Your Taxes could be reduced by 44% if corpo loopholes closed....

[ChungDoQuan]

Big oil is floating along just fine.

[mannyrock]

 
Hi Guys,
 
    I've enjoyed reading this thread.  Lots of good responses and opinions.  Let me make a quick point though.
 
   A "loop hole" occurs when one or more pieces of legislation have been passed, and there is something that was accidentally overlooked, or considered so rare that it is never addressed, in the laws.  It is an accidental "hole" in the web of laws.
 
   The current tax breaks for corporations are not "loop holes." They are not accidental.  They are specific exemption laws and tax breaks that have been intentionally adopted into law by Congress for the benefit of the companies.
 
   Another example, which always makes me grind my teeth, is when the news media talks about the "gunshow loophole,"  which permits private sales at gunshows without background checks.  Again, this isn't a "loophole."  The Gun Control Act specifically exempts true private sales from the rules that apply to dealers.    It is an exemption.
 
   So, let's start using the correct terms here.  Let's not be like the liberal media.  The tax breaks are exemptions, not loopholes.
 
Mannyrock
   
 
 

[lakota]

They would never lower our taxes. If your scenario were true, then the government would just find a new hole to piss our tax dollars down into.

Yep,  like instead of investing in our childrens future  ensuring all have shoes, a warm meal , a good education, and a warm safe roof over their head , or perhaps putting it back in the SS file drawer and removing a few congressional robber baron IOU's, or investing it in rebuilding our US infrastructure we would pizz it away as subsidies to some debtor nation overseas or to bribe some Pakistani tribal poppy field leader.

Oh wait we do that now with our tax Payer monies already.

The part in bold is exactly what they would do with the extra $$$. They would just increase the amount they already blow in foriegn aid.

[scootrd]

Hi Guys,
 
    I've enjoyed reading this thread.  Lots of good responses and opinions.  Let me make a quick point though.
 
   A "loop hole" occurs when one or more pieces of legislation have been passed, and there is something that was accidentally overlooked, or considered so rare that it is never addressed, in the laws.  It is an accidental "hole" in the web of laws.
 
   The current tax breaks for corporations are not "loop holes." They are not accidental.  They are specific exemption laws and tax breaks that have been intentionally adopted into law by Congress for the benefit of the companies.
 
   Another example, which always makes me grind my teeth, is when the news media talks about the "gunshow loophole,"  which permits private sales at gunshows without background checks.  Again, this isn't a "loophole."  The Gun Control Act specifically exempts true private sales from the rules that apply to dealers.    It is an exemption.
 
   So, let's start using the correct terms here.  Let's not be like the liberal media.  The tax breaks are exemptions, not loopholes.
 
Mannyrock
   
 
 

Manny , I'm on the "liberal" side of this corporate debate  to some on this thread (I consider it true fiscal conservative) , however I agree with your terminology assessment. The giveaways were provided by bought and paid for legislators who wrote those (or adopted lobbyist written) garbage exemptions into our tax codes, or attached the giveaways it as amendments to bills , then voted thumbs up,  to reward their corporate buddies.

So moving forward , lets close those corporate giveaway exemptions and/or, additional subsidies.

True tax reform ballast is needed within the halls of congress to stabilize this heavily listing ship and right it.

Peace

[mcwoodduck]

Isn't it the parents responsibility to make sure the kids have shoes, food and warm clothes for winter?  Isn't it the parents that should make sure the kids have a good education?  Making sure the school is teaching and making sure the kid understands what is being taught?

You assume all parents have the resources to do so. For example, Tell it to all the parents in Appalachia. Because we all know   Its their fault they got laid off working in the mine, It's their fault the house got foreclosed on and they now live out of a car.  It's their fault they can barely afford milk. It's their fault their child's feet grew another size and their is no additional monies for shoes. It's their fault their schools have no computers, or books. No we blame the Whacko enviromental movement that has made it impossible for these people to make a living. 

Here is a piece of n idiotic GOP legislation being pushed.

