SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (43712)6/9/2010 8:38:35 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 71588
 
Likely to lower rates any MORE then it does

My point is that it doesn't lower the top rate, and may not lower rates at all (I'd have to look up the details to tell that, its only obvious that it doesn't lower the top rate).

After all, why should ONE FORM of capital raising - going into debt - be FAVORED by the tax codes over ALL OTHER FORMS of capital raising (such as savings... equity issuance, etc.)?

For personal non-mortgage debt it no longer is (but it used to be before Reagan)

For personal mortgage debt it is. A fact which in direct terms benefits me (because I am a homeowner with a mortgage), but which creates economic distortions, and was a factor (one of many, and exactly how large could be argued) contributing to the housing bubble.

For corporations, well corporations are taxed on profit not revenue. If they have to pay a lot of interest they might not be making any profit. Treating equity equally with debt in this case would be to not tax the equity, either you could make taxes on capital gains from stock holdings, and on dividends, equal to zero, or perhaps more reasonably you could eliminate corporate income taxes. Either way the tax code would no longer favor corporate debt over equity finance.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext