« A Numbers Riddle for You | Main | How Important is a Budget? »
Why Romney’s Tax Rate is Higher Than the Reported 15%
By JLP | January 18, 2012
I’m sure news of Mitt Romney’s 15% income tax rate will draw the ire of his opponents. From a WSJ article on the matter (linked to above):
Government figures show that Mr. Romney’s tax bill is roughly in line with the rate paid by many higher-income households—most of whom receive investment income and dividends that are taxed at a top rate of 15%. “My income comes overwhelmingly from some investments made in the past,” Mr. Romney told reporters during a campaign stop in Florence, S.C.
One thing that people will gloss over is the fact that dividend income is taxed two times. Once at the corporate level and then at the individual level. So, although Romney’s actual tax burden seems low, it’s not once you figure that the dividends he received were taxed before he even received them.
So, there is a reason why dividend tax rates are lower. It’s because they are taxed before paid.
Of course, we could make this a lot more transparent by making dividends tax-free at the corporate level and then tax them as regular income to the recipient. But what in our tax code is simple?
One little tidbit I thought was interesting was what was said about President Obama’s tax rate:
President Barack Obama and his wife paid 25.3% of their 2010 income of $1.8 million in income taxes after taking deductions of about $245,000 for charitable contributions, and $78,000 for local taxes, among others.
WAIT A MINUTE! They paid a 25.3% rate on $1.8 MILLION in income? That rate is for those with taxable incomes up to $139,350. Obviously, the Obama’s are receiving dividends too.
I wish we could put all this tax talk behind us. I know I have mentioned this many times before but we need a simple, fair tax code. This is what you make, this is what you owe. As long as we have different rates for different income and deductions for this and that, we will have these arguments are what is fair and what isn’t.
Topics: Politics, Taxes | 47 Comments »
January 18th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
The Obamas paid 25.3% of their income in taxes. That’s not the same as saying that they are in the 25% tax bracket.
January 18th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
What we need is no income tax at all.
January 18th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Good point, Peter. Still…they had an income over $1.8 million and paid 25.3% in taxes. Even after their deductions, that’s still a very low rate based on their income.
January 18th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
The 15% rate is not only for dividends but for anything taxed at capital gains rates (investments and capital-type assets). He taxes on the income he used to purchase those capital investments but then any income from them is taxed at the lower rate.
January 18th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
“Of course, we could make this a lot more transparent by making dividends tax-free at the corporate level and then tax them as regular income to the recipient”
I think the reason it is taxed at the company level is to capture taxes from foreign shareholders, you’d probably lose a ton of tax revenue by doing that.
January 18th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
There are people who make over $1 million a year and pay nothing in taxes, AT ALL. Likely those are people who are collecting bond-dividends from tax-free municipal bonds.
Our tax code is filled with all of these deductions & loop-holes. The thing is: it is the truly wealthy that can maximize the loop-holes to their advantage.
The “average” household has no chance to make the majority of their income come from dividends (which have lower tax rates that Romney enjoys).
Only solution: flat tax with complete elimination of all deductions/loopholes/exemptions. This way, the “effective” tax rate of the billionaire, is the same tax rate of the millionaire, is the same tax rate of the waitress in podunk-ville.
Also: JLP, your argument about dividends already being taxed at the corporate level: they are not for certain companies like GE. So, the same thing applies to corporate taxes: they should also have a flat-rate with no exemptions/deductions/loopholes.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I hate how the media holds it out to be Romney’s fault. One of my favorite quotes is from Judge Learned Hand in the 1930′s,
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.”
If one has a problem how much he pays then change the rules. I’d rather a member of the executive branch actually know the laws (cough cough Tim Geithner)
January 18th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Evan) I just read up on the Tim Geithner tax “scandal”. Good grief, he (and TurboTax apparently) thought he was an employee and not a self-employed contractor when working for the IMF — so he ended up only paying 50% of the FICA taxes instead of the 100% (employees typically pay 50% and employers the other 50%). Kinda hard to blame him when the employer-paid FICA taxes are hidden from employees pay stubs (we all know that it is the EMPLOYEE that is paying both sides anyway).
