• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security Fix

Your Identity and For/Against this SS Reform model


  • Total voters
    72

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,145
Reaction score
37,583
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What's at issue is the personhood of corporations and the definition of "speech." If corporations are "people too," then it follows that they pay taxes just like anyone else, and that they can contribute "speech" in the form of money, to political causes.

If the corporation "people" aren't paying taxes, then they shouldn't be able to use "speech," which really means dollars, to influence politics.

1. Corporations are indeed people, and, even if we got rid of corporate taxes, they would still be paying taxes, through capital gains.

2. Please show me where in the Constitution it states that you lose your inalienable human rights if you don't pay taxes to the Federal Government. Do my children have no rights? Did people who lived before direct taxation was authorized by the 16th Amendment have no rights?

This strikes me as a populist sentiment, but not a well-thought out principle.

The real people, whether they are owners of corporations or not, are free to give all of the "speech" money to political causes that they want.

Indeed. And if they want to do that as a group, they are free to do that as well.

The speech you see in newspapers and magazines is the other sort, the kind made up of words rather than dollars.

Au contraire, it takes dollars to print those newspapers and magazines - and, more to your point those are corporations engaging in political speech.

Ditto for Greenpeace, the United Auto Workers, and the Veterans Advocacy Group of America. All of them, engaging in political speech. All of them doing so corporately.

As it stands right now, corporations don't pay taxes on the money they pay out in dividends to shareholders. That is not net profit that is taxed. They don't pay taxes on capital improvements, as that is part of their expenses and therefore not part of the profits. That's why raising or lowering the taxes on corporations themselves doesn't affect them very much.

Now, when one of the corporate owners gets capital gains income, it is taxed at a different rate than when one of the employees of said corporation gets a paycheck. The money paid out by said corporation in salaries or dividends is not a part of its profit, and is not taxed. Therefore, the money is not taxed twice.

Now, those state taxes you gloat about do represent money that is taxed twice, thanks to Trump and his tax reform. I pay taxes to the federal government, then pay taxes to the State of California on the whole amount, including what Uncle Sam has already taken. You seem to think that's all well and good, and my just desserts for living in a "liberal" state.

Or, maybe I've misinterpreted your stance on the matter of double taxation.

I don't think I've said anything about California, or, in fact, any "liberal" state in this entire thread, so, you may be conflating me with someone else. My argument is:

When I make money with my business and it is taxed both when I make it and when I shift it to my personal account, that money has been taxed twice.

If we want tax parity between that kind of income and employment-based-income, then we should tax them each only once, but at the same rate, OR

Tax the former twice, but at the same cumulative rate (which is more complex and troublesome, and, I think, therefore less desireable).
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,947
Reaction score
33,853
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. Corporations are indeed people, and, even if we got rid of corporate taxes, they would still be paying taxes, through capital gains.

2. Please show me where in the Constitution it states that you lose your inalienable human rights if you don't pay taxes to the Federal Government. Do my children have no rights? Did people who lived before direct taxation was authorized by the 16th Amendment have no rights?

This strikes me as a populist sentiment, but not a well-thought out principle.



Indeed. And if they want to do that as a group, they are free to do that as well.



Au contraire, it takes dollars to print those newspapers and magazines - and, more to your point those are corporations engaging in political speech.

Ditto for Greenpeace, the United Auto Workers, and the Veterans Advocacy Group of America. All of them, engaging in political speech. All of them doing so corporately.



I don't think I've said anything about California, or, in fact, any "liberal" state in this entire thread, so, you may be conflating me with someone else. My argument is:

When I make money with my business and it is taxed both when I make it and when I shift it to my personal account, that money has been taxed twice.

If we want tax parity between that kind of income and employment-based-income, then we should tax them each only once, but at the same rate, OR

Tax the former twice, but at the same cumulative rate (which is more complex and troublesome, and, I think, therefore less desireable).

As it stands right now, all of the entities you mention are able to engage in political "speech," meaning dollars, not words. Now, back to the original idea, which was that all income, regardless of source, should be taxed the same. Your argument is that money from corporations should not be taxed the same way as it has already been taxed once, correct?

But, corporations pay taxes on profits, after the money that they pay out for wages and dividends.

You've made a good argument that they should continue to be able to engage in "speech," but not that the money they pay in salaries should be taxed at a higher rate than what is paid as capital gains. That is money that is paid to corporate shareholders based on increased value of goods, and not all of it comes from any corporation. If I buy a house, for example, for $100,000, and then sell it later for $200,000, I've earned a capital gain of $100,000. If I earn $100,000 by working, then I've earned the same, but I don't pay the same taxes on that amount of money.

If we're going to have a fair tax system, then all income should be taxed at the same rate, don't you agree?
 
Top Bottom