Tax changes

By the way, this is why lots of people don't take your posts seriously. No matter how wrong your posts are, you continue to double down and your next posts present counterarguments of increasing inanity.

Mission shareholders can have the companies pay them some of the profits anytime they want. All they have to do is convince a majority of the owners (shareholders) to vote for a dividend. No different than if the home you own is a condo. If you want to make some improvement or change to the common property you need a majority of the owners to agree.

Quote: kenarman

Mission shareholders can have the companies pay them some of the profits anytime they want. All they have to do is convince a majority of the owners (shareholders) to vote for a dividend. No different than if the home you own is a condo. If you want to make some improvement or change to the common property you need a majority of the owners to agree.

I agree with that, but that means that there's no fundamental, 'Entitlement,' to draw money out of the company that you, 'Own.'

Therefore, it is something that exists as an option.

Exercising this option does not reduce the number of shares owned; therefore, it is return on investment.

Whether or not the company paid income taxes on, 'That money,' at some point, is immaterial. It's still personal income. If someone buys products/services from your company, then they do so with money that has (presumably) already been taxed. The extension of AZDuffman's argument would be, if a particular dollar has ever been taxed, then it can never be taxed again lest it be double taxation.

Not only is that untrue, but it would be ridiculous. The entire system (which includes the Government) is predicated on money cycling through the system. Into companies, back to people, part to government; rinse and repeat. Can you imagine the budget deficit and national debt if the money printed by the Federal Reserve could only ever be taxed once? I guess they could just print more money, but then the currency would be devalued to worthlessness.

The whole premise behind a value added tax is that the tax is only paid to the government once by the final consumer of the product. That is why they are a much fairer tax. The GST we have in Canada is a fair and much less paperwork than traditional sales taxes. That premise should apply to all taxes. People should be taxed when they spend their money not when the earn it.

Quote: kenarman

The whole premise behind a value added tax is that the tax is only paid to the government once by the final consumer of the product. That is why they are a much fairer tax. The GST we have in Canada is a fair and much less paperwork than traditional sales taxes. That premise should apply to all taxes. People should be taxed when they spend their money not when the earn it.

I agree with that 100%. I think that's a much better conversation to have.

What I would do is have a Universal Sales Tax, but everything counts as a sale. Sales taxes would be paid by the buyer, unless the seller specifically wanted to pay it, or include it in the ticketed price.

However, this tax would apply to everything bought. Houses, cars, stocks.

I especially like it to apply to stocks because, if 5%, you would have to pay $105,000 in order to acquire $100,000 worth of shares in a particular company. Because of that, this sort of system would heavily encourage only long-term investing because you have to overcome a 5% paper loss immediately. Because of that, even casual investors would be inclined to hold shares longer and the only day traders would be doing so if they expected 5%+ jumps almost immediately. Most would fail in short order and either switch to long-term investing, or alternatively, get out of the market.

This would result in tremendous long-term market stability and greatly reduce volatility and volume.

Quote: Mission146

Oh, really? Then why is it that you're entitled to pull funds from that corporation, but not corporations that choose not to pay a dividend?

You still own part of the companies that don't pay a dividend; why can you not make them pay a dividend?

As was stated you can do do. Get board control and you can do it. This is why Chrysler had to sell out. Activist shareholders wanted more cash returned to them.

Quote:

=Whether or not you own the house depends on if there is a loan on it. I would suggest, if a bank was able to foreclose on you, that you did not own the house. I

Nope. You own the house if there is a mortgage on it. You just have to satisfy the lien if you sell. Go to the county courthouse and see who is the last grantee. It will be you not the bank.

Quote:

Houses are a generally a secured loan with the house itself acting as collateral. It's not even comparable.

You own the STOCK which reflects some ownership in the company. However, your equity could prove to be zero, but guess what, you still technically own the shares!!!

In fact, it was just this year, I believe, that SHLDQ (Sears Holdings) finally got delisted. The SEC announced, in 2021, that they were going to be more aggressive about delisting companies like that.

Anyway, you still own your shares of stock; they just happen to have an actual value of nothing (aside from whatever the market will pay for a stock literally not tied to anything) and give you shares in a corporation that functionally no longer exists.



What about employees? Should employees have their incomes taxed? You could make employees shareholders, which therefore, would make them owners of the company and then just say they are drawing from what they own commensurate with the work they put into it.

Sure they should as their pay is income. Said income has zero to do with equity in the corporation.

Quote: Mission146

By the way, this is why lots of people don't take your posts seriously. No matter how wrong your posts are, you continue to double down and your next posts present counterarguments of increasing inanity.

Showing how a corporation is structured is insanity? I’m not the one arguing against what you learn in accounting 101 here.

Quote: AZDuffman

Showing how a corporation is structured is insanity? I’m not the one arguing against what you learn in accounting 101 here.

I don't recall everything they taught in Accounting 101, but I remember it being focused on sole proprietorships and partnerships.

Also, why would Accounting 101 be concerned with whether or not dividend payments are taxable personal income? That's personal finance class; Accounting 101 doesn't care about that.

Quote: Mission146

I don't recall everything they taught in Accounting 101, but I remember it being focused on sole proprietorships and partnerships.

Also, why would Accounting 101 be concerned with whether or not dividend payments are taxable personal income? That's personal finance class; Accounting 101 doesn't care about that.

To show you the difference in legal structures.

Quote: AZDuffman

NO NO NO NO NO!

The income was operating income, from the corporation. The tax was paid there. The income was taken there. All that is happening is you are drawing off your share of the income.

Very simple, just don't cash out and you won't have to pay taxes.