What is also telling is that it took the IRS six year (under Bush) to catch this brazen thief. If I screw up my taxes, I hope the IRS catches it the first year, before I make the same mistake five more years — sheesh.
Anyhow, please show me where “the media” is blaming Romney and not the current tax code? Nobody is accusing Romney of being a cheat — everyone is blaming the tax code that allow a multi-billionaire to _legally_ pay less taxes than the average citizen.
January 18th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Correction, Mitt Romney has a networth of $250 million (not multi-billions) — the rest of my argument still stands.
January 18th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
BG,
It is almost a vilifying of a presidential candidate:
Maybe not main stream but – http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/a_tax_return_compromise_for_romney/singleton/
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/what-does-romneys-refusal-to-release-his-tax-returns-say-about-him-maybe-not-much.html
both articles use the word “evasion” which carries obvious connotations when we talk about taxes when there is ZERO proof of that…just proper planning
January 18th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
And how can the Tim thing be played off that easily? You don’t find it a bit demoralizing that the treasury secretary F’ed up on his taxes? Would you hire a tax attorney who was in the public eye for failing to pay income taxes?
I will happily blame the IRS on that one under W’s watch that is NUTS, but after it all went down is when he got the nod (if my memory serves me correctly and Wiki is blacked out b/c of that crazy debacle going on now)
January 19th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Evan) Surprisingly, the first link shows that Mitt Romneys father specifically did NOT take advantage of loopholes that were common at the time. That refutes the quote you gave of the judge. Also Geithner payed the missing taxes for 2001 & 2002 even though he was not legally required to (statute of limitations had passed).
That shows you the character of Romneys father and Geithner. I don’t fault Geithner because I believe he made an honest mistake, and also he made good on it all.
BTW: the word evasion used in the first article was in the context of Mitt evading to answer reporter questions. The second article is an opinion piece, not news: you know, what the entire Fox News station is.
January 19th, 2012 at 9:43 am
BG wrote:
“Surprisingly, the first link shows that Mitt Romneys father specifically did NOT take advantage of loopholes that were common at the time. That refutes the quote you gave of the judge. Also Geithner payed the missing taxes for 2001 & 2002 even though he was not legally required to (statute of limitations had passed).
That shows you the character of Romneys father and Geithner.”
So a person who doesn’t take advantage of loopholes in order to lower their tax burden is a person of character? I disagree. As long as the loopholes are legal, then it’s smart to lower your tax burden as much as possible.
As far as Geithner is concerned. He was caught and he paid it back for political reasons. Not sure that speaks for positive character.
Finally, you wrote “The second article is an opinion piece, not news: you know, what the entire Fox News station is.” Seriously? By saying this you seem to be implying that the other networks are not opinion.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
If you caught ABC News yesterday, Brian Ross was in the Cayman Islands trying to investigate Mitt’s “Bain” holdings…so yes, media is trying to cast a shadow on him. At least he got a trip to the Caymans out of his gig.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I think someone who doesn’t use tax loopholes (fully) to be an honest businessman. Someone who uses legal loopholes fully: I can’t say one way our another whether they are honest (or not).
I agreed it is smart to use the loopholes to lower ones taxes. But I think having offshore accounts in the Caymans for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes (whether legal our not) is fishy. I believe the IRS has ruled that investments with the sole purpose to avoid taxes are not legal (which, of course is a gray area – because it is a question of intent).
Your phrasing about Geithner implies he knew all along that he was illegally avoiding taxes: never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by ignorance. anyhow he paid it all back, with interest, so it is a done deal.
I don’t think the other networks are as bad as fox – not even close.
January 19th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
BG wrote, “Likely those are people who are collecting bond-dividends from tax-free municipal bonds.”
Do you have a problem with that?
January 19th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
> I think someone who doesn’t use tax loopholes
> (fully) to be an honest businessman.
I think he is cheating his stockholders.
January 19th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Jack) I have a problem with the tax code that allows that, not the person who takes advantage. BTW: love watching Romney squirm and evade during the debate, lol
Also, Im not talking about a corporation with a fiduciary duty, I’m talking about personal tax returns.
