The dual-taxation meme

By Felix Salmon
August 17, 2011
Warren Buffett's op-ed on Monday calling for higher taxes for the very rich clearly touched a national nerve.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Warren Buffett’s op-ed on Monday calling for higher taxes for the very rich clearly touched a national nerve. Which is one reason there’s been a steady stream of arguments from the right explaining that in fact he’s wrong when he says that he pays much lower taxes than anybody who actually earns money from a job. And there’s one argument in particular which seems to be very popular.

Here’s Daniel Indiviglio:

The income that a corporation makes is first taxed at 35%. Then, a dividend is paid out — after taxes. If you obtain that dividend, should it be taxed? Well, it already was — at 35%. For this reason, it makes sense to tax it at 0%. If you tax it more, then you are taxing the income it produced twice.

And here’s Tim Worstall:

In the U.S. system from our $100 first we take $35 at the corporate level. Then we take another $15, or the dividend tax rate of 15%, from the recipient. Giving us a tax rate of 50% on dividends. We’ve taken $50 from the total amount that was to be used to pay dividends.

And here’s the WSJ:

Much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.

Amazingly, the WSJ editorial page is the most honest of the lot here, insofar as it admits that U.S. corporations don’t actually pay 35% tax on their corporate earnings. In fact, U.S. corporate taxes account for just 1.8% of GDP, the lowest number in the OECD, far behind, say, Switzerland (3.3%), Britain (3.6%), Japan (3.9%), or Australia (5.9%). We could literally impose that tax burden twice over and still only come up to the OECD average of 3.5%. So much for the WSJ’s idea that “this onerous tax on capital is a U.S. competitive disadvantage in the global economy”.

But there’s a deeper conceptual problem with the double-taxation argument. Money sloshes around the economy, and it’s taxed at various points along its journey. If I pay sales tax, for instance, I do so with my post-tax income: you can’t deduct the sales tax you pay when you file your taxes every year. Follow a dollar on its way around the economy, and you’ll find it being taxed at city, state, and federal levels; as income and as capital gains; and in many other ways besides. If it’s used to pay for a plane ticket or a cellphone bill or a hotel room, for instance, there are likely to be all manner of taxes imposed on it.

In fact, I’m a fan of the idea that one great way to simplify the tax code is to get rid of the deductibility of tax payments altogether; in particular, state and local income taxes should not be deductible. That deduction costs the federal government some $50 billion a year, for no good reason. By definition, all of that money goes to people who itemize their taxes, who are generally rich: 16% of it, in 2004, went to people earning over $1 million per year, and the number has probably risen since then.

All money has been taxed at some point along the line, many times over. Indeed, given the extremely modest rate of growth of the money supply, the government basically just taxes the same monetary base over and over again in order to generate its revenues. If we didn’t impose taxes on money which had already been taxed, then we wouldn’t have any taxes at all.

So enough, please, of this idea that if corporate profits are taxed once, at the corporate level, then that means they should never be taxed again when they show up as individual income. That income is unearned: if anything, it should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income, because we want to encourage people to create value by working, rather than just living parasitically on the labor of others. If you want to make an argument that unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate, go right ahead. But don’t give me the dual-taxation argument. Because the same argument can be applied to just about any tax you like.

Update: A group called Citizens for Tax Justice has more reasons (PDF) why the dual-taxation meme is silly. A few:

First, about two thirds of personal dividends paid by taxable corporations go to tax-exempt entities such as retirement plans and university endowments. In all likelihood, a similar percentage of capital gains on corporate stock are also tax-exempt.

Second, taxes on capital gains earned outside of tax-exempt plans are not imposed until shareholders sell their corporate stock at a profit. This means that those taxes can be deferred indefinitely. And even if individual shareholders do report taxable capital gains, they often will offset such gains with capital losses (by selling stocks that did poorly at the same time).

Third, even personal dividends and capital gains that show up on tax returns are not subject to the Social Security tax of 12.4 percent that applies to the earnings that make up most or all of the income of middle-class taxpayers.

35 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Even aside from the points you make in the article, isn’t Tim Worstall making the elementary mistake of adding where he needs to multiply. 1 – (100 * (1 – .35)) * (1 – .15) = 55.25%, leaving 44.75%. Correct me if I’m wrong Felix.

