?

Log in

No account? Create an account
taxes - Geoffrey Spear [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Geoffrey Spear

[ website | my Flickr photos ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

taxes [Jan. 8th, 2003|07:57 am]
Geoffrey Spear
[mood |aggravatedaggravated]
[music |Murder The Government-NoFX-So Long And Thanks For All The Shoes]

It's really not fair that an employer is taxed on corporate income, which is then used to pay employees who are taxed on personal income, and then taxed with sales taxes when they spend that money, which is taxed again as income to the company they're buying stuff from.

Each dollar that is printed by the treasury dept. should be taxed once at its creation, and then there should be no more taxes ever. It's really the only fair way to avoid taxing the same money more than once.


Oh wait, we can just end the dividend tax instead, so rich people don't have to pay for a war at all. The poor get sent off to die, and when Bush is done, the poor will be the ones financing the whole thing too.

Sorry for all this fomenting of class warfare I'm doing.

Fuck you, republicans.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick
2003-01-08 05:03 am (UTC)
No Man is an island. I think its somewhere in the middle of the South Pacific.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: papertygre
2003-01-08 06:26 am (UTC)

Confused

The idea that rich people will avoid either paying for or fighting a war upsets me, too. In fact, the idea of having a war at all upsets me, especially Bush's stupid personal vendetta. But I thought it was a good idea to end the dividend tax, aside from any sort of war issue, because it was my understanding that dividends are currently taxed twice, when they are paid out by the company and again as income for the stockholder. It seems to me that removing one of those tax instances would be a step toward what you propose, to tax money only once.

Also, don't poor people hold dividend-paying stocks too? Perhaps not so much now, because there is a disincentive to companies to issue stocks that pay dividends because more of the money gets absorbed into taxes. But might dividend-paying stocks be a decent addition to, say, a private retirement portfolio?

Please forgive my ignorance and don't flame me. I would honestly like to know.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wooble
2003-01-08 07:26 am (UTC)

Re: Confused

First of all, most of my message was sarcastic. The "double taxing" argument is kind of stupid. Yes, the money is taxed as corporate income (when the corporations actually pay taxes on their income instead of evading the taxes illegally or through corporate welfare), and then as personal income to the shareholders if it's distributed as dividends, but SO WHAT? The corporation as an entity gets more protections by the government than an individual does, and it should pay taxes. The shareholders are personally getting income, so they should pay taxes on that, whether its wages paid by a corporation for actually doing some work, or dividends paid for doing absolutely nothing.

As for the poor people, generally any stocks they hold, whether they pay dividends or not, are in retirement programs which are tax-deferred anyway. Getting rid of the tax on dividends won't help them at all.

Besides, most companies don't pay dividends anymore anyway. This is only going to help Old Economy type companies, so they can prosper and we can go back to the 19th Century. As if Bush nominating a railroad tycoon to be the treasury secretary wasn't bad enough. Apparently Aluminum was too modern or something
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2003-01-08 07:45 am (UTC)

Re: Confused

Well, I saw some articles speculating that changes to the dividend taxation scheme might encourage some of those tech companies to start issuing dividends. I don't know enough about the subject to weigh in on it.

.joe.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sk4p
2003-01-08 08:03 am (UTC)

Re: Confused

They are tax-deferred, but I disagree that it wouldn't help at all. It would help my mother who is contemplating the fact that she's gotta work until she's 70 instead of 65 to have enough money. If retirement-account holdings paid bigger dividends, she'd be in better shape.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sui66iy
2003-01-08 08:07 am (UTC)

Why is double taxation "unfair"?

First of all, most of my message was sarcastic. The "double taxing" argument is kind of stupid. Yes, the money is taxed as corporate income (when the corporations actually pay taxes on their income instead of evading the taxes illegally or through corporate welfare), and then as personal income to the shareholders if it's distributed as dividends, but SO WHAT?

Yeah... I've heard the "double taxation is unfair" claim zillions of times, but why exactly is it unfair, again? I mean, taxation is a mechanism to pay the government for services (in a sense). There are actually lots of different services, and lots of different governments, so why shouldn't I expect to have to pay a few different ways? I mean, I could understand someone claiming that a single taxation scheme is "simpler" or "more elegant" but not "more fair".

Also, taxation is a useful tool for moving wealth around for social purposes: it lets the government aggregate some wealth from everyone, and then put it in spots where it will do some good. This obviously presupposes that you support some sort of "social justice" or what-not, but it pretty much becomes impossible if you have a single "creation-time" tax. So you could easily argue that it's less fair if you want to factor such things into your definition of "fair".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wooble
2003-01-08 08:43 am (UTC)

Re: Why is double taxation "unfair"?

The thing that bothers me the most is that our government is now in the hands of people who honestly believe that someone who lives in poverty because they can't get a good job in this economy is lucky to not have to pay taxes.

20 years ago, conservatives didn't like that their taxes were providing services for the poor. Now, they think the poor should be the ones paying the taxes.

The hypocrisy of those who talk the most about how much they love their country being the ones who are least willing to pay for it to stay great bothers me too.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2003-01-08 08:54 am (UTC)

Re: Why is double taxation "unfair"?

It's also important to consider the side-effects of any given taxation scheme; in particular, how the economic players will attempt to optimize their actions with respect to taxation. For example, taxing at every point at which value is added, as in the European VAT, seems like a straightforward, rational way to do things. However, some people argue that the logical response to VAT is to vertically integrate your manufacturing process as much as possible, which has the unfortunate effect of reducing the diversity of the economic ecosystem, stunting further economic development. (Jane Jacobs discusses interesting ideas along these lines in Cities And The Wealth Of Nations (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394729110/qid=1042044749/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-3855698-3923068?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).)

..joe.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wuttd
2003-01-08 05:31 pm (UTC)

Re: Why is double taxation "unfair"?

One view is that the government should tax money when it represents something actually being produced. Therefore, things like dividends and welfare payments, where money is merely changing hands and actual goods or services aren't, shouldn't be taxed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)