 Republican State Sen. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville proposes to cut welfare benefits to parents whose children don’t make satisfactory academic progress” in school. Campfield’s bill adds a new requirement that the child make “satisfactory academic progress” or suffer a 30 percent penalty of benefits. The maximum benefit for a mother with two children is $185 a month, If you take $60 plus dollars away, you’re just further limiting people who already have extremely few resources. I agree with it.  If the parents have a financial responsibility to get their kids to make a good grades and not disrupt the rest of the class.  The kids will be focused and the parents will side with the teacher rather than the kid and they may parent rather than try to be the kids friend.

So lets see , put the burden on the grade school child to ensure assistance is not cut for the family . Especially when the parents themselves may only have a grade school education because they had to drop out when they were young to support their family themselves. Yep this little peice of legislation will help solve everything and break the cycle. Maybe wit hthe parents helping the kids, they will learn.  Maybe if they have to help the kids with civics they may understand the roll of government in their lives.

We should definitely keep those loopholes, continue to bailout financial institutions, and provide subsidies to overseas nations and corporations all the while penalizing the down trodden and most vulnerable here in the USA instead of closing the loopholes and really use the monies to provide training programs, assistance , educational resources, outreach programs etc to help families with a hand up not a hand out. OK so we cut all loop holes.  The company that was providing low cost housing and getting a tax break for having a portion of the apartment complex as low cost housing for hte working poor would then stop doing that.  The rents would shoot up and the wooking poor would no longer beable to afford the house.  The loopholes, that farmers get would result in higher food prices.  The firm that hired them looses the tax cuts and realizes that it is cheaper to hire a cleaning firm than have a janator, have a on staff maintenance man, or a door man and fire them.   Now the wooking poor is no longer working, has no housing, and can not afford food.  Great plan.  I guess your plan to get rid of the poor is to have them dies due to exposure and starvation. 

“I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there,” - Mitt Romney (unless your the senator above who wants to cut the safety net as well)

"Some people call you the elites; I call you my base. - George Bush

[Empty Quiver]

The government will not remove itself from the social engineering that is the tax code.


It is delusional to think otherwise.

[mcwoodduck]

The government will not remove itself from the social engineering that is the tax code.


It is delusional to think otherwise.

I know but it is fun to thinkl what the liberals would do and say if the social enginering swung to the right.
A Tofu Tax,
A rebate if you own a gun. 
Ammo is a tax credit. 
Shooting range fees are tax deductable.
Oil is deductable and useage taxes are reduced and gas is subsidized.
Pot is legal and taxed and enforced like booze. 
Actually I am really bad an trying to make someone do something they do not want to and is against their beliefs

[jimster]

The bottom line is, nobody should be paying more taxes, not oil companies, not the super wealthy, not corporatons...until the government cleans itself up....because the money will not be used well. Why in the heck does that not make any sense to some? We all agree there is massive corruption in government with our money, but some people still have to "kick" who they don't like (corporations, oil companies, etc.) to make a point regardless of the fact they know this money would be squandered. I guess if your one of those people who have to make a point by throwing money away there is no sense talking to you about anything, you have your goal, and the fact is if you got all you wanted you would see no change at all....you'd just feel better about slapping an oil company or a corporation and it would never dawn on you you have no idea where their money went, nor would you care.    We should clean things up before any more money is taxed. I hate to see fresh cash wasted no matter where it comes from. 

[DDZ]

The bottom line is, nobody should be paying more taxes, not oil companies, not the super wealthy, not corporatons...until the government cleans itself up....because the money will not be used well. Why in the heck does that not make any sense to some? We all agree there is massive corruption in government with our money, but some people still have to "kick" who they don't like (corporations, oil companies, etc.) to make a point regardless of the fact they know this money would be squandered. I guess if your one of those people who have to make a point by throwing money away there is no sense talking to you about anything, you have your goal, and the fact is if you got all you wanted you would see no change at all....you'd just feel better about slapping an oil company or a corporation and it would never dawn on you you have no idea where their money went, nor would you care.    We should clean things up before any more money is taxed. I hate to see fresh cash wasted no matter where it comes from.

This is the reason any argument against corporations or the wealthy not paying enough taxes is senseless. Its either hate, or envy. Anything else doesn't make a lick of sense.   

[ChungDoQuan]

The government has a purpose: to provide basic security, i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the population of the country--- the WHOLE population. There are 50% more legal US citizens as of 2010 compared to 1970. Unless there are population controls, the cost of government is ALWAYS going to be more. The right wants population control via denial of health care, and basic human services. The uber-rich and the big money corporations are simply taking too much from the economy and not putting anything back.

