If you have a point to make, please try doing it without blatantly lying. It's common knowledge that the US has substantially higher corporate tax rates than almost anywhere else:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/21/corporat...
However I believe the parent's point was just that taxes on personal earned income represent a much larger share of total U.S. tax receipts than taxes on corporate income do, i.e. the U.S. mainly taxes labor income. And that is true; the corporate income tax accounts for only 10% of federal tax receipts: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3822
I'm not blatantly lying. US taxes on labor income are disproportionate to taxes on other income sources, both because of the favorable rates applied in the income tax system to capital income, and because labor income is subject to additional taxes.
> It's common knowledge that the US has substantially higher corporate tax rates than almost anywhere else
Whether that's true or not, its entirely irrelevant the claim I was making.
Do you have other evidence that shows that investment income is in-fact taxed higher than labor income in the US?
Your employer makes money and is taxed. Some of the resulting money is given to you as payroll and is taxed.
Ok, granted, not all the money that the company has on hand that is paid into your salary is taxed as corporate income, but the idea is valid. I agree not at the same level as taxing profits and then taxing dividends which is essentially the same money.
I'm just going with the notion that it is not uncommon for money to be taxed as it is exchanged from one entity to another.
"Most people are taxed roughly 36% (28% income tax, 2% medicare, 6% social security) on their labor, however investments are only taxed at a flat 15%."
"Double taxation" may not be an entirely accurate label (more like "an additional pass of taxation"), but the fact that dividends (in particular) are taxed as corporate profit before being taxed as individual profit makes that 15% figure misleading for dividends, which is what the child comment brought up: "Arguably, you get double-taxed if you own stocks."
Really, the number of times the money is taxed is irrelevant (except wrt paperwork) and we should be looking at the total tax level, but the point is that it's more than the nominal tax rate on qualified dividends if we're going to be comparing tax rate on labor income to tax rate on non-labor income, apples to apples.
Of course, that's specifically for dividends; bond premium payments and capital gains are a different discussion.
> it reduces or eliminates the tax disadvantages of distributing dividends to shareholders by only requiring them to pay the difference between the corporate rate and their marginal rate.
This year, the 28% tax bracket for a single individual stars at $87,850 taxable income. The Social Security cap is $113,700, and the Social Security tax is levied on all income below this. The individual standard deduction is $6100 and the personal exemption is $3900.
That means that for an individual, a 28% income tax rate means income is above $97,850 while paying Social security taxes means income is below $113,700. I sort of doubt this covers "most people".
For a couple, the 28% bracket starts at $146,400 taxable, the standard deduction is $12,200, and personal exemptions are $7,800. So in this case the rate you quote applies to income over $166,400 and below $227,400 if both members of the couple have equal salaries. Again, hardly "most people".
Finding good numbers on this is hard, but http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101119053457AA... suggest that somewhere around 46% of taxpayers fall in the 10% or 15% brackets, and that's ignoring the effects of EITC and whatnot....
Of course the 15% bracket definitely has a marginal rate of 23% or so, again ignoring EITC and various other tax credits you can claim at those income levels that phase out with income, since they're certainly paying FICA at that point.
> investments are only taxed at a flat 15%
It really depends. Dividends are sometimes taxed at this rate and sometimes at your normal income rate, depending on whether they're qualified or not. Capital gains are, if you hold long enough. And capital gains can, of course, still affect your AMT exemption, meaning that if you're in the the AMT phaseout range your marginal rate on even long-term capital gains is about 22% (15% + 25%*28%, since the phaseout applies to normal income).
Of course once you make so much money that the AMT becomes irrelevant your marginal rate on capital gains drops back down to 15%.
Actually, its a lot higher than that, because marginal rates aren't overall rates.
So let's say your stocks in aggregate rose 4% that year, and the inflation was 3%. You made 1% profit (in purchasing power). You pay 4% * 0.15 = 0.6% which is 60% of your profits and only 38% of your income.