I think having a corporate tax that isn’t exempted away into nothingness, then having some system for writing that off on your personal income tax is probably better than the current system. But I have the sneaking feeling that some of these people’s idea of tax reform would be to get rid of the capital gains tax, and then conveniently forget about eliminating loopholes.

Posted by timg | Report as abusive

Not only should state and local income taxes be deductible, but it makes sense to turn those into tax credits (that is, $1 paid in state income tax reduces your federal bill by $1). And the same applies to payroll taxes. This is part justice and common sense, part standard Laffer curve stuff. IRS should be the only entity that sets the progressive taxation curve for the nation. If the marginal income tax rate for the highest bracket is set at 35%, it should really be 35%. But the way it works now, the marginal tax rate is 36.5% in Texas, 41.5% in California or New York, and as high as 43.5% in Hawaii or Oregon. (Under your proposal to make state income tax non-deductible, 41.5% turns into 44.5% and 43.5% turns into 46.5%. Starting in 2013, increase all numbers by 1%, courtesy of Obamacare. Increase all numbers by additional 1.5% if the person is self-employed.) It is better to raise the top bracket a few notches than to tax any amount of anyone’s earned income at 46.5%+1%+1.5% = 49%.

Posted by Nameless | Report as abusive

In essence, ending deductibility of state taxes will raise some money – sure – but it will do that on the backs of the most heavily taxed people in this country. It’s much, much worse than closing loopholes in the corporate tax code or taxing dividends at 35%, and even worse than raising the top bracket.

Posted by Nameless | Report as abusive

Berkshire Hathaway has no dividend.

Most of Warren Buffet’s compensation comes from compensatory stocks granted.

IRS Form 1120 – Corporation, under “Deductions” line item 12: Compensation of Officers; line item 13: Salaries and wages.

IRS Form 1120 – Corporation, line item 30: Taxable income = Income – Deductions.

If, as an officer of the company, Buffet is granted stock compensation, that compensation falls under line item 12 — a deduction. If as an employee he is paid a salary, that falls under line item 13 — a deduction. In either case, the taxable income would not include either Buffet’s salary or his stock compensation.

Instead, Buffet’s stock compensation would be taxed in the year he received it, as ordinary income on his personal income tax forms. When he cashed it in, he would pay only the capital gains tax on any profit over the cost basis.

Therefore Berkshire Hathaway did NOT pay corporate taxes on the income reported on Buffet’s tax forms.

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

“rather than just living parasitically on the labor of others”
should be rewritten to say “rather than just investing parasitically in providing laborers with capital.”

The worker in the steel mill is adding value. The investor who paid for the furnace and the iron ore is just a parasite.

Posted by johnhhaskell | Report as abusive

“we want to encourage people to create value by working, rather than just living parasitically on the labor of others.”

Presumably this is intended as a commentary on the Thomson Reuters shareholders who employ you.

Posted by markmthomson | Report as abusive

Yes, it’s 44 %, not 50. My bad.

“So enough, please, of this idea that if corporate profits are taxed once, at the corporate level, then that means they should never be taxed again when they show up as individual income. ”

No one is saying that. However, what I am saying is that when calculating the tax rate paid we need to consider all of the taxes which are paid. Which means that when someone’s income is from either capital gains on stock or dividends from stock we need to consider the tax at the corporate level as well as the taxes paid by the recipient directly.

Buffett’s average tax rate is indeed, when we consider the taxes paid directly by himself, that 17.4%. However, when we consider the incidence of the corporate income tax it isn’t.

Let’s look at this the other way around. Who pays the corporate income tax? We know absolutely that it’s not companies because they’re just a legal fiction (yes, they are legal persons but they still don’t pay taxes). Some group of people bear the costs of the corporate income tax. This is standard economics of taxation and has been since 1899.

OK, who then? It’s some mixture of customers in higher prices, shareholders in lower returns and workers in lower wages. The general agreement is that it’s the latter two in some portion. We’ve different reports from different Congressional anaysis teams, about whether the shareholders or the workers carry the bulk of the current corporate income tax in the US.

However, what is quite delicious is that those who tend to argue that it’s the shareholders, the rich guys, capital, which carries that burden are the same people who are currently arguing that we shouldn’t include that burden on rich guys, capital, shareholders, when calculating Warren Buffett’s tax bill.

