Seems to me that you are very angry with having to pay a lot in taxes.. Want to know a way to not pay so much in taxes? Legally...The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
Screw your double tax bullshit. Hell, everybody gets double taxed. I bought a Zaxby's meal today. Dammit, I had to pay sales tax and I already paid income tax AND social security tax on the freaking money I gave them. Hell, I got TRIPLE taxed. Buy a car, you pay sales tax even though you paid tax on the money you bought the car with. Then you go to get the license plate and damn, you get taxed again. Safety inspection, shit, another tax. What is that, four freakin times now you got taxed on the same money. So your double tax argument on dividends is shit.
I am not angry about paying taxes. I am angry that some idiot has attempted the foolish double taxation argument. And I sure as hell don't need you to tell me about tax policy, not tax avoidance strategies. I doubt you have even heard of BOSS or Son of BOSS. I doubt you know anything about a charitable remainder trust.