More Fake News from the AP

[Edgetho]

No you are. Income should be taxed in the hands of the receiver.

If I earn interest, I am taxed, even if I paid tax on the income I invested. Even if the corporation paid tax on its net income. All income is to be taxed.

According to you, if I go to the store and buy something, the store should not be taxed on the profit of that sale because I already paid tax on the money when I earned it. If money flowing from individuals to corporations is taxed, why shouldn't money flowing from corporations to individuals?

Income IS taxed in the hands f the receiver. But at different rates. You're moving the goal posts -- Again.

Interest isn't taxed the same as Earned Income -- There's no Socialist Security or FICA on it. FICA/SS is payroll only. At least it was the last time I looked.

Paying Capital Gains at a reduced rate isn't just for Billionaires. It's for ANYBODY.

You sell your house and make a $100k on it? If you lived in it for over two years -- It's tax free!! At least it was the last I looked.

THAT is for the common, ordinary working person. Not for billionaires, who couldn't give a flying FUCK about a homeowners exclusion.

Dividends are taxed at a lower rate because that money has already had the living shit taxed out of it. And that's not just for billionaires, it's for everybody. Your 401k gets that advantage, too. Participate.

Don't bitch. Join in.

Tax Laws give special breaks designed for the WORKING MAN AND WOMAN on 401k money, IRAs, Roth IRAs, Simplified Employee Pensions, etc.

Billionaires couldn't give a FUCK less about that pittance. It's for you and me.

The money your Employer (hopefully) contributes to your pension? You don't pay taxes on that until you withdraw it. Usually at a much lower rate than you would have payed when you were working.

dimocrap scum just love to bitch. And not just because they're stupid -- Which they are.

Mostly because they're just mean, nasty people who can't stand to see someone do well

 

[Pete7469]

[Fake] News from The Associated Press

"We have a situation where billionaires are paying less tax often than their cleaner or their secretary," Lawson told The Associated Press. "That's crazy."

I don't think you actually know what "fake news" is.

1. The passage you quoted is not the AP's premise, inference, conclusion, or opinion. They are the words of Max Lawson. The article from which you took the quote clearly states that.

_____________________

You've slyly taken that one quote from the article and presented it so that it appears as though the reporter is talking about taxes; however, the theme of the article is not about paying taxes, it's about the control of wealth.

It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when 1 in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day

Max Lawson does make the statement you quoted in your OP, but the point of his making it is to amplify the thing which he sees as the primary problem: that the eight richest people on the Forbes 400 control as much wealth as 3.8 billion people do. That's over half the planet's wealth (not income) in the hands/control of eight people.

If it be so that those eight individuals do not pay taxes, what you have is eight people who:

• receive cash payments from millions of taxpayers,
• receive whatever governments provide to make it possible for those eight people to safely and profitably establish and operate their businesses, for example:
  • banking system
  • civil legal system
  • criminal legal system
  • free trade treaties and legislation
  • protectionist legislation
  • transportation infrastructure -- road, rail, ports, and airways
  • physical safety at home, in the air and on the high seas
  • stable political environment
  • trash pick up
  • snow removal
  • emergency medical services
  • police and other law enforcement
  • varmint control
  • parking enforcement
  • public education
  • public utilities kept inexpensive
  • parks and museums
  • elected representation
• receive the benefit of the whatever the government does to it possible for their tax paying customers to safely and efficiently conduct business with those eight people's companies
• receive the benefit of educated workers to work for these billionaires

Thus, we have these mega wealthy people receiving the very same benefits we all do, yet paying for none of them because, as goes the assumption, they either (1) don't pay taxes or (2) pay income taxes at rates below those of non mega rich people. If the former is so, those rich folks are fully subsidized by everyone else, and if the latter is so, the people who are most able, without material impact on their lifestyles, to pay taxes pay disproportionately less.

