Comments on: Income tax loophole of the day http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/23/income-tax-loophole-of-the-day/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: DanHess http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/23/income-tax-loophole-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-16167 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:28:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4400#comment-16167 @Napstuh, please calm down and talk like a grown up.

Since you appear to be in over your head a little bit, let’s go over things slowly.

The US has just about the highest corporate tax rate in the world, number two in the OECD, and 50% higher than the OECD average.
http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009  /01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-o ecd/

You wrote “corporations and citizens who own stock are not the same people” —

Um, hello?

Corporations are not people at all. The corporation is a legal stand-in for, wait for it… the shareholders.

The same income is being taxed twice (for some education, google ‘corporate double taxation’) and it is mostly an American problem. It is why most American companies don’t even bother with dividend: the tax treatment is so bad. Almost every country has solved this glaring double taxation problem but America.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a bit of reading:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ce0301. pdf

As for the low percentage of taxation per GDP? Yes, sir. That would be the majority of people in America who pay no income tax at all.

]]>
By: napstuh http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/23/income-tax-loophole-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-16134 Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:45:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4400#comment-16134 DanHess, you show your profound ignorance when you misconstrue this statement

“In case it’s hard to follow what’s going on here, we’re looking at what happens to $175 in pre-tax pipeline profits. Under the old corporation rules, the company would pay 42.7% corporate income tax, leaving $100 for the owner, who would then pay 35% personal income tax, for a post-tax profit of $65.”

Before the profits are distributed to the owners (or re-invested) the company pays 42.7%, which leaves $100 to be distributed (or reinvested).

The dividends to the stock holders come from this remaining $100.

You act like this is one single “person” : the $175, the $100, and whatever is left from the various dividends accruing to the stock owners. The income to the stock holders is taxed separately because corporations and citizens who own stock are not the same people.

Is that so hard to understand?

So why do you call this “thievery”? The United States has the 28th lowest percentage of taxation per GDP.

Because you are either an idiot, or a troll contriving to misrepresent what you don’t understand or like.

For a troll, you are sure are one hell of a megalomaniac.

]]>
By: DanHess http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/23/income-tax-loophole-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-16127 Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:59:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4400#comment-16127 It sure seems to me that the government taking $110 on a profit of $175 and leaving only $65 remaining amounts to thievery.

I know, I know, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, but dear God! Caesar was never that greedy!

For a finance guy, Felix, you sure are one hell of a socialist.

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/23/income-tax-loophole-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-16117 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:29:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4400#comment-16117 Whoa! Close those loopholes! If there is a book with loopholes for big business, perhaps the US Governemnt should be reading it?

Kudos to this man for showing how unfair businesses can be when trying to evade taxes. There is a huge difference between tax efficiency and gaming the system.

]]>
By: dWj http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/23/income-tax-loophole-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-16113 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:29:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4400#comment-16113 I’m not a fan of this, but I’m not a fan of the idea that companies that cut their costs be forced by regulators to pass all of that along to customers, either. I’d like to see a move away from cost-based rates in general — as soon as someone can find something better.

(In a competitive environment, prices are the costs of the marginal entrant, and a rule along those lines in this case would presumably see you using the most tax-efficient structure, insofar as 1) just about everyone does it and 2) it’s not particularly complicated or esoteric. The marginal entrant, even if only hypothetical in this case, should be able to pull it off.)

]]>