January 20th, 2012 at 1:01 am
>I have a problem with the tax code that allows that
Why?
January 20th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Jack) Let me paraphrase Ronald Reagan:
“It is a tax loophole that allows some of the truly wealthy avoid paying their FAIR SHARE”.
Yes, Ronald used the words “fair share”, which modern day ‘ conservatives’ have demonized.
Anyhow, I am against all deductions/exemptions/loopholes, which I have repeatedly said. When you allow loopholes, you open the door for crony capitalism, lobbyists, government picking winners/losers, and corruption.
January 20th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Let us examine the situation in depth, BG.
People buy these bonds so that they will not have to pay taxes on the dividends, correct?
January 20th, 2012 at 9:49 am
We shouldn’t criticize people for being able to figure out on how to stop feeding the beast, instead we should celebrate their discoveries and try and emulate them. Imagine all the wars and strife that could end if we all stopped feeding the beast!
January 20th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
@Jon: “We shouldn’t criticize people for being able to figure out on how to stop feeding the beast”
Indeed. In fact, our dearly loved 401(k) plans are a “loophole” some enterprising person found in the tax code of the early 1980s and exploited. It became so popular and widely used that it is no longer considered a loophole.
@BG: Should we vilify everyone who uses a 401(k) deduction or a home mortgage interest deduction as someone who is exploiting a tax loophole? It seems to me that most people call a tax provision a loophole if it gives someone else a break but doesn’t give them one.
January 20th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Dave) Im not villifying (sp?) anyone. I think the tax code should be changed to eliminate all deductions/exemptions/loopholes. So that would end IRAs, 401ks, itemized deductions, mortgage/student interest, personal exemptions, child tax credits, etc, etc…
You’d end up with a nice flat, low, tax rate that applies to everyone and every conceivable type of income equally.
How is that NOT fair?
January 20th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Answer my question, please, BG.
January 20th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Jack) I’m sure the tax advantages from municipal bonds are a driving factor in people purchasing those bonds. What’s your point? That is just another exemption/loophole that should be eliminated out of hundreds.
January 20th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Did hell just freeze over, or are pigs starting to fly?
Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp (Fox News) tweets:
“Romney tax uses long-term legal loophole. ‘carried interest’ makes all fund managers rich. Time both parties stopped selling out to Wall S”
and
“Carried interest tax racket. Billions over many years. Why and where has Obama been?”
Of course! Blame Obama!
It’s not like whitehouse.gov hasn’t had this listed on the “Reforming the Tax Code” page:
“To begin the national conversation about tax reform, the President has offered a detailed set of tax loophole closers and measures to broaden the tax base that. These measures include: cutting tax preferences for high-income households; eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; CLOSING THE CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLE for investment fund managers; and eliminating benefits for those who buy corporate jets.” (emphasis mine).
Rupert Murdoch is half right: that this loop-hole should be closed. However, he needs to put the blame on the sellout do-nothing congress which do not represent their constituents but the lobbyist that brings the most money.
January 20th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
> I’m sure the tax advantages from municipal bonds
> are a driving factor in people purchasing those
> bonds.
Good. Now, let us assume that municipal bonds no longer have that advantage over corporate bonds. What happens to the price of municipal bonds?
January 21st, 2012 at 3:33 am
Dollars are fungible. The corporation was taxed on its profits. Then you are taxed on *your* profits. It isn’t the “same dollar” being taxed twice; otherwise taxation could/would/should stop after the first time! Stockholders who own shares of companies are “paid back” for their ownership by fluctuation of share price; dividends are decided by the company based on their actual profits…including any taxes paid. Now, if you’re claiming that corporations that *give* dividends should be taxed at a lower rate than corporations who do *not* (ie, to treat both taxes/dividends as equivalent obligations), I could agree that you have a point, but…that isn’t what is happening here. People (and corporations! which are people, I hear :p ) are taxed on their earnings. Done and done.
