Posted on 04/18/2003 1:50:24 PM PDT by zechariah
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:02:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
For President Bush to succeed in getting $550 billion out of Congress for his tax-cutting growth package, he should be making better arguments for its centerpiece: ending the double-taxation of corporate dividends. If he gets only the $350 billion being offered grudgingly by the Senate, there will likely be no room at all for this desperately needed cut in the taxation of capital.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ping to the (un)usual suspects.
Richard W.
Dividends paid should be counted as a legitimate business expense for companies and thus become untaxed on that side. Individuals should then count it as income and pay taxes on it. That way it is only taxed once and money in 401Ks and IRAs will be treated the same as money outside of deferred tax accounts. Otherwise, money in IRAs and 401Ks will continue to be double taxed.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.
~ Abraham Lincoln
Now we wonder why our savings rate is the lowest in the developed world. Until we get an economist that understands the basics of capital formation to head up the Federal Reserve, the country is going to suffer. For that matter, until we shed the Federal Reserve, the country will suffer.
If dividends are not taxable for the individual, the dividend will be taxed once at the corporate level if the stockis held outside an IRA. If it is held in an IRA it will be taxed at the corporate level and again on withdrawal from the IRA.
If my suggestion is done, the part of the profits distributed are not taxable at the corporate level. They are taxed immediately for a person who holds the stock outside an IRA, and upon withdrawal for a person who holds it inside an IRA.
Right now it is taxed twice (bad). If my suggestion is put into place it will be taxed once for everyone, regardless of the type of account it is held in (better). If the President's plan is put into place, it will be taxed once if held outside an IRA, twice if held inside an IRA (better than now, but not as good as my plan).
I also like the putting borrowed money/interest paid (deductible) on the same tax status as invested money/dividend paid.
Now, whether retained corporate profits should no longer be taxed is a point which can be argued.
(Whenever I said IRA read it as IRA,401k,403b,SEP,etc.)
Richard W.
Far different is the nature of work that is hired out to others and expended on the property of others. To this indeed especially applies what Leo XIII says is "incontestible," namely, that "the wealth of nations originates from no other source than from the labor of workers..."
This order consists in this: that each thing have its proper owner. Hence it follows that unless a man is expending labor on his own property, the labor of one person and the property of another must be associated, for neither can produce anything without the other. Leo XIII certainly had this in mind when he wrote: "Neither capital can do without labor, nor labor without capital." Wherefore it is wholly false to ascribe to property alone or to labor alone whatever has been obtained through the combined effort of both, and it is wholly unjust for either, denying the efficacy of the other, to arrogate to itself whatever has been produced.
~His Holiness Pope Pius XI,
Quadragesimo Anno - Reconstruction of the Social Order
May 15, 1931
Agreed, capital is the fruit of labor.
Folks picking on Bush because he isn't standing up for something he obviously places high priority on.
When are they going to learn. Bush sets forth what the rules are, what matters, then he waits for the opposition to move, and uses their momentum to pin them to the mat.
They keep lunging at him, everytime. So long as they keep hating Bush, he will keep making fools of them.
At the same time, he still wins, bigtime.
It's a DemoRat fallacy that it was the economy stupid that took down Bush Senior. Yeah, that might have been the final couple percent, but mostly, at the time (except for some, not me, who had already figured Klintoon+Hitlery for what they really were - a marriage of Al Capone and Karla Marx) Clinton seemed to many people like the better candidate, better person (yeah, I'm a slow judge of character, ...). Bush Senior seemed more like a rather boring beuracrat. Clinton seemed more charismatic, more in touch with high tech, more caring and more intelligent.
W is not of the same temperment as his Dad. He will be unstoppable in this upcoming election. Even as the economy is digging its own grave in the back fourty.
W also had the benefit of a front row seat on his dad's loss -- he will not repeat that mistake.
Anyhow, given how poorly I judged Clinton at first, you'd best not be putting much stock in my predictions.
But our reporter friend Jude perhaps hasn't quite caught on to Bush's rhythm yet - the taunt, the hesitation, the kill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.