More on the tax issue ... a C-corp pays taxes at the corporate level, and then dividends are taxed to shareholders at the individual income rates (well, at least this was true before the latest tax cuts, which exempt some dividend income from taxation).
Many people call this "double taxation", and claim it is "unfair". What's funny about this is that usually the same people are the ones who want to working poor to fork over more $$$ to pay for all the government services they receive. Can you see where I'm going with this?
A corporation is a legal entity that, for many legal purposes, is considered a "person". When the gov't spends $400 billion to buy some stealth bombers, build aircraft carriers, or invade Iraq, the Microsofts, GMs, and WalMarts of the nation all enjoy the same benefit from that as you or I ... the protection of the United States government. Same thing on the local level ... whether it's my dope-ass pad or the local WalMart burning down, the fire department will at some point be there to put the fire out. Keep this in mind next time corporate tax cuts get rammed down our throats. Also keep in mind that most of those CEO's will probably be giving themselves big raises the next year, when their bottom-line improves due to the tax cuts.
Most importantly, keep in mind that most people pay about the same percentage of their income in taxes, when you factor in state, local, and other non-income-based federal taxes.
***
Thursday, June 26, 2003
OK, I didn't find exactly what I was looking for, but I found where Bushie is getting his info from, and the stupidity simply fucking amazes me. He's been on this kick for 2 years. Check this out:
President Advocates Tax Cuts During Visit to NEMA Company
http://www.nema.org/publications/ei/mar01/bushvisit.htm
The article states:
"Control Concepts is one of many small NEMA member companies who are incorporated as subchapter S corporations of the Internal Revenue Service Code. As such, they are taxed as individuals rather than corporations. Since individual tax rates are much higher than corporate rates, Bush's plan to lower individual tax rates would result in significant savings that companies like Control Concepts could use for increased investment in their businesses."
Wow. I don't know which is worse, the contempt for the common man that is rampant in this administration, or how many people are willing to be "packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes" and thrown over the cliff. Let me just put this simply -- subchapter S corporations are not taxed at a higher rate than other corporations, because there is no tax at the corporate level. That's the point. It's a pass-through. Traditional (Subchapter "C") corporations are taxed at the corporate level, and earnings paid out are then taxed as income to the recipient.
I've never met a small-business owner who thought his/her S-election was bad thing.
***
President Advocates Tax Cuts During Visit to NEMA Company
http://www.nema.org/publications/ei/mar01/bushvisit.htm
The article states:
"Control Concepts is one of many small NEMA member companies who are incorporated as subchapter S corporations of the Internal Revenue Service Code. As such, they are taxed as individuals rather than corporations. Since individual tax rates are much higher than corporate rates, Bush's plan to lower individual tax rates would result in significant savings that companies like Control Concepts could use for increased investment in their businesses."
Wow. I don't know which is worse, the contempt for the common man that is rampant in this administration, or how many people are willing to be "packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes" and thrown over the cliff. Let me just put this simply -- subchapter S corporations are not taxed at a higher rate than other corporations, because there is no tax at the corporate level. That's the point. It's a pass-through. Traditional (Subchapter "C") corporations are taxed at the corporate level, and earnings paid out are then taxed as income to the recipient.
I've never met a small-business owner who thought his/her S-election was bad thing.
***
OK, I've been slacking, but with so much going on, I've been sufffering from the paralysis of overload. No more! Sit back, here it comes ...
How can Democrats be on the "right" side of nearly every real issue that makes a tangible, positive difference in the lives of the average Joe, yet not control the presidency, the House, or the Senate? Here's the latest from our friends on the other side of the aisle --
8 million may lose OT pay
Bush administration proposal would dramatically alter rules for paying overtime, study says.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/news/economy/epi/index.htm
I won't reprint the entire article, but the last paragraph is worthy
Shortly after the study was released, the national labor organization AFL-CIO said the Labor Department had canceled a union hearing on the issue, scheduled to take place on June 30 in a Labor Department auditorium.
"The fact that Labor hasn't held any public hearings on their proposal to cut overtime pay, and that they have abruptly canceled the union movement's paid reservation to hold a hearing on the issue, is another sign of the administration's refusal to permit debate and dissent," AFL-CIO spokeswoman Kathy Roeder said. "It is a grave disservice to the millions of workers who stand to lose from the overtime proposal."
The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.
I can tell you what the White House comment would be --
REPORTER: Mr. Fleischer, is it true that the administration's proposal will result in the loss of overtime pay for 8 million workers?
ARI: No, what this will do is put more money into the pockets of small business owners, who are burdened with S-corporation taxation rules.
