Dividend incomes’ tax discount is unjustified.

[Supposn]

I’m opposed to the reduced income tax rates for capital gains and dividend incomes. Both incomes are taxed at highly reduced rates that vary from 0 to a 15% maximum. (Refer to the topic entitled “Capital gains income tax discount is unjustified”).

[I’m also opposed to corporate dividends being paid with post-taxed dollars; corporations should be able to deduct distributed dividends from their taxable incomes and they should withhold a fixed rate of dividends and interest for income taxes.

Taxpayers, non-profits, charities could recover excess tax payments when they file their quarterly or annual income tax returns. An alternative would be granting non-profits a tax-ID similar to those the IRS now recognizes for charities and no taxes would be withheld from distributions to such organizations].

No income taxes are directly levied upon portfolios or mutual funds that are tax deferred. The reduced income tax rates upon dividend incomes or long term capital gains profits derived from stock and bond sales cannot be applied to such tax deferred entities.

Tax deferred entities account for the preponderance of stocks and bonds directly or indirectly owned by all but the very wealthiest segment of our income tax payers’ population.

It’s only the very wealthiest of our income tax payers’ population that in aggregate derive any appreciable benefit from reduced income tax rates applied upon dividend incomes.
The reduced tax rate applied to dividends increases our federal budget deficit which shifts a greater portion of the tax burden upon all other current and future tax payers.

It’s been suggested that if corporations could deduct dividends from their taxable incomes and individuals’ dividend incomes were not taxed at a reduced rate, the result would be a reduction of net federal tax revenue. If this should be true, I contend due to whatever extent we eliminate unjustifiable preferential tax consideration ( in this case for the benefit of an extremely small and the wealthiest segment of USA’s taxpaying population) and citizens’ perceive a more equitable tax code system, the comparatively small reduction of federal revenue is justified.

Respectfully, supposn

[Missileman]

I’m opposed to the reduced income tax rates for capital gains and dividend incomes. Both incomes are taxed at highly reduced rates that vary from 0 to a 15% maximum. (Refer to the topic entitled “Capital gains income tax discount is unjustified”).

[I’m also opposed to corporate dividends being paid with post-taxed dollars; corporations should be able to deduct distributed dividends from their taxable incomes and they should withhold a fixed rate of dividends and interest for income taxes.

Taxpayers, non-profits, charities could recover excess tax payments when they file their quarterly or annual income tax returns. An alternative would be granting non-profits a tax-ID similar to those the IRS now recognizes for charities and no taxes would be withheld from distributions to such organizations].

No income taxes are directly levied upon portfolios or mutual funds that are tax deferred. The reduced income tax rates upon dividend incomes or long term capital gains profits derived from stock and bond sales cannot be applied to such tax deferred entities.

Tax deferred entities account for the preponderance of stocks and bonds directly or indirectly owned by all but the very wealthiest segment of our income tax payers’ population.

It’s only the very wealthiest of our income tax payers’ population that in aggregate derive any appreciable benefit from reduced income tax rates applied upon dividend incomes.
The reduced tax rate applied to dividends increases our federal budget deficit which shifts a greater portion of the tax burden upon all other current and future tax payers.

It’s been suggested that if corporations could deduct dividends from their taxable incomes and individuals’ dividend incomes were not taxed at a reduced rate, the result would be a reduction of net federal tax revenue. If this should be true, I contend due to whatever extent we eliminate unjustifiable preferential tax consideration ( in this case for the benefit of an extremely small and the wealthiest segment of USA’s taxpaying population) and citizens’ perceive a more equitable tax code system, the comparatively small reduction of federal revenue is justified.

Respectfully, supposn

Why don't you start a single thread titled, "I'm opposed to anyone keeping any of their money that I don't think they should be able to keep" and call it a day.

I have to ask...are you scared that the tit you're suckling may dry up?

[Supposn]

Why don't you start a single thread titled, "I'm opposed to anyone keeping any of their money that I don't think they should be able to keep" and call it a day.

