In response to:

Debunking Obama’s Flawed Assertions on Tax Deductions and Corporate Welfare

canetoad Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 1:01 AM
Couple of big furfies there my friend. What is this "double taxation of income that is saved and invested" The only part that is taxed is the interest, capital gain or dividend the capital earns, the capital is never taxed again and by the way you just totally ignored the depletion allowance where only extractive industries are allowed to take anywhere up to 100% of their taxable income as a deduction. Something green energy producers unfortunately are not able to take advantage of. Get your facts straight mate.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 6:24 PM
Fire your incomepetent factchecker, mate. One starts with a tax on all earned income to begin with - THAT is an initial full taxation. Then those ALREADY TAXED monies are invested. By definitoon, the capaital investment in ANY company (regardless of type) generates a profit/loss subject to taxation IN FULL. That is, by definition, a SECOND taxation. Then two other forms of taxation are imposed - one you identify correctly on dividend income but again the initial capital investment is taxed as capital gains once it is reconverted to a liquid qasset (without adjustment for inflation) even though the change in value of something you simply hold is not in any practical or economic sense income.

Nice try.
Daniel17 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 7:56 AM
I don't know what rock you crawled out from under "Mate" but I sure as hill wouldn't want you running anything even close to a business or investment portfolio. "Taxation of the same earnings at two levels. One common example is taxation of earnings at the corporatelevel and then again at the shareholder dividend level."

Maybe you should stick with promoting the Aussie green energy scam down under and leave American economics to someone like Mr. Mitchell who actually knows what he writes about.
Ron4594 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 12:07 PM
Considering that the invested money was also taxed when it was first earned, that is taxtion of the same earnings at THREE levels.
Greg1084 Wrote: Oct 05, 2012 7:55 AM
I'm no expert in tax law (and nether, most likely, are you--these point sound like they're straight from Kos or TPM) but what you said doesn't make any sense. I think it is an artful ,lie.

In a violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, my brutal overseers at the Cato Institute required me to watch last night’s debate (you can see what Cato scholars said by clicking here).

But I will admit that it was good to see Obama finally put on the defensive, something that almost never happens since the press protects him (with one key exception, as shown in this cartoon).

This doesn’t mean I like Romney, who would probably be another Bush if he got to the White House.

On the specifics, I obviously didn’t like...

Related Tags: Welfare Tax Corporate Welfare