 |
 |
Tax changes
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:13:44 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
By that logic, if a corporation has a net profit and pays its employees (who also have to pay income tax on wages), that would also be double taxation. Losing position? Laughable. Given that the actual case is that dividends are taxed, so we're simply arguing over the opinion of whether or not they should be, how is my position losing? You're the one who has failed to produce a good argument, and in that failing, have now taken the final step of simply declaring yourself right. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:20:29 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
Right. That's actually a very good argument for your position. Naturally, I simply wouldn't choose to pay myself a dividend. I suppose it should at least be mentioned that most exchanges would not list a 'corporation' that owned 100% of itself, or a corporation in which one individual (or institution) owned all of the stock. There's generally a requirement (that can vary) for a minimum of a particular number of unique owners. Clearly, I wouldn't want to pay the dividend in the way you suggest. As to the other two options, I suppose I would go with whichever one resulted in the lowest amount of tax being paid, if it was legal to do so that way. But, in effect, you're a sole proprietorship anyway. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:23:32 AM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18212 |
By what logic? Payroll is an expense. Employees are not owners they are a line item expense. How would that be double taxation? Their cost comes off revenue thus is not taxed. When did you take accounting again? Sorry but I have produced a perfect and logical argument. You keep making silly examples that do not compare then say I am wrong. I expect that from some on this board but not you. The President is a fink. |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:27:41 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
What if the employees also have shares of the stock? That would make them part owners. Just give up. Your position might be rational, but your argumentation blows. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:44:13 AM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18212 |
You can be an employee but not be a stockholder. They are separate groups even if you can be in both. My argument is sound. You have not shown income is not being taxed twice. Nor has anyone else. The President is a fink. |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:50:29 AM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4519 |
|
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:58:40 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
Your argument was that employees have to pay tax on the income because they are not owners, thus, it is not double-taxation. My counterpoint was that employees could own shares of the company, thereby making them owners, thus invalidating your position. The only way your position survives is if you argue that employees with shares, because they are part owners of the company, should not be taxed. Of course, I think that position would be way too asinine for you to take. The easiest thing for you to do is concede that employees can be owners of shares and still have taxes paid on their wages, thus, even if your statement from a few posts ago were generally true, it is not strictly true. The income is being taxed twice, but it's not double taxation. The fact that the corporation (generally) paid income taxes on it is irrelevant. Double taxation is taxes being paid twice on the same source of income. The company had net income, regardless of what the source of that net income was. Let's say that it's a corporation strictly engaged in sales; that's all they do. The company either gets a commission, or alternatively, the companies that contract them pay some fixed hourly rate based on sale rep hours. That company makes income, pays income tax. That company later pays out a dividend to its shareholders. COMPANY INCOME SOURCE: The payment that it receives from the companies that contract them to sell stuff. DIVIDEND INCOME SOURCE: The company that paid out the dividend. Ergo, the income source for the money is different; thus, it is not double taxation. And, again, using the logic you are using---you could make the argument that any monetary outflow from the company, that gets taxed for any reason, is being subject to double taxation...such as paying its employees. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 7:59:55 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 |
I agree with that, but those aren't publicly traded companies anyway. When we're talking about dividends in the context of this conversation, I think it can be inferred that we're focused primarily on publicly traded corporations that pay a dividend. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 8:18:33 AM permalink | |
| Mission146 Administrator Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 4147 | AZDuffman's next argument will be that those who receive the dividend payout are part-owners of the company, and thus, are simply getting a piece of the net income that the company made paid out to them. His argument will be, because they are getting paid by way of their ownership of the company, that it is not personal income of any kind, but rather, a distributing of the corporation's income to its owners. Therefore, AZDuffman will proclaim that the income source is the same in both instances, which in my example, would be the companies that contracted them to make sales. My counterpoint to this will be that the entity with control of the money changes. When this corporation has a net income, the corporation can choose to pay a dividend, or not. Because the company has this control, the company also has control of the money. After the dividend has been paid out, the only entities with control of that money are the shareholders to whom dividends were paid. The corporation no longer has any control of that money whatsoever. Therefore, it is two different sources of income. The companies that contract the corporation (and pay them) are the source of the corporation's income. After this has been done, the corporation controls those funds. The source of personal income to shareholders is the corporation itself. It is the corporation that is paying the dividends to its shareholders; it is NOT the company that contracted the corporation to do sales work paying out those dividends. Control of the money also changes from the corporation to any such shareholders who receive dividends. I saved you a post, AZDuffman. You're welcome. I am now prepared for your next terrible argument. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
| December 3rd, 2023 at 8:20:39 AM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4519 |
I would agree that you are focused on the large companies. You do realize that companies with less than 500 employees are a larger portion of GDP than the large companies. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |