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 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?
 
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