 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: Double taxation by C++ Guevara 09/26/2017, 10:49am PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
blackwater wrote: No, I explained that it was a fake, abstract concept, crafted to garner a specific sympathetic response in the less intelligent (sorry again) and those who would benefit directly by its removal. But OK, I didn't do a great job of explaining it, and I can take that criticism and try again. Keeping track of the amount of times a single amount of money is taxed is an abstract and artificial concept. Only when you set up an arbitrary window, like between (a) income received by a corporation to (b) income received by a shareholder, and then label it as "double taxation" does it start to look like "double". If viewed as two separate incomes, first by the corporation (which, as we know, is legally a person) and secondly by the shareholder, it's of course two different taxes and no big deal. What if the shareholder has an executive assistant? The shareholder pays the assistant, from the money already twice taxed... and that income to the assistant is taxed again! OH GOD TRIPLE TAXATION! The only difference is that wealthy people point out the shareholder owns a piece of the corporation, is not an employee, and therefore the corporation income is his and the dividend is also his. Again, just labels. So finally, YES, even if you insist on the "double taxation" label, who fucking cares? Make it triple taxation. Quadruple. The amount of "times" is irrelevant and just semantics. Only the percentage of money paid matters and last I checked, rich people in America are doing fine. And by checking I mean checking numbers. "Double taxation" is an effort to inject some emotion into the unfairness of it all, free the debate from actual numbers. But hell, you want to eliminate corporate taxes and instead jack up capital gains and dividend tax so that it's on par with all income tax? Since that's income for a rich person? I'm all for it. Hell, I'll throw in a loophole that allows an investor to, instead of claiming that dividend as income, immediately re-invest it, without a large (or any?) tax penalty. If you keep your money working in the economy, fine, but once you convert it to yacht money, it's taxed heavy. Agreed? OK good. Imagine the politician who tables this concept. He'd be assassinated before finishing a sentence. I'm not asking for communism here, but I'm not putting up with these wealthy PR spins for people who are already milking the system. They should be upfront and admit they're fucking us, not asking for relief. If I'm a rich guy who holds 5% of Pepsi, and Pepsi shares go up, that gain is not taxed. If I'm a middle class wage slave who works for Pepsi, my income is taxed, and also the company has less money to pay me because it pays corporate tax. I don't get this at all. Pepsi has less money to pay employees after PepsiCo shares go up? And I clearly cited shareholders being paid dividends in my previous post, not share prices going up. It would be embarrassing if you didn't understand that difference, so let's move on. Well, I am one of the worst people. I'm super bad. Like, double Hitler with a side basket of deplorable. Not like all those virtuous people you know on Twitter, making the world a better place with each moralizing tweet. Boy, Twitter sure got savaged by your post. Unfortunately I'm not on Twitter and don't read it, so those don't hit as hard as you imagine. I have an Instagram account though, so maybe shift your attacks to that in your reply. I'm not a libertarian. But my understanding is that libertarians do believe in taxes, just lower ones than currently exist. The fabled moderate libertarian! I hear they're great guys. It's pretty simple, actually. The government sets up retardedly high tax rates. Megacorporations find loopholes that allow them to not pay. Businesses stay in the US. Rich people pay next to no taxes. The middle class and small businesses get screwed by having to pay the "official" tax rate since they can't hire super-smart lawyers and accountants. Rinse, repeat. Hey, where'd the middle class go? If your belief is that less mid-sized and small businesses are what gutted the middle class, it's an ultra-simplistic answer at best, and flat wrong at worst. You're ignoring the effect of a million factors on the fate of the small business, like hey, how about those gigantic megacorporation monopolies existing at all, for example. How do you compete with Walmart, Amazon, Google and Apple today? Man, I'd start a small business but what if I get sick? I need my employer's health insurance for my family... Oh well, I'll just go work in the factory or the mine instead, I guess. Oh, those are gone. OK, opiates. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
