Actually, if you look at the American Conservative Union ratings ( http://www.acuratings.com/ ), then that other Democrat, Ralph Hall gets stellar ratings of 96 in 2001 and 88 in 2002. Miller’s record is a little more mixed with a 60 rating in 2001 and a 47 in 2002. Of course, their ratings here include lots of non-tax-related votes.
For the two Republicans, by the way: Shelby got a perfect 100 in 2001 and an 89 in 2002 and Dreier got 84’s in both years.
This group may be “bi-partisan” in the sense of having 2 Dems and 2 Reps but it is hardly a broad political spectrum!
I thought you were wrong. It sounded fishy. I wasn’t sure so I asked for a cite rather than flat out contradict you. That’s why I asked you for a cite. What’s wrong with that?
I felt pretty confident, but I wasn’t sure you were wrong. That’s why I asked.
I’m sorry you saw it that way. My intent was simply to see if you had support for your statement. I didn’t know for sure. I still don’t. I could be wrong. That’s why I asked you for a cite.
That may seem reasonable. It may even be true. I don’t know. However, if you wish to argue that that was so I’d ask you to support it. I’d hope you’d agree we have to do better than just guessing when we make our assertions. If my memory serves there was strong bipartisan support.
I don’t think it’s a valid definition. As I said, I get the WSJ, and I do occasionally peruse the editorial pages, and it looks to me like you’re positing a stereotype that holds little validity. I find the stereotype to be a little simplistic and churlish.
The club for growth link did not lead to the WSJ editorial pages, nor, without reviewing its contents, does it speak for all conservatives.
Beats me. I’m just a conservative, and they don’t speak for me. It looks to me like you’re trying to assign a boogeyman to aspects of fiscal policy you disagree with. Rather than do that why not simply argue the merits of the fiscal policy in question?
Not every tax-cut is an excuse to line the pockets of the rich and screw the poor.
I never said he was. But you can’t trot out a group of two Republicancs and two Democrats and say they represent Conservative thought and expect me to take it seriously.
The devil is in the details though. Though Libertarian and Conservative thought share similaritiesto a degree, you can’t use one as an example of the other any more than you can use a cat as an example of a dog.
Libertarians believe in a free market to a degree most Conservatives do not. Most conservatives, myself included recognize and favor controls and regulation. We believe that it is a necessary evil which should be kept to a minimum.
I have no objection to paying my fair share, and I think that when people earn money a portion of it should go to tax to uphold the benefits of society. That is fair and proper.
They are seperate ideas. Personally, I think both income and corporate taxes could use an overhaul, but that is seperate to whether dividend taxation is good or not, at least in my mind.
Similarly, a tax cut being regressive is not necessarily a bad thing, any more than North is somehow generally better than South. Our tax structure as it is set up now is what I would consider to be staggered progressive, and where it is progressive it is very progressive.
I think we are set up properly among very low income areas, poverty and under, but are far too burdensome just above the poverty line into the low income areas. Then we become extremely progressive.
The problem as I see it lies in someone attempting to bridge the gap from poverty to lower-middle class in terms of income. It is too difficult to do. Mobility in other areas is pretty good.
Fixing that problem doesn’t lie in Dividend and Capital gains taxation. In fact I don’t know how to fix it. But anyway, it seems to be a seperate issue and not primarily a tax one, though taxes play a part.
It’s your four people. I’m not trying to say they represent anybody.
Scylla: Well, here is a cite that talks about the important of the differential in taxation between dividend and capital gains. He was even forecasting folks to turn back toward dividend-paying stocks somewhat just because of the lowering of rates in the 2001 Bush tax plan would lower the differential in taxation between the two:
And here is a link from the time when the capital gains tax was cut talking about the effects. Note the statement that
Here is a larger quote from that article discussing the effect:
So, the general conclusion seems to be that there was expected to be some effect…albeit probably not a huge effect…from the lowering of the capital gains rate, not at all out of line with my statement that “part of the reason for the relative incentives for dividends vs. growth stocks are the way they are is because the capital gains rate was lowered.”
DCU replied to me: *“That kind of sounds like having it both ways: we want the company to be a nominal, transparent, pass-through tax-free ‘conduit’ when it’s earning income, but an independent separate legal person in its own right when it’s getting hit with a lawsuit. Seems to me that we ought to stick with one interpretation or the other.”
