Obama's Dividend Assault

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

I would love to see what you're invested in. I bet your friends call you the Oracle of Norfolk.

Ask and you shall receive:

 

Appl

NOV

HD

KMP

 

I'm going to by Visa stock soon, I think

[DC Tom]

Do you own a mutual fund?

 

Or a piggy bank?

[birdog1960]

[quote name='/dev/null' timestamp='1329948524' post='2387338'

 

 

Why should my father pay for your mother's health care? Conversely why should your mother pay for my father's health care?

we're all (everyone not already on medicare) already paying for nearly everyones parents health care already. families making 50k helped cover barbara bush's bypass surgery. so maybe her family will pay some of it back through higher dividend taxes.

[meazza]

we're all (everyone not already on medicare) already paying for nearly everyones parents health care already. families making 50k helped cover barbara bush's bypass surgery. so maybe her family will pay some of it back through higher dividend taxes.

 

You do realize that higher dividend taxes will simply force companies to decrease dividends and switch to share repurchase agreements with the same !@#$ing cash flow?

 

Do you not know the definition of cause and effect?

[B-Man]

Soak The Rich, Drown The Retirees

Obama’s Dividend Tax Proposal Depressingly Similar To Failed UK Tax Hike

 

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

 

– Proverbs 26:11

 

One of the first things new British Prime Minister David Cameron did in order to fix Great Britain’s recent economic problems was to tax the rich. He raised Great Britain’s top tax rate to 50% and his economists predicted that this would raise an extra billion pounds of revenue per year from the HATEFUL1%™. The Telegraph UK describes how this worked out below.

 

 

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period. (My Bolding)….It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

 

{snip}

 

The Obama tax hike is specifically targeted towards individuals making $200 or more per year; $250K for married couples. Yet, the recent histories of dividend income totals suggest that it is highly sensitive to tax rates. The more dividends get taxed, the fewer corporations pay them out. The corporations return cash to shareholders through stock repurchases instead.

 

But “!So what?!” Harry Waxman would loudly ask. This just hits the HATEFUL1%™. It’s like that Buffet Tax that won’t quite buffet anybody named Warren. Actually, Nostrildamus, most dividend income goes to retires. According to the IRS, ¾ of that income goes to people older than age 55. And not only that, anything that reduces the overall value of equity as an asset class; also reduces the economic value of every share of stock held by the general public. This tax does for stock holdings what the recent MBS meltdown did for our housing values.

 

So never you mind that 51% of all Americans hold common stock personally, or through their retirement plan. Forget that the smart money would be selling this as fast as HFT algorithm could compile and execute. We’re all about taxing HATEFUL1%™. And if other people get hurt in the process, keep in mind the old, dark humor espoused by the Field Artilleryman concerning collateral damage from indirect fire: “(Bleep) ‘em if they can’t take a joke!”

RedState

 

.

[Chef Jim]

You do realize that higher dividend taxes will simply force companies to decrease dividends and switch to share repurchase agreements with the same !@#$ing cash flow?

 

Do you not know the definition of cause and effect?

 

No it will cause people to go back to buying bonds for income which will depress the stock market and Davey's 401k.

[/dev/null]

You do realize that higher dividend taxes will simply force companies to decrease dividends and switch to share repurchase agreements with the same !@#$ing cash flow?

 

Do you not know the definition of cause and effect?

 

The best definition of cause and effect I think some people have is a combinational philosophy of South Park and Charlie Sheen

 

Phase I: Tax somebody else

Phase II:

Phase III: Winning!

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Interesting that Obama is acting more like Ronald Reagan than any Republican

 

 

 

Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy adviser in the Reagan White House, says fairness was the touchstone for the Tax Reform Act.

 

"Keep in mind that one of the most important elements of that deal was that Ronald Reagan agreed to raise the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent, because he agreed with the Democrats that capital gains and ordinary income ought to be taxed at the same rate," says Bartlett, who is also the author of The Benefit and the Burden, a new book on tax reform.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/17/141407285/times-have-changed-since-reagans-1986-tax-reform

[Magox]

F*** dividends! 100 million people may get them, but the vast, vast majority of it goes to the very, very top sliver of the 1%. Seriously, how much stock in a company do you need to own to actually get enough from dividends to even matter?

That has got to be one of the most false and ignorant things you've said yet. Really.

 

You have any idea how many retiree's depend on dividends as part of their retirement income? What about Pension funds? All those Unions, you know how badly they would be effected? Why do I even bother? At least with Birdog you know where he stands, he's a quasi socialist/communist, so this sort of taxation is mild by his standards, but you on the otherhand, you're just a unabashed obama fact hating cheerleading kool-aid loving leftist.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

That has got to be one of the most false and ignorant things you've said yet. Really.

