Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal taxes lowest since 1950 (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They aren't hiding it.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    .. the shareholders see it in capital gains, and dividends,, and then THEY pay the taxes.

    •  Confirmed (0+ / 0-)


      In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. - Shunryu Suzuki

      by thenekkidtruth on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:18:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  they pay a very LOW rate of taxes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      on their capital gains. Lower than Joe Blow pays on his shit job at the local fast food place.

      Because, ya know, the idle rich are BETTER than the rest of us.


      •  They pay low rates.. (0+ / 0-)

        .. on capital gains, because taxing that money as though it were income reduces the upside of puting money at risk, compared to the downside. And justifiably, money LOST in capital investment is fraction of the deduction it would be, if it were treated like income. If capital gains were taxed like income.. nobody invest in anything but CDs.. And companies would have a huge incentive to NOT grow the company's value.

        •  it IS income (0+ / 0-)

          They live off it, and use it to buy yachts and Lear jets.

          And like I said before, if the rich fucks don't want to invest, let them take their marbles, go home and sulk.  (shrug)  

          •  Never said it wasn't income.. (0+ / 0-)

            .. it's capital gains income..

            If the investors take their marbles and go home.. the economy screeches to a hault. Those investemnts make up the bulk of any company publicly traded. Take away the traders, and it goes away.. inculding all those jobs and tax revenues (wink)

            •  if it's income, it gets taxed like income (0+ / 0-)

              and if the investors all go home, we take over from them. We don't need them anyway. They perform no useful function.

              Of course, I assume you understand that "owners" and "managers" are two entirely different things. See, the CEOs of a corporation are not the owners--they are paid by the owners to manage the company so the actual owners don't have to get their own hands dirty doing it.  They are just hired help, no different than the janitor--a little more highly paid perhaps, but still nothing more than an employee.

              The owners of the corporation--the stockholders--do absolutely nothing to run the company. They just hire some schmuck to run it for them.

              And if the stockholders can elect a board of directors to hire the management team, so can we. Nothing at all changes in the company--except that the absentee owners don't get dividend checks anymore.

              •  Exactly what is it that you'd take over ? (0+ / 0-)

                If the shareholders liquidate, there's nothing left. You'd have to go out and raise capital (oops they're gone), secure lines of credit, build and maintain infra-structure...  you can't just assume ownersip and go on about your business..

                •  the voting shares (0+ / 0-)

                  Right now, corporate management is elected, but by a small subset of the population.

                  The only change we have to make is to elect them by a larger population.  For large multinational corporations, I'd let every US citizen hold an equal share of stock, and we elect corporate CEOs just like we elect sheriffs, governors and Senators.  For smaller corporations, I'd be happy giving all the employees an equal voting share.

                  The way I see it is this: the very definition of "democracy" is "those who make the decisions that effect people's lives are elected by and responsible to the people whose lives are effected".  Corporate stockowners have huge economic organizations that are more powerful and have more direct effect on people's lives than any government does--yet they are utterly unelected and completely non-responsible to the people whose lives they affect. And further, they don't even follow the basic democratic principle of "one person, one vote"---literally, one person with more "shares" than anyone else, can control an entire megacorporation all by himself. They are, fundamentally, undemocratic.

                  So I would make them democratic.

                  •  Good luck finding/keeping investors.. (0+ / 0-)

                    .. when the workers in a company can control what happens to their investment.

                    Comapnies are not democracies.. people choose to join their work-force, and can choose not to..

                    •  the workers ARE the investors (0+ / 0-)

                      We don't need the absentee owners.  We can hire a professional management team just like they can. Heck, it could even be the very same team.

                      BTW, Fortune 500 companies don't need investors to raise capital.  

                      Comapnies are not democracies

                      But they are----the people who run the corporations got their jobs by being ELECTED.

                      I simply want to expand the pool of people who elect them.

                      And of course, they SHOULD be democracies.  Anyone who has the power over people's lives that the corporations do, should be democratic. They are larger, richer and more powerful than governments--so they should be under democratic control, just like governments.  Heck, in many ways, they ARE governments.

                      As for the owner's right to undemocratically control people's lives, I have no more respect for that "right" than I do for the divine right of kings. (shrug)

    •  Dividends are paid from after-tax income (0+ / 0-)

      and capital gains have nothing to do with corporate income taxes at all.

      Yes, shareholders will pay taxes on those items. But what thenekkidtruth was saying is that the corporate taxes collected by the IRS represent only 3% of "true" corporate profits, while if you calculate based on the profits that the corporations report to the IRS, it's 26%...the implication being that the corporations had somehow shielded a large amount of profit (~$8T) from taxation.  Dividends and capital gains would not explain it.

      •  Unless they're literally using illegal.. (0+ / 0-)

        ..accounting methods. That money goes somewhere. And one way or another, it will be reflected in stock value, eventually,,, whether ir be capital on hand, warehouse stock, repaid bonds, capital improvement, comapny expansion...  All of that effects share-value.. hence capital gain tax for shareholders.. and of course some of it is sat on, for strategic (I'm sure you've heard this term), "Profit Taking", and that ends up in dividends.

        •  Illegal accounting (0+ / 0-)

          might get you a few $ billion.  But $8T across 1.3 million corporations? That implies that they're hiding nearly half their revenue.  Sorry, unless I see that "corporations only pay 3%" claim backed up by a reputable source, I'm not buying it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site