Good thing for us then that we don't figure our taxes based on how much you get out of government spending.

Just responding to those who claim the rich aren't paying 'their fair share'. "Fair share" is inherently subjective, granted, but the rich objectively pay in much more than they get from govt spending. You are correct that we obviously don't figure tax rates based on how much you get out of got spending. If we did, sales and poll (per-capita) taxes would be much more prominent.


You both are only considering direct costs and benefits. The government built roads and everyone drives on them so we all benefit from them approximately equally. The Waltons own WalMart. Every single WalMart employee has an easier time getting to work. The Waltons benefit from that. If there were zero roads, WalMart would have to pay their workers each a bit more because their commute would be more difficult. If there were zero roads, WalMart's shipping costs (think trucking stuff around) would be significantly higher. The roads do not just make it easier for the Waltons to get in to work, they significantly reduce the cost of doing business for WalMart and as WalMart scales up, so does the benefit the Waltons receive from the roads.

Next consider the police and fire departments and recall WalMart has thousands of US stores. And how do those police and firemen get to the WalMart stores so quickly? Oh right, on the roads!
Next consider public schools. If no one got a public education, WalMart would have to shell out tons of money to educate its workforce. And so on.

I agree with you there are various definitions of "fair share." But lets not pretend like the rich aren't getting wealthy off of the backs of the rest of us.
 
2012-12-05 11:00:10 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: No, what you are missing is that the 'bottom line' you are referring to is before dividends.. We had this exact discussion a year ago and you actually had an epiphany, IIRC. Dividends do not reduce corporate taxable income. All that revenue doesn't end up in 'either of those', rather dividends end up being taxed in 'both' of those.

For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.


I recall an epiphany as well, though I'm not totally sold. I don't mind the current system (though I have my own ideas on how to change/fix it). This may be the sour grapes of the low end of the middle class, but I really can't be arsed to care that a company has to pay taxes on the whole pile, and then pay taxes on the gifts they give themselves as well. They seem to be doing fine under the current system.

I think the final part of that epiphany was that the US is the only top-flight country that doesn't split the piles. That's the best sell I can think of, and unless there's a reason we do it differently (e.g. the rest of the world got bit by the Thatcher bug, but we resisted the change; something like that), I'm on board with that change.

Though the fact that his opinion hasn't changed in the year or more I've seen him argue this leads me to believe he either really likes dividends or he really and truly believes it's double taxation (despite the year's worth of arguments against). Either way, the 9,476,948,761,486th time will not be the charm that magically settles this.

I thought you and I settled it, at least partially, the 1,450,321,877th time. But I'll ask you the same question I asked upthread: would it satisfy you if we permitted deductibility of dividends at the corporate level, if all dividends were taxed at ordinary rates to individuals?


Sure. I'd like the new rates to be higher than the "combined" rate we have now, but that's a separate argument.

// but just FTR, I'm mostly fine with the way it's done now (possibly because I am not a business, nor have I ever received a dividend), and I'm still rather hard-pressed to call it "double taxation"
 
2012-12-05 11:00:38 AM  

Grungehamster: mrshowrules: Grungehamster: ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.

Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)

Not saying this is wrong but I'd be curious about the source if you have it. Romney out spent Obama on advertising.

Link

This Atlantic Wire article from Election Day, which seems a little light in the source department, sadly. The link you shared looks like it only covers TV ad spending; chances are a good chunk of the difference was from Obama having a lot more campaign offices and other non-TV related advertising.


Thanks. Obama spent more on offices for sure. I think Romney was short-sighted in thinking that ad airtime alone would win the day. Obama's supporters were working many angles. Definitely Obama ran the smarter campaign. Romney could have spent twice as much and still would have lost IMHO.
 
2012-12-05 11:01:19 AM  

lelio: hobberwickey: Put in another pile where it doesn't do anything useful

What is he putting it under his mattress or something? He's got it in a bank / hedge fund / etc that is using that money to do something.


Sure, but our economy is fundamentally driven by consumer demand. Banks aren't going invest in companies that consumers aren't willing/able to buy from. The flip side is if there's strong consumer demand, there will be money to lend.
 
2012-12-05 11:02:12 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Just as you could make a case that taxes should be based on income, because a functioning country allows for the making of income, a case could be made that we should all chip in an equal amount, under the assumption that govt spending benefiss everyone equally, like when you and 2 friends chip in for pizza. Either argument could be called 'fair'.


Both are fine, so long as we simultaneously make the exact same argument with respect to "fair" compensation.
 
2012-12-05 11:05:10 AM  

douchebag/hater: Subby?

How much did that egomaniac, POS and well known 'Man Behind The Curtain' George Soros spend?

Get back to me when Leftists spending millions upon millions of dollars on electing other Leftists bothers you as much as Conservatives spending money on electing Conservatives.


i.ytimg.com

He tried to warn us.
 
2012-12-05 11:06:30 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Salaries to whom? shareholders/owners?


A person... If the corporation had paid that money as salary to a person, no matter what type of person that is, the total tax rate is approximately X. Corporate tax rate + long term capital gains/dividends tax rate is approximately equal to X. So the total tax on that money is about the same.. it's just instead of all of it being income tax.. some of it's corporate tax and some of it's dividend tax.
 
2012-12-05 11:06:31 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: No, what you are missing is that the 'bottom line' you are referring to is before dividends.. We had this exact discussion a year ago and you actually had an epiphany, IIRC. Dividends do not reduce corporate taxable income. All that revenue doesn't end up in 'either of those', rather dividends end up being taxed in 'both' of those.

For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

I recall an epiphany as well, though I'm not totally sold. I don't mind the current system (though I have my own ideas on how to change/fix it). This may be the sour grapes of the low end of the middle class, but I really can't be arsed to care that a company has to pay taxes on the whole pile, and then pay taxes on the gifts they give themselves as well. They seem to be doing fine under the current system.

I think the final part of that epiphany was that the US is the only top-flight country that doesn't split the piles. That's the best sell I can think of, and unless there's a reason we do it differently (e.g. the rest of the world got bit by the Thatcher bug, but we resisted the change; something like that), I'm on board with that change.

Though the fact that his opinion hasn't changed in the year or more I've seen him argue this leads me to believe he either really likes dividends or he really and truly believes it's double taxation (despite the year's worth of arguments against). Either way, the 9,476,948,761,486th time will not be the charm that magically settles this.