• Person earning $75,000/year pays at 15% --> Take home after taxes = $63,750
  Same person paying 5% --> Take home after taxes = $71,250
• Person earning $20,000,000,000 pays at 15% --> Take home after taxes = $17,000,000,000
  Same person paying at 30% --> $14,000,000,000

Which individual will experience/feel a lifestyle difference by dint of their income tax burden? I realize that at a certain wealth level, unless one pays at >70% rates, one is not going to feel a lifestyle impact. I'm not at all suggesting such high rates. I'm merely saying that the income tax code should not have provisions that allow really, really rich people to deduct their income tax burden (effective rate) to something lower than non-rich people's.

I'm not suggesting that we should tax billionaires (hundred millionaires even) into the poor house. I'm saying that we should at least require that they pay at a rate comparable to that paid by the average upper middle income taxpayer does. I'm saying that it's not right for 14 times over billionaires (and their ilk in the millions range) to enjoy the lifestyle that comes with that, and receive the same benefits we all do, yet pay for them at a pauper's or median middle class person's rate. Why? Because as things stand now, assuming little to no income taxes be paid by the super rich, we apply to them neither of the two principles of tax fairness.

The reason is because the degree of inequality we observe is, economically speaking, a form of market failing. Imagine we were all behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing what talents we’d be born with. Isn’t it plausible that, behind such a veil, people would agree to enter into insurance contracts such that if they got lucky or talented they would pay out to the unlucky and untalented?

People would, surely, agree to pay out a proportion of the $2M-plus a year they would earn as very highly paid workers in order to soften the misery of being born with no marketable skills. You can therefore regard redistributive taxation as, in effect, the sort of insurance payments that would be made, if such contracts were feasible. In this sense, the tax merely fills in for the missing market. That doesn't get us to a precise tax rate. But it does suggest a case for some degree of progressivity (i.e., application of at least one tax fairness principle) in the taxes.

Let's just for the sake of argument say that billionaires really don't pay taxes. Not a fuckin penny.

Narrow that to federal income taxes and you may be able to make a case. Every billionaire pays taxes -- sales, property, excise, etc. Whether they pay local, state and/or federal income taxes is a different matter.

You still have to ignore all the taxes that come in to any doing any sort of transaction, from the lowly consumer all they way up to the income taxes generated by the CEO's and lawyers and tens of thousands of mother fuckers who work for them.

Because there's no handy way to estimate the extent of non-income taxes such large and disparate groups of people pay, let's go with federal income taxes and "ball park" test it for a few billionaires whose businesses are privately held, and see if your claim holds up.

Assumptions:

• Billionaires pay zero federal income taxes
• All their employees earn $75K/year and pay at the corresponding full marginal tax rate.
• The federal government's main source of discretionary (non FICA/FUTA and other payroll (not income) taxes) income/revenue comes from federal income taxes.

Billionaires under consideration:

• Charles & David Koch - $84B -- 200,000 employees
• Rick Cohen -- $30B -- 15,000 employees
• Ridley and Brandon Bechtel -- $37B -- 53,000 employees
• Michael Dell -- $59B -- 110,000 employees

The math:

• Regular People:
  • Number of "regular" people: 378,000
  • Gross Employee Earnings: $27,840,000,000
  • Marginal tax rate: 15%
  • Federal Income Taxes paid: $4,176,000,000
• Billionaires:
  • Gross Billionaire Earnings: $210,000,000,000
  • Assume they were to pay at the same marginal rate as their employees.
  • Billionaire federal income tax revenue not available for use by the government: $31,000,000,000

That's six billionaires. If we were to consider the whole of the Forbes 400 -- worth some $2.4T (I realize that's not income) -- and required they all pay at least 15% of their income in taxes, just how much closer do you think we'd be to having a smaller national debt? What about when 400 of them pay at 15%?

Billionaires didn't just steal a billion dollars and run off to some secluded island to sit on a pile of money like a fucking dragon in a fairy tale.

Literally no, they don't, but figuratively, economically, financially, that's exactly what they do.

