Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (9951)	6/11/2001 5:03:13 PM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

For what it's worth, I don't think corporations should pay taxes Sun, you just gotta' start thinking these things through. If Corporations paid no taxes then..... l) 150,000 CPA's would wind up unemployed 2) 800,000 Accountants would not be needed 30 15 tax courts would have to be abolished 4) 22,106 IRS agents would take early retirement 5) 2,617 Lobbiests would have to look for gainful employment....and 6)147 restaurants in DC would have to close....and 7)Liquor sales would drop off in DC as the last three Martini Lunch was sent to the Smithsonian and Greenspan could not save this downward spiral no matter how many interest rate cuts he threw at it. I could name more consequences of abolishing corporate taxes, but I don't want this heretical idea to go any farther than this rarely visited site. Regards, Jerome

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (9951)	6/11/2001 6:02:33 PM
From: Ira Player	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10921

For what it's worth, I don't think corporations should pay taxes. Corporations are created for many reasons. If you were to eliminate the taxes on "Corporations", every "rich" person would incorporate, placing all assets into the corporation and pay themselves a minimal salary. (Equal to spending habits.) Double taxation is only an issue if the company distributes a dividend and therefore can be avoided. Rather than providing a dividend, the company should do a stock repurchase. By reducing the outstanding shares, they increase the value of those remaining and the only investors that have any tax consequences are those that decide to sell. I would rather determine when I have to pay taxes on my gains than let a corporation decide I need a "special" dividend to change my carefully planned income stream. I believe this is true even for people approaching or into retirement. Selling shares of a company that uses profits to buy back it's own shares periodically to cover expenses is very similar to receiving a dividend. For example, suppose a company generates sufficient profits to retire 4% of it's shares yearly and does so, rather than pay out a 4% dividend. Further suppose that a retired person owns the stock and, in order to cover retirement expenses, sells 4% of his/her shares yearly. Their ownership in the company remains constant. if they owned .001% of the company at the start, they will own .001% of the company 10 years later. However, instead of paying taxes on dividends at their marginal tax rate, they pay long term capital gains on the profit from the sale of the stock. Someone that owned .001% of the company and never sold a share, would own .0015% at the end of the decade, a 50% increase over the original holdings, without paying a nickel in taxes. I can think of no situation where I would want a company to pay a dividend and therefore create the double taxation issue. Ira