Go figure.

You can’t actually have it both ways you know. One or the other. Either the corporate income tax falls on the shareholders, in which case we should include it in the taxes on shareholders, or it falls on the workers and we shouldn’t ascribe it to shareholders. But if it falls on the workers then we probably want to rethink the whole tax, don’t we?

“That income is unearned: if anything, it should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income, because we want to encourage people to create value by working, rather than just living parasitically on the labor of others. If you want to make an argument that unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate, go right ahead.”

Yup, standard economics of taxation again. You want lower tax on good things and higher tax on bad. Capital accumulation is a good thing.

Further, we can track the deadweight effects of taxation. Different types of taxes have different effects on future growth. The OECD has a handy little report on it. The taxes with the most effect, the largest deadweight costs, are capital and corporate taxes. Lower are taxes on income, lower again are those on consumption and lowest are taxes on property (ie, everyone’s favourite, a land value tax). So for the same amount of revenue raised we can have more future growth by, say, abolishing capital and corporate taxes and bringing in a VAT or a proper LVT.

Even I probably wouldn’t go quite that far but it is still absolutely true that we want to tax returns to capital less than other forms of income: firstly because we like people investing and would like to encourage them to do so and secondly beause capital taxation is more damaging to future growth than income, consumption or property taxation.

“But don’t give me the dual-taxation argument.”

Ooooh, I dunno Felix. Your and my native UK makes this quite explicit. Your UK dividends are paid tax free for basic rate taxpayers. Because tax has already been levied at the corporate level before distribution. Only higher rate taxpayers pay more tax on their dividends.

And the IRS itself is quite clear about double taxation when it considers S Corporations. The whole point of having an S rather than a C is to avoid that douple taxation.

Posted by TimWorstall | Report as abusive

“But don’t give me the dual-taxation argument. Because the same argument can be applied to just about any tax you like”

that doesn’t make it any less true…

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Again this is all too sensible. Felix will be derided as a socialist… Every time, I’ve personally suggested that the rewards of capital have gone out of whack compared to those of labour (thx to tech, globalisation etc…) I’m branded a socialist. I have nothing against earning money on capital investments – but the foundation of capitalism is not capital nor land – it is labour coupled with entrepreneurship. In other words, incentives matter – and need to be preserved. People must know and feel that if they work hard they will live decently. When some work 2 or 3 jobs 80hrs a week and still can’t live decently as is the case a many poor US neighbourhood, this means to me that a fundamental societal bond has broken. The social promise between the elite and the poorest elements of society is broken and that has/will have consequences. But beyond the cold analysis of the consequences, I simply find it morally unacceptable.

Posted by fxtrader14 | Report as abusive

I don’t think there’s a causal relationship between corporate profits and dividends that allows you to say that the same money is taxed twice. Profits (and losses) vary widely (unless it’s GE under Jack Welsh), while dividends (if they exist at all) tend to stay stable as a dollar value, and not as some percentage of profits. To call profits and dividends the same money seems false on its premise.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

(1) State and local taxes are not deductible under Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The wealthy do not receive this itemized deduction unless tax computed under regular tax rules exceeds the tax computed under the AMT rules.
(2) Sales tax is deductible if you itemize deductions and sales tax exceeds state and local income taxes paid (which occurs in states with no income tax).
(3) Itemized deductions may favor the wealthy, but most people that itemize are not rich. If you owe on a home mortgage, you probably itemize.
(4) Most corporations are not publically-traded entities. Instead, they are owned by a small pool of shareholder-employees, often families. The double taxation of dividends in this scenario is very real in that the only way to get cash out of the corporation is through reasonable compensation (deductible to corporation but monitored by the IRS) and dividends (not deductible to corporation, thus taxed twice).

Posted by TreyW | Report as abusive

Berkshire Hathaway does not pay dividends so there’s no double tax. No tax will ever be paid on the appreciation in Warren Buffett’s stock (it appreciated by $3 billion in 2010 alone). And Berkshire Hathaway need never pay any tax on the appreciation in the companies it owns. All in all, very little tax!

http://danshaviro.blogspot.com/2011/08/w arren-buffett-on-taxing-rich.html

Posted by comment1 | Report as abusive

What’s weird about this blowing up now is that Buffet has been saying the same thing for years and Republicans have been responding on the same talking points for years. For example, see this Mankiw post from 2007: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/06/m r-buffetts-tax-bill.html. People have been making the same debunking arguments of Mankiw for years too, though I’m too lazy to dredge up a link.