I thought you and I settled it, at least partially, the 1,450,321,877th time. But I'll ask you the same question I asked upthread: would it satisfy you if we permitted deductibility of dividends at the corporate level, if all dividends were taxed at ordinary rates to individuals?

Sure. I'd like the new rates to be higher than the "combined" rate we have now, but that's a separate argument.

// but just FTR, I'm mostly fine with the way it's done now (possibly because I am not a business, nor have I ever received a dividend), and I'm still rather hard-pressed to call it "double taxation"


But you at least recognize that it is a "combined" rate. I'm not arguing against a second level of tax.

The reason i get into these threads is because I argue that one needs to compare the "combined" rate to ordinary rates, not the 15% rate in isolation. When you consider the combined rate, you recognize that investment income does not receive a preferential rate.
 
2012-12-05 11:14:35 AM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


Sure. Just as I'm sure everyone who advocates spending cuts has or will forgo their government benefits. No federal student loans, no Social Security, no unemployment benefits, etc.
 
2012-12-05 11:16:19 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I know I shouldn't, but I gots to know. WTF are you talking about?


The Latin translator makes gibberish out of your handle. So I looked up the words individually. The best I can come up with is "to believe the highest debt," or "to accept the highest debt."
 
2012-12-05 11:19:59 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But you at least recognize that it is a "combined" rate. I'm not arguing against a second level of tax.


I needed a clean term. Call it the "current" rate if "combined" is too loaded a word.

And that there is a 15% rate at all is the definition of "investment income receives a preferential rate." There may be a (good) reason to have that low rate - encouraging investment - but I have a feeling investment would still be happening if profits were taxed at 20%. The people paying that 15% rate on a median-salary's worth of investment profit don't have to worry about brackets and payroll taxes, they can offset good years with bad ones (the 1% is ALMOST done harvesting their losses from 2007-8. I wonder how much it cost them in the last 5 years vs how much it cost taxpayers in lost revenue), and they have a political party dedicated to ensuring that their tax bill never gets any larger (moreover, they're promised that their tax bills will only get smaller). That's not necessarily the fault of investors, but it certainly creates a two-(or more)tiered system for earnings in this country.

That dividends, which fewer and fewer companies give out anyway, are now the "worst" way for a company to spread wealth around to their investors hardly makes a dent in that. If there's a high tax rate, no way around paying it, and investors want dividends back, I call that win-win-win (much like business throwing piles of money at T-bills, paying the government to hold its money for 30 years).
 
2012-12-05 11:20:42 AM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.


the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: Salaries to whom? shareholders/owners?

A person... If the corporation had paid that money as salary to a person, no matter what type of person that is, the total tax rate is approximately X. Corporate tax rate + long term capital gains/dividends tax rate is approximately equal to X. So the total tax on that money is about the same.. it's just instead of all of it being income tax.. some of it's corporate tax and some of it's dividend tax.


Well, if I'm reading you correctly, then hallelujah you are agreeing with me. If a company were permitted to pay a special salary to shareholders that wiped out its taxable income, then the entire amount would be taxed at ordinary rates. This is akin to my hypothetical of letting dividends be deductible from corporate taxable income.

At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.
 
2012-12-05 11:21:05 AM  
Oligarch Defender Bot deployed beep boop
 
2012-12-05 11:21:50 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The reason i get into these threads is because I argue that one needs to compare the "combined" rate to ordinary rates, not the 15% rate in isolation. When you consider the combined rate, you recognize that investment income does not receive a preferential rate.


Corporate person-hood means that the corporation counts as a 'hand' in the context of every time money changes hands it is taxed. There's nothing particularly special about the corporation as a hand except it's not an actual living breathing person. I posted this before but I'll post it again. I get paid a salary, pay taxes. I pay an independent plumber, he pays taxes. Plumber buys a Ford, Ford pays taxes. Ford hires a manufacturing worker, manufacturing worker pays taxes.
 
2012-12-05 11:22:42 AM  

Jackson Herring: Oligarch Defender Bot deployed beep boop


For some reason I have you highlighted in red with the notation "Randroid." Did I err?
 
2012-12-05 11:25:01 AM  

mittromneysdog: For some reason I have you highlighted in red with the notation "Randroid." Did I err?


Haha holy shiat, yes you could say that you erred and that the ocean is damp
 
2012-12-05 11:25:38 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.


The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.
 
2012-12-05 11:27:22 AM  

mittromneysdog: Debeo Summa Credo: I know I shouldn't, but I gots to know. WTF are you talking about?

The Latin translator makes gibberish out of your handle. So I looked up the words individually. The best I can come up with is "to believe the highest debt," or "to accept the highest debt."


Funny. It's supposed to be debits equal credits as I'm an accountant, but apparently the person who told me that's what it means got the Latin wrong.
 
2012-12-05 11:27:39 AM  

Jackson Herring: mittromneysdog: For some reason I have you highlighted in red with the notation "Randroid." Did I err?

Haha holy shiat, yes you could say that you erred and that the ocean is damp


Just to be clear, your "the ocean is damp" remark could be construed to mean "yeah, you've really understated it. I'm not just a Randroid, which in my analogy is merely "damp;" I'm the god damn OCEAN of Randroids! I'm the ULTIMATE Randroid."

I don't think that's what you're saying, but it's not 100% clear to me.
 
2012-12-05 11:28:45 AM  

mittromneysdog: you erred


I don't know how to make it any more clear
 
2012-12-05 11:30:15 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mittromneysdog: Debeo Summa Credo: I know I shouldn't, but I gots to know. WTF are you talking about?

The Latin translator makes gibberish out of your handle. So I looked up the words individually. The best I can come up with is "to believe the highest debt," or "to accept the highest debt."

Funny. It's supposed to be debits equal credits as I'm an accountant, but apparently the person who told me that's what it means got the Latin wrong.


In addition to the "fundamentalist Christian" theory, I wondered whether you were just super bitter about a mount of student loans you owe.
 
2012-12-05 11:31:37 AM  

Jackson Herring: mittromneysdog: you erred

I don't know how to make it any more clear


Yes, but was my error of extreme understatement? Or of completely wrong categorization?
 
2012-12-05 11:32:54 AM  

mittromneysdog: Jackson Herring: mittromneysdog: you erred

I don't know how to make it any more clear

Yes, but was my error of extreme understatement? Or of completely wrong categorization?


yes
 
2012-12-05 11:33:06 AM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.