• 10 Accounting Tricks the 1% Use to Dodge the Taxman - The Accounting Degree Review
  
• https://thinkprogress.org/billionai...ax-rates-to-1-percent-3401c496855e#.o4zvhj4lk
  
• Four Ways Rich People Can Still Hide Their Money
  
• America's Billionaires All Got Cribs in South Dakota to Dodge Taxes
  
• https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/...t-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html
  
• How to Pay No Taxes: 10 Strategies Used by the Rich

I'm not holding it against most of them for doing it; nobody wants to pay more rather than less in taxes. I blame our legislators for creating a system that makes it possible to do it.

That doesn't mean [billionaires] can tell us how to live our lives ...

I agree with that.

This is exactly fake news.

It begins with the premise billionaires having so much money "isn't fair". It's not even "news" really, because everyone who knows anything already knows there's some filthy rich people doing shit behind the scenes. It's an op ed as far as I'm concerned, with cherry picked data.

I expect to see a lot more of these sorts of articles, any time a republicrat is in office the redundant "Everyone is poor" stories come out and it's always the republicrat's fault. It doesn't even matter if it's true or not. The media is trying to pretend obozo's economy ranks better than sucks. If Trump's policies ramp up the GDP and they have to give away green cards to bring in more labor the media will suddenly complain about lax immigration policies.

As you pointed out, offshore account loop holes were created by government. You can't blame the billionaires. It is still a situation where they're by themselves engines of prosperity when they have millions of people creating and innovating shit. Then you have sociopath billionaires like Soros who enjoy making huge profits undermining economic prosperity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is exactly fake news.

It begins with the premise billionaires having so much money "isn't fair". It's not even "news" really, because everyone who knows anything already knows there's some filthy rich people doing shit behind the scenes. It's an op ed as far as I'm concerned, with cherry picked data.

??? The article doesn't have any premise. It's thoroughly an article that describes what is Oxfam's position on the matter of wealth inequality. The article's author, Pan Pylas, doesn't express his (?) views at all. H'e's reporting what Oxfam is saying.

Do you understand the various types of articles news outlets publish? The piece you are railing about is a feature article about a conference in Davos where in an organization, Oxfam, shared the most recent findings of an annual study it conducts and discusses annually at this Davos gathering. The article says as much in the second sentence: "Presenting its findings on the dawn of the annual gathering of the global political and business elites in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, anti-poverty organization Oxfam says..." From there to the end of the article, Pylas repeatedly says things like "according to Oxfam," "So and so at Oxfam," and so on.

 

[Dragonlady]

No you are. Income should be taxed in the hands of the receiver.

If I earn interest, I am taxed, even if I paid tax on the income I invested. Even if the corporation paid tax on its net income. All income is to be taxed.

According to you, if I go to the store and buy something, the store should not be taxed on the profit of that sale because I already paid tax on the money when I earned it. If money flowing from individuals to corporations is taxed, why shouldn't money flowing from corporations to individuals?

Income IS taxed in the hands f the receiver. But at different rates. You're moving the goal posts -- Again.

Interest isn't taxed the same as Earned Income -- There's no Socialist Security or FICA on it. FICA/SS is payroll only. At least it was the last time I looked.

Paying Capital Gains at a reduced rate isn't just for Billionaires. It's for ANYBODY.

You sell your house and make a $100k on it? If you lived in it for over two years -- It's tax free!! At least it was the last I looked.

THAT is for the common, ordinary working person. Not for billionaires, who couldn't give a flying FUCK about a homeowners exclusion.

Dividends are taxed at a lower rate because that money has already had the living shit taxed out of it. And that's not just for billionaires, it's for everybody. Your 401k gets that advantage, too. Participate.

Don't bitch. Join in.

Tax Laws give special breaks designed for the WORKING MAN AND WOMAN on 401k money, IRAs, Roth IRAs, Simplified Employee Pensions, etc.

Billionaires couldn't give a FUCK less about that pittance. It's for you and me.

