A breakdown of who is really paying taxes

[edthecynic]

I didn't really expect anyone to debate such a clear-cut case of double taxation. Only $1 million in total was earned, yet it was taxed first at the corporate level at 35% ($350,000) and second at the individual level at 15% ($97,500); it's the same $1 million, but instead of a 35% total tax rate, it is taxed at 44.75% (a total of $447,500 in taxes).

Let's look at a 2nd scenario: Instead of creating a corporation, the entrepreneur just starts this business as an individual. On December 31 he has earned $1 million, and therefore owes $350,000 in taxes on the earnings (again forgetting the lower marginal rates for simplicity), and is left with $650,000 with no further federal income tax to pay. In case 1 he is left with $552,500, and it is your argument that the first case doesn't represent double taxation? Is the second case less than single taxation then?
By the way, I'm not arguing that he should "realize his initial 1 million profit"; he is required to pay 35% of that to the federal government. I'm simply saying that he has also paid a second tax on that profit that you are denying. I'm not even arguing that it is unfair, but it is a fact that should be considered.

He can't earn the same 1 million twice so he isn't taxed twice. If he pays himself the million profit then that salary is deducted from his profit reducing it to $0.00 and not taxed at the corporate level. If he pays himself 650k then he only pays the corporate tax on the 350k profit.

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

 

[sealybobo]

Who pays the taxes is irrelavent. The poor and middle class want to pay more. But we also want to make more too.

Under the GOP way, we will pay more share of the taxes but not share the wealth because when they cut the taxes for the rich, they shift more of the tax burden on the rest of us. And their cuts are raising our state and local taxes too. Are people not smart enough to realize this? Maybe Fox News will point this out to them. NOT.

 

[edthecynic]

If I pay 25% tax on income of 1.25 million dollars of income
I am left with 1 million
If I invest all of that and make 20% profit, I will have made 200,000
when I pay the 15% on that 200,000 I will be paying taxes on money all ready taxed
That is the simple way to see how money that is used for capital gains usually is dbl taxed

Besides trying to make income taxes as the same as Capital gains is dis-honest to start with
Buffet has most of his previous years in court, I have no idea what he thought he was doing. Its a shame

Income tax and capital gains is not even in the same ball park. After the last 2 weeks in the market I do not know if I will ever invest again in the market

My God what a blood bath

Hang-in-there!!!

The Universe will regain it's balance in December!!!

Bush Tax-Cuts Expire;
LONG LIVE THE KING!​

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves.

Bullshit, historically tax cuts have never paid for themselves. Cuts like Reagan's 81 and 82 cuts led to an immediate loss in revenue that was only made up by his 83 through 88 tax increases. Sometimes with a cap gain tax cut there is a very short term boom in revenue from the speculators dumping their capital assets, but that boom is always followed by a bust so in the long run there was no gain. And the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts were not the cause of any revenue increase it was profits made on the massive spending on the Vietnam War that increased revenue.

You should know by now that the Heritage Foundation specializes in cooked stats that are beyond belief except to the most gullible.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.
Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[JRK]

He can't earn the same 1 million twice so he isn't taxed twice. If he pays himself the million profit then that salary is deducted from his profit reducing it to $0.00 and not taxed at the corporate level. If he pays himself 650k then he only pays the corporate tax on the 350k profit.

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

If a corporation makes 1.25 billion in profit
Pay 250 million in taxes
Thence they offer a dividend that equates to 250 million
That 250 thence is taxed again for 15%

This will become a nonstop cycle
No matter how you look at it your double taxing that wealth to some extent

Every time you reinvest that original 1 billion left from its original taxing, it will be taxed in some % again over the original 25%

I have no issue with capital gains tax
I have a real issue with it being compared to income tax and that its just a 15% rate

 

[edthecynic]

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

If a corporation makes 1.25 billion in profit
Pay 250 million in taxes
Thence they offer a dividend that equates to 250 million
That 250 thence is taxed again for 15%

This will become a nonstop cycle
No matter how you look at it your double taxing that wealth to some extent

Every time you reinvest that original 1 billion left from its original taxing, it will be taxed in some % again over the original 25%

I have no issue with capital gains tax
I have a real issue with it being compared to income tax and that its just a 15% rate

No, The Corporation is taxed only once. Only the gain on what the corp reinvests is taxed after that. The only time money is taxed twice while in the SAME hands is when the money is taxed once when it is earned and a second time when it is spent.

 

[JRK]

He can't earn the same 1 million twice so he isn't taxed twice. If he pays himself the million profit then that salary is deducted from his profit reducing it to $0.00 and not taxed at the corporate level. If he pays himself 650k then he only pays the corporate tax on the 350k profit.

