3 ms·

> It is time to make dividends, rather than capital gains, tax advantaged. So this is another example of the US being unable to find solutions to problems only

by cletus 7y ago

> It is time to make dividends, rather than capital gains, tax advantaged. So this is another example of the US being unable to find solutions to problems only it has. This came up with the whole passthrough preferential treatment. The argument for it was that dividends were essentially double-taxed. So you end up creating a whole new set of complexity (eg what qualifies for it) when the solution is remarkable simple. In Australia, dividends issued by companies come with franking credits. That means you get credit for any taxes already paid. The vast majority of dividends are fully-franked, meaning all funds have paid the 30% tax rate. Much less common are unfranked (no taxes paid) or partially-franked. To give you an example. Say a company makes a profit of $10,000 and wants to pay it as a dividend. It pays 30% tax on it ($3000) and disburses $7000. Alice owns 10% of the company so she receives $700 (10% of $7000, being $10000 - the $3000 tax) and $300 in franking credits. If Alice's marginal tax rate is 30% she has paid all her taxes. If it's 40% then she owes 40% x $1000 = $400 - $300 in franking credits = $100 in extra taxes. If her marginal tax rate is 15% she gets a refund ($1000 x 15% = $150 is her liability so her refund is $300 - $150 = $150). So no double taxation and all the recipients pay their marginal rates of tax on the income. Easy. This is also a far cleaner way to deal with foreign withholding taxes. Let's say the dividend recipient is a foreign corporation, should they pay taxes on the income? Well, they already have. it's a policy decision as to whether they should get the taxes back or not. But again, it's handled by that system without having to create a foreign withholding taxes regime. > Capital gains should be taxed at windfall rates, say income + 10%. Yeah so you lose me here. I don't see the justification for this. Investment is typically in already-taxed dollars.

alasdair_ 7y ago
>Investment is typically in already-taxed dollars. A huge portion of investment in publicly-traded companies comes from funds like pension funds which don't use after-tax dollars.
majormajor 7y ago
Neither "double-taxed" nor "already-taxed" make sense to me as phrases. From the "regular person" side of the world - dividends vs capital gains vs estate tax, how I would've loved to have such problems for most of my life - I've always seen it as transactions that are taxed, not dollars. I pay income tax. I pay sales tax. That's about it (property tax would be something entirely different, but requires owning real property), but how is it not "double tax" by the same logic? Why all this consternation about "double taxing" in certain investment circles, but not around sales tax? Just because it matters less to the super-wealthy?
- nemothekid 7y ago
  >"but how is it not "double tax" by the same logic?" It's not really the same logic. If I own 100% of the shares of company A, and I make a profit of $100, I have to pay a tax on that profit. Now I have $75. Now I want to use that money to buy an XBox, so I move that money from my company account to my bank account (again, I own the company, the money is already mine), but I have to pay another "income" tax. This is the "double" tax, there is no "transaction". But lets ignore that, if you could avoid sales tax, wouldn't you? This is how shopping online worked pretty much up until 2016. IMO, we should just get rid of the corporate tax and simply tax cap gains and dividends more. It would solve the issue of corporations parking money in Ireland and loading up on debt domestically.
  - majormajor 7y ago
    The single-100%-owner scenario seems like a meaningfully different case here. But: no, I wouldn't lobby that I should be exempt from sales tax just becaues it's "double taxation." I certainly don't think tax is something to always be avoided when possible, I think it's a tool of government, and that eliminating variou taxes is rarely discussed for truly useful reasons vs just individual selfishness. (On that note: if I were going to argue against sales tax it would be on grounds of regressiveness. It's not something that has much of a noticable impact on my own lifestyle, though.)
    - nemothekid 7y ago
      >The single-100%-owner scenario seems like a meaningfully different case here. It's not. The way public companies were designed to work, in theory, is the "owners" get a proportional slice of the profits of the company. That's what a dividend is. I simply described the simplest scenario - if it feels wrong to you, you should consider why that is so. >But: no, I wouldn't lobby that I should be exempt from sales tax just because it's "double taxation." I agree here, but in the case of the corporate tax, I think it should be eliminated because it just incentives companies to game the tax system and creates these awful headlines where "LARGE COMPANY PAID $0 IN TAXES" which is almost never accurate.
  - 7y ago
vearwhershuh 7y ago
> Yeah so you lose me here. I don't see the justification for this. Investment is typically in already-taxed dollars. You pay taxes on the gains over the initial investment. Why would where the money came from matter?

by cletus 7y ago

alasdair_ 7y ago

>Investment is typically in already-taxed dollars. A huge portion of investment in publicly-traded companies comes from funds like pension funds which don't use after-tax dollars.

majormajor 7y ago

Neither "double-taxed" nor "already-taxed" make sense to me as phrases. From the "regular person" side of the world - dividends vs capital gains vs estate tax, how I would've loved to have such problems for most of my life - I've always seen it as transactions that are taxed, not dollars. I pay income tax. I pay sales tax. That's about it (property tax would be something entirely different, but requires owning real property), but how is it not "double tax" by the same logic? Why all this consternation about "double taxing" in certain investment circles, but not around sales tax? Just because it matters less to the super-wealthy?

nemothekid 7y ago
>"but how is it not "double tax" by the same logic?" It's not really the same logic. If I own 100% of the shares of company A, and I make a profit of $100, I have to pay a tax on that profit. Now I have $75. Now I want to use that money to buy an XBox, so I move that money from my company account to my bank account (again, I own the company, the money is already mine), but I have to pay another "income" tax. This is the "double" tax, there is no "transaction". But lets ignore that, if you could avoid sales tax, wouldn't you? This is how shopping online worked pretty much up until 2016. IMO, we should just get rid of the corporate tax and simply tax cap gains and dividends more. It would solve the issue of corporations parking money in Ireland and loading up on debt domestically.
- majormajor 7y ago
  The single-100%-owner scenario seems like a meaningfully different case here. But: no, I wouldn't lobby that I should be exempt from sales tax just becaues it's "double taxation." I certainly don't think tax is something to always be avoided when possible, I think it's a tool of government, and that eliminating variou taxes is rarely discussed for truly useful reasons vs just individual selfishness. (On that note: if I were going to argue against sales tax it would be on grounds of regressiveness. It's not something that has much of a noticable impact on my own lifestyle, though.)
  - nemothekid 7y ago
    >The single-100%-owner scenario seems like a meaningfully different case here. It's not. The way public companies were designed to work, in theory, is the "owners" get a proportional slice of the profits of the company. That's what a dividend is. I simply described the simplest scenario - if it feels wrong to you, you should consider why that is so. >But: no, I wouldn't lobby that I should be exempt from sales tax just because it's "double taxation." I agree here, but in the case of the corporate tax, I think it should be eliminated because it just incentives companies to game the tax system and creates these awful headlines where "LARGE COMPANY PAID $0 IN TAXES" which is almost never accurate.
- 7y ago

vearwhershuh 7y ago

> Yeah so you lose me here. I don't see the justification for this. Investment is typically in already-taxed dollars. You pay taxes on the gains over the initial investment. Why would where the money came from matter?