[Empty Quiver]

The government has a purpose: to provide basic security, i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the population of the country--- the WHOLE population. There are 50% more legal US citizens as of 2010 compared to 1970. Unless there are population controls, the cost of government is ALWAYS going to be more. The right wants population control via denial of health care, and basic human services. The uber-rich and the big money corporations are simply taking too much from the economy and not putting anything back.

Well then should we just confiscate all of their wealth? Who's wealth will we confiscate next month? The combined wealth of those 1% er's is chump change to this bunch.


Is there any room in your mind for a spending problem? The definition of basic security has certainly crept over the last 43 years. We have gotten caught up in the personal dignity of those on aid. There was a time when there was a stigma attached to being on the dole. Now you are a chump if you work enough to scrape by. A cell phone, cable TV, internet access, AC, the list of comforts turned basic necessities never ends.

[ChungDoQuan]

Individuals only. If you include the "combined wealth" of the corporations-who-are-now-people-too it is no longer "chump change." And yes, I acknowledge there is a spending problem in our government, mainly in defense spending areas.

[mcwoodduck]

The government has a purpose: to provide basic security, i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the population of the country--- the WHOLE population. There are 50% more legal US citizens as of 2010 compared to 1970. Unless there are population controls, the cost of government is ALWAYS going to be more. The right wants population control via denial of health care, and basic human services. The uber-rich and the big money corporations are simply taking too much from the economy and not putting anything back.

Do you think that corperations have stacks and stacks of $ in vaults in the basment of the office building?
A corperation has shares that are sold to investors.  Those investors want their money back and more. 
So the money that corperations make they pay out in salaries, bonus programs, wages, raw materials, and expansion and then most profits are taxed and sent out to the share holders.  Those share holders pay taxes on that money and then they use it.  They can reinvest, they can pay morguage, buy toys, buy food, pay bills, pay property taxes, and or save it to be loaned out by banks.
Do you not understand the basics of our economy?  Do you not understand how money is created?  Do you not understand how our economy works from raw materials to finished products.  That profits will generate technology, new products and will keep prices low. 
Do you need me to give you a macro economics class?  From an idea for a product to the sale of that product.
Idea for new mouse trap, design for mouse trap, checking with patent lawyers to see if it has been done before, setting up a factory, hiring workers from assembly people, sales people, engineers, and purchasing people.  Need to raise capital to fund the factory, buy the raw materials (whole supply chain of it's own from digging to refining) buy factoy machines to make the product, training the workers, and then producing the products and either breaking into the market with a new version or protecting your market share as others see what you are doing and make similar products they think are better or cheaper. 
As multiple companies are wanting the same raw materials the price of those materials are going to go up, causing more producers for those materials, increasing wages and jobs. 
The people that buy into corperations are anyone that has a 401K, pension plan, life insurance, annuity, or mutual fund.  All of these buy stocks in companies (corperations) and do so looking for a return on that investment. 
I understand you are a low information voter and think corperations are evil and you want to be robin hood and steal from them to help the poor.  If you steal from them you will end up making more poor.  The more $ you send to DC the less they have to pay share holders and workers. 

[jimster]

The government has a purpose: to provide basic security, i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the population of the country

Well there is your main problem, you think the governments purpose is to provide liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The government does not provide my liberty, I should have that already, government only needs to recognize it. Pursuit of happiness is your own deal. Not the governments job to make you happy either, especially on someone Else's dollar. The security I agree with, but it seems they can't even close the borders as well as a third world country, they can't even do the simplest of tasks, I would not put them in charge of my pursuit of happiness.
The governments role and purpose is limited, or should be. So now I see how socialists think.

the cost of government is ALWAYS going to be more.

And that is how a socialist thinks. Well sir, a lot of people live that way, spending more than they have, credit cards maxed out, buy everything on time, and believing they have to. Congress is a reflection of the people that elect them. The real problem is the people who think like this.