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

Corporations are exempt from paying sales taxes?????????????????

 

[JRK]

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

If a corporation makes 1.25 billion in profit
Pay 250 million in taxes
Thence they offer a dividend that equates to 250 million
That 250 thence is taxed again for 15%

This will become a nonstop cycle
No matter how you look at it your double taxing that wealth to some extent

Every time you reinvest that original 1 billion left from its original taxing, it will be taxed in some % again over the original 25%

I have no issue with capital gains tax
I have a real issue with it being compared to income tax and that its just a 15% rate

No, The Corporation is taxed only once. Only the gain on what the corp reinvests is taxed after that. The only time money is taxed twice while in the SAME hands is when the money is taxed once when it is earned and a second time when it is spent.

To make this simple
earn 1 million
pay 250,000 in taxes
invest 750,000
until you get back 250k in capital gains, your taxing wealth that has all ready been taxed

Get it?
you have paid income tax on 1 million earned
until your capital gains brings that same wealth above 1 million, your paying taxes on wealth you have already paid taxes on

That is better than this

So how can President Obama get away with saying that Warren Buffett pays lower tax rates than his secretary? Many wealthy Americans who have done well like Buffett receive dividends and capital gains — a form of investment income that is subject to multiple levels of tax. First, the investment income results from investment. This capital didn’t appear out of thin air. It was earned and taxed previously, often many times over at rates up to 35 percent.
Then, once invested, it generates income that is taxed at the corporate level at a 35 percent rate, and then it’s taxed again at the individual level at a 15 percent rate on dividends and capital gains. The combined rate on corporate earnings alone is over 45 percent, and this is all after the first layer of tax.
One way to think about this is to imagine you’re driving down a toll road, and you pay three separate tolls. The first toll of $3.50 is when you get on the highway. Then after a few miles you pay another $3.50 toll, and when you exit there’s a final toll of $1.50. A reporter asks you as you leave the last tollbooth how much toll you paid. What’s the most accurate answer — what you paid at the last tollbooth or what you paid altogether? Obviously, feeling some $8.50 lighter in the wallet, the correct answer is to respond with the total.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...wfXVDQ&usg=AFQjCNFCRhfUJQACvcsUj0lN0o8gCBroaQ

 

[edthecynic]

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

Corporations are exempt from paying sales taxes?????????????????

That's right. They just give their tax exemption number for the goods and services they buy. Their customers pay the sales tax when they purchase the goods and services from the company.

It's just amazing how little you tax experts know about taxes!!!

 

[edthecynic]

If a corporation makes 1.25 billion in profit
Pay 250 million in taxes
Thence they offer a dividend that equates to 250 million
That 250 thence is taxed again for 15%

This will become a nonstop cycle
No matter how you look at it your double taxing that wealth to some extent

Every time you reinvest that original 1 billion left from its original taxing, it will be taxed in some % again over the original 25%

I have no issue with capital gains tax
I have a real issue with it being compared to income tax and that its just a 15% rate

No, The Corporation is taxed only once. Only the gain on what the corp reinvests is taxed after that. The only time money is taxed twice while in the SAME hands is when the money is taxed once when it is earned and a second time when it is spent.

To make this simple
earn 1 million
pay 250,000 in taxes
invest 750,000
until you get back 250k in capital gains, your taxing wealth that has all ready been taxed

Bullshit, you have not paid one penny of taxes on that 250k before. You didn't make it until AFTER you invested the 750k so you couldn't have paid taxes on it before you made it from the investment!!!

 

[Cammmpbell]

Right

Papa Obama almost spent in less than fours years what Bush did in eight



Obama is not working

Like most Republicans you're blinder than a goddam bat.

If you aren't smart enough to subtract nearly a half trillion dollars a year from Obama's spending and add it to the Reagan-Bushes debts you should stay out of traffic. Here's the annual interest payments and they must be paid or the nation goes into default. George W. Bush's last budget ended Sept. 30, 2009. The next day over $451 billion was due and payable:

..............................Annual Interest On The National Debt.................................

 

[healthmyths]

Very deceptive use of language. First off, most married filers file joint returns, yet you use the term "people" to obscure that. Second, and more importantly, you use the term "taxes" instead of "income taxes". Even people making under $50K pay significant taxes. They'd include excise taxes on phone bills, tobacco, alcohol, tires, gasoline, etc..

IT IS NOT deceptive! WHO used the TERM HIGHER tax rate??
Obama,Buffett and all other IGNORANT people!
For Buffet's secretary to pay more then 15% which Buffet did in taxes
means she had to make over $100,000 and that's the FACTS JACK!!!!
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

BUT IF SHE PAID 30% in TAXES SHE WAS THE EXCEPTION!
WHICH is the point of the LIE using the term "Buffett Rule"
"Rule " means happens frequently. Often. More times than not!
BUT the IRS proves that is a f...king LIE saying his secretary PAID higher taxes!

