Any comments/opinions on Pres. Bush's stimulus plan?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,029
Likes: 2
From: In the heart of the USSA!
Originally posted by cdelena
First you have to consider that dividends as currently treated are double taxed. It is taxed as a corporate profit and then when distributed to the shareholder it is taxed again.
First you have to consider that dividends as currently treated are double taxed. It is taxed as a corporate profit and then when distributed to the shareholder it is taxed again.
Maybe it's bad for the rich to get richer but I'm not so sure and I'd like to be rich someday.
When I'm out job hunting I sure don't expect the poor to hire me. I like to make sure that whoever hires me is at least rich enough to meet payroll.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
From: Louisville, KY
1. There are lots of so-called "double taxed" items. Why select just dividends? As to corporations in general, so-called "Sub S" corporations far outnumber regular "C" corporations and they are not subject to so-called "double" taxation.
2. The overwhelming majority of serious income received from dividends are received by less than 3% of the population (ie., the wealthy), which does not consider corporate investors such as banks, insurance companies, etc. These are the very same people who make enough sheltered income that many pay no taxes whatever. Good examples of such persons may be found littered throughout the present administration.
3. "It's fair to give the biggest tax breaks to the rich, because they pay the most taxes" - or words to that effect stated by Bush yesterday. Wonder what planet he visited to come up w/ that?
The wealthiest Americans pay the smallest percentage of their incomes in taxes. If earn a living via a salary and you make $50k to $100k, you pay more as a percent of your income than the vast majority of the wealthy.
4. As usual, the Republic Party tries to reward the wealthy who financed their campaigns.
It is so funny to see Bush try to take credit for a renewal of unemployment benefits, since his party saw to it that the bill which had ALREADY been approved by the committtees of both houses of Congress died before it could become law last year. Where was Bush when that happened? He said not a word on the subject. Now he wants to act as if it is a fair trade he just thought up: tax breaks for the wealthy and unemployment benefits for the rest of us.
In fact - the problem has nothing to do w/ the age-old battle between the rich and the poor (which the rich ALWAYS win). What is needed is something to stimulate the economy RIGHT NOW. That benefits all of us, regardless of our economic position.
Even Bush's most ardent economist supporters will not claim that there will be any quick stimulous to the economy from his plan.
2. The overwhelming majority of serious income received from dividends are received by less than 3% of the population (ie., the wealthy), which does not consider corporate investors such as banks, insurance companies, etc. These are the very same people who make enough sheltered income that many pay no taxes whatever. Good examples of such persons may be found littered throughout the present administration.
3. "It's fair to give the biggest tax breaks to the rich, because they pay the most taxes" - or words to that effect stated by Bush yesterday. Wonder what planet he visited to come up w/ that?
The wealthiest Americans pay the smallest percentage of their incomes in taxes. If earn a living via a salary and you make $50k to $100k, you pay more as a percent of your income than the vast majority of the wealthy.
4. As usual, the Republic Party tries to reward the wealthy who financed their campaigns.
It is so funny to see Bush try to take credit for a renewal of unemployment benefits, since his party saw to it that the bill which had ALREADY been approved by the committtees of both houses of Congress died before it could become law last year. Where was Bush when that happened? He said not a word on the subject. Now he wants to act as if it is a fair trade he just thought up: tax breaks for the wealthy and unemployment benefits for the rest of us.
In fact - the problem has nothing to do w/ the age-old battle between the rich and the poor (which the rich ALWAYS win). What is needed is something to stimulate the economy RIGHT NOW. That benefits all of us, regardless of our economic position.