[mcwoodduck]

The bottom line is, nobody should be paying more taxes, not oil companies, not the super wealthy, not corporatons...until the government cleans itself up....because the money will not be used well. Why in the heck does that not make any sense to some? We all agree there is massive corruption in government with our money, but some people still have to "kick" who they don't like (corporations, oil companies, etc.) to make a point regardless of the fact they know this money would be squandered. I guess if your one of those people who have to make a point by throwing money away there is no sense talking to you about anything, you have your goal, and the fact is if you got all you wanted you would see no change at all....you'd just feel better about slapping an oil company or a corporation and it would never dawn on you you have no idea where their money went, nor would you care.    We should clean things up before any more money is taxed. I hate to see fresh cash wasted no matter where it comes from.

This is the reason any argument against corporations or the wealthy not paying enough taxes is senseless. Its either hate, or envy. Anything else doesn't make a lick of sense.

.
Not about who should pay more taxes conflation. . Its about who should pay fair taxes, instead of avoiding, to stop shifting to me-us because we're the easiest group to extract taxes from. We all agree spending has gone wild and like it or not is primarily owing to MIC-intell without oversight. (there's your socialism!) The 1% and corps do indeed benefit most form the 'system', but are also the best at tax avoidance....something wrong with that logic.
.
.
...TM7
.

What percentage of my total income is fair?  How much is too much?  Give us a number when you add up Federal, State, Local, Sales, personal property, fuel, and other government related fees and taxes? 
At what point am I no longer working for me and my family and I am working for the government and they allow me to keep a protion?
 

[mcwoodduck]

What percentage of my total income is fair?  The % is fairer when taxation is more equilibrated among taxpayers and with less avoidance outs like loopholes and exemptions for special groups.. But let's have a real number of what is too much.
 How much is too much? Depends on the tax bill, and DoD spending which represents 94% of every tax dollar tendered. a form of socialism for the MIC-Intel corporate syndicate. Right now my tax bill is too much, because others avoid and shift taxes to me. Again not a number, what is too much to pay in taxes.  I think there is never going to be a too high number from you only that "they need to pay more".
  Give us a number when you add up Federal, State, Local, Sales, personal property, fuel, and other government related fees and taxes?  ..Number?...Look, I can assure you if taxation was equally and fairly meted out amongst all sectors, not avoided by the 1%....governmnet spending and waste would drop. Presently, there's no incentive because the PTB avoid tax and benefit from government spending_ _a win win for them. Fair would be everyone paying something.  When we have 35% or more not paying that does not sound fair.  The whole idea of our government is that everyone should pull a little and not anyone have ot pull not only thier fair share but the ones not pulling as well.
At what point am I no longer working for me and my family and I am working for the government and they allow me to keep a protion?  Sooo, you're agreeing with me and the OP...about time.! You want to keep more...than get avoiders (who benefit most from the system in the firstplace) to pay a fair share...and stop coming to me to pay their share. If you have a problem understanding the concept of 'fair', please research that concept...BTW, why are you opposed to the 'avoiders' and 1% paying up their share for a change and me paying less?  Are you 1%?  And what is I am a 1% or part of the top 5% or in the bottom 5% how does taking from one group and then taking more and more help?  If we have a pie and I give more to soem and less to others how is that fair?  And I am all for cutting income taxes, to make them fair.  The pronblem we have is the tax loophole you have suggested are now needed. and you can just cut them with out cutting tax rates at the same time. 
The tax loopholes like providing low cost houseing, would increase rents and you would loose low cost housing in the city.  With out tax credits and your so called loopholes we would loose many manufaturing jobs.  With our some of the tax loopholes you would loose jobs like Doormen, Janators, maintenance men, and other low paying jobs that would easily be replaced by a service. 
I think you need a class in macro economics and the generation of money. 
So if the rich have more they tend to spend it.  They buy things, they build things, they hire people to do things for them. 
So the top 1% pay on average another 120,000 each.  So let;s just say that they are keeping everything except they are going to cut expenses.  The eat out less, they fire a pilot, assistant or two. 
You are not hurting them, you are hurting the small business's that that 120,000 a year helped and they used to pay taxes, they used to buy other things they want or need. 
.
..TM7
 

[scootrd]

[BAGTIC]