Which, in turn, lowers the amount of available dividends to you, or conversely, lowers the amount of retained earnings at the company for reinvestment and/or the repurchase of shares, either of which reduces the wealth of the investor. By taxing the corporation, you are taxing the owners.

Would you allow deductibility of dividends from corporate taxable income if such dividends were taxed at ordinary rates?
 
2012-12-05 11:45:00 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Pincy: Debeo Summa Credo: Regardless, although your anecdotal situation isninteresting, none of this in any way detracts from the fact that investment income is taxed at two levels, and that the rich pay far more in taxes than their proportionate benefit from govt spending.

Good thing for us then that we don't figure our taxes based on how much you get out of government spending.

Just responding to those who claim the rich aren't paying 'their fair share'. "Fair share" is inherently subjective, granted, but the rich objectively pay in much more than they get from govt spending. You are correct that we obviously don't figure tax rates based on how much you get out of got spending. If we did, sales and poll (per-capita) taxes would be much more prominent.

Well, when some working class slob is paying a higher tax percentage than Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney then either one is paying too much or the other is not paying their fair share. You can't compare tax fairness by total taxes paid, you have to use percentages.

Well, Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney aren't paying lower taxes than some working class slob, see the rest of this thread for that discussion. But regardless, comparing percentages or flat dollars in assessing fairness is subjective as well. Just as you could make a case that taxes should be based on income, because a functioning country allows for the making of income, a case could be made that we should all chip in an equal amount, under the assumption that govt spending benefiss everyone equally, like when you and 2 friends chip in for pizza. Either argument could be called 'fair'.


My guess is that most people would consider taxes based on a percentage of income to be much more fair than taxes based on total paid.
 
2012-12-05 11:45:24 AM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.


This
 
2012-12-05 11:47:28 AM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


Herpa? Derpa derpa herp!

Seriously? That is the best you can come up with?

Did you give ALL of your money to Mitt the "wonder boy" Romney in his epic clash against the Big Black Beast, Satan's Incarnate, Returning Champion, Barack Obama. Because you know you REALLY REALLY wanted him to win so you should have sold everything and gave it all to Romney. Because that would have been the completely smart thing to do.

Little butt hurt on your bad investment eh?  So next time around you will be sure your ideals are in the right! Go white power!
 
2012-12-05 11:48:43 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


Such a mental midget argument, I pay plenty of taxes and have no problem paying more. I don't actually like to see so many kids in poverty and other things that shouldn't be happening in such rich nations. But yah.....gimme you farking idiot.
 
2012-12-05 11:51:09 AM  

mittromneysdog: Jackson Herring: Oligarch Defender Bot deployed beep boop

For some reason I have you highlighted in red with the notation "Randroid." Did I err?


That's funny:

Jackson Herring Smartest Funniest 2012-12-05 11:28:45 AM
(favorite: Ffffaaaaarrrrrtttt)
 
2012-12-05 11:51:30 AM  
As an Oracle shareholder, I am greatly pleased by this. I'm really hoping GE decides to declare a special dividend as well before you freeloaders can get your hands on it.
 
2012-12-05 11:53:21 AM  

hobberwickey: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.

This


The real flaw in his argument is comparing what ownership of stock means to what other kinds of ownership means. A sole proprietor, a partner, and even a silent partner (the most like of the three unto a corporate shareholder) are all liable in full for the debts of their businesses. That's because there is real legal identity between sole proprietors, partners, and their businesses. By divorcing personal responsibility from corporate ownership, you likewise divorce the legal identity of shareholders from corporations. Therefore, when a corporation pays its dividends, it is really paying separate legal entities the same way it does when it pays its employees their salaries and wages.

Make shareholders liable in full for the debts of their corporations, and it will make sense to treat them as one and the same. As of now, they are clearly not.
 
2012-12-05 11:53:34 AM  

the_geek: In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Believe me, that has never, ever, ever stopped him from shooting his keyboard off before. He is the resident master of the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

For instance, his laughable "zOMG DUBBLE TAXASHUN!!1!1!" argument only makes sense for him because he totally, and willfully, ignores the fact that the corporation is an entirely separate entity from the stockholders. It is a legal person in and of itself. The stockholders own shares of it, but they are legally separate from it, which is an important distinction.

If WidgetCo. goes bankrupt, is sued, or falls into any other kind of legal wrangling, you personally hold no legal responsibility for it even if you have 1,000 shares of WidgetCo. in your portfolio. Your credit rating isn't harmed if WidgetCo. goes bankrupt. Your personal savings are not at risk of WidgetCo. gets sued. You are not subject to prosecution if the officers of WidgetCo. are arrested for criminal activity. The extent of your personal risk is in the stock valuation, just like any other investment, but you hold no liability for the company. That's the whole point of establishing a corporation in the first place -- relieving the investors from personal liability. That being the case, the separation of liability is the reason for the corporation to pay a separate tax rate than shareholders. The money literally passes hands between two separate legal entities, and is taxed accordingly, just like any other transaction. Yo-yos who scream about double-taxation refuse to acknowledge this. They are literally demanding to maintain the separation of liability between the corporation and its shareholders without having to pay for it.

How bootstrappy of them, demanding protection for free.
 
2012-12-05 11:57:59 AM  
FTFA: Carnival CEO Micky Arison is getting $89 million Carnival's special dividend...Arison said:"This additional dividend is in keeping with our previously stated strategy of returning excess free cash flow to shareholders."

"Excess free cash flow." Hm.

In Profits Over People: Carnival's Exploitation of Crew Members is Standard Industry Practice, we explained how P&O decided to pay its crewmembers a basic salary of 75 pence an hour (approximately $1.20 an hour / $400 a month). The company phased out cash-tips-directly-to-the-crew and replaced the tips with "automatic gratuities" billed to the passengers' accounts. But rather than forward the gratuities to the crew, the cruise line threatened to withhold the money if it is not satisfied with a crewmember's work performances.

While the Arcadia was in port in Seattle a month ago, for about 90 minutes the waiters engaged in a "good-humoured" demonstration dockside about the low wages...and were assured there would be no reprisals by management...Carnival, did not find any humor in the situation: "This protest could not, directors decided, be tolerated - no matter what assurances the captain had given the crew."
Not only did Carnival prohibit them from returning to work on the Arcadia but banished them from working on any Carnival cruise ship world-wide.In addition, Carnival instructed the hiring agency, Fleet Maritime Service International, which is registered in Bermuda to avoid taxes and labor regulations, to prohibit the waiters from ever working for Fleet Marine as well. Fleet Maritime is the largest employer of cruise ship personnel in India, and Carnival runs half of the world cruise market. So Carnival essentially "black balled" 150 cruise waiters from one-half of the world's cruise ships. [Link]

No just fired by Mickey "excess free cash flow" Arison, but farking blackballed for protesting a salary of $100 a week.
 
