Intel Corp (INTC)

[fastpathguru]

You're nit-picking. His issue isn't 42%, it's that he's paying any taxes at all on money that has already been taxed.

Partially. He can't JUST argue that "double taxation" is inherently unfair, because the two (arbitrary) rates can in aggregate be lower than a "single taxation" rate.

He needs to cling to that 42% number because it looks worse than simpler taxation vehicles, i.e. the 35% individual income tax bracket.

He believes that as a shareholder of the company, he owns his share of all the income already - and so he defines the dividend is a cash payment from the pool of money that he already owns. Therefore, he's arguing that it's double-taxation, and his basis is arguably without flaw.

If you're arguing against the double-taxation argument, then whether the real tax is 42.2%, or 15% with some amount of lost potential, or 27.2% with some portion of dollars taxed again at a lower 15% rate - all of these are versions of the same argument, and just nit-picking over the math.

Either conciously or not, Elmer only acknowleges "his share" of Intel earnings that wind up being taxed at 42% because they're distributed as dividends, while failing to acknowlege his equally "valid" ownership of "his share" of Intel earnings that are not distributed as dividends and are only taxed at 27.2%.

Because of course, 42.2% sounds scarier than 15%, 27.2%, 32%, and 35%.

fpg