Let's see...
49% of the population don't pay taxes. How much will they pay after a 44% reduction? What is the savings?
A flat tax? Will taxes go up or down on those 49% who now pay nothing?
Big oil has given us some of the cheapest fuel in the world. Those few countries that sell gas untaxed and below the actual cost of production on a 'bread and circuses' basis actually harm their economies because the resultant lost income starves the government of resources needed to provide essential services.
It is true that businesses don't pay taxes because they pass them through in the form of higher prices and fees. They only collect taxes for the government. Ultimately it is the final consumer, alone, who pays taxes. Life is a game of Old Maid. Everyone passes the Old Maid down the line until the guy at the end who can't pass her on any farther gets stuck with her. Unfortunately our corporate tax system costs us jobs from lost exports because foreigners are not going to pay us taxes to provide services for our people so they buy elsewhere. We should turn to consumption taxes so that those who have money to spend will pay according to their ability to pay and those who choose to save for hard times, retirement, illness, etc. will not be penalized. Taxes on that money will be deferred until they actually spend it.

[mcwoodduck]

Let's see...
49% of the population don't pay taxes. How much will they pay after a 44% reduction? What is the savings? 49% get a payment from the government of some kind.  Like Federal officers, Military, and Social Security. Only about 30 % do not pay taxes.
A flat tax? Will taxes go up or down on those 49% who now pay nothing?  Depending if you have a standard deduction.  I would like to see a standard deduction of 2 to 4 times the poverty level in your area.  Right now if you make 100,000 a year your taxes are the same if you live in NYC or Dallas Texas.  Huge difference in housing costs for each place but both pay the same tax.  My idea is that if a family of 4 has a poverty level of 15,000 in NYC and 10,000 in Dallas then the NYC person would pay taxes on 70 and the dallas would pay taxes on 80 if you take a 2X the poverty level based on a family of four.  Oh and congress gets paid the average wage of the country. 
Big oil has given us some of the cheapest fuel in the world. Those few countries that sell gas untaxed and below the actual cost of production on a 'bread and circuses' basis actually harm their economies because the resultant lost income starves the government of resources needed to provide essential services.
It is true that businesses don't pay taxes because they pass them through in the form of higher prices and fees. They only collect taxes for the government. Ultimately it is the final consumer, alone, who pays taxes. Life is a game of Old Maid. Everyone passes the Old Maid down the line until the guy at the end who can't pass her on any farther gets stuck with her. Unfortunately our corporate tax system costs us jobs from lost exports because foreigners are not going to pay us taxes to provide services for our people so they buy elsewhere. We should turn to consumption taxes so that those who have money to spend will pay according to their ability to pay and those who choose to save for hard times, retirement, illness, etc. will not be penalized. Taxes on that money will be deferred until they actually spend it.

[scootrd]

simplifying the tax code and leveling the playing field equitably would be a good start  , like eliminating Carried interest deduction(loophole or allowance , or whatever the hel# anyone wants to call it). There is not one person I ever ever met or listened too who could put forth a valid argument that labor and capital should be taxed differently (though many a wallstreeter has tried).  For years, private equity has quashed efforts through capital hill lobbyists to raise taxes on carried interest income, arguing Those earnings should be considered capital gains, so they are taxed at a much lower rates. ( I say BullS!@#$)

There is absolutely no reason why income earned for managing other people’s money shouldn’t be taxed in the same way as income from an average Joe working in a brewery or on a manufacturing floor. It comes down to a matter of equitable equality within the tax codes, and just as example above carried interest should be taxed as ordinary labor income and subject to the same rates.

It's crap like this written into our tax codes by paid for legislators rewarding their wealthy contributors , that created this unlevel tax code we are living with now. Just closing that one erronious deduction would amount to $17 billion over 10 years of recovered taxes, and lessen the gap the rest of us have to pick up.  So how about using a comb and go through our tax codes and get rid of kind of crap.

