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  
•       •       •

14374 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 6:39 AM (1 year 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 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?
 
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 »






Report