It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This

The Weekly Standard ^ | December 29, 2003 | Fred Barnes

[nopardons]

Unfortunately, they always do. :-(

[MeekOneGOP]

Hollywood has come up with some great horror films, but the real life editions of Hillery Clintoon, Mad Albright, and Warren antiChristopher are truly frightening.

ha ! Is that ever the truth !!

[Rummyfan]

Here's to the Perfect Storm!

It's a long way to November however, and the Dems are going to run a dirty campaign like never before. I have great faith in the electorate but that's tempered by the fact that the Liar got elected twice.

[avenir]

"...and a fat agenda that includes 'lifetime savings accounts'--essentially tax-free IRAs with no penalties for withdrawal"

Sounds good to me.

[theFIRMbss]

>What did I leave out?

It's a subtle point,
but I'd include that so-called
"double" taxation

of dividend stuff.
It set a precedent for
ignoring concepts,

and just making laws
that you can get away with
by populism...

[gitmo]

I'm not familiar with this. What is it called (so I can research it)?

[Lando Lincoln]

I'll toast to that as well. My fingers are sure gonna be hurtin' though from being crossed until November!

Lando

[theFIRMbss]

> ...but I'd include that so-called/"double" taxation/of dividend stuff./It set a precedent for/ignoring concepts ...
>>I'm not familiar with this. What is it called (so I can research it)?

The web's full of stuff,
most of it emotional
and political.

To my eyes, the most
rational assessment came
from the left-wing Slate:

"... The chief argument of those who advocate eliminating taxes on dividends is that they are subject to "double taxation." Shareholders pay taxes on dividends at the rate their ordinary income is taxed. And corporations cannot deduct dividends from their taxable income, meaning they pay taxes on them, too. Does that mean that dividends are double taxed? Only if you subscribe to the belief that corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Under this theory, since a company's profits are ultimately distributed to owners and shareholders in some form—dividends, profit sharing, salaries, or capital gains—any tax on corporate income, or any limits on the deductibility of items from taxable income, in effect taxes the same dollar of profits twice. This only makes sense if, like Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, you don't draw a distinction between a corporation and the people who own it. "The corporations and businesses are just an intermediary between the citizens and the government," he said in an interview last year. (The logic of this dogma naturally leads its faithful to advocate abolishing the corporate income tax, as O'Neill does.)

"But the double-taxation argument reflects a flawed understanding of what corporations do and why they are formed. Corporations are distinct entities. They are not merely passive conduits of cash. They are legal beings, chartered by states to perform certain objectives. They possess all sorts of prerogatives, rights, and protections not afforded to individuals. That's why people form corporations, and that's why it is just for corporations to pay taxes on their income. Too frequently, CEOs like O'Neill have failed to differentiate between themselves as individual citizens and the companies they run. (That may explain why Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski and Enron's Kenneth Lay thought there was nothing untoward about using their corporate treasuries as ATM machines.) ..."
[The Dividend Double-Tax Deception, By Daniel Gross, Aug. 8, 2002]

There were lots of threads,
but I remember most as
hand-waving and flames.

If you search around,
you'll find lots of stuff. Taxes
are bad, that's for sure,

but the rhetoric
that got these taxes cut out
was too weird for words.