January 21st, 2012 at 10:08 am
Anna, corporations do not exist on their own. They have owners. Let us say that a person incorporates his one-man business. He earns the money; he writes the checks. All that the corporation has is his. He has to write a check for the taxes on his company’s income, and he has to write another check on the income he receives from his company.
Now, what he takes in salary is deductible by his company, so he does not pay takes on it at the company level. What he takes in dividends, however, is not deductible by his company. So the company pays taxes on the earnings that go to dividends, AND he pays taxes again when he receives the dividends.
Let us say, then, that he reinvests some of his profits and builds his business. Again, he pays taxes out of the company accounts on company profits. Years later, he sells the company. He has to pay taxes AGAIN on the profits from the sale — capital gains. He is taxed twice on that income, too — once as income to the corporation, and again as income to himself as capital gains.
All profits go to the owners in either dividends, or in capital gains when they sell shares. So why have corporate taxes at all? Just tax the income to the individual owners. Also, eliminating the corporate income taxes would save a lot of money in the overhead costs of determining tax compliance, and it would save money because many business decisions are skewed by the tax implications. Just think of the wasted brainpower that goes to figuring corporate income taxes — both tax accountants and lawyers. What a waste.
January 21st, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Jack) I am well aware of what would happen to the price of tax advantaged municipal bonds if the advantage evaporated: the bond rates would increase and there would be stiffer competition with corp bonds. It would increase the borrowing costs for governments (and lower the borrowing costs for corporations and consumers), which is NOT a bad thing.
Again, what is your point? I’m getting tired of this back and forth with you.
January 21st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Jack – I appreciate your time taken to write out your comments. I disagree, however
In the case of a 1-person corporation, who is paying themselves dividends? In fact, as it stands, why did they bother to incorporate at all, if not for tax benefits? I worked several years as a self-employed individual. The time and effort in order to incorporate (for what I was doing) would have been absurd, so I didn’t. There was no benefit to me to do so.
And in your final paragraph, it is flatly not true that all profits go to the owners in either dividends or capital gains. Profits can get reinvested in the company. Profits can sit in bank accounts for years on ends. Profits can buy lobbyists or get donated to political campaigns. And not all of this gets translated into stock price. We “value” a company off the aggregate stock price, but that is also why we have P/E ratios and other indicators – in order to try and determine whether a stock price is a good buy or not, whether it accurately reflects the “value” of the company.
Yes, a corporation is “owned” by the stockholders, but there are worlds of difference between people owning 50 shares of common stock in a mutual fund, versus people actually voting huge blocs…and directing where the money goes. In cases of large corporations, in a pragmatic sense, the corporation certainly exists as an entity separate from the aggregate of its stockholders.
(as a minor nitpick, “Years later, he sells the company. He has to pay taxes AGAIN on the profits from the sale — capital gains. He is taxed twice on that income, too — once as income to the corporation, and again as income to himself as capital gains.”. I don’t see how he has to pay it twice – since he no longer owns the company, why does he pay the taxes on the income to the corporation? Rather, why does the corporation pay that? *He* is the one making the profit, not the company…)
January 21st, 2012 at 4:11 pm
> the bond rates would increase and there would be
> stiffer competition with corp bonds. It would
> increase the borrowing costs for governments
Excellent. Now, WHO would actually PAY those higher interest rates?
January 21st, 2012 at 4:26 pm
> why did they bother to incorporate at all, if not for tax benefits?
Legal protection. Without incorporation, one is PERSONALLY LIABLE for actions of the company. One’s house, car, retirement savings, EVERYTHING, would be subject to attack by unscrupulous lawyers.
> The time and effort in order to incorporate (for
> what I was doing) would have been absurd
Five minutes and one hundred dollars. That’s all it took me.
> it is flatly not true that all profits go to
> the owners in either dividends or capital gains
I specified WHEN THEY SELL SHARES. Taking it out altered the meaning of the sentence.
> Profits can sit in bank accounts for years on ends.
Nonsense. You think the banks just sit on the money? They reinvest it so that they earn more money than they pay in interest.
