Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
1 percent taxes
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 08:21 PM (1,673 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 19 2012, 11:46 PM
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 11:44 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 19 2012, 11:42 PM
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 11:34 PM
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 10:45 PM
"How is it double taxing?"

Let's go back to your "The simple solution to the double taxation problem".

Your solution merely calls the tax something else. It doesn't change the problem.
Bump for rivers. Let's see if he can respond without insults.
It solves the problem in that it isn't a double tax. It's a single tax on the corporate profits, which are not taxed to the corporation, but distributed to the shareholders, who are then taxed only once. You're avoiding answering the real question because you have been caught in an error, which is your usual response.
You're still simply sweeping the problem under the carpet of a name change, renaming corporate gains income. Mere semantics.

And what is my error? Explain.
Your error is denying that corporate gains are income. That's ridiculous.
Again, semantics solves nothing. A rose by any other name would still be a double tax.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 11:48 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 19 2012, 11:46 PM
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 11:44 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 19 2012, 11:42 PM
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 11:34 PM
Chris
Feb 19 2012, 10:45 PM
"How is it double taxing?"

Let's go back to your "The simple solution to the double taxation problem".

Your solution merely calls the tax something else. It doesn't change the problem.
Bump for rivers. Let's see if he can respond without insults.
It solves the problem in that it isn't a double tax. It's a single tax on the corporate profits, which are not taxed to the corporation, but distributed to the shareholders, who are then taxed only once. You're avoiding answering the real question because you have been caught in an error, which is your usual response.
You're still simply sweeping the problem under the carpet of a name change, renaming corporate gains income. Mere semantics.

And what is my error? Explain.
Your error is denying that corporate gains are income. That's ridiculous.
Again, semantics solves nothing. A rose by any other name would still be a double tax.
Then, please explain how its a double tax. It's only taxed once at the individuals level.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Now there is double tax and it's a problem, as even you said, rivers.

There is tax(corporate gains) + tax(income). Double tax. Problem.

If we apply your solution however, tax(rename(corporate gains, income) + tax(income) still equals tax(corporate gains) + tax(income) and is thus still a double tax and still a problem.

Renaming doesn't solve the problem.
Edited by Chris, Feb 20 2012, 12:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Yes but one is on a corporation and one on an individual apples & oranges. Unless the individual is incorporated.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 20 2012, 12:12 AM
Now there is double tax and it's a problem, as even you said, rivers.

There is tax(corporate gains) + tax(income). Double tax. Problem.

If we apply your solution however, tax(rename(corporate gains, income) + tax(income) still equals tax(corporate gains) + tax(income) and is thus still a double tax and still a problem.

Renaming doesn't solve the problem.
Have you ever heard the phrase corporate gains tax, Chris. I haven't. It's referred to as corporate "income" tax. It is not a double tax. It is a single tax on the entity that receives the proceeds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Explain what you meant then when you said "The simple solution to the double taxation problem".

Yes, and I apologize profusely for saying corporate gains when I meant capital gains.

So let me correct that:

There is tax(capital gains) + tax(income). Double tax. Problem.

If we apply your solution however, tax(rename(capital gains, income) + tax(income) still equals tax(capital gains) + tax(income) and is thus still a double tax and still a problem.
Edited by Chris, Feb 20 2012, 12:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

i get double taxed every time i use after tax dollars & pay sales tax. So its the way things are.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 20 2012, 12:17 AM
Explain what you meant then when you said "The simple solution to the double taxation problem".

Yes, and I apologize profusely for saying corporate gains when I meant capital gains.

So let me correct that:

There is tax(capital gains) + tax(income). Double tax. Problem.

If we apply your solution however, tax(rename(capital gains, income) + tax(income) still equals tax(capital gains) + tax(income) and is thus still a double tax and still a problem.
I meant that when the corporation is taxed before it distributes profits, then the recipient of the distribution is taxed again, that is a double tax. When the corporation is not taxed, but the recipient of the distribution is, that's a single tax.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Feb 20 2012, 12:20 AM
i get double taxed every time i use after tax dollars & pay sales tax. So its the way things are.
And if you earned capital gains, triple taxed.

Just because it's the way things are, doesn't mean it's the way things should be. If all we were doing here was talking about what it, there'd be no need for opinions, and we'd have little to discuss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 20 2012, 12:23 AM
Chris
Feb 20 2012, 12:17 AM
Explain what you meant then when you said "The simple solution to the double taxation problem".

Yes, and I apologize profusely for saying corporate gains when I meant capital gains.

So let me correct that:

There is tax(capital gains) + tax(income). Double tax. Problem.

If we apply your solution however, tax(rename(capital gains, income) + tax(income) still equals tax(capital gains) + tax(income) and is thus still a double tax and still a problem.
I meant that when the corporation is taxed before it distributes profits, then the recipient of the distribution is taxed again, that is a double tax. When the corporation is not taxed, but the recipient of the distribution is, that's a single tax.
OK, misunderstood.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis