Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #755160
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
10366 Re: *Re: undoing the new deal and subsequent protections
   to a point, If three people, say Gates, Allen, and Ballmer decide... 		DigSpace   ALEA   27 Sep 2012
 8:57 PM
10365 Re: *Re: undoing the new deal and subsequent protections
   thus, corporations pay only 12% of the income the federal government r... 		Cactus Flower   ALEA   27 Sep 2012
 8:54 PM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: *Re: undoing the new deal and subsequent protections

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Thu, 27 Sep 12 8:47 PM
Msg. 10364 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 10363 by DigSpace)
Jump to msg. #  

hi dig,

Actually, tax would emanate from these organisations - via taxes on employees and taxes on dividends.

If their profits are not taxed, then they will have retained profits to figure what to do with.

More employees? - more tax on income.

Higher salaries? - more tax on income at higher rates.

More dividends? - more tax on investors.

More investment? - taxes on future employee or dividend income.

So I am avoiding double taxation by removing the tax on corporations rather than on investors.

Then I could reasonably tax dividend income at a level consistent with a single layer of taxation.

Trouble is, companies can move their profits to safe havens. So someone like Romney may claim double taxation if he is taxed on dividends. But in fact, the company's profits are concealed in the Cayman Islands. So instead of double tax, there may be no tax at all on his income or on the company from which it is derived.