> there are worlds of difference between people
> owning 50 shares of common stock in a mutual
> fund, versus people actually voting huge blocs
Most of the shares of large companies ARE owned in mutual funds these days. Even so, why treat both alike through corporate income taxes? Why not tax their portion of the profits at their personal rates?
> I don’t see how he has to pay it twice – since
> he no longer owns the company, why does he pay
> the taxes on the income to the corporation?
He already DID pay taxes on the profits — income taxes. Now, on selling his ownership, he has to pay capital gains taxes, too. Example, a man invests $1M to start a company. Over a year, his business returns about 10%, or $100,000. About 30% of that goes to income taxes. So his company is now worth $1,070,000. He sells his company for that price, and has to pay capital gains tax on the $70,000. He has paid taxes TWICE on that $70k, once in the corporate income taxes on the $100k profit, and again on the $70k left after the government took the $30k.
January 21st, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Jack) Since you are incapable of making a point, my answer to your question is: yo mama.
January 21st, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Exactly, BG. And yours. And you and I would, too.
So your solution is to make municipal bonds NOT tax exempt, so that those who buy them will require that the interest rates go up enough to cover the taxes (no harm to them), so that the rest of the taxpayers will pay more to cover the interest payments on the bonds.
So those who DON’T own bonds will pay more to cover the taxes owed on the interest. The only winners there are the tax accountants and IRS agents.
Why is that a good idea?
January 21st, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Jack – I just fundamentally don’t see it as the same thing when the corporation does it and when the person does it, even as a single person fully owned corp. As you say, if they incorporate to avoid liability, it is a different legal personage. And good to know on the ease of incorporating; when there have been email discussions of my friends doing it to start to try and sell their products (crazy engineer friends!), it has always seems a little more challenging. As a happy healthy W-2 employee of GlobalCorp at the moment, I will keep that in mind for the future though!
January 22nd, 2012 at 7:44 am
Corporations don’t do anything — the people in the corporation do.
Do you not see the wasted talent that goes into complying with the corporate tax laws? Wouldn’t it be better if that time and talent were spent making better, less expensive products?
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:12 am
Jack) Spoken like a true conservative drunk on government deficit spending.
Heres a novel idea: instead of giving municipal bonds a tax free advantage, how about they TAX that income instead, and institute a PAY-GO policy? How much government revenue is lost because of tax loopholes like this? Hundreds of billions a year. Close the loopholes, tax the income and see more government revenue and LESS wasteful spending.
If it becomes more expensive for governments to have debt, then you will see governments carrying less debt. These are basic free market principles.
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:41 am
continuing my rant to Jack.
The tax payers are already paying the difference, but it is a different set of taxpayers. If some corrupt podunk county issues a municipal bond to scratch some corporations back to pay for a ‘study’, or build a football stadium. Today, federal taxpayers all over the nation subsidize that bond by not requiring federal taxes on the bonds dividends. I, as a federal taxpayer in Texas, am subsidizing municipal bonds for Chicago (and everywhere else). Eliminating the federal tax advantage of municipal bonds, then it is the tax payers in THAT municipality that bears the FULL consequences of any corruption.
I am sick of my federal tax dollars subsidizing everyone elses’s crap. If Sara Palin wants to build a ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska, then 100% of the financial consequences of the decision should be on the backs of the citizens of Alaska. If there were corruption behind that decision, then why should people outside of that state pay for it?
January 22nd, 2012 at 2:08 pm
On your first point — governments seem immune to market forces until they simply collapse under the debt. The bond referenda always specify the face value of the bonds to be sold, not the price. If they don’t get enough for them, they just sell more. After all, the current crop of taxpayers won’t be paying the bills; their children and grandchildren will.
Your second point, that you are sick of subsidizing other’s pork projects, is valid and understandable. Of course, they are subsidizing yours, too.
January 22nd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Jack said:
“…governments seem immune to market forces…”
How can a municipality be immune to market forces? Their bonds are sold on the open market. I’m not talking about federal bonds where the federal government can print as much money as they want (hence distorting things even further).
“…If they don’t get enough for them, they just sell more….”