Even Bush's most ardent economist supporters will not claim that there will be any quick stimulous to the economy from his plan.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,646
Likes: 0
From: Ranson, WV
it is more than just wealthy people that get all these dividends.....
do you own any mutual funds? do those funds own stocks that pay dividends? that money gets rolled into dividends paid by the fund to all the people directly, their IRA's, 401k, etc. or it increases the NAV of the fund, which benefits you.
what do they always tell older, close to retirement people? lessen load on growth stocks and load up on income stocks and bonds, i.e. those that pay dividends. i have about 13k of my mothers investment account in two preferred stocks, 1 pays 7.25% and the other pays 8.25% dividend. from that she currently turns over 20% of it to taxes, meaning she cannot spend it on groceries, entertainment, etc. for fixed income retirees, this makes a noticeable increase in their income, especially right now when banks accounts are returning such low interest.
all these plans always affect things based on your own personal situation... i am single and have no alimony/child support to worry about so the elimination of the marriage penalty does nothing for me. i work for a company, not own my own, so small business cuts do not help me either.
you have to look at the big picture and take yourself out of the evaluation or you will always be biased to the plan that helps you individually.
besides, i just had a 76% ROI for 2 days ownership of Dynegy as people bought into it because it was showing a 21% dividend payout.... of course once people read things and see the company has not actually paid a dividend since May 2002..... down it goes, but hey, it paid for my new comptech STB and still have $400 left over, so i LIKE Bush's plan....
keith
do you own any mutual funds? do those funds own stocks that pay dividends? that money gets rolled into dividends paid by the fund to all the people directly, their IRA's, 401k, etc. or it increases the NAV of the fund, which benefits you.
what do they always tell older, close to retirement people? lessen load on growth stocks and load up on income stocks and bonds, i.e. those that pay dividends. i have about 13k of my mothers investment account in two preferred stocks, 1 pays 7.25% and the other pays 8.25% dividend. from that she currently turns over 20% of it to taxes, meaning she cannot spend it on groceries, entertainment, etc. for fixed income retirees, this makes a noticeable increase in their income, especially right now when banks accounts are returning such low interest.
all these plans always affect things based on your own personal situation... i am single and have no alimony/child support to worry about so the elimination of the marriage penalty does nothing for me. i work for a company, not own my own, so small business cuts do not help me either.
you have to look at the big picture and take yourself out of the evaluation or you will always be biased to the plan that helps you individually.
besides, i just had a 76% ROI for 2 days ownership of Dynegy as people bought into it because it was showing a 21% dividend payout.... of course once people read things and see the company has not actually paid a dividend since May 2002..... down it goes, but hey, it paid for my new comptech STB and still have $400 left over, so i LIKE Bush's plan....
keith
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,401
Likes: 1,104
From: Napa
Keep this thread open. The discussion is good.
Pixsurguy, I take exception to many of your comments.
First, an S-Corporation is limited in the number of shareholders it can have (under 100) so NO publicly held corporation can be an S-Corp. Therefore their dividends will be taxed twice.
Your #3 is playing with numbers. And I'm not sure they are even correct. Only half the taxpayers pay 95% of the tax. And yes, they are the wealthier, but ago up to the 38.6% bracket. Most people making 50,000 to 100,000 are in the 15-27% brackets.
Last, please tell me where the shelters are and how to avoid the Alternative Minimum Tax. I have many clients that pay more in taxes than most of us make. It's darn hard nowdays, to avoid paying any taxes.
Pixsurguy, I take exception to many of your comments.
First, an S-Corporation is limited in the number of shareholders it can have (under 100) so NO publicly held corporation can be an S-Corp. Therefore their dividends will be taxed twice.
Your #3 is playing with numbers. And I'm not sure they are even correct. Only half the taxpayers pay 95% of the tax. And yes, they are the wealthier, but ago up to the 38.6% bracket. Most people making 50,000 to 100,000 are in the 15-27% brackets.
Last, please tell me where the shelters are and how to avoid the Alternative Minimum Tax. I have many clients that pay more in taxes than most of us make. It's darn hard nowdays, to avoid paying any taxes.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Along similar lines; several of the people I work with have reported that their take-home pay has decreased this year, despite the usual round of raises. The offsetting factor has been an increase in the cost of the benefits package. (Lucky me, I'm mostly unaffected since I'm single, don't have kids, etc.)
Anyway, the retirement and pension funds etc., I'm just curious how much of their growth and health depends on dividend returns, vs selling off stocks as they grow in price? And what has the trend been historically? (I'm just trying to get a handle on how dividends are really used.)