The money your Employer (hopefully) contributes to your pension? You don't pay taxes on that until you withdraw it. Usually at a much lower rate than you would have payed when you were working.

dimocrap scum just love to bitch. And not just because they're stupid -- Which they are.

Mostly because they're just mean, nasty people who can't stand to see someone do well

I'm a retired Canadian. I live in country that doesn't coddle the wealthy and stick it to the little guy. I pay income tax on my interest and investments at the same rate I pay for my regular income. I don't pay Employment Insurance on the interest, nor do I pay CPP (read "Social Security"), but I do pay income tax on it.

You're clueless. Working people can't afford these deductions or capital investment. They can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. When you have 47% of your population receiving social assistance in some form or another in order to eat, have medical care or a roof over their heads, how many of them are investing?

Corporations are awash in cash, businesses are paying the lowest wages since the Gilded Age, and the middle class are losing their savings, and you gush on about how great your tax code is. When Reagan was elected and changed the tax code, the working class had equity, savings and a good shot at "making it".

Reagan's changes to the tax code created a transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top. Now a poor kid has a 1 in 500 chance of getting out of poverty, versus 1 in 20 when Reagan was elected.

The Republican Party are on a massive tax cut program, benefitting the wealthy. How'd that work out for you under Bush?

 

[JoeNormal]

No you are. Income should be taxed in the hands of the receiver.

If I earn interest, I am taxed, even if I paid tax on the income I invested. Even if the corporation paid tax on its net income. All income is to be taxed.

According to you, if I go to the store and buy something, the store should not be taxed on the profit of that sale because I already paid tax on the money when I earned it. If money flowing from individuals to corporations is taxed, why shouldn't money flowing from corporations to individuals?

Income IS taxed in the hands f the receiver. But at different rates. You're moving the goal posts -- Again.

Interest isn't taxed the same as Earned Income -- There's no Socialist Security or FICA on it. FICA/SS is payroll only. At least it was the last time I looked.

Paying Capital Gains at a reduced rate isn't just for Billionaires. It's for ANYBODY.

You sell your house and make a $100k on it? If you lived in it for over two years -- It's tax free!! At least it was the last I looked.

THAT is for the common, ordinary working person. Not for billionaires, who couldn't give a flying FUCK about a homeowners exclusion.

Dividends are taxed at a lower rate because that money has already had the living shit taxed out of it. And that's not just for billionaires, it's for everybody. Your 401k gets that advantage, too. Participate.

Don't bitch. Join in.

Tax Laws give special breaks designed for the WORKING MAN AND WOMAN on 401k money, IRAs, Roth IRAs, Simplified Employee Pensions, etc.

Billionaires couldn't give a FUCK less about that pittance. It's for you and me.

The money your Employer (hopefully) contributes to your pension? You don't pay taxes on that until you withdraw it. Usually at a much lower rate than you would have payed when you were working.

dimocrap scum just love to bitch. And not just because they're stupid -- Which they are.

Mostly because they're just mean, nasty people who can't stand to see someone do well

I'm a retired Canadian. I live in country that doesn't coddle the wealthy and stick it to the little guy. I pay income tax on my interest and investments at the same rate I pay for my regular income. I don't pay Employment Insurance on the interest, nor do I pay CPP (read "Social Security"), but I do pay income tax on it.

You're clueless. Working people can't afford these deductions or capital investment. They can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. When you have 47% of your population receiving social assistance in some form or another in order to eat, have medical care or a roof over their heads, how many of them are investing?

Corporations are awash in cash, businesses are paying the lowest wages since the Gilded Age, and the middle class are losing their savings, and you gush on about how great your tax code is. When Reagan was elected and changed the tax code, the working class had equity, savings and a good shot at "making it".

Reagan's changes to the tax code created a transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top. Now a poor kid has a 1 in 500 chance of getting out of poverty, versus 1 in 20 when Reagan was elected.

