Re: FSF taking money from outsourcers

[Christopher Browne]

After a long battle with technology, John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>, an 
earthling, wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Supposing I own a "holding company," which has income of $500K/year
>> coming in, and I can personally afford to live on $100K/year, then I
>> could avoid taxes on the $400K/year just about indefinitely by not
>> bothering to pay it out.
>
> You would also not be benefiting from the $400K but rather investing
> it, which is generally considered a social good.  When you or your
> heirs eventually did pay it (and it's earnings) out taxes get would
> be paid.
>
> Income taxes should be paid on funds disbursed to or expended for
> the benefit of a natural person.

There seems to be something of "questionable fairness" about the
notion of being able to avoid taxes indefinitely on the basis of
whether the dividend transaction ever takes place.

That is essentially why corporate income taxes exist.

> Stefaan writes:
>> But the value of the shares would go up commensurately, and this would
>> also be taxed, requiring a payout so that the shareholders have the funds
>> to pay their taxes.
>
> Not in the US.  There is no fair way to determine the current value of
> shares without selling them.

Ditto in Canada.

>> Plus you could have a fortune tax, like we have here in Luxembourg.
>
> So those who are unfortunate enough to own something which suddenly
> increases in value (farmland near a city, for example) but do not
> have large incomes are forced to sell.

Well, the fact that their asset substantially increased in value would
seem to be a pretty strong corresponding bit of "fortunateness."
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
"Implying that you    can build systems  without  rigourous  interface
specification is always a powerful selling technique to the clueless."
-- Paul Campbell, seen in comp.object.corba