If you take the time and download this file directly from the IRS!!!
Source:SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income

17,658,200 taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $75,000 actually in reality for
real as a RULE... paid the IRS 12.92% of their adjusted taxable income or $5,247!

SO come on... IS 13% Less then Buffett's 18%???

Obama et.al. using that stupid idiotic and totally INACCURATE LIE makes suckers out of you !!
THINK for once! Get the FACTS for once!

 

[healthmyths]

Right

Papa Obama almost spent in less than fours years what Bush did in eight



Obama is not working

Like most Republicans you're blinder than a goddam bat.

If you aren't smart enough to subtract nearly a half trillion dollars a year from Obama's spending and add it to the Reagan-Bushes debts you should stay out of traffic. Here's the annual interest payments and they must be paid or the nation goes into default. George W. Bush's last budget ended Sept. 30, 2009. The next day over $451 billion was due and payable:

..............................Annual Interest On The National Debt.................................

AND YOU dumb..f..K
Please explain where $9 trillion in losses due to
1) $5 trillion from the dot.com bust market blowing apart end of 2000?
2) A little event called 9/11 cost $2 trillion
3) Hurricanes worst in history another $1 trillion
4) $1.2 trillion in market losses in 2008
This $9 trillion in LOSSES are being written off (Just as Obama writes off $100,000 per year in what's called long term capital losses Obama's netting him a $125879 long-term capital loss)

This means nearly $306 billion a year in UNPAID IRS/taxes and it started in 2003!
When you take $300 billion a year from the $2 trillion tax revenue that's substantial.
SO again... please someone ... contradict this otherwise shut the f..k up about
taxing more!

 

[BillyV]

He can't earn the same 1 million twice so he isn't taxed twice. If he pays himself the million profit then that salary is deducted from his profit reducing it to $0.00 and not taxed at the corporate level. If he pays himself 650k then he only pays the corporate tax on the 350k profit.

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

You see, I’m not claiming that “each time a dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore taxed more than once”; I’m claiming the dollar I invest in a corporation does not cease to be mine just because it has been invested, any more than a dollar I put in the bank ceases to be mine. You see a corporation as some kind of evil monolith; nothing could be further from the truth. A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals deciding to pool their resources, generally to support larger operations and create a profit. The dollar invested in the corporation does not belong to the corporation; it is segregated into a capital account and used, as are loan proceeds, to grow the operations. You see “corporation tax” as somehow separate and distinct from “income tax”, however, they are both income tax, and they both tax the same dollar. As the corporation grows through these investments and profits, it pays tax on the income. This same income is what makes the stock worth more when it is sold. So I’m sorry, you are incorrect, there is double taxation. Even the IRS recognizes this as you’ll see from my previous posts; if you choose not to accept the word of the agency that is responsible for collecting taxes, I can’t help you.

Corporations are exempt from paying sales taxes?????????????????

That's right. They just give their tax exemption number for the goods and services they buy. Their customers pay the sales tax when they purchase the goods and services from the company.

It's just amazing how little you tax experts know about taxes!!!

Probably you should avoid personal attacks when discussing issues you obviously know nothing about. The sales tax “resale exemption” certificate can be used by any business (corporation, partnership or sole proprietor) if they are buying goods for resale. You see, that is how they avoid, you guessed it, double taxation. The end user of the item pays the sales tax; those manufacturers or distributors buying items for resale don’t pay sales tax when they purchase the goods because they collect the tax from the end user (often but not always a retail consumer). If they had to pay sales tax on those goods and then collect from the end user, they would be paying sales tax twice on the same item. However, it isn’t an exemption for all goods and services; items that are used in the business (vehicles, manufacturing equipment, office supplies, furniture, etc.) and not purchased for resale are sales taxable to the corporation (or other business form) since they are the end user of these items. Most corporations pay significant amounts of sales taxes. Most also pay “tangible personal property” taxes on those same items on which they were required to pay sales tax (with the exception of registered vehicles, which are taxed through the registration process), generally at the same rate as individuals pay on real estate.

 

[JoeB131]

According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.

In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.

Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers.

In other words, only 85 million actually paid taxes.
Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010 | CNSNews.com

Wow. this tired lie again?

This kind of cherry picking doesn't take into account that Social Security taxes (usually 12%, but now 10%) and Medicare (2%) are born by working folks, but capped for the wealthy.

Add in State Income Taxes (5% in IL), and sales taxes (up to 10% in Cook County) and the fact is, the vast majority of the tax burden is born by the middle and working classes.