2012-12-05 11:59:16 AM  

BKITU: shareholders and corporations are different


Almost simulposts saying practically the same thing. Cool.
 
2012-12-05 12:00:45 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Jackson Herring Smartest Funniest


Well you got that part right
 
2012-12-05 12:02:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: Uranus Is Huge!: Jackson Herring Smartest Funniest

Well you got that part right


It is all high praise.
 
2012-12-05 12:04:11 PM  
I don't feel sorry for rich people. And by rich I mean who's net yearly income is more that 300K.
 
2012-12-05 12:07:30 PM  
Glad to see the double taxation farktards are still farktards.
 
2012-12-05 12:12:56 PM  

mittromneysdog: hobberwickey: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.

This

The real flaw in his argument is comparing what ownership of stock means to what other kinds of ownership means. A sole proprietor, a partner, and even a silent partner (the most like of the three unto a corporate shareholder) are all liable in full for the debts of their businesses. That's because there is real legal identity between sole proprietors, partners, and their businesses. By divorcing personal responsibility from corporate ownership, you likewise divorce the legal identity of shareholders from corporations. Therefore, when a corporation pays its dividends, it is really paying separate legal entities the same way it does when it pays its employees their salaries and wages.

Make shareholders liable in full for the debts of their corporations, and it will make sense to treat them as one and the same. As of now, they are clearly not.


Limited liability has exactly zero to do with corporate taxation. Limited liability is intended to improve access to equity capital for such companies. Limited liability also exists among many LLPs and LLCs that are not subject to corporate taxation.

Would you buy any stock if you knew that of the company did something wrong you might be on the hook over and above your initial investment? Would you even invest in a 401k or mutual fund when the manager might invest in a company that might be subject to huge liability and in turn require you to go into your pocket to cover losses?
 
2012-12-05 12:21:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.


The fact that they have the money to pay them proves they were just sitting on them, doesn't it?

Unless the companies are laying people off, borrowing cash, or selling assests anyways.

So you have been wrong in the hundred times over the last year you've claimed they weren't cash-heavy.
 
2012-12-05 12:25:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Limited liability has exactly zero to do with corporate taxation.


It has everything to do with why it makes sense to treat shareholders, who take no responsibility for the debts of their corporation, different from business owners who do. That they need not accept personal responsibility for their businesses means they are not identical with their businesses. Which in turn means that taxing them on their dividend income is no more "double taxation" than is taxing any other transactions between separate entities.


Limited liability is intended to improve access to equity capital for such companies.


It certainly is.

Limited liability also exists among many LLPs and LLCs that are not subject to corporate taxation.


Which is bad public policy, unless there are facts I'm unaware of supporting the argument that LLPs and LLCs share legal identity with their owners in the same way that sole proprietorships and partners do.


Would you buy any stock if you knew that of the company did something wrong you might be on the hook over and above your initial investment? Would you even invest in a 401k or mutual fund when the manager might invest in a company that might be subject to huge liability and in turn require you to go into your pocket to cover losses?


No. But I also didn't say I was in favor of making stockholders fully liable for the their corporations. I think there are significant public policy gains from the legal structure of corporations. We're able to do things requiring large scale capitalization which would be impossible without them. But that has f*ck all to do with whether shareholders are different from their corporations, which they obviously are.
 
2012-12-05 12:38:12 PM  

BKITU: For instance, his laughable "zOMG DUBBLE TAXASHUN!!1!1!" argument only makes sense for him because he totally, and willfully, ignores the fact that the corporation is an entirely separate entity from the stockholders. It is a legal person in and of itself. The stockholders own shares of it, but they are legally separate from it, which is an important distinction.


Dr Dreidel: Either way, the 9,476,948,761,486th time will not be the charm that magically settles this.


Probably only needed these two posts in the whole thread.
 
2012-12-05 12:43:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".


I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.
 
2012-12-05 01:02:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mittromneysdog: Debeo Summa Credo: I know I shouldn't, but I gots to know. WTF are you talking about?

The Latin translator makes gibberish out of your handle. So I looked up the words individually. The best I can come up with is "to believe the highest debt," or "to accept the highest debt."

Funny. It's supposed to be debits equal credits as I'm an accountant, but apparently the person who told me that's what it means got the Latin wrong.



How nice of you to offer fellatio to your wealthy clients as a value-add.
 
2012-12-05 01:12:39 PM  

WSUCanuck: Ahh pedantry. The corporate tax, which was paid by Mitt Romney NEVER counts as tax on Mitt Romney, the individual.


exactly.

and as an addendum..I pay taxes on social security on every dollar I make.
I pay medicare and other taxes.
and I spend most of my money on goods and services where it is taxed again.
so my 25% income tax
6% payroll tax
10 sales tax


hey look I'm over 40%
 
2012-12-05 01:12:53 PM  
Well, he is going to need that money for his defense fund, since he got caught so badly bribing foreign officials and various other crimes and the guy he was hoping would get all charges dropped wasn't elected.
 
2012-12-05 01:19:45 PM  

limeyfellow: Well, he is going to need that money for his defense fund, since he got caught so badly bribing foreign officials and various other crimes and the guy he was hoping would get all charges dropped wasn't elected.


guys that rich don't go to jail. Now if he lost all his money like Madoff he might.
 
2012-12-05 01:19:50 PM  
But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?
 
2012-12-05 01:21:00 PM  

moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?


I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes
 
2012-12-05 01:27:48 PM  
In case you're all wondering, the answer is 178. Scientists figured out that 178 is the highest number of luxury yachts a person can water ski behind at one given moment. I hope you're all taking that into consideration when wondering if our billionaires are being taxed enough.
 
2012-12-05 01:29:23 PM  
0.tqn.com

reputationxchange.com
 
2012-12-05 01:33:13 PM  

Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes


The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.
 
2012-12-05 01:39:18 PM  
Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?
 
