Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Things are taxed at separate levels all the time, it's not new, novel or wrong. That argument is not really a serious one.

Actually it really is a serious argument. You can't simply dismiss it because you don't have a good response.

The fact is that Warren Buffet is paying a higher tax rate than his secretary because his money is double taxed. His secretary's money isn't double taxed: corporations can deduct salary.

If Mr. Buffet took profits from Berkshire Hathaway as salary rather than dividends his tax rate would be (about) 35%.

Would you be happier if Mr. Buffet paid 35% tax rate instead of 15%, even if the total amount paid in taxes were reduced?

You are missing it. His company pays taxes, then pays him a paycheck, then he pays taxes on the paycheck. You are conflating him with his company.

AustonT wrote:The corporate sales tax was high in America long before corporations began to advocate for legal personhood.

So you're saying that we were taxing corporations at high rates before the USA finished the ink on its constitution?

Because I should note that the founding fathers had an almost universal loathing of corporations, who had been pushing those rights since before the concept of America was conceived.

Frazzled wrote:Doers it bother you that corporations can shield their earnings such that they pay out no income tax, yet can make distributions out to shareholders? Does it bother you that personal corps can run through personal expenses and do that all the time?

I'm not sure how corporations can make distributions to shareholders without declaring a profit. Unless they're sitting on cash reserves, in which case they're simply transferring tax liability on those profits from one year to the next.

But yes, in general I have a problem with so-called "personal corporations." They seem to exist solely as a means of shielding income from liability.

Redbeard wrote:I'd be happier if he was taxed at a top marginal rate of 70%, like the highest marginal rates were inthe 50s and 60s when this country was still recognized as a world leader and not a crumbling super-power. You know, back when the wealthy were willing to support the society that allowed them to become wealthy.

It was a simple yes-or-no question. When the top marginal rate was 70%, what was the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest? I would suggest that it was probably around 18-20%.

However, if you're suggesting a return to the 50's, can we also go back to when government spending was ~20% of GDP, there was no social security or medicare, and most of the federal regulatory framework hadn't been established? Oh, and defense was 35% of federal spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:You are missing it. His company pays taxes, then pays him a paycheck, then he pays taxes on the paycheck. You are conflating him with his company.

I'm not "missing it" at all. I understand your argument. But your argument is wrong.

No I'm saying this statement isn't true.

Melissia wrote:. If corporations didn't push so hard for personhood, they'd not be taxed extra like that-- but they did, despite not actually being people they have been given the rights of a person.

Texas Board of Education sized.

AustonT wrote:
No I'm saying this statement isn't true.

Melissia wrote:. If corporations didn't push so hard for personhood, they'd not be taxed extra like that-- but they did, despite not actually being people they have been given the rights of a person.

That's because you're wrong. Sole proprietorships, for example, are not taxed twice-- nor are partnerships. But Corporations are-- because they are a separate entity, not tied to the life of the person who runs them.

Of course, with how hard corporations lobby Washington, they still often get loopholes and exemptions that let them usually pay less taxes than sole proprietorships and partnerships anyway even with double taxation...And naturally the owners aren't personally liable as an added bonus, so not only are they taxed less they're also less liable when the gak hits the fan anwyay.

Melissia wrote:That's because you're wrong. Sole proprietorships, for example, are not taxed twice-- nor are partnerships. But Corporations are-- because they are a separate entity, not tied to the life of the person who runs them.

Not all partnerships expire with the death of the person who runs them. In fact, I work for one. None of the people named on my business card are still living (we're actually a Limited Liability Partnership).

Further, you could form an LLC and avoid paying corporate taxes (LLCs have pass-through taxation like partnerships).

Melissia wrote:Of course, with how hard corporations lobby Washington, they still often get loopholes and exemptions that let them usually pay less taxes than sole proprietorships and partnerships anyway even with double taxation...And naturally the owners aren't personally liable as an added bonus, so not only are they taxed less they're also less liable when the gak hits the fan anwyay.

Anyone can get limited liability by converting an SP or partnership to a LLC or LLP. States are actually pretty generous with grants of limited liability.

Corporations can make a loss and pay a dividend even if not in possession of sufficient cash by borrowing money to do it.