The Republican Party are on a massive tax cut program, benefitting the wealthy. How'd that work out for you under Bush?

Any day now all that wealth will come trickling down on the unwashed masses.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm a retired Canadian. I live in country that doesn't coddle the wealthy and stick it to the little guy. I pay income tax on my interest and investments at the same rate I pay for my regular income. I don't pay Employment Insurance on the interest, nor do I pay CPP (read "Social Security"), but I do pay income tax on it.

You're clueless. Working people can't afford these deductions or capital investment. They can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. When you have 47% of your population receiving social assistance in some form or another in order to eat, have medical care or a roof over their heads, how many of them are investing?

Corporations are awash in cash, businesses are paying the lowest wages since the Gilded Age, and the middle class are losing their savings, and you gush on about how great your tax code is. When Reagan was elected and changed the tax code, the working class had equity, savings and a good shot at "making it".

Reagan's changes to the tax code created a transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top. Now a poor kid has a 1 in 500 chance of getting out of poverty, versus 1 in 20 when Reagan was elected.

The Republican Party are on a massive tax cut program, benefitting the wealthy. How'd that work out for you under Bush?

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Canada.

Not even Canadians

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm a retired Canadian. I live in country that doesn't coddle the wealthy and stick it to the little guy. I pay income tax on my interest and investments at the same rate I pay for my regular income. I don't pay Employment Insurance on the interest, nor do I pay CPP (read "Social Security"), but I do pay income tax on it.

You're clueless. Working people can't afford these deductions or capital investment. They can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. When you have 47% of your population receiving social assistance in some form or another in order to eat, have medical care or a roof over their heads, how many of them are investing?

Corporations are awash in cash, businesses are paying the lowest wages since the Gilded Age, and the middle class are losing their savings, and you gush on about how great your tax code is. When Reagan was elected and changed the tax code, the working class had equity, savings and a good shot at "making it".

Reagan's changes to the tax code created a transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top. Now a poor kid has a 1 in 500 chance of getting out of poverty, versus 1 in 20 when Reagan was elected.

The Republican Party are on a massive tax cut program, benefitting the wealthy. How'd that work out for you under Bush?

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Canada.

Not even Canadians

They have a low tolerance for dumb asses to I can see how you wouldn't like them.

 

[Pete7469]

??? The article doesn't have any premise. It's thoroughly an article that describes what is Oxfam's position on the matter of wealth inequality. The article's author, Pan Pylas, doesn't express his (?) views at all. H'e's reporting what Oxfam is saying.

Do you understand the various types of articles news outlets publish? The piece you are railing about is a feature article about a conference in Davos where in an organization, Oxfam, shared the most recent findings of an annual study it conducts and discusses annually at this Davos gathering. The article says as much in the second sentence: "Presenting its findings on the dawn of the annual gathering of the global political and business elites in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, anti-poverty organization Oxfam says..." From there to the end of the article, Pylas repeatedly says things like "according to Oxfam," "So and so at Oxfam," and so on.

It was parroted leftist psycobabble.. End of story. They're redundant stories as well. From the looks of things the global warming scam is going to be a lot less profitable as far as wasted tax dollars go, so I expect to see what really amount to ads promoting the MMGW nonsense as absolute fact that that islands, polar bears, and entire ecosystems are in peril because no one bought the moonbat messiah's shitty electric cars except for the government and a handful of idiots with deep pockets and shallow character. They'll be plastered all over the fucking place and there will be more insipid movies of the earth freezing over.

Regressives own media and propaganda for the most part, but I believe and hope that it's becoming more "trendy" to have a sack and defend yourself.Participation trophies are a punchline, not an idea a cognizant person endorses. Trump beat hitlary. Then the son of a bitch tells "reporters" to go fuck themselves in the most dignified way. Almost everyone I know wants to tell all these TV "media" shows what a joke they are. Fox is the only tolerable one, but hardly anyone watches it.