The reason why government at all levels is teetering on insolvency is because the uber wealthy the OP feels so bad for has done everything it could to drive down wages in the last two recessions.

 

[8537]

If I pay 25% tax on income of 1.25 million dollars of income
I am left with 1 million

Oh my....wait what?

 

[8537]

By the way, BillyV- Welcome to the boards. We'll probably disagree about 98% of the time but kudos on bringing an opinion informed by substantive facts. I enjoyed your posts in this thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right

Papa Obama almost spent in less than fours years what Bush did in eight



Obama is not working

Like most Republicans you're blinder than a goddam bat.

If you aren't smart enough to subtract nearly a half trillion dollars a year from Obama's spending and add it to the Reagan-Bushes debts you should stay out of traffic. Here's the annual interest payments and they must be paid or the nation goes into default. George W. Bush's last budget ended Sept. 30, 2009. The next day over $451 billion was due and payable:

..............................Annual Interest On The National Debt.................................

Waaaah.
He's in the big leagues now, will he ever stop whining and blaming everyone else?

 

[edthecynic]

Well, at least we agree on that; he can't earn the same $1 million twice. We're making progress! And yes, if he pays himself the entire profit, the corporation would not be taxed. But most stockholders don't have the luxury of paying the entire profit out in wages, and often don't even work for the corporation. That doesn't change the fact that the corporation paid tax on the $1 million, and the shareholder then pays tax on the same income that was already taxed. And if he pays himself $650K and then sells the stock, he still pays double on the $350K, once by the corporation ($122.5K), and once when he sells ($34,125). You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (or whether he needs a new accountant), but he is paying twice. It's the exact same dollars (as we agreed, he can't earn the same $1 million twice), how could you come to any other conclusion?

No, the corp pays a tax once on their profits and the shareholder pays a tax once on his profit. The shareholder does not pay corporate taxes and the corp does not pay the shareholder's taxes. Each pays taxes only once and only on their own profits.

If you are going to claim that each time the same dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore it is taxed more than once, that is true but it is taxed an infinite number of times not just double taxed, but in each pair of hands the same dollar is taxed once. The only exception is the sales tax where the same dollar in the same hands is taxed once when it is earned and once when it is spent, but corps are exempt from paying sales taxes.

You see, I’m not claiming that “each time a dollar changes hands it is taxed and therefore taxed more than once”; I’m claiming the dollar I invest in a corporation does not cease to be mine just because it has been invested, any more than a dollar I put in the bank ceases to be mine. You see a corporation as some kind of evil monolith; nothing could be further from the truth. A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals deciding to pool their resources, generally to support larger operations and create a profit. The dollar invested in the corporation does not belong to the corporation; it is segregated into a capital account and used, as are loan proceeds, to grow the operations. You see “corporation tax” as somehow separate and distinct from “income tax”, however, they are both income tax, and they both tax the same dollar. As the corporation grows through these investments and profits, it pays tax on the income. This same income is what makes the stock worth more when it is sold. So I’m sorry, you are incorrect, there is double taxation. Even the IRS recognizes this as you’ll see from my previous posts; if you choose not to accept the word of the agency that is responsible for collecting taxes, I can’t help you.

Corporations are exempt from paying sales taxes?????????????????

That's right. They just give their tax exemption number for the goods and services they buy. Their customers pay the sales tax when they purchase the goods and services from the company.

It's just amazing how little you tax experts know about taxes!!!

Probably you should avoid personal attacks when discussing issues you obviously know nothing about. The sales tax “resale exemption” certificate can be used by any business (corporation, partnership or sole proprietor) if they are buying goods for resale. You see, that is how they avoid, you guessed it, double taxation. The end user of the item pays the sales tax; those manufacturers or distributors buying items for resale don’t pay sales tax when they purchase the goods because they collect the tax from the end user (often but not always a retail consumer). If they had to pay sales tax on those goods and then collect from the end user, they would be paying sales tax twice on the same item. However, it isn’t an exemption for all goods and services; items that are used in the business (vehicles, manufacturing equipment, office supplies, furniture, etc.) and not purchased for resale are sales taxable to the corporation (or other business form) since they are the end user of these items. Most corporations pay significant amounts of sales taxes. Most also pay “tangible personal property” taxes on those same items on which they were required to pay sales tax (with the exception of registered vehicles, which are taxed through the registration process), generally at the same rate as individuals pay on real estate.

OK so you admit corps do not get double taxed by sales taxes like wage earners do, and regarding office supplies etc., those sales taxes are deductible from their net and are not double taxed by the corporate tax.

Corps are still single taxed on their profits and stockholders are single taxed on their cap gains.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama isn't working