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I'd be happier if he was taxed at a top marginal rate of 70%, like the highest marginal rates were inthe 50s and 60s when this country was still recognized as a world leader and not a crumbling super-power. You know, back when the wealthy were willing to support the society that allowed them to become wealthy.

It was a simple yes-or-no question. When the top marginal rate was 70%, what was the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest? I would suggest that it was probably around 18-20%.

However, if you're suggesting a return to the 50's, can we also go back to when government spending was ~20% of GDP, there was no social security or medicare, and most of the federal regulatory framework hadn't been established? Oh, and defense was 35% of federal spending.

Where do you get the 18-20% figure from?

Wasn't social security established in 1935?

biccat wrote:Not all partnerships expire with the death of the person who runs them.

Because they have transferred ownership, not because they are a separate legal entity.

Redbeard wrote:Where do you get the 18-20% figure from?

I'm sure someone is going to flame me for this, but this appears to be a good perspective on government revenue as a percent of GDP.

If you scroll down to the "Revenue Sources by Type since 1900" heading, federal income tax in the 50's was 10-15%. I figure even with higher rates, the wealthy probably didn't pay much more of a disproportionate share than they do now. IIRC the ratio of the share of taxes versus share of earnings for the richest 10% is about 1.17.

Redbeard wrote:Wasn't social security established in 1935?

My mistake, you're correct.

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Where do you get the 18-20% figure from?

I'm sure someone is going to flame me for this, but this appears to be a good perspective on government revenue as a percent of GDP.

If you scroll down to the "Revenue Sources by Type since 1900" heading, federal income tax in the 50's was 10-15%. I figure even with higher rates, the wealthy probably didn't pay much more of a disproportionate share than they do now. IIRC the ratio of the share of taxes versus share of earnings for the richest 10% is about 1.17.

I posted a link to an excellent article from Rolling Stone earlier in the thread. The wealthy used to pay a much larger share - over 90% top marginal until Kennedy pushed for tax cuts in the early 60s, which, amazingly, the GOP opposed. It wasn't until Reagan's early presidency that the rate came down to 50%, and even then, Reagan realized that the bills couldn't be paid at that rate and raised them again, seven times during the remainder of his presidency.

I don' know the micro-details, and I won't pretend to. What I can see is historical trends. I, personally, have done better when the country spends less than it makes, pays its bills, and collects the money to do so from the ultra-wealthy. I have done worse whenever the government has cut tax rates, borrowed for luxuries (such as foreign wars), and tried to 'reward' job creators. I'm comfortably middle (somemight say upper-middle) class, I have a steady development job at a major tech corporation, so I'm not benefiting from government handouts during these times. I believe that I'd be better off, overall, if we never had the Bush tax cuts, or even if we had them, but had them for those in lower income brackets than myself only. I didn't need the cuts. I also didn't need to see my retirement account drop 40% when our national credit rating was tanked... I lost far more because of that than I would have paid in the extra taxes.

I'm totally fine with businesses getting extra privileges as long as extra responsibilities come along with that.

There are a lot of business structures that limit liability but also come with restrictions or extra liability in different areas. Most of them are designed fine.

At its core, the idea of corporations exercising the rights of the shareholders is perfectly rational.

Just on the point about the PIIGS. The issues facing each PIIGS nation are different. In ireland for example, the issue was caused by having a very open economy, that was reliant on a volatile construction sector, extremely poor regulation of private banks, and then the massive error to guarantee all of our banks just before the most ludicrously indebted one collapsed. This has added the private debts of investors in countries all over Europe (primarily France, Germany, and the UK) to the state's debt, essentially socialising the losses of foreign and domestic private bankers. This was done with no parlimentary debate or public scrutiny over the course of a night, and then rushed through the parliment soon after. Ireland has a debt of over £300,000 per citizen. This debt was not incurred through welfare (though generous welfare did leave our economy vunerable) or education spending (education spending allowed our boom in the first place).

The citizens of Ireland are paying the debts of much of the rest of Europe (notably those countries who still have "stable" economies. Easy to be stable when your problems are heroically taken on board by some morons in a little island to the west.) Our overlords at the IMF and ECB have arranged for a loan from the other countries which we persist in calling a "bailout" despite the fact that it is costing us money (interest) to repay it, and the debt is not ours to begin with (well, a large proportion of it.)