I have to ask...are you scared that the tit you're suckling may dry up?

Missleman, this proposal eliminates an unjustified tax benefit that only an extremely small (and usually wealthier) segment of USA’s income tax payers that directly receive dividends.

Other Indirect owners of stocks held by their tax deferred mutual funds receive no benefit from the reduced tax rates applied to their stocks dividends. Under this proposal the dividends are post tax distributions. This reduces the corporations income taxes and thus increases the corporate stocks’ values to ALL, (both direct and indirect) shareholders.

If you can’t fault the message you want to fault the messenger?

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

REMOVE THE UNJUSTIFIED TAX PREMIUM ON INCOME!!! CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS!!! FIGHT THE INJUSTICE!!!

Aaaaaaahhhhh!!!

[Missileman]

Missleman, this proposal eliminates an unjustified tax benefit that only an extremely small (and usually wealthier) segment of USA’s income tax payers that directly receive dividends.

Other Indirect owners of stocks held by their tax deferred mutual funds receive no benefit from the reduced tax rates applied to their stocks dividends. Under this proposal the dividends are post tax distributions. This reduces the corporations income taxes and thus increases the corporate stocks’ values to ALL, (both direct and indirect) shareholders.

If you can’t fault the message you want to fault the messenger?

Respectfully, Supposn

These "wealthier" people already pay a disproportionate amount of the total income tax collected, just exactly how much more do you think should be taken from them and given to you?

[Supposn]

These "wealthier" people already pay a disproportionate amount of the total income tax collected, just exactly how much more do you think should be taken from them and given to you?

Missleman, why do you use the word “You” rather than “us”? If you are a United states citizen or resident, have you benefitted less from that status than all of us or have you so much more sacrificed or given greater service to our nation than all of us? Increasing or decreasing someone else’s taxes does not directly benefit or harm me.

I do not subscribe to the opinion that there’s a divine right of kings or of wealth. All United States residents, visitors and citizens are subject to the laws and regulations as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and regulations. Subject to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Congress and/or our president can modify our regulations, laws or the constitution itself.

Regardless of any displeasure you may feel, that same authority does not prohibit me anyone else from advocating what if any modifications should be legislated.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Missileman]

Missleman, why do you use the word “You” rather than “us”? If you are a United states citizen or resident, have you benefitted less from that status than all of us or have you so much more sacrificed or given greater service to our nation than all of us? Increasing or decreasing someone else’s taxes does not directly benefit or harm me.

I do not subscribe to the opinion that there’s a divine right of kings or of wealth. All United States residents, visitors and citizens are subject to the laws and regulations as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and regulations. Subject to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Congress and/or our president can modify our regulations, laws or the constitution itself.

Regardless of any displeasure you may feel, that same authority does not prohibit me anyone else from advocating what if any modifications should be legislated.

Respectfully, Supposn

I use the word "you" because "you" are the one who post upon post, thread upon thread, continue to advocate the robbery of American citizens. You can't even argue that the proceeds from these robberies will be put to good use. Our current federal government is no steward of the money I work my ass off for that they see fit to deduct from my wages.

So in your opinion, a successful person has limited rights to the fruits of his labor? What line would you draw for the maximum wealth a US citizen can accumulate over which you think the government should forcibly confiscate the rest for the peons?

[Supposn]

....... Subject to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Congress and/or our president can modify our regulations, laws or the constitution itself. ........

Correction: Subject to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Congress and/or our president can modify our regulations, laws, and the U.S. Congress or the states can modify the constitution itself.

[Supposn]

Missleman, the manner of obtaining federal revenues and the distribution of federal revenues are two different issues.

I do not at this time wish to argue with your contention our “current federal government is no steward of the money”. By this I suppose that the current administration is squandering federal revenues. Does your use of the word “current’ indicate that you’re satisfied with the fiscal performance of all prior administrations?

