I'm all in favor of a business paying taxes, and then the owner paying on what they skim from the profits even if it is a sole owner. There are two entities there. It creates incentive for the owner to plow money back into the business (and employees) because the business deductions are of a different nature than the kinds of deductions individuals take. And since a business can be sold mid-year, treating it as a separate entity for tax purposes clarifies responsibility for those taxes. Just because someone self-identifies with a business doesn't mean that they are that business. It can continue without them, or fail and vanish without them vanishing too. Separate entities, separate taxes.
On the other hand, I don't think that changes in stock prices should affect income taxes unless someone actually sells their stock. Even if they turn around and buy more stock a nanosecond later, the income from the sale of stock should be income. An increase in the value of stock without any transactions is not. And neither is a decrease in the market value of a stock a loss. Paper is paper. (Nor should property owners be able to take a tax break for keeping a building empty by asking for a high rent, but that's really changing the topic...)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-08-21 04:42 am (UTC)On the other hand, I don't think that changes in stock prices should affect income taxes unless someone actually sells their stock. Even if they turn around and buy more stock a nanosecond later, the income from the sale of stock should be income. An increase in the value of stock without any transactions is not. And neither is a decrease in the market value of a stock a loss. Paper is paper. (Nor should property owners be able to take a tax break for keeping a building empty by asking for a high rent, but that's really changing the topic...)