Again, this is a convenience thing – it is much easier to sue the partnership than to sue each individual partner. Treating the partnership as a separate entity makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue because they don’t have to figure out who to name as a defendant.*
I understand that part, and since in such a case the partnership is merely a sort of legal alias for the actual owners, it makes sense to me that it shouldn’t be separately taxed on its income. That also makes sense for the “limited liability” entities you mention that exclude each owner only from liabilities incurred by another owner’s wrongdoing.
But if I understand correctly, that is not the case for the sort of businesses usually referred to as “corporations”. Their owners and directors aren’t “on the hook” for the corporation’s liabilities in general. That sounds to me as though the corporate identity has a purpose beyond mere “convenience” or making it easier for plaintiffs to sue it (gee, is that really why they came up with the idea? ;)). That’s a deliberate establishment of a business as a separate legal person with its own income, its own assets, its own debts, and its own legal liabilities for which none of its owners can be held legally responsible.
I don’t see anything wrong with requiring such legal persons also to pay their own income tax. I’m willing to listen to arguments that it would be better “economic engineering” not to require it (and no, pantom, I’m not really insisting that you prove to me that you were able to correctly identify a speculative bubble before I’ll let you make such an argument! :)), but I don’t buy the claim that it’s morally unfair and “double taxation”.
The “owners” of a corporation are the shareholders, just as the “owners” of the various types of partnerships are the partners and the “owners” of an LLC are the members. They each have limited liability from the entity’s liabilities in the manner and to the extent I described in an earlier post. The members of an LLC and the limited partners in an LP are liable to the exact same extent as a shareholder in a corporation – i.e., only to the extent of their investment in the enterprise. LLP’s operate under slightly different rules as noted above, and general partnerships offer the least insulation from liability.
As for directors – directors are functionally employees of the enterprise and thus aren’t liable for its debts. This is true even in a general partnership. A director (or officer or other management type) is no more liable for the debts of an enterprise than, say, a secretary or receptionist.
N.B.: This does not preclude personal liability for an individual’s own acts. If anyone – shareholder, partner, director, receptionist, whoever – commits an tort or agrees to be bound personally by a contract, they may be pursued personally for that obligation. The entity may also be liable, of course, either under respondeat superior for torts or as a party to a contract. In any event, limited liability, even in the corporate context, only insulates a person from acts he himself did not personally undertake.**
Again, this is no different from an LLC and only slightly different from an LP or LLP w/r/t liability.
And in the sense that the enterprise has its own income, debts, and liabilities, it isn’t different from any of the forms of business described above – even in a general partnership, those things “belong” to the entity in those states that treat the partnership as a separate being, with the partners acting functionally as guarantors on those obligations.
DCU:The members of an LLC and the limited partners in an LP are liable to the exact same extent as a shareholder in a corporation – i.e., only to the extent of their investment in the enterprise. […] As for directors – directors are functionally employees of the enterprise and thus aren’t liable for its debts.
Thanks again Dewey! But that seems to mean that, as I originally thought, all these entities except the GP have no “natural person” who is legally responsible for their liabilities as an entity (except up to the extent of that person’s own investment or personal wrongdoing). The owners are not responsible, as you say, for acts they themselves did not personally undertake. Meanwhile the directors, as you say, are considered mere employees. So the directors aren’t held responsible because it’s the shareholders who own the enterprise, and the shareholders aren’t held responsible because they’re not managing the enterprise.
So the corporate identity of the business as a “legal person” is indeed serving to protect its owners and managers from individual liability. Fine, but then it seems to me that that “legal person” is something more than a nominal “conduit” for funds, so it should pay its own damn income tax.
Kimstu: Then logically you must require LLCs, LLPs, and LP’s (to the extent of limited partners) to also pay income tax because they each shield their owners from liability beyond their original investment. If the tradeoff for limited liability is double taxation, then it makes no sense to treat these other organizational forms differently from corporations.
DCU:Then logically you must require LLCs, LLPs, and LP’s (to the extent of limited partners) to also pay income tax because they each shield their owners from liability beyond their original investment.
Yes, which is exactly what I suggested in my first post to this thread (although there I confined the suggestion to LLC’s because I didn’t understand that liability shielding worked the same way for LLP’s and LP’s).
Kimstu: OK, that was unclear – you kept referencing “corporations” in your later posts. Suffice it to say that yours is a minority position unlikely to pass.