 

You have any idea how many retiree's depend on dividends as part of their retirement income? What about Pension funds? All those Unions, you know how badly they would be effected? Why do I even bother? At least with Birdog you know where he stands, he's a quasi socialist/communist, so this sort of taxation is mild by his standards, but you on the otherhand, you're just a unabashed obama fact hating cheerleading kool-aid loving leftist.

I admit I might be wrong, but my experience with dividends has been that they are almost totally irrelevant.

 

Any non-far right wing web site to educate me on this?

[Chef Jim]

I admit I might be wrong, but my experience with dividends has been that they are almost totally irrelevant.

 

Any non-far right wing web site to educate me on this?

 

Dividends are totally irrelevant? You're a funny guy.

[meazza]

I admit I might be wrong, but my experience with dividends has been that they are almost totally irrelevant.

 

Any non-far right wing web site to educate me on this?

 

Yeah eh, I'm sure when fund managers present their results, they exclude dividends because you know, who gives a !@#$.

[Jauronimo]

I admit I might be wrong, but my experience with dividends has been that they are almost totally irrelevant.

 

Any non-far right wing web site to educate me on this?

Your experience is 5 stocks, one of which pays a reasonable yield. Take a look at stock market returns over the past decade, where a passive S&P strategy is basically flat. Capital appreciation is far from certain, but guaranteed payouts in the form of dividends can generate nice returns in any market.

 

And as meazza already stated, firms will simply cut dividends and increase shareholder value through share repurchases. Or worse, taxing dividends might encourage all sorts of ill-advised acquisitions and projects from mediocre execs trying to grow the company. I'm guessing this will go down as another shining example of raising tax rates only to collect less tax revenue.

[Alaska Darin]

we're all (everyone not already on medicare) already paying for nearly everyones parents health care already. families making 50k helped cover barbara bush's bypass surgery. so maybe her family will pay some of it back through higher dividend taxes.

Horseshit. The government isn't going to start paying its bills simply because it takes in more money. That's just another fallacy you lemmings keep perpetuating. The problems with government have absolutely nothing to do with how much money any level takes in.

[birdog1960]

Horseshit. The government isn't going to start paying its bills simply because it takes in more money. That's just another fallacy you lemmings keep perpetuating. The problems with government have absolutely nothing to do with how much money any level takes in.

well, that's a whole different argument that i'm not sure i agree with either. the argument i was making regards fairness. why should much of what some hedge fund managers make in a year be taxed at 15% when their bmw mechanic pays 25-30%? why should barbara bush and other uberwealthy people not be means tested for medicare and or social security but yey still be entitled to tax breaks not available to the lowly plebs, at least not on any comparable scale??

[Alaska Darin]

well, that's a whole different argument that i'm not sure i agree with either. the argument i was making regards fairness. why should much of what some hedge fund managers make in a year be taxed at 15% when their bmw mechanic pays 25-30%? why should barbara bush and other uberwealthy people not be means tested for medicare and or social security but yey still be entitled to tax breaks not available to the lowly plebs, at least not on any comparable scale??

I'm pretty sure Barbara Bush and her family pay far more in taxes than they receive back in services, not that it matters in the least because the problem in Washington has little to do with what percentage of taxes "rich" people pay.

 

At the end of the day, the only way to ensure fairness on this issue is to simplify the tax system and take the power away from Washington DC and the state capitals. Until that happen, we'll keep having class warfare arguments and getting absolutely nowhere.

[Jauronimo]

well, that's a whole different argument that i'm not sure i agree with either. the argument i was making regards fairness. why should much of what some hedge fund managers make in a year be taxed at 15% when their bmw mechanic pays 25-30%? why should barbara bush and other uberwealthy people not be means tested for medicare and or social security but yey still be entitled to tax breaks not available to the lowly plebs, at least not on any comparable scale??

The mechanic also pays 15% on his dividends. Sounds fair to me.

[Doc]

At the end of the day, the only way to ensure fairness on this issue is to simplify the tax system and take the power away from Washington DC and the state capitals. Until that happen, we'll keep having class warfare arguments and getting absolutely nowhere.

Exactly. Why didn't Barry do this in his first year?

[Joe Miner]

I admit I might be wrong, but my experience with dividends has been that they are almost totally irrelevant.

 

Any non-far right wing web site to educate me on this?

 

Yes, you are totally wrong.

[DC Tom]

I admit I might be wrong, but my experience with dividends has been that they are almost totally irrelevant.

 

Any non-far right wing web site to educate me on this?

 

Don't forget the real reason dividends are irrelevent: when a stock goes ex-dividend, they reduce the price of the stock by the amount of the dividend, which makes the "return" of the dividend a complete fiction. So when the dividend is paid, you end up with the same amount of money that you had before it was paid.

 

Don't know how you could have missed that.