Hey Wallstreet'r  and corpo types , Don't anyone pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Semper Fi

[mcwoodduck]

simplifying the tax code and leveling the playing field equitably would be a good start  , like eliminating Carried interest deduction(loophole or allowance , or whatever the hel# anyone wants to call it). There is not one person I ever ever met or listened too who could put forth a valid argument that labor and capital should be taxed differently (though many a wallstreeter has tried).  For years, private equity has quashed efforts through capital hill lobbyists to raise taxes on carried interest income, arguing Those earnings should be considered capital gains, so they are taxed at a much lower rates. ( I say BullS!@#$)
The difference between rwages adn capital are.
Wages are earned and taxes as a first time earning it.
Capital is the money saved after paying taxes and either saved or reinvested.  The congress would like to reward people for saving adn investing.  Do you not understand that all 401K's, Pension funds, IRA's, Mutual Funds are all taxed atthe lower rate as it is money invested that has paid taxes.  If no one invested you would not have a job.  I know that I work for a corperation and I would most likely not be working at the level I do if it were not for Capital. 
Aslo that capital is double taxed.  So a corperation that makes a million pays income tax on it.  What is left is given to the share holders and then is taxed as personal income.  So if you look at it that money is taxed at a higher rate than if the company were solely owned by someone and took profits as a wage.  But then again we would not have pension plans, 401K plans, IRA's, or mutal funds that seniors depend on to maintian their lives after working for years and years and saving that whole time.

There is absolutely no reason why income earned for managing other people’s money shouldn’t be taxed in the same way as income from an average Joe working in a brewery or on a manufacturing floor. It comes down to a matter of equitable equality within the tax codes, and just as example above carried interest should be taxed as ordinary labor income and subject to the same rates.
It is not.  A stock broker pays taxes at or more than the average worker levels.

It's crap like this written into our tax codes by paid for legislators rewarding their wealthy contributors , that created this unlevel tax code we are living with now. Just closing that one erronious deduction would amount to $17 billion over 10 years of recovered taxes, and lessen the gap the rest of us have to pick up.  So how about using a comb and go through our tax codes and get rid of kind of crap.
But are you willing to give up all of congress's power to cause social programing?  Are you willing to eliminate all sin taxes, all use taxes, all taxes on Tabacco, alchol, firearms, ammo, gas guzzler taxes, fuel taxes?  Are you willing to give up the loopholes that allow you to deduct your morguage interest and any repairs you make to the house?
Hey Wallstreet'r  and corpo types , Don't anyone pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.  Not sure what strange sexual things you are into but I am not going to pee on you.

Semper Fi

[scootrd]

Carried interest is a wallstreeter rouse , There is absolutely no reason why income earned for managing other people’s money shouldn’t be taxed the same as an average Joe's income and not at a lower capital gains rate.

TM states regarding Capital Gains

Money made from money should be taxed at a high rate than normal incomes and wages!

Heck I'd settle for the same taxation rates the rest of us are forced to pay. 

[scootrd]

Carried Interest is also unfair to small business owners let alone the laborer .

example : you have a hedge fund manager and a small business owner who lest say makes widgets for breweries or coffee MFG's,  Both earn 250k. The laborers employed by the widget MFG earns approx 32k annually .

The carried interest "loophole" allows the hedge fund manager claims his income at approx a 14% tax rate (claiming carried interest) while the small business owner MFG claims at approx a 21% tax rate (claiming capital gains) and the laborer who is employed by the Mfg is taxed at an individual tax rate of approx 35%.

Who are the greater contributors to society , The one who plays with other peoples monies , or the one who actually created a company and sells a product, or the individual employed to help manufacture the widget .

Carried Interest deduction in our tax code is a joke. Incomes should all be taxed equitably at the very least.

[mcwoodduck]

Aslo that capital is double taxed.  So a corperation that makes a million pays income tax on it.  What is left is given to the share holders and then is taxed as personal income.  So if you look at it that money is taxed at a higher rate than if the company were solely owned by someone and took profits as a wage.  But then again we would not have pension plans, 401K plans, IRA's, or mutal funds that seniors depend on to maintian their lives after working for years and years and saving that whole time.