Posted by Greycap | Report as abusive

As a livelong saver, I have always hated the term “unearned income”. It implies that I have acquired money that I shouldn’t have, which is not at all true. I have taken a risk with my hard-earned savings, which occasionally I have lost. The type of discussion you are trying to encourage here would be much more fruitful without such emotionally-charged terms.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

I see no real basis for NOT taxing dividends. You tax the earnings of the company, and pay your employees, who are then taxed. Why should the owners of the company get away with no taxes when the employees do not?

==RED

Posted by REDruin | Report as abusive

More then two thirds of the corporations including multinationals DO NOT PAY ANY TAXES!
So 35% sounds like a big number, but no one actually pays that.

Posted by Dimm | Report as abusive

You CAN deduct sales taxes. Under the Federal Income Tax Code you have the choice of deducting state income taxes or sales taxes. You just can’t do both. For most itemized returns, the income tax is bigger, so that’s what they deduct. Also, it’s really hard to keep track of your annual sales tax figures unless you have a few monster purchases that you can document (the IRS says you need receipts for the sales tax deduction if you get audited).

A couple years ago, when I was a graduate student, I itemized and deducted my sales tax instead of my state income tax. I had a low income that year, so my state income tax was very low, and I had a very high sales tax bill, because I bought an engagement ring for my fiancee with savings.

You do need to itemize to get the benefit, though, so it generally only benefits rich people. In my case, it worked because I also had some serious medical expenses that year.

The history of the sales tax deduction is mildly interesting. Residents of states with no income tax were fed up with their neighbors getting big deductions. See New Hampshire. The Feds acknowledged that in states like NH, the sales tax essentially served the same function as a neighboring state’s income tax (receipts funded state programs) and it didn’t make a ton of sense to treat it differently. Other states use sales taxes differently (as a funding mechanism for local gov’t).

A deduction for sales tax probably makes more economic sense, because a sales tax makes more economic sense. A sales tax is a consumption tax, rather than an income tax, which has much better incentives. Unfortunately, in its current implementation, the sales tax is very regressive. You’d need a system of subsidies to fix that (if you wanted to fix it…. conservatives don’t). See David Bradford’s X Tax System, which does a very good job of solving the regressivity problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_tax

Posted by TomGorman | Report as abusive

@TomGorman: New Hampshire has neither a tax on earned income nor sales (it does tax interest and dividend income over a certain amount, and has some light sin taxes). I’ve lived here for 20+ years. I’m not sure if your point is invalid, or you just chose a bad example.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

Solution, do away with the Corporate income tax altogether and tax dividends as ordinary income, and cap gains get preferential rate only for really long term holdings, start reducing rates after 5 years and get to the current 15% by 10 year holding period. Thus encourage investing, not the casino. Can’t just raise dividend taxes or corporations will do away with dividends and buy back stock instead.

for more see: http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/59021/En d+the+Corporate+Income+Tax%21

Posted by DirkvanDijk | Report as abusive

“In fact, U.S. corporate taxes account for just 1.8% of GDP, the lowest number in the OECD, far behind, say, Switzerland (3.3%), Britain (3.6%), Japan (3.9%), or Australia (5.9%). We could literally impose that tax burden twice over and still only come up to the OECD average of 3.5%. So much for the WSJ’s idea that “this onerous tax on capital is a U.S. competitive disadvantage in the global economy””

Deeply flawed thinking. Companies not paying a high tax rate is not evidence that it is not burdensome. Corporate America is doing everything in its power to avoid paying it because it is so high. It is worth the effort for service type businesses like Google to expend millions in legal and accounting fees to avoid paying the corporate income tax because it is so high. Even further, smaller businesses without the size to justify the fixed legal and accounting expense and would pay the full rate may simply choose not to organize as corporations. Or some businesses simply no longer exist in this country because they cannot earn a sufficient after-tax ROE at a high corporate rate.

