Comments on: The dual-taxation meme http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/ 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: RMForbes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29981 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:55:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29981 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.

]]>
By: Christofurio http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29733 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:37:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29733 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.

]]>
By: comment1 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29719 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:10:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29719 For a different take on Warren Buffett:

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

]]>
By: FifthDecade http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29714 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:01:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29714 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.

]]>
By: GRRR http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29708 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:26:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29708 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

]]>
By: gizzard http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29699 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:38:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29699 “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.

]]>
By: Christofurio http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29697 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:26:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29697 “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.

]]>
By: theinfamoush6 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29687 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:47:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29687 digging through the tax code like it’s nobody’s business and leaving a trail of fascinating comments. Cheers, Felix!

]]>
By: TimWorstall http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29686 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:28:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29686 “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?

]]>
By: Lynnetoronto http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/17/the-dual-taxation-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-29685 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:21:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9358#comment-29685 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.

]]>