[AnthonyMouse]

> edit: GWU PhD Law Professor spells it out better than I could: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/buchanan/20030220.html

The crux of his argument is this:

> "Would you rather pay 10% income tax twice a year, or 50% income tax once a year?"

But that obviously misses the point. The problem with double taxation is that it makes the rate misleading. If you've lost 35% to corporate income tax and then 15% to qualified dividends or capital gains tax, you're paying ~45% in total, but people point to the 15% rate and trot out the "pays lower tax rate than secretary" trope.

> How is this any different than when a company pays you an income. First, the Federal government taxes you, then the State government does, then come Payroll taxes, then any local taxes, then you have to pay property tax, then you have to pay sales tax. Each dollar is quintuple-taxed! Or more!

Those are all different taxes. Income tax is the same tax paid on the same money, twice. It's recursive. Compare how corporate income tax works to how sales tax works. If you're a business you don't pay sales tax on your raw materials, you only collect it once on the finished product. The total amount of sales tax paid on a car doesn't increase just because you increase the number of intermediary entities between the iron mine and the car dealership. With corporate income tax, it does.

[mikeyouse]

> The crux of his argument is this:

That's not the crux of his argument whatsoever, it's just a random statement being held up as a straw man.

> Income tax is the same tax paid on the same money, twice.

Except it's capital gains, intentionally taxed at a lower rate than income. The first tax is levied on corporate income, the second tax is capital gains which is taxed on the individual level. Different tax bases necessitate different tax treatment.

> Compare how corporate income tax works to how sales tax works. If you're a business you don't pay sales tax on your raw materials, you only collect it once on the finished product.

That's only true in the US. The majority of G20 countries that don't have capital gains + corporate income tax use a VAT to achieve the same ends.

Look at effective tax rates for individuals and corporations based in the US. We're one if the lowest taxed countries in the 1st world.

[AnthonyMouse]

> That's not the crux of his argument whatsoever, it's just a random statement being held up as a straw man.

Let me rephrase: The quoted statement is the closest thing he comes to as an argument on point. The rest of it is falsities and random talking points with no relation to the question.

> Except it's capital gains, intentionally taxed at a lower rate than income.

It's taxed at a lower rate because it's double taxation. It's the political middle ground between not having double taxation and having it at the full ordinary income rate.

> The first tax is levied on corporate income, the second tax is capital gains which is taxed on the individual level.

They're the same tax. It's all income tax.

Consider what happens when both entities are corporations. When Ford makes income, they pay income tax on it. If the income was from selling cars they would have paid the ordinary income rate. If it was because Ford owns shares of Exxon and Exxon issued a dividend, it would be the dividend rate. In either case, when Ford issues what's left over after paying its income taxes as a dividend, its shareholders have to pay income taxes on it again. And it's the same tax (again) whether the shares in Ford are owned by Henry Ford or Apple, Inc.

> That's only true in the US. The majority of G20 countries that don't have capital gains + corporate income tax use a VAT to achieve the same ends.

VAT and sales tax are economically equivalent, VAT is just collected at different points in the supply chain (which makes tax evasion more difficult). VAT is only collected on the increase in value over the cost of the raw materials (the "value added"), i.e. the portion of the sale price that hasn't already been taxed.

> Look at effective tax rates for individuals and corporations based in the US. We're one if the lowest taxed countries in the 1st world.

What does that have anything to do with double taxation?

Note also that the reason effective tax rates in the US are so low is the massive amount of tax avoidance that occurs. The nominal rates that US corporations would pay if they didn't all hold their profits in foreign subsidiaries are some of the highest in the world -- which is highly discriminatory against smaller non-international US corporations that can't play the same tricks.