IRS accounting regulations permit corporations to deduct distributions of bond interests from taxable income. I proposed that distribution of dividends be treated in an equal fashion. This reduces the amount of dividend paying corporations’ TAXABLE incomes and thus reduces their corporate taxes. (This by itself would be reductions of federal revenues).

I further advocate that the preferential tax treatment of dividend incomes be discontinued. (This by itself is an increase of federal revenues).

Currently indirect owners of dividend paying stocks within their tax deferred funds gain absolutely no current or future benefit from the reduced tax rates applied to dividends.

On the contrary due to the fact that currently dividend distributions do not reduce corporations’ taxable incomes, corporations’ stockholders now receive lesser dividends per share or the corporation’s net incomes (and thus their values) per share are decreased more than otherwise,

Under these proposals:
All direct and indirect stock holders will benefit from greater dividends or net corporate incomes per share.

Due to progressive income tax rates the higher income owners of a corporation’s stocks not within tax deferred funds will receive somewhat less and those of lesser incomes will receive somewhat more net dividend incomes per share.

ALL direct and indirect owners of stocks within tax deferred funds will receive benefits equal per share to all other stockholders. They now receive no benefit from the current reduced tax rates applied to dividend incomes.

I’m told that this proposal is a net decrease of federal revenue. I strongly doubt if it’s a significant reduction of revenue. The general perception that our tax regulations are greatly inequitable and grant preferential treatment to those of greater wealth is itself detrimental to our nation.

I believe that all existing and proposed laws and regulations should be judged upon their own merits. You attempt to insult me personally and throw the word “robbery” in an anarchist fashion. These are a few specific and related proposals. Are you capable of explicitly critiquing them?

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FIGHT THE INJUSTICE!!!

according to definitions and standards advocated by Supposn.

[Supposn]

...........Under these proposals:
All direct and indirect stock holders will benefit from greater dividends or net corporate incomes per share.

Due to progressive income tax rates the higher income owners of a corporation’s stocks not within tax deferred funds will receive somewhat less and those of lesser incomes will receive somewhat more net dividend incomes per share.

ALL direct and indirect owners of stocks within tax deferred funds will receive benefits equal per share to all other stockholders. They now receive no benefit from the current reduced tax rates applied to dividend incomes.

Correction:
Due to these proposed changes of IRS regulations; [i.e. corporations be permitted to reduce their taxable incomes by the amounts of their dividend distributions and individuals’ dividend incomes be treated as regular taxable incomes]:

No corporations or shareholders will suffer any net loss but some shareholders and ALL direct and indirect owners of dividend paying shares within tax deferred funds will benefit due to these changes.

(The great preponderance of corporate stock owned by middle income taxpayers are within tax deferred funds).

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

No corporations or shareholders will suffer any net loss but some shareholders and ALL direct and indirect owners of dividend paying shares within tax deferred funds will benefit due to these changes.

No they won't. You just changed to cost of paying future cash flows to an investor; that decreases the present value of that dividend paying asset.

[Supposn]

No they won't. You just changed to cost of paying future cash flows to an investor; that decreases the present value of that dividend paying asset.

FJ1200, I don’t know what you meant to communicate when you wrote “You just changed to cost of paying future cash flows to an investor”.

Am I to suppose that by “cash flows to investors” you’re referring to dividends? If that’s the case, who’s “cost” are you referring to?

By “that dividend paying asset” I suppose you’re referring to a common share of a non S type corporation that distributes dividends.

If you’re asserting that adopting the proposals I wrote of would reduce the values of non S type corporations’ common stock shares more than otherwise, you are absolutely incorrect.

I expect you to refute this and I expect as usual you will not be able to provide logical and credible arguments to sustain your position.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, I don’t know what you meant to communicate when you wrote “You just changed to cost of paying future cash flows to an investor”.

Am I to suppose that by “cash flows to investors” you’re referring to dividends? If that’s the case, who’s “cost” are you referring to?