2012-12-05 01:43:52 PM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I'm not rich but I am a small business owner. I avoid paying a LOT of taxes by claiming a significant portion of my income as dividends. That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15%. Also, most of my expenses related to work that you pay for *after* taxes I get to pay for *before* taxes. Highlights include 10% of my mortgage and utilities, gas and tolls to and from work, etc. I generally make 50% more than the guy sitting next to me doing the same work and pay less in taxes, and I don't just mean the rate.. I mean in nominal dollars I pay less. If we assume that the guy sitting next to me is paying his "fair share" then I am not. Of course I'm paying my "legally required" share, but it's probably not fair compared to what he pays while making less income to do the same work. And that's just me, the 'little guy' running a small business without a full time accountant wrangling out off shore accounts and other nonsense to minimize my taxes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.


This. The rich pay a flat rate of 15%, minus deductions, the rest of us pay up to 39% including FICA on the same income. It ain't right.

In 2011, my taxable income was 5x my cheque due to selling a bunch of stock; I paid a blended tax and FICA rate of 14.5% which is more than Romney, but far less than I will this year on my working person's income.

If you think the system is anywhere near fair, you're either a callous and self-entitled billionaire, or simply ignorant of the facts (Fox viewer).
 
2012-12-05 01:44:39 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.


I thought you said class welfare there for a second.
 
2012-12-05 01:44:47 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

yeah the rest of the world looks at us in amazement. it's like a bus full of people letting the retard drive.
they see a huge debt,historically low tax rates. and they say can't these morons figure out the solution to the problem?
why are people in tri corner hats defending the billionaires who are bleeding them dry?


No one has gotten poor underestimating the intelligence of the public.
 
2012-12-05 01:47:25 PM  

mjjt: Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?


I'm awfully happy. Plus, I don't look like an anthromorphized foreskin AND the candidate I supported (both with my vote and my time) won.
 
2012-12-05 01:51:04 PM  

BKITU: Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes

The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.


In the UK, dividends are taxable as ordinary income, but you get a credit for the tax the corporation paid .... this not only avoids the "taxed twice" argument but is fair, and puts a brake on corporate welfare.

1. Get rid of the entire concept of long term capital gains, or put a modest cap on it to make it a middle class perk for investing comparable to 401(k)'s (e.g. first $100k is at current CG rates, rest is income). The key is to tax the rich on their market income as ordinary income - investing is their job.

2. Remove the cap on FICA, and make all income liable for it

3. Use the massive theoretical increase in revenue to reduce tax rates across the board linearly

This not only resets the system to a realistic revenue level and gets rid of massive deficits, but puts a bit more money in lower middle class pockets, which is the surest way to stimulate the economy.
 
2012-12-05 01:55:28 PM  

jso2897:
I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists,,


,,and candidates, don't forget candidates.
 
2012-12-05 01:55:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Vertdang: GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.

I love when people post that cartoon, as it proves my point, contrary to what the poster is thinking.

Hint: count how many times the income of the plumbing business is taxed before it gets in the pockets of owners, likewise the record store business and the bank. One of these things is not like the others.


Yes, except for the bank, none of those "others" are creations of the government. Without the laws created by the government that bank doesn't exist. You would be dealing directly with the rich guy instead of the bank, and that rich guy would have to shoulder all the liability that entails. So the rich guy could deal directly with those bank customers, but he didn't want to. So he got the government to create something that protects him. It was created as a separate entity, and now gets treated as such. Oh look, now it is not the "shareholder". There's a transaction that creates income for a party. Income is taxed.

So no, you are wrong. If the bank goes out of business the customers that got screwed can only go after the assests of the bank, not the rich guy. We'll get rid of that "double taxation" when we get rid of the concept of limited liability corporations. Something tells me every single shareholder is now recoiling from your complete stupidity.
 
2012-12-05 01:59:18 PM  

mittromneysdog: AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

Funny how people like you only call it "class warfare" when the middle class fights back.


Well, it is warfare only when there is resistance. Otherwise it is just loving abuse.
 
2012-12-05 02:03:48 PM  

Grungehamster: mrshowrules: Grungehamster: ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.

Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)

Not saying this is wrong but I'd be curious about the source if you have it. Romney out spent Obama on advertising.

Link

This Atlantic Wire article from Election Day, which seems a little light in the source department, sadly. The link you shared looks like it only covers TV ad spending; chances are a good chunk of the difference was from Obama having a lot more campaign offices and other non-TV related advertising.


Plus he also forgot the entire Fox News budget. MSNBC does not count towards Obama because they do get critical of him and are not part of the party communication apparatus, nor have they proposed funding political candidates. 

Fox's uncritical support for all things republican, in fact setting republican agendas gets them treated as a true super-PAC.
 
2012-12-05 02:10:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mittromneysdog: hobberwickey: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.

This

The real flaw in his argument is comparing what ownership of stock means to what other kinds of ownership means. A sole proprietor, a partner, and even a silent partner (the most like of the three unto a corporate shareholder) are all liable in full for the debts of their businesses. That's because there is real legal identity between sole proprietors, partners, and their businesses. By divorcing personal responsibility from corporate ownership, you likewise divorce the legal identity of shareholders from corporations. Therefore, when a corporation pays its dividends, it is really paying separate legal entities the same way it does when it pays its employees their salaries and wages.

Make shareholders liable in full for the debts of their corporations, and it will make sense to treat them as one and the same. As of now, they are clearly not.

Limited liability has exactly zero to do with corporate taxation. Limited liability is intended to improve access to equity capital for such companies. Limited liability also exists among many LLPs and LLCs that are not subject to corporate taxation.

Would you buy any stock if you knew that of the company did something wrong you might be on the hook over and above your initial investment? Would you even invest in a 401k or mutual fund when the manager might invest in a company that might be subject to huge liability ...


Actually you idiot it has everything to do with it. The creation of the corporation to separate the liability also creates the separation of the tax liability. Oh look the same word showed up twice. Tax liability for the corporation is separate from the shareholders. I'm glad the idiots like you are finally being ignored.
 
2012-12-05 02:12:54 PM  

ParaHandy: 2. Remove the cap on FICA, and make all income liable for it


Are we going to do the same for the payouts on the other end?

Part of the reason FICA income is capped at ~$110k is because benefit payouts are capped as well. Removing the cap on one end means either removing it on the other, or else acknowledging publicly that SS is a gigantic revenue-moving scheme designed to soak the rich.

I'm comfortable with the latter, but I doubt the rest of the country would be.

But SS isn't contributing to the problem anyway. I say we leave it the fark alone.
 
2012-12-05 02:16:58 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: So I should join the farklib money grab as well? "hey, that guy has more stuff than me! Let's take it!"