There is no doubt that Ireland had some major inefficiencies before the 2008 banking guarantee, but they were nowhere near the system issues that you are alluding to here.

By the way, I hold no particular nationalist rancour over this situation. Someone had to take the hit to stop the whole system falling down, we happened to be the country with the stupidest politicians when the crunch came.

Rented Tritium wrote:I'm totally fine with businesses getting extra privileges as long as extra responsibilities come along with that.

There are a lot of business structures that limit liability but also come with restrictions or extra liability in different areas. Most of them are designed fine.

At its core, the idea of corporations exercising the rights of the shareholders is perfectly rational.

I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations) which other forms of business they need to pay extra taxes for that right, but by its very nature having the right to political donations means that they will push to do away with those extra taxes (because responsibility is expensive).

Melissia wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'm totally fine with businesses getting extra privileges as long as extra responsibilities come along with that.

There are a lot of business structures that limit liability but also come with restrictions or extra liability in different areas. Most of them are designed fine.

At its core, the idea of corporations exercising the rights of the shareholders is perfectly rational.

I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations) which other forms of business they need to pay extra taxes for that right, but by its very nature having the right to political donations means that they will push to do away with those extra taxes (because responsibility is expensive).

I think they already do pay extra taxes for that right. getting rid of loopholes would sure help, though.

Kilkrazy wrote:Corporations are separate legal entities to their owners, managers, etc.

Which they are eager to remind everyone of when their companies are sued for fraud or negligence, such as BP and CountryWide.

There are laws on mismanagement, false accounting, etc.

Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?

The corporation represents the combined will of the shareholders. The shareholders have the first amendment, thus their company should as well.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?

If you remove the "double taxation" (which isnt' actuallydouble taxation, but instead a result of the corporation being its own entity), the no, they shouldn't.

Melissia wrote:If you remove the "double taxation" (which isnt' actually double taxation, but instead a result of the corporation being its own entity), the no, they shouldn't.

Are you saying that Constitutional First Amendment rights could be conditioned on payment of a tax?

edited, First Amendment, not Constitutional

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you remove the "double taxation" (which isnt' actually double taxation, but instead a result of the corporation being its own entity), the no, they shouldn't.

Are you saying that Constitutional First Amendment rights could be conditioned on payment of a tax?

edited, First Amendment, not Constitutional

No, I'm saying that if corporations want the rights of personhood, they should have the responsibilities of such as well.

Not simply all the rights without any responsibility, as you suggest.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?

YES.

Do corporations have first amendment protection at the moment?

Kilkrazy wrote:Do corporations have first amendment protection at the moment?

You betcha

Since like 1813 at least

Melissia wrote:No, I'm saying that if corporations want the rights of personhood, they should have the responsibilities of such as well.

Not simply all the rights without any responsibility, as you suggest.

What responsibilities are you talking about? Do natural persons have any responsibilities that must be fulfilled as a condition of receiving Constitutional rights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?

YES.

What part of the First Amendment limits the expression of those rights to persons? Isn't the First Amendment a negative check on government, not a positive grant of rights?

Does the Constitution apply to chickens and rocks too?

Frazzled wrote:Does the Constitution apply to chickens and rocks too?

Are you asking whether chickens or rocks have a free speech right? I suppose that any law that attempted to limit the free speech rights of chickens and rocks could be invalidated under the First Amendment. I'm not sure how you could determine that a chicken or rock is engaged in protected speech, however.

Any law that required, for example, all chickens to be baptized, or all chickens to perform the Hajj would likewise be unconstitutional.

Is it a free speech right for a rock to flings itself at a Riot cop?

You would think it is self-evident that that The Bill of Rights does not grant personhood to things that are inanimate. I guess the Founders probably thought that was common sense and didn't need to put in the whole "natural person" part. Their mistake.

The only way that can be resolved is by a Amendment to the Constitution to explicitly state "natural person" now*, or have a different set of Supremes overrule this last set.

Either scenario is a hard to see happening.

So, what does this have to do with taxation again?



*= or some other limiting language.