By “that dividend paying asset” I suppose you’re referring to a common share of a non S type corporation that distributes dividends.

If you’re asserting that adopting the proposals I wrote of would reduce the values of non S type corporations’ common stock shares more than otherwise, you are absolutely incorrect.

:laugh: If you don't understand what I'm saying above then you have no business saying that I'm incorrect.


I expect you to refute this and I expect as usual you will not be able to provide logical and credible arguments to sustain your position.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I have provided far more "logical and credible arguments" to sustain my positions in your threads than you have even attempted.

[Missileman]

Missleman, the manner of obtaining federal revenues and the distribution of federal revenues are two different issues.

I do not at this time wish to argue with your contention our “current federal government is no steward of the money”. By this I suppose that the current administration is squandering federal revenues. Does your use of the word “current’ indicate that you’re satisfied with the fiscal performance of all prior administrations?

IRS accounting regulations permit corporations to deduct distributions of bond interests from taxable income. I proposed that distribution of dividends be treated in an equal fashion. This reduces the amount of dividend paying corporations’ TAXABLE incomes and thus reduces their corporate taxes. (This by itself would be reductions of federal revenues).

I further advocate that the preferential tax treatment of dividend incomes be discontinued. (This by itself is an increase of federal revenues).

Currently indirect owners of dividend paying stocks within their tax deferred funds gain absolutely no current or future benefit from the reduced tax rates applied to dividends.

On the contrary due to the fact that currently dividend distributions do not reduce corporations’ taxable incomes, corporations’ stockholders now receive lesser dividends per share or the corporation’s net incomes (and thus their values) per share are decreased more than otherwise,

Under these proposals:
All direct and indirect stock holders will benefit from greater dividends or net corporate incomes per share.

Due to progressive income tax rates the higher income owners of a corporation’s stocks not within tax deferred funds will receive somewhat less and those of lesser incomes will receive somewhat more net dividend incomes per share.

ALL direct and indirect owners of stocks within tax deferred funds will receive benefits equal per share to all other stockholders. They now receive no benefit from the current reduced tax rates applied to dividend incomes.

I’m told that this proposal is a net decrease of federal revenue. I strongly doubt if it’s a significant reduction of revenue. The general perception that our tax regulations are greatly inequitable and grant preferential treatment to those of greater wealth is itself detrimental to our nation.

I believe that all existing and proposed laws and regulations should be judged upon their own merits. You attempt to insult me personally and throw the word “robbery” in an anarchist fashion. These are a few specific and related proposals. Are you capable of explicitly critiquing them?

Respectfully, Supposn

Why didn't you just answer my question amd draw a line? You obviously don't think a wealthy person is entitled to everything they make. Taking something that doesn't belong to you, whether by the force of law or the force of a gun is still robbery.

[Supposn]

Why didn't you just answer my question amd draw a line? You obviously don't think a wealthy person is entitled to everything they make. Taking something that doesn't belong to you, whether by the force of law or the force of a gun is still robbery.

Missleman, I am not opposed to those you describe as “wealthy people” and I do not believe anyone is entitled to everything.

We all have responsibilities and are required to make some sacrifices. I am not entitled to keep all I make and “wealthy people” should not be so entitled.

You believe the contributions of our nation’s wealthy are vastly greater than that of us lesser earners. The parents, spouses and children of those who lost their lives in defense of our nation are likely in aggregate to believe otherwise. There are many different methods to contribute or sacrifice on behalf of our nation.

I understand that some believe the “wealthy” are being overcompensated; comparatively much fewer people believe the wealthy are being compensated at exactly the “correct” levels; you apparently are among those that believe they are being undercompensated.

I regret that reading a 401 word message of explanation challenged your patience. You can ask your mommy or grandchild to read this 285 word message aloud. If you drink some warm milk before they read, you’ll fall asleep sooner.

