3 ms·

"Double tax" is a phrase that needs to die in a fire due to it's preposterously disingenuous use. I work, I get paid, my money is taxed. I buy a chocolate bar,

by Marazan 12y ago

"Double tax" is a phrase that needs to die in a fire due to it's preposterously disingenuous use. I work, I get paid, my money is taxed. I buy a chocolate bar, the sale is taxed The money that is spent on the chocolate bar goes in part to the shop who makes a profit (that is taxed) and to the company that made the chocolate bar who make a profit (that is taxed). The company pays the worker that made the chocolate bar (that is taxed) Etc, etc, etc. Transaction are always being taxed - that's how the tax system works.

loumf 12y ago
Also, in this case, it isn't double-taxed. The heirs never paid tax on it. It's very likely that estates of that size have tax-deferred parts or insurance. Finally, there are many incorrect statements in the description of the estate tax above that would probably lead you to believe that you have to pay 40% of 5.3m, which is not true 1. You get deductions (like outstanding mortgages and medical bills) 2. You pay the tax on the net OVER 5.3m. So, in the case described above, the estate tax would be $0.
paulhauggis 12y ago
I'm fine with not using the "double tax" phrase, as long as all taxes are included in tax arguments. I have heard here on HN that Denmark and Sweden don't have taxes that are that high..while not including all of the small taxes that you pay on a daily basis..deflating the actual tax rate to make it seem better. Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  > Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government. That's still a tax on the workers' wages, not a tax on the company. If we shifted all income tax into a payroll tax, then by your definition workers aren't taxed at all? Anything that increases the cost of employing a worker will reduce the marginal net benefit of employing that worker, which will result in either lower salaries, fewer employees or both.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air. My point is that they are providing the income that is taxed and used by the government.
    - aidenn0 12y ago
      By that definition companies are very nearly the sole source of all taxes: Capital Gains? The company increased its value. Dividends? Comes out of earned revenue. Sales Tax? Comes out of sales by the company.
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      > The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air. Tell that to Twitter employees

by Marazan 12y ago

loumf 12y ago

Also, in this case, it isn't double-taxed. The heirs never paid tax on it. It's very likely that estates of that size have tax-deferred parts or insurance. Finally, there are many incorrect statements in the description of the estate tax above that would probably lead you to believe that you have to pay 40% of 5.3m, which is not true 1. You get deductions (like outstanding mortgages and medical bills) 2. You pay the tax on the net OVER 5.3m. So, in the case described above, the estate tax would be $0.

paulhauggis 12y ago

I'm fine with not using the "double tax" phrase, as long as all taxes are included in tax arguments. I have heard here on HN that Denmark and Sweden don't have taxes that are that high..while not including all of the small taxes that you pay on a daily basis..deflating the actual tax rate to make it seem better. Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government.

aidenn0 12y ago
> Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government. That's still a tax on the workers' wages, not a tax on the company. If we shifted all income tax into a payroll tax, then by your definition workers aren't taxed at all? Anything that increases the cost of employing a worker will reduce the marginal net benefit of employing that worker, which will result in either lower salaries, fewer employees or both.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air. My point is that they are providing the income that is taxed and used by the government.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    By that definition companies are very nearly the sole source of all taxes: Capital Gains? The company increased its value. Dividends? Comes out of earned revenue. Sales Tax? Comes out of sales by the company.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    > The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air. Tell that to Twitter employees