Posted by TinyOne | Report as abusive

It seems another issue is that these arguments presume all capital gains come from owning C-corps. What about if I make a capital gain owning a commodity like gold? No corporate tax there.

Furthermore, let’s look at equities: let’s assume a typical Mkt_Cap/EBT ratio is ~15x. Then for every $1 of additional pretax earnings, the corporation pays $0.35 (less any deductions as many people point out). But this $1 of earnings has created $15 capital gains in the system so, if those are realized, current year IRS receipts will be $15*15%+$1*35% = $2.60 on a value creation of $15. That’s 17.3%. Now it’s true that the market value should only move up by $15 if the $1 increase in earnings is expected to be maintained in perpetuity. If it is, the IRS will get a future corporate tax stream; if it isn’t, the price will crash back down and someone will take an offsetting capital loss. But the fact still remains that some investors made $15 in the current year and the treasury only got 17.3% of that even if the corporation paid the full corporate tax rate (which they don’t). So the simple adding of percentages is incorrect.

Posted by TGDC | Report as abusive

I totally agree with Nameless’ argument above.

In any case, corporate taxes are not a tax on personal income, they are the price investors pay to avoid liability if their cash cows hurt somebody. If they had to go in as partners, or as proprietors, and their company killed an employee or poisoned a town’s water supply, those who got hurt could come and take away all their assets — other investments, their house, their car. We want to encourage investment, so we create limited liability entities, but that protection doesn’t come completely free.

Posted by Auros | Report as abusive

Limited liability, perpetual-life incorporation is a very powerful privilege. It should be paid for one way or another. A tax on corporate “income” might not be the best way, but then what is a better approach?

Posted by rentpayer | Report as abusive

It is a corporation’s choice to be a corporation; they could be a partnership or an LLC and avoid double taxation. Why should I pay a larger percentage of my Tax because of an argument based on the decision of the entity, which might I add complains about the double taxation when they knew about the double taxation before investing / owning/ setting up a corporation! Ridiculous

Posted by stirthespur | Report as abusive

This whole double taxation meme is ridiculous. Its not like “the dollar” is taxed. You dont cut a little piece of a bill when its taxed and say “Hey this bill has already been taxed”. Its the flow of spending and income that gets taxed. If I pay my neighbor 1000 dollars and he does what he’s “supposed” to do and reports it as income he pays a tax on that income. If he spends that 1000 to his other neighbor he must pay a tax too on his income. To say that 1000 has already been taxed is……… the height of stupidity and shows no understanding of our monetary system.

Mr Worstall your example is ridiculous. All corporations pay a tax on whats left over after they have paid out salaries and paid expenses. Its THEIR flow of income. If they then use their income to create a flow of income to someone else then that person pays a tax on THEIR flow of income. Thats how it works and how it SHOULD work.

Posted by gizzard | Report as abusive

This was written in The National Post (Canada) by Peter Foster today:

…since corporate charity came out of pretax income, Mr. Buffett’s good intentions were being subsidized by taxpayers both rich and poor. Similarly, Mr. Buffett’s commitment to download the majority of his fortune to the Gates Foundation means a huge tax savings. Since Mr. Buffett is so keen for fellow billionaires – and for the merely moderately wealthy – to cough up more, no doubt he will forgo these charitable tax breaks, just to make sure he pays his “fair share.”

Perhaps Warren Buffet pays too little tax not because he’s mega-rich but because the US tax system is designed by rich people for rich people, who have the resources to take advantage of it. Why not, wouldn’t you? Rich people wont reform the system to their financial disadvantage – it’s a case of the fox in the hen house.

Posted by Lynnetoronto | Report as abusive

“More then two thirds of the corporations including multinationals DO NOT PAY ANY TAXES!”

Umm, that’s because nearly two thirds of corporations are S corporations who are not subject to the corporate income tax, the shareholders pay personal income tax on profits instead.

And there’s always the occassional company, of either kind, that doesn’t make a profit. You know, like GM, Chrysler in some years?

Posted by TimWorstall | Report as abusive

digging through the tax code like it’s nobody’s business and leaving a trail of fascinating comments. Cheers, Felix!

