to wit:
It is often stated that corporations act more as "tax collectors" than as taxpayers. Analysts and economists speak of "tax incidence." In other words, upon whom does the tax burden really fall?
The shareholders "tax" would be the extent to which the corporate income tax affects the return on capital and isn't borne instead by consumers and employees. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
should he have been organized in his business as a sole proprietor or partnership, that same argument that tax is truly being paid by customers would still be there. that argument is potentially there for all businesses whereby it is assumed to be a cost of being in business passed on to customers. the only difference is, his (buffett's) claim of paying a lesser tax rate than his secretary would have never been made had that been the case.
either way, corporate or self employment income, the rate tax paid is more or at least as much.
while in fact, the way he is organized, he paid a much higher rate, its just hidden and he should know better. he was not truthful
the increased tax rate comes about due, for the most part, to corporations not being able to deduct dividends paid and there is a double taxation on them, even if the tax rate at the individual level is limited to 15%
had he received the 40 million (or 61 million) as salary, the salary would have been deducted by the corporations paying him and they would have saved 35% (assuming they got by the stupid golden parachute rule, which most do easily enough and if they couldn't, well talk about the ultimate double tax). he on the other hand would have paid 35% and never would have made the false claim that his secretary paid a higher rate. there would have been one 35% paid to the government. but there actually was 46% paid, on a much higher amount i might add, to the government.