.
This is another so-called conservative myth....rarely is capital double taxed. Depending on the corporation's structure, payments to stockholders are not taxed twice...Stockholders only pay tax on the earnings,, if the principle invested is post tax they do not pay tax again on that principle, just tax on the earnings. If the earnings are considered a 'capital gain' they are taxed at a much lower rate then wages and normal incomes. Money made from money should be taxed at a high rate than normal incomes and wages!
How is it not taxed twice?  If I own the company and the company's profits are taxed and then I am taxed whe nI get the $ in my bank account how is that not two taxes on the SAME PROFITS? 
.MCWD:
.
Monies invested in pensions, IRAs, 401 and 403 are deferred tax situations to maximize earnings,,,,when liquidated the earnings are taxed normally or as lower rate capital gains. Roth IRA's are post tax investments but the earnings are completely tax free....nice! Sometimes.  And yes you do not pay taxes on the capital until you get it back.  With mutual funds most of the profits are reinvested into the fund to grow it faster.  If you take the income you get taxed.  Learnsomething about investing and taxes before you spout off stupid stuff.
.
You know all this so please don't conflate the discussion with misinformation.  Back at you. 
.
Now as far as you 'numbers' question.  I like the current progressive rate schedule, and maybe would have another higher rate for the 1%.  Rules for capital gains I would change....money made from money, and not from real enterprise, I would tax at a higher rate near normal incomes.....than watch enterprise takeoff. BUT as per this discussion, the tax problem is not about the tax rates_ _it about the exemptions and loopholes of the corps and the 1% tax avoiders_ _that results in taxes being shifted to average citizens as the article in the OP points out because that's where the governmnet can get money from, which is reverse logic because its the 1% and corps that benefit most from the system in the first place. I have asked this multiple time.  WHAT is the maximum level of total income a person should pay in taxes.  So far all you have said is more.  So what happens whe you tax the top 1% that is paying 55% of the total tax income for the government out of existance?  Who is going to pay then?  and how much should you pay if they no longer can?  In the late 70-'s we had a 90% top marginal rate and nothing was happening in the economy we lowered it to 33% and we unleashed the US economy that boomed until lthe Democrat cumlitive tax increases from Bush to Clinton to the Massive tax increase of at least 2,500 for a family of four on all levels of income for  Obama care.  That will kill our economy even further. 
.
The current tax system (and corruption) in the USA is the product and result of an uber dominant corpratocracy riding roughshod on average citizens....a form of fuedalism. Blah Blah blah, Modernday communist drivel at it's best.  Sounds like sometbing but is not.  For every corrupt politician that made a tax law for one corperation or another you have a Democrat that raised taxes to kill our economy or pay back a contributor. 
.
.
..TM7

[scootrd]

How is it not taxed twice?  If I own the company and the company's profits are taxed and then I am taxed whe nI get the $ in my bank account how is that not two taxes on the SAME PROFITS? 
.MCWD:

You are not taxed twice.
If you are set up as a sole proprietor as example,

You use schedule C. to list your business's profit and loss information and arrive at gross income. Once you have gross you calculate net profit (gross income minus all deductions you claim for business expenses). As a business you are only taxed on your net Profit.  the rate of tax on net profit you will pay depends on your filing status and the amount of other income you report on your 1040.

Suppose you file single and report $30,000 of taxable income from employment and $4,500 of sole proprietor net profit you will pay roughly 10 percent tax on the first $8,500 and 15 percent on the remaining $26,000.

And as a sole proprietor you can deduct Health care (for you and family) home office , utilities, supplies and equipment, mileage, IRA etc.. etc.. etc.. 


You should also be keeping two separate checkbooks , one for the business,  and one for personal.

 

[mcwoodduck]

How is it not taxed twice?  If I own the company and the company's profits are taxed and then I am taxed whe nI get the $ in my bank account how is that not two taxes on the SAME PROFITS? 
.MCWD:

You are not taxed twice.
If you are set up as a sole proprietor as example,

You use schedule C. to list your business's profit and loss information and arrive at gross income. Once you have gross you calculate net profit (gross income minus all deductions you claim for business expenses). As a business you are only taxed on your net Profit.  the rate of tax on net profit you will pay depends on your filing status and the amount of other income you report on your 1040.

Suppose you file single and report $30,000 of taxable income from employment and $4,500 of sole proprietor net profit you will pay roughly 10 percent tax on the first $8,500 and 15 percent on the remaining $26,000.

You should be keeping two separate checkbooks , one for the business and one for personal.

