Talk:Double taxation

message: Is a loaded term. It completely mischaracterizes dividend payments as if they are a rare instance of the same "money" being taxed when it changes hands. To highlight this as "double tax" but not apply the term to sales taxes, employee/employer wage income tax, & inheiretance tax, is a political ploy. The phrase itself was coined to be loaded, almost rhetorical, but not properly applied. Simply using the term without the qualification that is it a misleading phrase makes this whole article NPOV. (please have the discussion regarding this in the Dividend tax --Duemellon 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "double taxation" is a loaded term and believe it should be described as such in this entry.  Corporations are separate legal entities, and should therefore be taxed.  Incorporation is not required of businesses; businesses incorporate to acquire certain benefits, of which the most important is financial protection for the owner's assets.  (These benefits can cost the government money, such as when a corporation files for bankruptcy.)--OrbSpider 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but this is not the article to do it.  And remember, no original research.  --Red King 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV claim 

message: The US usage is a unique political term that has not standing in international taxation practice.  To avoid further confusion (and accepting the argument about about too many articles covering the same thing), I have deleted the US-specific material.  I leave it to others too see how best to move it into the Dividend tax article.  --Red King 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US usage 

message: The term "double taxation" is a loaded term. It mischaracterizes the taxation on dividends as being duplicitous as if there was one transaction involved in the payment of dividends. In fact, there are two transactions taking place: The company receives its profits; and the company pays dividends based on those profits.
This sentence needs to be completely rethought.  I couldn't parse it.  "In the USA, the term "double taxation" is often used (unconventionally) to Dividend taxation (which see).  This usage is not widely recognised outside the USA.
"  To restate, I'm not sure what is being said here.  So, I removed it to decrease the embarrassment level of this article. 24.6.2.72 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Taxation terminology

message: Typically, a corporation pays income taxes on its profits, and may decide to issue a portion of those proceeds as dividends to its shareholders. The money is taxed at the corporate level as its income. When it is paid to shareholders (a distinctly different entity) as dividends, it is taxed as income for that individual. This is referred to as the dividend tax. (On the other hand, a partnership is not itself taxed, but partners pay personal income tax on their share of net earnings at the end of the year, whether or not those earnings are distributed). 
Opponents to the dividend tax refer to it as a "double taxation" while those who want to maintain the income tax for individuals who receive dividends avoid using that terminology due to its connotation.
In Australia the income tax on dividends is avoided by the use of a dividend imputation system.
===Supporters of maintaining the dividend tax===
Some arguments for maintaining the dividend tax are that it has two distinct transactions, payments received by the company and the voluntary payment of the company to its shareholders.
With the elmination of the dividend tax there is an opportunity for wealthy investors to never pay any form of income tax therefore eliminating a good portion of tax revenue while encouraging heavy investment in stocks.
-- What's wrong with encoraging investment in stock? 90 something % of stock is owned by institutions (ie retirement funds, etc), dividend taxes affect any american with a 401k. Taxing dividends is oppressive taxation, nothing else. Stockholders are the owners of the company, same concept as a partnership. The money is technically theirs as soon as the corporation receives it. The company's employees are agents to shareholders and act in their best interest. Dividends are not paid out if management feels that they can grow the company or put it to other uses that provide more benefit to shareholders than a dividend payment would.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporation Dividend Tax 

message: Some arguments for maintaining the dividend tax are that it has two distinct transactions, payments received by the company and the voluntary payment of the company to its shareholders.
With the elmination of the dividend tax there is an opportunity for wealthy investors to never pay any form of income tax therefore eliminating a good portion of tax revenue while encouraging heavy investment in stocks.
-- What's wrong with encoraging investment in stock? 90 something % of stock is owned by institutions (ie retirement funds, etc), dividend taxes affect any american with a 401k. Taxing dividends is oppressive taxation, nothing else. Stockholders are the owners of the company, same concept as a partnership. The money is technically theirs as soon as the corporation receives it. The company's employees are agents to shareholders and act in their best interest. Dividends are not paid out if management feels that they can grow the company or put it to other uses that provide more benefit to shareholders than a dividend payment would.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporters of maintaining the dividend tax

message: It would be bias to call the US usage, a "misapplication" or a "loaded term." It is probably accepted by most Americans and in ways it is accurate. The same asset is taxed twice. That is technically correct. The US usage is ambiguous as to the remedy though. Even Democratic presidental candidate, John Kerry, believed that this double taxation should be eliminated, though he believed it should be eliminated from the corporate side, not the shareholder side. unsigned by 12:39, August 1, 2006 69.86.10.22 
:Simple solution is to remove the "loaded term" description.  --Red King 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double taxation (US usage) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Double taxation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705184139/http://taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26384.html to http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26384.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please don't try to influence this page with your biased political opinions, or create a new definition to fit your political agenda. This is even more important now during the Tax Reform happening in the US where a double taxation is likely to take place on a large scale. One clear example which I removed was: "The term is not usually used to refer to the taxation of the same income by different levels of government, such as by federal, state and local authorities." Clearly written trying to distance the term 'double taxation' from current political climate. Double taxation is pretty simple and not complex at all. It is being taxed twice on the same income source and doesn't matter who is doing the taxing both times. WatchFan 07 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political opinions