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 303
    More: Obvious, Micky Arison, free cash flow, share repurchase, special dividend  
•       •       •

14379 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





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