You deadbeats can sit around all day in a circle jerk and complain that others have earned more than you and figure out ways to take it. Have fun.


The money grab is on the second Thursday of every month. The circle jerk is every Monday, and is followed by a fat dog search. In case you're interested.
 
2012-12-05 02:27:52 PM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.



I keep hearing people say this and I don't understand the logic of it.

We live in a country that requires federal, state and local taxes to operate. Without these taxes we lose all roads, bridges, networks, education, emergency services, defense, clean food and water, and the preservation of our personal and communal health and land. As an individual there is no way I can volunteer enough of my time or give enough of my income to make up for our social inadequacies. In fact, if I gave all my time and money towards fixing the problem I'd be adding to the rolls of people who require assistance to survive; thus canceling out any good I may be attempting to accomplish. However, if an entire country of people were to give a bit more time and a bit more money we can not only repair any problems we may have, but can continue grow and prosper.
 
2012-12-05 02:37:04 PM  

mjjt: Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?


I love it when people do this.

Yes, the guy who can literally do anything he wants in life is real miserable.

I guess the fox and the grapes and all.
 
2012-12-05 02:41:02 PM  
This is where I remind everyone in the thread that business are taxed AFTER EXPENSES. Yes, that's right, folks! Every penny of employee salary and every penny of expense such as acquiring your competition or buying a new skyscraper to house the corporate headquarters is excluded FIRST before taxes. (Yes, this is simplified, most real estate is amortized out over many years, but it all comes off eventually.)

I say, in order to equalize the tax code, I get to deduct everything I spend first and only be taxed on the "profit" too, which would be the amount I put in savings... which is a pitiful, shameful, feeble amount.

High corporate taxes ENCOURAGE GROWTH by forcing the company to re-invest and spend the profit or be taxed on it. High personal taxes on the wealthy ENCOURAGE GROWTH by forcing the wealthy to create new businesses which will sustain losses to offset the profits from other ventures, or force them to donate wealth to charities, again all to avoid paying it out in taxes. Employees are an expense to a company and a great way to eat up profit and build for more growth. Our highest rates of employment and wealth can be correlated to our highest tax rates.

Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

Trickle down doesn't work. Roll the tax code back to 1958. Nominal maximum at 91% sounds just about right. Diminishing returns is the only thing that kept the greed in check. Recognize that if you have that kind of success, you made it on the backs and necks of thousands of others, and pay your "fair share" for the infrastructure you use to such great extent.
 
2012-12-05 02:52:57 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


I keep hearing people say this and I don't understand the logic of it.

We live in a country that requires federal, state and local taxes to operate. Without these taxes we lose all roads, bridges, networks, education, emergency services, defense, clean food and water, and the preservation of our personal and communal health and land. As an individual there is no way I can volunteer enough of my time or give enough of my income to make up for our social inadequacies. In fact, if I gave all my time and money towards fixing the problem I'd be adding to the rolls of people who require assistance to survive; thus canceling out any good I may be attempting to accomplish. However, if an entire country of people were to give a bit more time and a bit more money we can not only repair any problems we may have, but can continue grow and prosper.


You just succinctly described the role of government. We elect people and give them a portion of our earnings to take care of those common needs and problems that we must have in order to have a stable, prosperous society. These days, too many people think they are entitled to opt out of this social contract and call the contract itself evil. Yet they demand the benefits of that contract. It's ludicrous and the product either of ignorance or avarice.
 
2012-12-05 02:54:44 PM  

jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists.


That would be special shares. And they exist. And no, you can't have any.
 
2012-12-05 03:05:21 PM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


OWNED the stock, EARNED the dividend. To learn more about how stocks work contact your local library.

Where's my "the more you know rainbow" at?
 
2012-12-05 03:07:11 PM  
Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.
 
2012-12-05 03:18:03 PM  

OhioExPat: Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.


Why yes, I can believe this. In 1966, my father bought a three bedroom house (albeit a small one) and paid $6,950 for it. The mortgage was for 7 years. He also bought a new car for $875, but had to save up for that. Auto loans were kind of pricey back then and the sensibility was that one borrowed money only when absolutely necessary. He had four kids and earned about $6,000/year, which was actually pretty good money. A friend's dad made $10,000 per year and we all thought of them as "rich."
 
2012-12-05 03:40:53 PM  

JackieRabbit: OhioExPat: Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.

Why yes, I can believe this. In 1966, my father bought a three bedroom house (albeit a small one) and paid $6,950 for it. The mortgage was for 7 years. He also bought a new car for $875, but had to save up for that. Auto loans were kind of pricey back then and the sensibility was that one borrowed money only when absolutely necessary. He had four kids and earned about $6,000/year, which was actually pretty good money. A friend's dad made $10,000 per year and we all thought of them as "rich."


Just so that we all know our units here, in 2012 dollars (source, which says inflation was 750.4% over the last 56 years):
-house: $59,104.90
-new car: $7,441.26
-dad's annual salary: $51,025.81
-"rich guy" annual salary: $85,043.01

The weird part is that only the home price really went out of control. A new car is 3x the 1956 price, but you can still get a pretty good used car for ~$8k. $50k and $85k are still pretty good middle-class incomes - a two-earner household pulling down $135k/year is gonna do just fine in Obama's America.
 
2012-12-05 03:47:59 PM  

mjjt: Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?


It is the best screw up since Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt decided to make Roosevelt the vice president so he could never challenge their trusts and still keep McKinley in their pockets.
 
2012-12-05 03:54:13 PM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


Um, if it's a dividend, then the company earned it. That means all shareholders, many of whom have no other involvement with or relationship to the company, will get a share.
 
2012-12-05 03:59:35 PM  
How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama
 
2012-12-05 04:01:53 PM  

PaulRB: But you don't understand, the super-duper-uber rich need MORE tax relief, right? (you can't just buy politicians with leftover dividend money... oh, I guess you can)


Why pay taxes to the government when I can make better decisions about where to put the funds? I just heard of a great deal where I can pay for some waitress's kid to get braces.
 
2012-12-05 04:22:25 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama


citation please. or are exempt under the works for/gets news from the Fox Network clause?
 
2012-12-05 04:22:41 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama


Subby should be mad about something that never actually happened?

Ooooooo...kayyyyyy....
 
2012-12-05 04:25:33 PM  

sufferpuppet: Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.

OWNED the stock, EARNED the dividend. To learn more about how stocks work contact your local library.

