Talk:Capital gain/Archives/2013

Double taxation
Although undergraduate textbooks of accounting state that dividends are double taxed--taxed as corporate income then personally. But then, sales tax is a double tax as is about any tax. The double taxation accusation does not distinguish dividend tax from any other tax. Thus, to argue that the double tax is the reason for not paying dividends makes little sense. We can just say that there is a tax benefit to not paying dividends, avoiding the "double tax" nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the textbooks and the presidents are more relevant to an encyclopedia than your personal synthesis. It's not an "accusation". It's a reality of how the lower rate for capital gains is justified in political discourse. Whether you think it is justified or not is not relevant. Scott Illini (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not get into this argument. Instead, I recommend that the two of you define the dispute into a simple statement and submit for WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Great. I have a problem with your phrase "double taxation."  Please explain why the phrase is needed?  Keep in mind that many taxes are additional taxes on after tax income.Sigiheri (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you are addressing Scott Illini. Please remember that we are here to provide what other people (the WP:RS) are saying. We avoid inserting our own thoughts about these issues. (As I pay my taxes today, I don't like them whether they are single, double, or triple, etc. so I'll try to restrain myself!) What do the scholars and economists say about taxation, capital gain, etc.? That is what we want to present. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I was addressing Scott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit by Sigiheri: is a good one. We need a better source than old political statements. (Such remarks might better work in Double taxation.) I've done some editing on the article which I hope provides some direction on improving it.  – S. Rich (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously? No references is better than some? These are all political reasons - leaving that unstated doesn't make some more special than others. Scott Illini (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. We don't need POV statements set forth as RS. They can be included as a "Opinions about Capital gain" or similar section, but not as reference explaining the basic concept. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)