Posted by theinfamoush6 | Report as abusive

“Money sloshes around the economy, and it’s taxed at various points along its journey. If I pay sales tax, for instance, I do so with my post-tax income: you can’t deduct the sales tax you pay when you file your taxes every year.”

That’s simply a weak argument, Felix. After all, when we discuss the connection between (a) taxing the corporation and (b) taxing its owners, we aren’t talking about two different places where the money has been while it has been “sloshing around” at all. We are talking about two different perspectives on the SAME place at the same instant.

A corporation is a network of contractual relationships. It is complicated enough to be looked at from different perspectives. And then double taxed from two of these. That doesn’t require any intermediate sloshing.

It is as if the government taxed me as a multi-cellular organism, and separately taxed my cells for receiving nutrition from — me. I am my cells, and they are me, from different perspectives. That would indeed be double taxation.

Posted by Christofurio | Report as abusive

“After all, when we discuss the connection between (a) taxing the corporation and (b) taxing its owners, we aren’t talking about two different places where the money has been while it has been “sloshing around” at all. We are talking about two different perspectives on the SAME place at the same instant……..It is as if the government taxed me as a multi-cellular organism, and separately taxed my cells for receiving nutrition from — me. I am my cells, and they are me, from different perspectives. That would indeed be double taxation.”

Not a good analogy at all. A corporation (which is NOW a person according to Scalia and Co) and its employees are different entities completely. Employees get a cash flow from corporation (salary) and pay taxes on it including the CEO. The corporation pays no taxes until it has paid ALL its employees , including the CEO, until it has paid all its suppliers, paid all its capital expenses etc. , whatever it has left over after it pays those things it can transfer cash flow to shareholders, which they should pay taxes on, including the CEO who owns stock. Its NOT double taxation they are completely different flows of funds. Yes they all came from sales but so what…….. EVERYTHING always comes from sales. Employees/CEOs are not like cells.

Posted by gizzard | Report as abusive

Yo Tim…if you are NOW arguing that it must be some combination of different groups effectively paying for the corporate tax, then your original argument on Buffet’s personal income tax rate is STILL WRONG.

Let’s just assume for simplicity’s sake you divided the corporate tax into your three groups (employees, investors and consumers), then a 35% rate is now reduced to 11.7%.

Tim, I suggest: http://goo.gl/eEeTX

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

Fundamentally, this dual tax argument is just saying the rich shouldn’t pay taxes, because their money was once in its life taxed somewhere else. While their argument sounds arithmetically simple, in principle it changes the liability to pay taxation from a legal entity to the money itself. That’s daft.

As for talk of furnaces and such, most investors these days jump on the backs of wagons with furnaces already bought and paid for. Few CEOs are major shareholders, and even fewer of them actually took a risk in starting (or running) a new business.

Even looking at modern tech start ups such as Google or Facebook, those businesses were set up as college projects with little if any capital investment at all from the founders who had a good idea perhaps, but really injected no risk capital of their own.

Posted by FifthDecade | Report as abusive

For a different take on Warren Buffett:

http://danshaviro.blogspot.com/2011/08/w arren-buffett-on-taxing-rich.html

Posted by comment1 | Report as abusive

Sorry Gizzard, but your history is wrong. A corporation didn’t become a person at law in recent years due to Scalia and so forth.

As early as 1819, well before there was any 14th amendment, John Marshall found, in the Dartnouth Colege case, that a corporation is a bearer of rights that a state must respect — in that case, the right to the fruits of a contract.

A corporation, he said, is an “artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law” in order that the purposes for the sake of which it was created may be accomplished. Among the most important of its legal characteristics, Marshall continued, are “immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality — properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual.”

Notice the word “person” in that passage? You should! A corporation is an entity through the creation of which “many persons are considered as the same.”

Which underlies my analogy. It was a perfectly good analogy, the fact that you don’t like the conclusion notwithstanding.

Posted by Christofurio | Report as abusive

Any taxes paid by any business are passed along to their customers. They become indirect taxes which inflate every product and/or service sold by an average of 15%. The business or corporation may pay the tax directly but they pass the bill for the cost of that tax along to their customers. Why do they complain so much when we end up paying the their bills anyway. These taxes should be progressive too so smaller businesses would have tax advantage which would allow them to grow instead of all the advantage going to those that have already made it.

Posted by RMForbes | Report as abusive