Where's my "the more you know rainbow" at?


If he EARNED it, it should be taxed the same as WAGES. Including Medicare and Social Security taxes. Because if he earned it, then he worked for it, and it's income, and should be taxed as income under income tax rules.
 
2012-12-05 04:47:08 PM  

BKITU: Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes

The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.


the rich don't pay that top rate either. and if you want to compete with the Chinese and others in a race to the bottom fine. But for myself I choose to seek another path for American labor. One that brings them up to our level. Not us down to theirs. and if that means taking a huge inflationary hit then so be it. I'd rather have a good paying job and pay more for a tv or a pair of socks knowing an American made it than work for slave wages.
 
2012-12-05 05:12:44 PM  

OhioExPat: Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.


As a Millennial, I cannot even begin to fathom this.

/Born in 1985
 
2012-12-05 05:29:51 PM  

Hobodeluxe: the rich don't pay that top rate either. and if you want to compete with the Chinese and others in a race to the bottom fine. But for myself I choose to seek another path for American labor. One that brings them up to our level. Not us down to theirs. and if that means taking a huge inflationary hit then so be it. I'd rather have a good paying job and pay more for a tv or a pair of socks knowing an American made it than work for slave wages.


I totally agree with you regarding ensuring trying to keep manufacturing domestic and lifting up the working class. You seem to have missed the point of the entire second half of my post where I advocate for killing the loopholes that allow for corporations to offshore earnings while bringing their losses onshore. If you kill the loopholes while keeping the nominal rate at 35%, you're not creating a race to the bottom, but rather pricing yourself out of the rest of the First World.

This isn't about competing with China and dismantling the social safety net. It's about competing with the labor forces in Canada (15% corporate rate) and Europe (most are 10%-25%) and Japan (25.5%) and South Korea (22%). A manufacturer who needs highly-skilled, first-world-educated labor has plenty of options on the table that are on par with the US labor force. I'm simply talking about bringing the US corporate taxation paradigm in line with other First World competitors.
 
2012-12-05 05:46:43 PM  
Why does the article compare some payouts to the number of houses the person can buy? Obviously all that money will be used to create jobs. That's what the between the scrolly words tv talkers tell me.
 
2012-12-05 05:56:18 PM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.


This is true, but in a little less than a month, dividends are considered income instead of long term capital gains, which makes no sense.

I have a thousand dollars worth of stock.

A. The corporation buys back a bunch of stock, making my stock worth another $150.
B. The corporation gives out the same money as dividends, giving my $150.

In both cases, the effect is the same- the corporation sends out a bunch of money, increasing my value by $150. It should be taxes the same, and right now, it is. However, starting on January 1st, the buyback is taxed at 15% while the dividend is taxed at 41%. That's not the way it should work.

The way it works now is fair. Having it taxed at the shareholder level as income and deducted as an expense at the corporate level is also fair. Having it taxed as income at the shareholder level and also taxed at the corporate level is unfair.

If it's income for the worker/shareholder/whoever, then it should be deductible for the corporation. If it's a capital gain, then it should not be deductible for the corporation, but taxed as a capital gain. The only exception would be dividends.
 
2012-12-05 06:07:14 PM  

Mija: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.


Sorry, facts are facts. You guys can sit around and lie to each other about why you are poor, but they're still lies. Don't get mad at me when I call you on your lies and stupidity.
 
2012-12-05 06:14:52 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.

This is true, but in a little less than a month, dividends are considered income instead of long term capital gains, which makes no sense.

I have a thousand dollars worth of stock.

A. The corporation buys back a bunch of stock, making my stock worth another $150.
B. The corporation gives out the same money as dividends, giving my $150.

In both cases, the effect is the same- the corporation sends out a bunch of money, increasing my value by $150. It should be taxes the same, and right now, it is. However, starting on January 1st, the buyback is taxed at 15% while the dividend is taxed at 41%. That's not the way it should work.

The way it works now is fair. Having it taxed at the shareholder level as income and deducted as an expense at the corporate level is also fair. Having it taxed as income at the shareholder level and also taxed at the corporate level is unfair.

If it's income for the worker/shareholder/whoever, then it should be deductible for the corporation. If it's a capital gain, then it should not be deductible for the corporation, but taxed as a capital gain. The only exception would be dividends.


For what it's worth, based on this post you also agree with me re dividend taxes.
 
2012-12-05 06:18:45 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.

The fact that they have the money to pay them proves they were just sitting on them, doesn't it?

Unless the companies are laying people off, borrowing cash, or selling assests anyways.

So you have been wrong in the hundred times over the last year you've claimed they weren't cash-heavy.


No, my argument has always been that the companies have their cash balances invested in either money markets or bank deposits. Money markets directly finance other businesses and banks relend deposits (they don't just put them in the vault), so the money isn't actually "just sitting there".
 
2012-12-06 12:31:18 AM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


That's not actually true. If you send more to the IRS than you owe, they'll cash your check and then send you a refund. If you choose not to cash that check, they'll just waste money and time trying to get you your money back.

If you would like to make a contribution to pay down the U.S. public debt, you can send money to the Bureau of the Public debt any time you want. Just go to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#De btFinance
 
2012-12-06 12:47:19 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama


So, every single dollar Obama received in campaign contributions was illegal? (You didn't mention PAC money, just campaign contributions.) By what logic?

If that's the case, where do I apply for a refund? Now that Obama won, I'd love to have all my money back. Pretty sure my donations were legal, though... Not to mention spent.
 
2012-12-06 01:08:58 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mija: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.

Sorry, facts are facts. You guys can sit around and lie to each other about why you are poor, but they're still lies. Don't get mad at me when I call you on your lies and stupidity.


You confuse by arguing rationally at intervals and then defying logic and displayed evidence at many others.

Your loyalties remain starkly clear however. You have been quite excellently refuted in several posts that apparantly warranted no response, while even as the thread dies you post in succession to comments you felt able to defend.

I don't feel having more money than someone else means that you are smarter or morally superior to someone. Passing judgment on billions I've not met is something I find distasteful and reminds me of Monarchism. No god but the sick would elevate others by bloodline or if you prefer wealth alone. I also find it distasteful and likely immoral that those who have so many many times more than most are so much more likely to try and claim it as theirs alone. Money to me is a neccessity, often earned. But no human is deserving of so many thousands of magnitudes of luxury and power over their countrymen. Not for any widget or service they are responsible for. I believe that some money and power junkies would benefit from a stint in rehab, but you can't help those that don't want it.