What I don’t understand is why you’re opposed to reducing the taxes of “C’ corporations that distribute dividends? That along with eliminating preferential treatment of dividend incomes would not reduce the net income of any stockholder but it would be to the financial benefit of some direct or indirect owners of dividend paying corporate stocks. It would be to the benefit of some who own those stocks directly or through non tax deferred funds and all those who directly or indirectly own such shares within tax deferred funds.

Missleman, why are you opposed to the financial interests of such corporations and their shareholders?

Respectfully, Supposn

[LuvRPgrl]

Your supposistion garnishes upon the people the ability to vote different tax rates upon different citizens, (which in & of itself is unconstitutional according to the way it is interpeted these days, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW)
would actually require a well informed public to make it anywhere near fair, or a congress that actually will try to make it fair, of which both are impossible.
The complexity of what you illustrated in your starting post proves that the electrate would have to make uninformed decisions as it is not possible, nor would it ever occur, that the masses educate themselves on such a complex issue as dividends and income taxes.


I’m opposed to the reduced income tax rates for capital gains and dividend incomes. Both incomes are taxed at highly reduced rates that vary from 0 to a 15% maximum. (Refer to the topic entitled “Capital gains income tax discount is unjustified”).

[I’m also opposed to corporate dividends being paid with post-taxed dollars; corporations should be able to deduct distributed dividends from their taxable incomes and they should withhold a fixed rate of dividends and interest for income taxes.

Taxpayers, non-profits, charities could recover excess tax payments when they file their quarterly or annual income tax returns. An alternative would be granting non-profits a tax-ID similar to those the IRS now recognizes for charities and no taxes would be withheld from distributions to such organizations].

No income taxes are directly levied upon portfolios or mutual funds that are tax deferred. The reduced income tax rates upon dividend incomes or long term capital gains profits derived from stock and bond sales cannot be applied to such tax deferred entities.

Tax deferred entities account for the preponderance of stocks and bonds directly or indirectly owned by all but the very wealthiest segment of our income tax payers’ population.

It’s only the very wealthiest of our income tax payers’ population that in aggregate derive any appreciable benefit from reduced income tax rates applied upon dividend incomes.
The reduced tax rate applied to dividends increases our federal budget deficit which shifts a greater portion of the tax burden upon all other current and future tax payers.

It’s been suggested that if corporations could deduct dividends from their taxable incomes and individuals’ dividend incomes were not taxed at a reduced rate, the result would be a reduction of net federal tax revenue. If this should be true, I contend due to whatever extent we eliminate unjustifiable preferential tax consideration ( in this case for the benefit of an extremely small and the wealthiest segment of USA’s taxpaying population) and citizens’ perceive a more equitable tax code system, the comparatively small reduction of federal revenue is justified.

Respectfully, supposn

[Supposn]

Your supposistion garnishes upon the people the ability to vote different tax rates upon different citizens, (which in & of itself is unconstitutional according to the way it is interpeted these days, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW)
would actually require a well informed public to make it anywhere near fair, or a congress that actually will try to make it fair, of which both are impossible.
The complexity of what you illustrated in your starting post proves that the electrate would have to make uninformed decisions as it is not possible, nor would it ever occur, that the masses educate themselves on such a complex issue as dividends and income taxes.

LuvRPgrl, Your message confuses me.

Current tax regulations differ between sources of incomes. I’m opposed to the reduced tax rate for dividend incomes. I contend that income is income and should all be taxed as regular incomes. This (by itself) would be increases of individuals’ dividend incomes.

Current regulations differ between distribution of corporate interest which is a normal business expense reducing corporations’ taxable income and dividend distributions which does not reduce corporations’ taxable incomes. I contend that they are both legitimate expenses and they both should reduce corporations’ taxable incomes. This (by itself) reduces corporations’ taxable incomes by the amounts of their dividend distributions.

