Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Obama wants to triple the dividend tax rate.

IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

I guess Barry has to "pay for" that proposed corporate tax rate cut somehow, even if it hurts Uncle Jack and Aunt Mildred.

Senior citizens with dividend income.

kalm wrote:Senior citizens with dividend income.

Which is a lot of people. Read the article.

kalm wrote:Senior citizens with dividend income.

Not just senior citizens. How about pension funds? Rather than put money in the kinds of equities that offer sizable dividends, they will put funds into riskier investments. Of course, the price of equities will fall, as equity prices are based on the anticipated future value of after-tax returns. Like all corporate taxes, the cost of the tax will be passed on to consumers. The passed-on cost will affect everyone who purchases goods and services. That's pretty much everyone.

kalm wrote:Senior citizens with dividend income.

Yes, they probably drink coffee. Or did you have another observation you wanted to make?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Senior citizens with dividend income.

Yes, they probably drink coffee. Or did you have another observation you wanted to make?

No, I'm done now.

Senior citizens making over $250,000 a year.

BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Yo, Mitt Romney type dude there, 15% ain't no longer gonna cut it for your 20 million dollar a year unearned income take.




That's what we been talking about.

Wedgebuster wrote:Senior citizens making over $250,000 a year.

BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Yo, Mitt Romney type dude there, 15% ain't no longer gonna cut it for your 20 million dollar a year unearned income take.




That's what we been talking about.

Wrong, marmot-breath, as usual. As the article indicates, even Grizzly Adams types like you would be hit, because corporate dividend declarations and payouts tend to vary directly with tax rates.

Wedgebuster wrote:Senior citizens making over $250,000 a year.

BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Yo, Mitt Romney type dude there, 15% ain't no longer gonna cut it for your 20 million dollar a year unearned income take.




That's what we been talking about.

Yeah, that sounds great on a message board or an Occupy camping trip, but the problem is, it doesn't work. It's not possible to just change the tax code in order to pursue income equality (or greatly reduce income inequality) and let's be honest, that's what you mean by saying that people need to pay more taxes and what Obama means when talking about what's "fair".

I don't have a soft spot for the super wealthy, but I also realize that it's a fool's game to think it will be easy to just take their money like it seems too many of our economic policies are being written for that purpose. The article is correct - if we jack up the dividend tax to the 44% number (and the 64% pass through tax rate) then guess what - people will stop issuing dividends. Earnings are going to be reinvested as stock repurchases - you'd be silly not to. And if the value of the stocks goes down as a result, anyone owning a stock, including all of us schmucks not making $200k a year, will see our stock value drop as well.

I'm all for getting rich people to pay more in taxes than they are doing today - everyone but the rich people feel that way. The only problem is, how do we do that without screwing ourselves in the process? It's a lot harder than just jacking up the dividend tax rate 3x.

Thats ok lawyers and east coast dudes, I think all this soon to be lost income will start to "trickle up" to you once the playing fields are leveled.

Wedgebuster wrote:Thats ok lawyers and east coast dudes, I think all this soon to be lost income will start to "trickle up" to you once the playing fields are leveled.

Sure, keep on believing that. The only thing that has historically lessened income inequality is economic recessions and depressions. And of course, those tend to have other downsides. Keep thinking it's all simple and I'm sure you'll keep believing it, evidence be damned.

GannonFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Thats ok lawyers and east coast dudes, I think all this soon to be lost income will start to "trickle up" to you once the playing fields are leveled.

Sure, keep on believing that. The only thing that has historically lessened income inequality is economic recessions and depressions. And of course, those tend to have other downsides. Keep thinking it's all simple and I'm sure you'll keep believing it, evidence be damned.

This recession has increased income inequality.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Sure, keep on believing that. The only thing that has historically lessened income inequality is economic recessions and depressions. And of course, those tend to have other downsides. Keep thinking it's all simple and I'm sure you'll keep believing it, evidence be damned.

This recession has increased income inequality.

Yup, which made it a worse recession than the ones that came before it - because of the roots of this recession being in the housing market, it did hit the lower half more than the top half. No doubt about that.

Bummer, we can't even count on a good economic downturn to reduce income inequality. Makes you wonder if that inequality really even matters in the long run. If I have a good amount of money and live comfortably, does it really matter that there is a small group of people who live in my same country in the lap of luxury? Doesn't keep me up at night.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
This recession has increased income inequality.

Yup, which made it a worse recession than the ones that came before it - because of the roots of this recession being in the housing market, it did hit the lower half more than the top half. No doubt about that.

Bummer, we can't even count on a good economic downturn to reduce income inequality. Makes you wonder if that inequality really even matters in the long run. If I have a good amount of money and live comfortably, does it really matter that there is a small group of people who live in my same country in the lap of luxury? Doesn't keep me up at night.

Nor I. The danger comes when their increases coincide with a decrease in competition and the living standards and debt of the middle class.

Wedgebuster wrote:Senior citizens making over $250,000 a year.

BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Wedgebuster wrote:Senior citizens making over $250,000 a year.

Nope. It applies to all dividend payments.

Wedgebuster wrote:BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Unearned doesn't mean what you think it means.

Obama's voting base is NOT those making 250,000 per year. In ANY form. His voting base is those STEALING their money legally through government handouts funded by plans like this. This is right in his wheelhouse.

Ivytalk wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Senior citizens making over $250,000 a year.

BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Yo, Mitt Romney type dude there, 15% ain't no longer gonna cut it for your 20 million dollar a year unearned income take.




That's what we been talking about.

Wrong, marmot-breath, as usual. As the article indicates, even Grizzly Adams types like you would be hit, because corporate dividend declarations and payouts tend to vary directly with tax rates.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! What's with the name-calling, you asshole piece of shit?

AZGrizFan wrote:Obama's voting base is NOT those making 250,000 per year. In ANY form. His voting base is those STEALING their money legally through government handouts funded by plans like this. This is right in his wheelhouse.

Clinic example of a Limbaugh Conk-zageration-reach.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:BFD, if there are senior citizens collecting over a quarter million dollars a year in unearned income then they need to pay more taxes.

Unearned doesn't mean what you think it means.

[youtube][/youtube]

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Obama's voting base is NOT those making 250,000 per year. In ANY form. His voting base is those STEALING their money legally through government handouts funded by plans like this. This is right in his wheelhouse.

Clinic example of a Limbaugh Conk-zageration-reach.

In other words: The truth.

Dividend income should be taxed the same as all income.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Dividend income should be taxed the same as all income.

But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the future earnings stream after taxes. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return. And if investors become convinced later this year that dividend and capital gains taxes are going way up on January 1, some investors are likely to sell shares ahead of paying these higher rates.

The question is how this helps anyone. According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51% of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which is more than 100 million shareholders. Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer?

Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.

Clearly you don't own stock or participate in a 401k.