Regardless, you are on the wrong side of history, defending the most amoral in an amoral system and debating... Occasionally quite dub... Those who question it.iously
 
2012-12-06 02:19:34 AM  
Somehow posting from my cellphone was imperfect. Should have read dubiously with no random word near the end.
 
2012-12-06 02:39:54 AM  

mittromneysdog: Am I remembering wrong, or was Lelio Lestat de Lioncourt's original name?


Whoa, I've been outed! No one's ever brought that up before.
 
2012-12-06 05:53:37 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.


Whatever you're worried about "corporations" doing families can and have done as well (and I'm not just talking about the 15th century, though it makes a good example). Ford, Cargill and Wal-Mart are all "family" companies that your scheme would largely exempt from taxes.

/ And I'm willing to be that if being "family owned" provided a tax advantage those companies would be even less distributed than they are today.
 
2012-12-06 06:20:14 AM  

inclemency: Debeo Summa Credo: Mija: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.

Sorry, facts are facts. You guys can sit around and lie to each other about why you are poor, but they're still lies. Don't get mad at me when I call you on your lies and stupidity.

You confuse by arguing rationally at intervals and then defying logic and displayed evidence at many others.

Your loyalties remain starkly clear however. You have been quite excellently refuted in several posts that apparantly warranted no response, while even as the thread dies you post in succession to comments you felt able to defend.

I don't feel having more money than someone else means that you are smarter or morally superior to someone. Passing judgment on billions I've not met is something I find distasteful and reminds me of Monarchism. No god but the sick would elevate others by bloodline or if you prefer wealth alone. I also find it distasteful and likely immoral that those who have so many many times more than most are so much more likely to try and claim it as theirs alone. Money to me is a neccessity, often earned. But no human is deserving of so many thousands of magnitudes of luxury and power over their countrymen. Not for any widget or service they are responsible for. I believe that some money and power junkies would benefit from a stint in rehab, but you can't help those that don't want it.

Regardless, you are on the wrong side of history, defending the most amoral in an amoral system and debating... Occasionally quite dub... Those who question it.iously


There are many many responses to my centist posts, as would be expected in a forum consisting of 90% far left liberals. Time precludes me from responding to all.

There were one or two upthread that were reasonable that I was unable to respond because it would have required me to parse to cite the few areas I disagree from the many I do agree (I think one was from grungehamster).

Another thing I can't do is refute utterly nonsensical posts that veer off on tangents, of which there have been many, including yours.
 
2012-12-06 07:24:38 AM  

JadedRaverLA: untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.

That's not actually true. If you send more to the IRS than you owe, they'll cash your check and then send you a refund. If you choose not to cash that check, they'll just waste money and time trying to get you your money back.

If you would like to make a contribution to pay down the U.S. public debt, you can send money to the Bureau of the Public debt any time you want. Just go to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#De btFinance


There is also a box for it on your tax return, where you can specify how much you are donating.
 
2012-12-06 12:57:48 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: No, my argument has always been that the companies have their cash balances invested in either money markets or bank deposits. Money markets directly finance other businesses and banks relend deposits (they don't just put them in the vault), so the money isn't actually "just sitting there".


Your previous arguments were that they don't sit on the money, they have it working for them and reinvest it in business and job creation blah blah.

Now 'sticking it in the bank' counts as that? Great, Then the poors are job creators too and we might as well redistribute wealth because they'll put everything they don't spend in a money market account too!

But I think inclemency pegged you accurately above. If you aren't an intentional troll and want your serious points to be addressed, you shouldn't spend half your posts creating strawmen to troll people or attacking everyone who disagrees with you just jealous of the wealthy.
 
2012-12-06 03:13:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: JadedRaverLA: untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.

That's not actually true. If you send more to the IRS than you owe, they'll cash your check and then send you a refund. If you choose not to cash that check, they'll just waste money and time trying to get you your money back.

If you would like to make a contribution to pay down the U.S. public debt, you can send money to the Bureau of the Public debt any time you want. Just go to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#De btFinance

There is also a box for it on your tax return, where you can specify how much you are donating.


Nope.

Form 1040

You can elect to split your refund among multiple accounts or purchase U.S. Savings Bonds with it with a Form 8888, or you can "prepay" the amount toward your next year's taxes, but you can't directly donate it to pay down the debt.

I know Senator Thune introduced a bill that would have made it possible to overpay and have the excess used to pay down the debt (it was the Republican version of the Democrats' Buffet Rule), but it hasn't gone anywhere.
 
2012-12-06 04:55:59 PM  

JadedRaverLA: Debeo Summa Credo: JadedRaverLA: untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.

That's not actually true. If you send more to the IRS than you owe, they'll cash your check and then send you a refund. If you choose not to cash that check, they'll just waste money and time trying to get you your money back.

If you would like to make a contribution to pay down the U.S. public debt, you can send money to the Bureau of the Public debt any time you want. Just go to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#De btFinance

There is also a box for it on your tax return, where you can specify how much you are donating.

Nope.

Form 1040

You can elect to split your refund among multiple accounts or purchase U.S. Savings Bonds with it with a Form 8888, or you can "prepay" the amount toward your next year's taxes, but you can't directly donate it to pay down the debt.

I know Senator Thune introduced a bill that would have made it possible to overpay and have the excess used to pay down the debt (it was the Republican version of the Democrats' Buffet Rule), but it hasn't gone anywhere.


You are correct! They provide an address in the 1040 instructions telling you how to donate, if you wish.

I must have gotten the box thing confused with the optional $3 to presidential campaign funds.
 
2012-12-06 04:58:10 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: No, my argument has always been that the companies have their cash balances invested in either money markets or bank deposits. Money markets directly finance other businesses and banks relend deposits (they don't just put them in the vault), so the money isn't actually "just sitting there".

Your previous arguments were that they don't sit on the money, they have it working for them and reinvest it in business and job creation blah blah.

Now 'sticking it in the bank' counts as that? Great, Then the poors are job creators too and we might as well redistribute wealth because they'll put everything they don't spend in a money market account too!

But I think inclemency pegged you accurately above. If you aren't an intentional troll and want your serious points to be addressed, you shouldn't spend half your posts creating strawmen to troll people or attacking everyone who disagrees with you just jealous of the wealthy.


Strawmen like accusing me of saying companies don't have cash balances?
 
Displayed 303 of 303 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report