The comparative net result of enacting both of these proposals would:
Not increase the net taxes of any corporation or individual.
Not decrease the value of any corporate stock.
Reduce taxes of ordinary corporations paying dividends.
Reduces taxes of some individuals’ dividend incomes not within tax deferred portfolios or mutual funds.
Increase the values of tax deferred portfolios and mutual funds containing shares of dividend paying ordinary corporation common stocks.

Respectfully, Supposn

[LuvRPgrl]

LuvRPgrl, Your message confuses me.
Respectfully, Supposn

As do the current income tax laws
that only the bravest of souls
would venture into trying to understand them,
& only the most confident of persons
whom actually think they can

[fj1200]

I’m opposed to the reduced tax rate for dividend incomes.

Why have you not joined me in the call to eliminate the tax premium on income? My thread awaits.

[Supposn]

As do the current income tax laws
that only the bravest of souls
would venture into trying to understand them,
& only the most confident of persons
whom actually think they can

LuvRPgrl, you flatter me. Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

LuvRPgrl, you flatter me. Respectfully, Supposn

He didn't say smartest or wisest. ;)

[Supposn]

Why have you not joined me in the call to eliminate the tax premium on income? My thread awaits.

FJ1200, I posted on your thread. What’s an “income tax premium”?

Respectfully, Supposn

[Missileman]

Missleman, I am not opposed to those you describe as “wealthy people” and I do not believe anyone is entitled to everything.

We all have responsibilities and are required to make some sacrifices. I am not entitled to keep all I make and “wealthy people” should not be so entitled.

You believe the contributions of our nation’s wealthy are vastly greater than that of us lesser earners. The parents, spouses and children of those who lost their lives in defense of our nation are likely in aggregate to believe otherwise. There are many different methods to contribute or sacrifice on behalf of our nation.

I understand that some believe the “wealthy” are being overcompensated; comparatively much fewer people believe the wealthy are being compensated at exactly the “correct” levels; you apparently are among those that believe they are being undercompensated.

I regret that reading a 401 word message of explanation challenged your patience. You can ask your mommy or grandchild to read this 285 word message aloud. If you drink some warm milk before they read, you’ll fall asleep sooner.

What I don’t understand is why you’re opposed to reducing the taxes of “C’ corporations that distribute dividends? That along with eliminating preferential treatment of dividend incomes would not reduce the net income of any stockholder but it would be to the financial benefit of some direct or indirect owners of dividend paying corporate stocks. It would be to the benefit of some who own those stocks directly or through non tax deferred funds and all those who directly or indirectly own such shares within tax deferred funds.

Missleman, why are you opposed to the financial interests of such corporations and their shareholders?

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, you dodge the question. Put a figure to the amount of money over which the government should confiscate 100% for the purpose of redistribution. You keep arguing that the wealthy are being allowed to keep too much of their money, but as yet don't have the guts to really clarify exactly how much is too much.

[Supposn]

Missleman, ......... What I don’t understand is why you’re opposed to reducing the taxes of “C’ corporations that distribute dividends? That along with eliminating preferential treatment of dividend incomes would not reduce the net income of any stockholder but it would be to the financial benefit of some direct or indirect owners of dividend paying corporate stocks. It would be to the benefit of some who own those stocks directly or through non tax deferred funds and all those who directly or indirectly own such shares within tax deferred funds.

Missleman, why are you opposed to the financial interests of such corporations and their shareholders?

Respectfully, Supposn


Again, you dodge the question. Put a figure to the amount of money over which the government should confiscate 100% for the purpose of redistribution. You keep arguing that the wealthy are being allowed to keep too much of their money, but as yet don't have the guts to really clarify exactly how much is too much.

Missleman, you're asking me to elaborate upon what I didn’t advocate?

I’m opposed to unjustifiable classifications of income sources, or tax payers’ occupations that contribute to our tax systems’ inequities.

Your last message quoted my question. You quote and ignore? Missleman, you’re unable to explain your opposition to these particular net tax reductions?

Respectfully, Supposn