Talk:Double taxation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merging? Cross referencing?
We have:
Double Taxation United States tax reform Dividend tax
That have common elements. US Tax Ref seems pretty sparce as well. What are the merits of keeping these separate?
- None as it stands, because an article on international taxation has become bogged down in the a political squabble that only applies to one country. See #US usage below.
[edit] NPOV claim
Is a loaded term. It completely mischaracterizes dividend payments as if they are a rare instance of the same "money" being taxed when it changes hands. To highlight this as "double tax" but not apply the term to sales taxes, employee/employer wage income tax, & inheiretance tax, is a political ploy. The phrase itself was coined to be loaded, almost rhetorical, but not properly applied. Simply using the term without the qualification that is it a misleading phrase makes this whole article NPOV. (please have the discussion regarding this in the Dividend tax --Duemellon 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that "double taxation" is a loaded term and believe it should be described as such in this entry. Corporations are separate legal entities, and should therefore be taxed. Incorporation is not required of businesses; businesses incorporate to acquire certain benefits, of which the most important is financial protection for the owner's assets. (These benefits can cost the government money, such as when a corporation files for bankruptcy.)--OrbSpider 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe, but this is not the article to do it. And remember, no original research. --Red King 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Without the inclusion of how this is a loaded term this article is POV. It is not original research as it is clearly a misuse of the term. Besides, doesn't every article in Wikipedia have to be original research in some way? otherwise it's plagurism? (added NPOV tag) --Duemellon 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] US usage
The US usage is a unique political term that has not standing in international taxation practice. To avoid further confusion (and accepting the argument about about too many articles covering the same thing), I have deleted the US-specific material. I leave it to others too see how best to move it into the Dividend tax article. --Red King 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the deleted material to transfer to Dividend tax:
appreciated & appropriate. Good thinking & thanks. --Duemellon 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Double Taxation terminology
The term "double taxation" is a loaded term. It mischaracterizes the taxation on dividends as being duplicitous as if there was one transaction involved in the payment of dividends. In fact, there are two transactions taking place: The company receives its profits; and the company pays dividends based on those profits.
[edit] Corporation Dividend Tax
Typically, a corporation pays income taxes on its profits, and may decide to issue a portion of those proceeds as dividends to its shareholders. The money is taxed at the corporate level as its income. When it is paid to shareholders (a distinctly different entity) as dividends, it is taxed as income for that individual. This is referred to as the dividend tax. (On the other hand, a partnership is not itself taxed, but partners pay personal income tax on their share of net earnings at the end of the year, whether or not those earnings are distributed).
Opponents to the dividend tax refer to it as a "double taxation" while those who want to maintain the income tax for individuals who receive dividends avoid using that terminology due to its connotation.
In Australia the income tax on dividends is avoided by the use of a dividend imputation system.
[edit] Supporters of maintaining the dividend tax
Some arguments for maintaining the dividend tax are that it has two distinct transactions, payments received by the company and the voluntary payment of the company to its shareholders.
With the elmination of the dividend tax there is an opportunity for wealthy investors to never pay any form of income tax therefore eliminating a good portion of tax revenue while encouraging heavy investment in stocks.
[edit] USA
In 2003, President Bush lobbied to repeal the dividend tax calling it "double taxation". A compromise with Congress resulted in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which taxes most Americans at the 15% level, and low-income Americans at the 5% level.
[edit] Double taxation (US usage)
It would be bias to call the US usage, a "misapplication" or a "loaded term." It is probably accepted by most Americans and in ways it is accurate. The same asset is taxed twice. That is technically correct. The US usage is ambiguous as to the remedy though. Even Democratic presidental candidate, John Kerry, believed that this double taxation should be eliminated, though he believed it should be eliminated from the corporate side, not the shareholder side. unsigned by 12:39, August 1, 2006 69.86.10.22
- Simple solution is to remove the "loaded term" description. --Red King 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Along with it being accepted by most 'mericans to mean this, it does not mean the word itself isn't loaded. The usage of the word "double" directly suggests redundance & overtaxation. The fact it is really only applied in mainstream usage to dividend taxes further suggests the tax arrangement between profits & dividend payments are unique. It's like "Right to Life" or "Intelligent Design". The usage of the term seems innocuous but really suggests a different thing. The debate about the inaccuracy of the term is not about party-lines & invoking Kerry does nothing to support your argument. --Duemellon 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
