08 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358I strongly opposed the government bailouts of speculators. But it's hardly surprising in a capitalist country to see the people in power act in the interests of the wealthy.
I don't care if Tepper speculates with his money -- but he is not welcome to mine.
As for using government money (partly mine) to bail out Tepper -- I also vote 'No.'
A lot of speculators eventually lose their shirts. Keeps them honest.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by sh76The usual argument for dividends paid to shareholders (i.e. owners) is that they are what is left of profits that have already been taxed at a pretty stiff corporate rate. So the claim is that taxing a dividend amounts to double taxation on the same income.
I've never fully understood why the tax code generally treats many types of unearned income more favorably than earned income (except for the EIC, of course). Odd, indeed.
The compromise was to tax e.g. dividends at a lower rate.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358Which is self-serving nonsense. Either the corporation is a separate entity from the stockholders or it is not. It's absurd to give the stockholders the benefits of protection from personal liability because of the corporate form but then claim that the corporation and stockholders should be considered the same thing when it comes to taxation thus making taxation of both somehow "double".
The usual argument for dividends paid to shareholders (i.e. owners) is that they are what is left of profits that have already been taxed at a pretty stiff corporate rate. So the claim is that taxing a dividend amounts to double taxation on the same income.
The compromise was to tax e.g. dividends at a lower rate.
There are similar rationales for treating capital gains and other types of unearned income primarily going to the wealthy in a more favorable manner than wages. All are arrogant, self-serving bunk to justify keeping large segments of rich people's income safe from a fair tax level.