The bottom line is after reading this story, I recall not just reading it recently but reading shit like it 20+ years ago when I believed in utopian pipe dreams. It's literally the same regressive drivel I've heard for years. In spite of democrooks generosity with other people's money we have more people than ever on the nanny state tit. Hate to break it to you, but at some point the bitch is going to have a double mastectomy or she's going to be drained.

 

[PredFan]

News from The Associated Press

"We have a situation where billionaires are paying less tax often than their cleaner or their secretary," Lawson told The Associated Press. "That's crazy."

No bed wetter, that's BULLSHIT.

Let's just for the sake of argument say that billionaires really don't pay taxes. Not a fuckin penny.

You still have to ignore all the taxes that come in to any doing any sort of transaction, from the lowly consumer all they way up to the income taxes generated by the CEO's and lawyers and tens of thousands of mother fuckers who work for them.

Billionaires didn't just steal a billion dollars and run off to some secluded island to sit on a pile of money like a fucking dragon in a fairy tale. These assholes generate more revenue when they take a shit than the "reporter" of this bullshit article will pay in taxes.

That doesn't mean they can tell us how to live our lives and scam us on global warming hoaxes.

I can't remember the name of that rich liberal fuckhead who stood up in Congress a few years ago and told this lie then too.

It's true that many CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains. It's a statistical lie, it's slight of hand, designed to fool the stupid.

Like the people at and those who listen to, the AP.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm a retired Canadian. I live in country that doesn't coddle the wealthy and stick it to the little guy. I pay income tax on my interest and investments at the same rate I pay for my regular income. I don't pay Employment Insurance on the interest, nor do I pay CPP (read "Social Security"), but I do pay income tax on it.

You're clueless. Working people can't afford these deductions or capital investment. They can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. When you have 47% of your population receiving social assistance in some form or another in order to eat, have medical care or a roof over their heads, how many of them are investing?

Corporations are awash in cash, businesses are paying the lowest wages since the Gilded Age, and the middle class are losing their savings, and you gush on about how great your tax code is. When Reagan was elected and changed the tax code, the working class had equity, savings and a good shot at "making it".

Reagan's changes to the tax code created a transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top. Now a poor kid has a 1 in 500 chance of getting out of poverty, versus 1 in 20 when Reagan was elected.

The Republican Party are on a massive tax cut program, benefitting the wealthy. How'd that work out for you under Bush?

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Canada.

Not even Canadians

Ugly American dupe. ^^^

 

[francoHFW]

Fact, dupes. So all the new wealth stays with the 1%. Great job! We already have close to a flat tax. ANYTHING to avoid making the rich pay their fair share and investing in America...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Corporate gains taxes

What is that? Do you mean "capital gains taxes?"

 

[JimH52]

That is hard for you to defend, since Stump, you messiah, hasn't paid taxes in years.

 

[usmbguest5318]

CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains.

Have you looked at Schedule D of Form 1040? Where did you get your accounting degree? There are quite a few types of income. All capital gains are income, but not all income is a capital gain.

 

[PredFan]

Corporate gains taxes

What is that? Do you mean "capital gains taxes?"

Oops! Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[PredFan]

CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains.

Have you looked at Schedule D of Form 1040? Where did you get your accounting degree? There are quite a few types of income. All capital gains are income, but not all income is a capital gain.

Yes I have. The only explanation for that idiot statement is what I gave you. The lie is that their secretaries pay more taxes than they do. It only works if you look only at income taxes and not at capital gains taxes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains.

Have you looked at Schedule D of Form 1040? Where did you get your accounting degree? There are quite a few types of income. All capital gains are income, but not all income is a capital gain.

Yes I have. The only explanation for that idiot statement is what I gave you. The lie is that their secretaries pay more taxes than they do. It only works if you look only at income taxes and not at capital gains taxes.

How else can it be said? Capital gains taxes are one form of income taxes. I gave you the links; click on them.

 

[PredFan]

CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains.