REPORTER: Mr. Fleishcer, about the 8 million ...
ARI: I've already answered that question. Next question?
The scariest part of the administration, from Cheney to Asscroft to Rove, is the refusal to permit debate and dissent. Reminds me of a certain little sexually frustrated Austrian corporal who hit the big-time in the early 30's ...
That little reference above to the S-Corp rules came from a statement Bush made last week lamenting about how the "S" tax rules are unfair, because they tax corporate earnings at the individual tax rates. I had always known W was a little dim, but that statement nearly blew my mind. I heard him say it on CNN, and I've got to find the reprint ...
How can Democrats be on the "right" side of nearly every real issue that makes a tangible, positive difference in the lives of the average Joe, yet not control the presidency, the House, or the Senate? Here's the latest from our friends on the other side of the aisle --
8 million may lose OT pay
Bush administration proposal would dramatically alter rules for paying overtime, study says.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/news/economy/epi/index.htm
I won't reprint the entire article, but the last paragraph is worthy
Shortly after the study was released, the national labor organization AFL-CIO said the Labor Department had canceled a union hearing on the issue, scheduled to take place on June 30 in a Labor Department auditorium.
"The fact that Labor hasn't held any public hearings on their proposal to cut overtime pay, and that they have abruptly canceled the union movement's paid reservation to hold a hearing on the issue, is another sign of the administration's refusal to permit debate and dissent," AFL-CIO spokeswoman Kathy Roeder said. "It is a grave disservice to the millions of workers who stand to lose from the overtime proposal."
The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.
I can tell you what the White House comment would be --
REPORTER: Mr. Fleischer, is it true that the administration's proposal will result in the loss of overtime pay for 8 million workers?
ARI: No, what this will do is put more money into the pockets of small business owners, who are burdened with S-corporation taxation rules.
REPORTER: Mr. Fleishcer, about the 8 million ...
ARI: I've already answered that question. Next question?
The scariest part of the administration, from Cheney to Asscroft to Rove, is the refusal to permit debate and dissent. Reminds me of a certain little sexually frustrated Austrian corporal who hit the big-time in the early 30's ...
That little reference above to the S-Corp rules came from a statement Bush made last week lamenting about how the "S" tax rules are unfair, because they tax corporate earnings at the individual tax rates. I had always known W was a little dim, but that statement nearly blew my mind. I heard him say it on CNN, and I've got to find the reprint ...
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Ann Coulter's new book is "TREASON: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism." I can't wait for her next book after that, which will talk about the "lie" of the Salem Witch Trials and how it's all a big liberal lie designed to generate sympathy for occultists (93% of whom are registered Democrats of course).
Here's a little diddy from Chapter 1: " Jimmy Carter couldn't land a helicopter in a desert, but he seemed to imagine the public was hungry for his counsel in the war on terrorism. Carter is so often maligned for his stupidity, it tends to be forgotten that he is also self-righteous, vengeful, sneaky, and backstabbing."
Aside from the fact that the last sentence in that quotation more aptly fits both Ms. Coulter and her good buddy Tom DeLay, to attack Jimmy Carter because "he couldn't land a helicopter in the desert" makes me almost sick. If I recall, several (nine?) members of the U.S. Special Forces gave their lives in that failed mission. For her to make levity of this fact ... well, I don't even know what to say. Maybe she would have a little more sympathy for those who gave their lives if they had been undertaking a more noble cause, like carpet-bombing the entire Middle East back into the stone age or "invad[ing] their countries, kill[ing] their leaders and convert[ing] them to Christianity." (her words, not mine).
This woman is a true cancer to humanity.
***
Here's a little diddy from Chapter 1: " Jimmy Carter couldn't land a helicopter in a desert, but he seemed to imagine the public was hungry for his counsel in the war on terrorism. Carter is so often maligned for his stupidity, it tends to be forgotten that he is also self-righteous, vengeful, sneaky, and backstabbing."
Aside from the fact that the last sentence in that quotation more aptly fits both Ms. Coulter and her good buddy Tom DeLay, to attack Jimmy Carter because "he couldn't land a helicopter in the desert" makes me almost sick. If I recall, several (nine?) members of the U.S. Special Forces gave their lives in that failed mission. For her to make levity of this fact ... well, I don't even know what to say. Maybe she would have a little more sympathy for those who gave their lives if they had been undertaking a more noble cause, like carpet-bombing the entire Middle East back into the stone age or "invad[ing] their countries, kill[ing] their leaders and convert[ing] them to Christianity." (her words, not mine).
This woman is a true cancer to humanity.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