Ok as a share holder I am an owner of a company.  Even if I only own one share of a million, I am an owner.  So as the company makes money.  Let's say they make a million in profits.  The company has to pay 30% in taxes on those million.
A the company sends me the .70 that is my share of the profits and that .70 puts me into the top marginal rate I will be paying 20% Fedral taxes on it.  So as a whole my $1 in profit would be taxed at 44%.  How is that not enough and how is that not being double taxed?  Not to mention any state income taxes on that same $1 and then my share.
So in California that $1 would be taxed at 30% fed adn 15% state for 45% , so I would get $.65 of that dollar and then have to pay 20% to the feds and 10% to the state of CA.  So what started out as a dollars ends up being $.465 for a tatal tax to state and local government of 53.4% of my last dollar earned as a share holder of a company.  How is paying more than half not paying too much even if you want to call it only being taxed once, when it is clearly taxed twice, once when the company made the money and once as it is given to the share holder?  Not sure what school you went to but the math I learned as a kid was 1+1=2  One federal tax on the raw profit and one tax on the personal income of that taxed profit equals two, that same Dollar is taxed twice.     

[scootrd]

Not sure what school you went to but the math I learned as a kid was 1+1=2  One federal tax on the raw profit and one tax on the personal income of that taxed profit equals two, that same Dollar is taxed twice.     

Please don't take this as a slight , but I really think your in over your head. Get a good tax consultant. There is nothing wrong with my math. even show him my post. he will agree I am correct. You are not taxed twice. If you own the business as sole you are not taxed on "Raw" anything. You are taxed once on "net".

As far as your follow-up regarding dividends earned , I;m a bit tired and your example is a bit hard hard to follow. I will re-read and take a swag at it tomorrow.

[BAGTIC]

mcwoodduck,
You can not have a federal tax that taxes different areas at different rates it is unconstitutional. Federal taxes must be uniform throughout the nation. Not that iy would work anyway. Areas that have lower than average incomes typically have lower than average expenses. Then there is the problem  that not every one in an area is in the same boat. The rich local banker should pay a lower rate because he lives in an economically depressed area?

[scootrd]

Ok as a share holder I am an owner of a company.  Even if I only own one share of a million, I am an owner.     

Don't mean to nit pick , but share holders are not owners of a corporation. 

Legally,

No human being owns a public traded corporation . This is  because corporations are legal persons (Just ask Supreme court ie: Citizens United) .

 Lynn A. Stout is professor of law explains it this way -
Corporations are independent entities with their own rights, including the right to hold property in the corporate name. In effect, corporations, like human beings, own themselves. Shareholders who purchase shares of stock in a  corporation own nothing more than that—shares of stock. Similarly, bondholders own only bonds, and executives with employment contracts own their contracts. None of these types of ownership give shareholders, bondholders or executives the right to control the firm. The right to control the firm’s assets and actions rests in the hands of its board of directors, and only when they act as a body and follow proper board procedures.

In response to -  are dividends taxed twice (in your scenario last night ) well , yes and no. You personally do not get taxed twice . The corporation gets taxed on net profit, and if the board decides to reward shareholders with a dividend based on lets say great corp performance , Then when issued you personally must claim your dividend as income..

so yes and No  -  The monies are taxed twice.

Once on the corp tax books as net profit (remember corps are people too my friend - Mitt Romney) and once when you file your personal taxes and claim your dividend as Income. (But you personally are not taxed twice on the same monies). 

[scootrd]

Scoot....
...C corporations may pay tax on profits and with no deduction for dividends, and that may result in double taxation.
.
...S corporations deduct dividends before taxation
.
There are advantages of corps being included in the tax system....subsidies, mining and exploitation of public lands, credits, costs writeoffs,  and so forth. And also benefits to 'owners' who would otherwise be taxed like us peasants.
.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-corporations-are-taxed-30157.html
.
.
..TM7

...also I forgot to mention in previous response to MWD,
Beginning last year, the maximum tax rate on qualifying dividends was dropped to 15% for most folks.  For those in the 15% or 10% bracket, qualifying dividends will be subject to a maximum tax of only 5%. So dividends you do need to pay tax on as personal income is taxed at lesser rates.

Also as shareholders taxes can be avoided all together if corps rather than pay dividends roll the $$ back into a company and expand , or purchase equip offsets , or acquire additional companies, etc. etc.. This increase value to shareholders without immediate tax implications.

The whole point here is Tax reform is needed. There is too much garbage in tax codes. Equitable equality is needed not only for the average Joe , but small business owner to large corps. But for anyone here to say Corps are paying an equitably share of taxes at present , well I want some of what their smoking.