And at a HIGHER cost to the municipality issuing the bond — paid for by the people (and unborn children) in THAT municipality _only_ (market forces will ensure that). If the people in that municipality object to their own local form of corruption, then they can replace THEIR OWN representatives in their own municipality.
The beauty about ending these types of loopholes is that it allows ME to no longer care what others are doing: because I wont be helping pay for it.
“Your second point, that you are sick of subsidizing other’s pork projects, is valid and understandable. Of course, they are subsidizing yours, too.”
It is the person who can take the MOST advantage of tax loopholes that is being subsidized by the people who do not.
The people earning $1 million a year from tax-exempt bond dividends (and hence not subject to ANY taxation) is handed a gift by everyone else paying EXTRA taxes to makeup the shortfall.
Good times in the corrupt US of A.
January 22nd, 2012 at 4:55 pm
> How can a municipality be immune to market forces?
Because they simply do not give a d@mn. Only when they realize they cannot pay their obligations do they say, “Gee, what happened?” Then they raise taxes to cover. They simply do not care what the interest rates on their bonds are.
They MIGHT care about having their credit rating downgraded, but only because their opponents will use that against them in the next election. But the newcomers will come in and do the same things.
> It is the person who can take the MOST
> advantage of tax loopholes that is being
> subsidized by the people who do not.
>
> The people earning $1 million a year from
> tax-exempt bond dividends (and hence not
> subject to ANY taxation) is handed a gift by
> everyone else paying EXTRA taxes to makeup the
> shortfall.
I disagree. I think your assertion about your subsidizing Chicago’s municipal bonds in more accurate, so one should say that municipalities that have issued a lot of bonds are being subsidized by the rest.
For individuals, if the BONDS were not subsidized, they would be earning $1.4M on the bonds (or they would not buy them), be taxed $0.4M, and end up with the same $1.0M in the end.
January 22nd, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“….so one should say that municipalities that have issued a lot of bonds are being subsidized by the rest.”
Yep, true.
“For individuals, if the BONDS were not subsidized, they would be earning $1.4M on the bonds (or they would not buy them), be taxed $0.4M, and end up with the same $1.0M in the end.”
Better that they don’t buy them then, which just keeps “feeding the beast” as Jon put it in #22. Tax advantages on municipal bonds (the loophole) gives municipalities more incentive to continue wasteful spending (by forcing people outside the municipality to chip in).
Plus, as I’ve repeatedly said, it gives the ultra-wealthy a way to avoid all taxation. I’d rather remove the loophole and force the ultra-wealthy to find some other way to make the $1M after-tax (if they can find a way).
January 24th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
“One thing that people will gloss over is the fact that dividend income is taxed two times. Once at the corporate level and then at the individual level. So, although Romney’s actual tax burden seems low, it’s not once you figure that the dividends he received were taxed before he even received them.”
THIS IS COMPLETE FREAKING NONSENSE!!! The corporation is a SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY from the individual shareholder getting the dividend. It is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE to tax the corporation on its profits and then to tax the individual shareholder on the dividends the individual shareholder receives from the corporation.
FURTHER, Romney’s tax burden IS LOW (it doesn’t merely “seem low”), because Romney did NOT pay the taxes on the corporate profits at the corporate level – the CORPORATION (A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY) DID – and Romney only paid at most a paltry 15% on the dividends and other capital gains he received.
January 25th, 2012 at 11:03 am
CheapAndDirty,
Please. The same DOLLAR is being taxed twice. It doesn’t matter if the corporation is a separate entity or not. If you are a SHAREHOLDER, you are an OWNER of the company.
January 25th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Seems like “IFeelSoCheapAndDirty” favors the definition of corporations being a separate person. If so, then corporations should be held to the exact same campaign contribution and other limits that regular people are held too.
Personally, I think corporations should not be considered as a separate “person” (hence any double taxation of dividends needs to be abolished — I prefer Franking Credits to make this happen). Also, when a corporation is not a separate “person”, then the Citizens United ruling is effectively undone — and we win back fair elections that aren’t influenced by corporate dollars (I’m sure corporate ‘entities’ will still find a way to keep influence over our elections and elected officials).