Capital Gains - Progressive not flat

[Upphew]

His tax percentage (32,1%) was included in the original link.

40% was calculated taking into account the taxes paid by the corporation from the profits used to pay the dividends.
(salaries unlike dividends are tax deductible for the company paying them)

Yes, the issue was with how much income Seppälä had and what was his tax percentage, both figures were already available.

There was more taxes paid than his percentage accounts for. If the capital income is from dividends.

[FinnGuyHelsinki]

There was more taxes paid than his percentage accounts for. If the capital income is from dividends.

According to the tax office, the legal entity that is himself, has had that tax percentage. Do you agree? If not, then please provide the correct percentage and the source of that information. If a company has paid taxes, that is a completely different matter and irrelevant to the original topic.

[harryc]

Yes, mathematics and logic were never a strong suit for the left wing.

Sorry but I am not prone nor receptive to such glib and one-dimensional responses.A sophomoric belief in trickle-down economics is pure BS.

[Upphew]

There was more taxes paid than his percentage accounts for. If the capital income is from dividends.

According to the tax office, the legal entity that is himself, has had that tax percentage. Do you agree? If not, then please provide the correct percentage and the source of that information. If a company has paid taxes, that is a completely different matter and irrelevant to the original topic.

Company's taxes are not irrelevant if person has control over the company. 49% of stock has a lot of control.

edit. how about this: "Pereira Luis Claudio 1964 582 919 Ei tuloja 582 919 21,4%"

edit. tidied the text

[Rip]

According to the tax office, the legal entity that is himself, has had that tax percentage. Do you agree? If not, then please provide the correct percentage and the source of that information. If a company has paid taxes, that is a completely different matter and irrelevant to the original topic.

Simplified example to the extreme: Suppose two people are sole shareholders in their respective companies, in a jurisdiction were both the corporate tax rate and personal earned income rate are 50% while dividends are tax free. Both companies make, after all other expenses, before paying to their owners and tax office, 100 000 euros. The other guy pays himself 100 000, of which he pay 50 000 euros tax. The corporation pays none, as it has no profit to report. The other guy collects no salary, the company reports a 100 000 profit of which it pays 50 000 tax and gives the rest as a tax free dividend to its single share holder. In both cases the owner gets 50 000, as does the state.

Is it fair or sensible to consider the first guy a diligent tax payer and the second guy one that pays none at all?

[FinnGuyHelsinki]

Is it fair or sensible to consider the first guy a diligent tax payer and the second guy one that pays none at all?

You can present endless examples of calculations of how (some)one has contributed to the country's economy through taxation (income tax, capital income tax, VAT, other people having been hired,...) and still, the original issue was with his personal taxation. Similarly what possible benefits one has received, is irrelevant to the original topic.

And answer to the question, personally I'm fine with the current system, when it comes to owners taking money out of their companies, be it in the form of salary and/or dividends.

[FinnGuyHelsinki]

A sophomoric belief in trickle-down economics is pure BS.

Says a guy who would consider millionaires along with their taxable income moving out of the country a good thing.

[Nimi]

Let's consider these issues; VAT 24% or 14%, customs duties if you are manufacturing or receiving supplies outside the European Union, from at least 7 to 17% varies on your shipments, cooperate tax 20%, dividends or capital gains 30/32% varies also, salaries or income tax of the entrepreneurs (% varies also). What is left for the entrepreneurs to employ people? If we want to get out of this economic drains we should do somethings to promote entrepreneurship to create jobs, rather than talking about government over expenditures . The society is still discouraging this one but crucial factor of economic viability which is a core factor economic productivity.

[Rip]

the original issue was with his personal taxation.

Defined that way, in my eyes it becomes similar to question regarding angels dancing on tip of the needle. Devoid of any actual substantial content.

(enough of this for me)

[Upphew]

Is it fair or sensible to consider the first guy a diligent tax payer and the second guy one that pays none at all?

You can present endless examples of calculations of how (some)one has contributed to the country's economy through taxation (income tax, capital income tax, VAT, other people having been hired,...) and still, the original issue was with his personal taxation. Similarly what possible benefits one has received, is irrelevant to the original topic.

That is just as irrelevant as is illness when talking about one's health.

[FinnGuyHelsinki]

That is just as irrelevant as is illness when talking about one's health.

The taxes that a (publicly owned) _company_ pays in no way influence the _personal_ taxation of capital income of their owners. The capital income could've been made by selling used underwear for profit and the tax percentage would've been the same.

[Upphew]

That is just as irrelevant as is illness when talking about one's health.

The taxes that a (publicly owned) _company_ pays in no way influence the _personal_ taxation of capital income of their owners. The capital income could've been made by selling used underwear for profit and the tax percentage would've been the same.

That is true, unless the person has influence over the company and can decide that he gets paid 50k€ as wages and owners get 0,14€ per share. Incidentally he just happens to own 27M of them. No influence on personal taxation there?

edit. fixed typo

[Rosamunda]

I guess as long as he spends his hard-earned cash on Finnish goods and services inside Finland, then we'll all be happy. But it's a tad annoying when the rich spend their money on property abroad or foreign cars and stuff like that.

There is a real issue here, but not necessarily the one that the OP is harping on about.

More and more wealthy people are investing in property that generates capital income (buy-to-let). Under the current system, the increase in these landlords' net worth and their unearned income from rents are both largely being financed by the taxpayer. I've heard of wealthy people buying up apartments and subsequently renting them out to the public sector (municipalities) or, renting out apartments privately to individuals who are on housing benefits. Whichever, at the end of the day the taxpayer is financing the property owners' capital gain. OK, maybe it temporarily solves the housing crisis, but there must be other ways of solving the problem (eg public private partnerships to build social housing) that would have more equitable outcomes.

I can't see the capital flat tax remaining as is for long.

[harryc]

There is a real issue here, but not necessarily the one that the OP is harping on about.

Why do you put it down as HARPING? It was stated exactly as the matter is - capital gains are not but IMO should be progressive. Why is that HARPING??

How would you like to bring up the issue???

[Rosamunda]

harp verb
harp on about something British English , harp on something American English phrasal verb informal
to talk about something continuously, especially in a way that is annoying or boring :

It's an informal idiomatic expression. Not exactly verbal abuse.
I thought you might react on the content (seeing as I am probably on your side in that respect) rather than twist your knickers over semantics.