That is a double taxation argument against the corporate income tax.
I described the double taxation argument against the capital gains tax.
Unsurprisingly, different taxes are relevant. But I feel safe in saying that "the double taxation argument that justifies the capital gains rate [being different from the labor income rate]" is the double taxation argument against taxing capital gains, not the double taxation argument against taxing corporate income.
From your link:
> Double taxation is a taxation principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same source of earned income.
The model I described matches this definition perfectly. Where do you think I was incorrect?
I'm not disagreeing with any of your ideas. I'm just saying that it is very very common for people to say, for example, "capital gains taxes should be less than wage taxes because of double taxation: the income is already taxed at the corporate level and then it gets taxed again at the individual level."
It is very uncommon for people to say that double taxation has occurred when a nominal (but not real) gain due to inflation is taxed.
I'm not saying any of the concepts you have described are in any way wrong. I'm just saying that the way you use the phrase "double taxation" is unusual and is extremely unlikely to be the same as other people you might talk to.
> It is very uncommon for people to say that double taxation has occurred when a nominal (but not real) gain due to inflation is taxed.
Note that this was not any part of the model I described; assuming inflation of 0%, capital gains taxes are still double taxation because the value of $100,000 (real, inflation-adjusted, or your favorite equivalent term) today is greater than the value of $100,000 inflation-adjusted dollars 20 years from now.
Believing that "the double taxation argument that justifies the capital gains rate" has to do with the corporate income tax is a significant mistake that will cause you disappointment should you manage to eliminate the corporate income tax -- the arguments for a lower capital gains rate will not go away, because eliminating the corporate income tax will not address them.
> I always find that some people are confused by the claim that investment income should not be included with wage income. I like to explain this with a thought experiment of two equally well off twin brothers. Assume that both earn identical lifetime wage incomes, and neither inherits money from their parents. Then both are equally well off. If one chose to buy two Hondas and the other chooses to but one BMW, you would not say the guy with two cars is better off. If one chooses to buy a BMW at age 25 and the other saves and buys two BMWs at age 55, you would not say the more patient brother is better off. (Unless you were the US government). Future goods have less value than present goods.
I described the double taxation argument against the capital gains tax.
Unsurprisingly, different taxes are relevant. But I feel safe in saying that "the double taxation argument that justifies the capital gains rate [being different from the labor income rate]" is the double taxation argument against taxing capital gains, not the double taxation argument against taxing corporate income.
From your link:
> Double taxation is a taxation principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same source of earned income.
The model I described matches this definition perfectly. Where do you think I was incorrect?