Have you looked at Schedule D of Form 1040? Where did you get your accounting degree? There are quite a few types of income. All capital gains are income, but not all income is a capital gain.

Yes I have. The only explanation for that idiot statement is what I gave you. The lie is that their secretaries pay more taxes than they do. It only works if you look only at income taxes and not at capital gains taxes.

How else can it be said? Capital gains taxes are one form of income taxes. I gave you the links; click on them.

What's the matter? Having trouble reading today? Are you aware of what the argument is about?

 

[usmbguest5318]

CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains.

Have you looked at Schedule D of Form 1040? Where did you get your accounting degree? There are quite a few types of income. All capital gains are income, but not all income is a capital gain.

Yes I have. The only explanation for that idiot statement is what I gave you. The lie is that their secretaries pay more taxes than they do. It only works if you look only at income taxes and not at capital gains taxes.

How else can it be said? Capital gains taxes are one form of income taxes. I gave you the links; click on them.

What's the matter? Having trouble reading today? Are you aware of what the argument is about?

This is what I know:

• Your claim that capital gains are not income is factually wrong, and it is factually wrong no matter what context that claim is made under.
• Capital gains taxes are a form of income taxes. You are factually incorrect when you say they are not.
• Not one person I have ever met, taught, studied with, worked with, hired, etc. who has even the barest amount of training in taxation would call capital gains taxes "corporate gains taxes."
• And you know what else you are factually wrong about? CEOs not taking salaries. The overwhelming majority of CEOs receive a salary along with other forms of compensation.

So what I am coming to know more and more is that you are having this conversation and you don't actually know what are talking about as goes the matter of capital gains, income, and CEOs. And you can sit there and reply that you are "this and that" and you know so and so, but that's just empty words when placed against the clear factual errors you've made multiple times and that, were you to know what you are talking about, you would not have made at all.

 

[PredFan]

CEOs may not pay any (and pay close attention here you stupid lefties) INCOME taxes. What they pay are Corporate gains taxes and their secretaries and clean up crews likely don't pay any of those at all.

The CEOs don't take a salary so they don't pay any income. They make their money in capital gains.

Have you looked at Schedule D of Form 1040? Where did you get your accounting degree? There are quite a few types of income. All capital gains are income, but not all income is a capital gain.

Yes I have. The only explanation for that idiot statement is what I gave you. The lie is that their secretaries pay more taxes than they do. It only works if you look only at income taxes and not at capital gains taxes.

How else can it be said? Capital gains taxes are one form of income taxes. I gave you the links; click on them.

What's the matter? Having trouble reading today? Are you aware of what the argument is about?

This is what I know:

• Your claim that capital gains are not income is factually wrong, and it is factually wrong no matter what context that claim is made under.
• Capital gains taxes are a form of income taxes. You are factually incorrect when you say they are not.
• Not one person I have ever met, taught, studied with, worked with, hired, etc. who has even the barest amount of training in taxation would call capital gains taxes "corporate gains taxes."
• And you know what else you are factually wrong about? CEOs not taking salaries. The overwhelming majority of CEOs receive a salary along with other forms of compensation.

So what I am coming to know more and more is that you are having this conversation and you don't actually know what are talking about as goes the matter of capital gains, income, and CEOs. And you can sit there and reply that you are "this and that" and you know so and so, but that's just empty words when placed against the clear factual errors you've made multiple times and that, were you to know what you are talking about, you would not have made at all.

Here's what I know:

1. You can't understand what you read or else you have an idea what you think I'm going to say and don't bother to read.
2. I never said it wasn't income, I said it wasn't taxed as income like a salary is.
3. Capital Gains are not subject to INCOME TAX. They are taxed separately as Capital Gains taxes.
4. Corporate gains was an error as pointed out by another poster. I meant Capital Gains the whole time. He figured that out, why didn't you?
5. I did not say all of them. Do you know what started this discussion? I doubt that you do.
6. You probably can't understand any of this.