As an aside - I once helped out a guy with some troubles with his laptop. Part of that involved getting his tax return software working - so I got to see that the actual amount he paid in taxas was just over $1 million. Of course, the amount he got to keep was even greater. Sigh, must be nice.
Not being at the high end of the scale like that, I don't have any problem shifting some of the tax burden from the people around my bracket and lower to those in the highest percentages of income. Especially not after reading about some of the CEO shenanigan's that have been going on. This does introduce a philosophical slant to things - namely, what sort of effort should be made to equalize things among all peoples? I can see both sides of that, barring extremes like this short story by Vonnegut a long while ago...
Anyway, as a hypothetical situation, let's say you have $300 billion to give away. What would be the effects of giving that to people making more than $1 million per year? How about spreading it around to people making less than $1 million? Think in terms of small businesses, large businesses like Wal-Mart and Exxon/Mobile, general standards of living, foreign companies, etc.
*shrug* I'm just rambling here, not trying to make a logical argument.
Anyway, the retirement and pension funds etc., I'm just curious how much of their growth and health depends on dividend returns, vs selling off stocks as they grow in price? And what has the trend been historically? (I'm just trying to get a handle on how dividends are really used.)
As an aside - I once helped out a guy with some troubles with his laptop. Part of that involved getting his tax return software working - so I got to see that the actual amount he paid in taxas was just over $1 million. Of course, the amount he got to keep was even greater. Sigh, must be nice.
Not being at the high end of the scale like that, I don't have any problem shifting some of the tax burden from the people around my bracket and lower to those in the highest percentages of income. Especially not after reading about some of the CEO shenanigan's that have been going on. This does introduce a philosophical slant to things - namely, what sort of effort should be made to equalize things among all peoples? I can see both sides of that, barring extremes like this short story by Vonnegut a long while ago...
Anyway, as a hypothetical situation, let's say you have $300 billion to give away. What would be the effects of giving that to people making more than $1 million per year? How about spreading it around to people making less than $1 million? Think in terms of small businesses, large businesses like Wal-Mart and Exxon/Mobile, general standards of living, foreign companies, etc.
*shrug* I'm just rambling here, not trying to make a logical argument.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
From: Louisville, KY
Originally posted by cdelena
You are turning this thread political and if you continue with this line I suggest it be closed and deleted.
You are turning this thread political and if you continue with this line I suggest it be closed and deleted.
In any event, the purported purpose is to stimulate the economy, which is in trouble RIGHT NOW. As I said, not even Bushie's captured economists have had the nerve to claim that the package he proposes will have any quick effect.
I defy anyone to show me a meaningful difference between this tax break for the wealthy versus any of the others the Republics have pushed through the Congress. Every blessed one of them depended, at bottom, upon the Republic Party's perpetual doctrine of "trickle down". That has been nonsense from the start and nothing has changed.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
From: Louisville, KY
Originally posted by cdelena
If you are trying to help industries an accepted way to do it is to spur investment. This plan should do that to a certain extent. Rather than direct subsidies that normally circumvent healthy market behavior and creates federal bureaucracies and the waste and errors that go with them.
If you are trying to help industries an accepted way to do it is to spur investment. This plan should do that to a certain extent. Rather than direct subsidies that normally circumvent healthy market behavior and creates federal bureaucracies and the waste and errors that go with them.
Of course, the oft-repeated bit about federal bureaucracies and waste has nothing to do with it either. That's just another bit of Republic Party propaganda. If you want to see REAL governmental waste, try looking at states, cities, and counties. Not to say that there is not at least some waste in EVERY governmental unit, just that it is absurd to pretend that it is only the feds.
BTW, I seem recall that a big time Republican politician (guess who) referred to "voodoo economics". That term sure applies to the proposal at hand if they want us to believe that it will help us now, which is when we need it.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 7
From: WA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elistan
[B] Not being at the high end of the scale like that, I don't have any problem shifting some of the tax burden from the people around my bracket and lower to those in the highest percentages of income.
[B] Not being at the high end of the scale like that, I don't have any problem shifting some of the tax burden from the people around my bracket and lower to those in the highest percentages of income.