[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 27 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 27 November 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

You make money off Dividends? Really? That is a rather odd thing to count on. I've made a little bit of money off dividends, but most of what I make in that area comes from currency fluctuations and buying/selling stock, not the dividends itself. This article is lying, however. You aren't going to be taxed on the stock you own, but rather lose part of the dividends the companies can choose to pay (or not) to its shareholders. Implying that an increase on dividend tax is somehow going to make middle class families poorer (when they don't touch that money for years, and you shouldn't be relying on dividends for retirement anyway) is pretty much bullshit.

Edit -> It also implies that Obama is going to increase the capital gains tax, which although I would applaud, I've not seen anywhere beyond pipe dreams.

I'm not relying on dividends, but they are part of my overall investment portfolio. Generally I just reinvest them in something else. I'm not sure what you're on about though, dividends are a way investors (especially the buy and hold types) earn money. If that suddenly dries up due to the tax, it will certainly effect the bottom line for many people. To say that they are not taxing something you own directly is just semantics, since the result is the same.

I like your response though. From now on when people post an article I don't agree with, I'll just say "the article is lying".

Well the article is lying. They are trying to make it seem like Dividends are in some way a staple of middle class income. They aren't. And dividends won't dry up, companies will still pay them to the shareholders, the shareholders will just get less money. I didn't say you didn't own what is being taxed. But way to strawman, I guess. Oh look, another strawman at the bottom. Cool.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 27 November 2012 - 06:16 AM

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 27 November 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I didn't say you didn't own what is being taxed.

Quote

You aren't going to be taxed on the stock you own,

Then what does that mean?

And when you claim a newspaper is lying without any counter proof of your own, what am I supposed to say?

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 27 November 2012 - 06:39 AM

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 27 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 27 November 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I didn't say you didn't own what is being taxed.

Quote

You aren't going to be taxed on the stock you own,

Then what does that mean?

And when you claim a newspaper is lying without any counter proof of your own, what am I supposed to say?

Read the final 3 paragraphs of the article you linked. Then show me where capital gains tax is going up. Then you show me how taxing dividend gains

Quote

makes households poorer

. It makes them receive less of an increase to their retirement (generally) funds. It does not reduce their net worth.

As I said, a lie. You may call it intentionally misleading if you want, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

[Morgoth]

That article is from february, Shin. I've been trying to find some reafirmation that this is a proposal that will be implemented, but I've yet to find anything. However, a Bloomberg article from the same period seems not nearly as gloomy.

Mind you, I don't mean to give the impression I've done extensive research. A quick google search at work is the end of that

[Morgoth]

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Why can't we have both? We could have a flat tax percent across the board, with the same percent covering all wage income tiers, and eliminate tax loop holes and other manipulations found inherent in our current mess of a tax code.

As for 47%. Yikes. That's horrible. That's horrible for any wage tier. No wonder people were seeking loop holes for that bracket.

I just find it could benefit us through just its simplicity in many ways, especially outside the box. A cleaner, clearer, more concise code in itself would save us money by requiring a smaller IRS department, as well as decreasing man hours needed at all levels of state and federal government. A clearer tax code actually , imo, would help combat many of the attempts we get at subterfuge. I believe it would settle lengthy, hot debates in congress, allowing the parties to work together more often, and easier, thus hopefully getting more achieved on behalf of the people. It would help do away with the basis for many arguments on both sides of the Rich vs Poor tax burden debate.

I just believe no system can be predicated with exact accuracy, but I would be willing to give this one a chance to see the end result. I think it would pleasantly surprise many economist. And you're right, its not popular in politics, because politicians for the most part have been in the pockets of big business and wouldn't like to see it, ever. Most citizens never even heard of it. But I disagree about its popularity among economists. It was by and large one of the most discussed monetary policies when I was in college by professors and students, and it was probably one of our most modeled programs. We ran global scenarios for mostly 18% to 24%, with many, many different changing elements, and yes, there was still many who opposed the results. I just happened to always be on board.

I can understand not preferring the flat tax, but would you really prefer our current settup over it? I could see an argument for a new, different model possibly being better long term for the economy, but not our current system, even if and when we get the tax loop holes under control.

I still don't follow your argument. Deciding the tax rate is not what the tax authorities spend time on. After all, it's hardly a challenge to match income to the right tax bracket. I make $70.000 or so, so I pay 40% taxes. Had I been making $100.000 I would have been taxed at 45% or so. There's hardly any more effort involved than having 40% tax across the board, say.

What does take effort, and what a flat percentage tax does not at all help with, is to decide the actual income of a person. That's what the tax authorities work with every year. Applying the right tax rate is an afterthought. A computer probably does that for you.

As for our highest tax rate, we don't have much in the way of problems with tax dodgers. Sure, there are some but they're a small minority all in all. The opinion of taxes in Norway is mainly positive, and reducing such things as the income tax are not much talked about in politics.

Our corporate tax is 28% I think, but it's been a while since I did tax law so I wouldn't say that for certain. There's very little in the way of loopholes, but there are ways of reducing your taxable income - debt, transportation costs, that sort of thing.

Anyways, my question for you remains this: How exactly do you believe that a flat, percentage tax will change the nature of taxes? As I've pointed out, applying the correct tax rate is not hard, and does not require much in the way of man hours, so how exactly will it save money?

[Shinrei]

@Obdi

Quote

It makes them receive less of an increase to their retirement (generally) funds. It does not reduce their net worth.

The point is they make less money. I'm not sure what you're arguing here to be honest.

@Morgoth

Actually, I did a google search myself and came up relatively empty. The only reason the dividend thing came onto my radar in the first place was an article in the international edition of the Wall Street Journal that I picked up on my way home from work on Monday.

[Morgoth]

Shinrei, on 27 November 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

@Obdi

Quote

It makes them receive less of an increase to their retirement (generally) funds. It does not reduce their net worth.

The point is they make less money. I'm not sure what you're arguing here to be honest.

@Morgoth

Actually, I did a google search myself and came up relatively empty. The only reason the dividend thing came onto my radar in the first place was an article in the international edition of the Wall Street Journal that I picked up on my way home from work on Monday.

As I might have made embarassingly obvious in the past, I get most (almost all, honestly) of my international news from The Economist. Not having seen any serious mention of this new tax there made me suspicious as to whether it ever went past the early planning phase. Still, I can't say I remember every article by heart.

[worry]

You probably already heard about this, but it pretty much sums up the last few years, eh? http://maddowblog.ms...bilities-treaty

Edit: fixed link

This post has been edited by worrywort: 05 December 2012 - 05:26 AM

[Terez]

Better news:

http://www.bloomberg...ittee-seat.html

Elizabeth Warren gets a seat on the banking committee, which pretty much everyone thought would happen, but word was there was some serious opposition from lobbyists.

(worry, you need http://www for your links to work)

[worry]

http://thinkprogress...lity-to-murder/

I'm thinking less and less that he's a right wing troll and more that he is just plain stupid on a fundamental level. I'm nervous about the two upcoming SCOTUS gay marriage cases, but as far as I've read this is one of the issues that Kennedy is actually reasonable on, so I'm still more or less optimistic.

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 11 December 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

http://thinkprogress...lity-to-murder/

I'm thinking less and less that he's a right wing troll and more that he is just plain stupid on a fundamental level. I'm nervous about the two upcoming SCOTUS gay marriage cases, but as far as I've read this is one of the issues that Kennedy is actually reasonable on, so I'm still more or less optimistic.

Thomas and Scalia will vote against gay marriage. Alito and Roberts, I'm not sure about. Kennedy probably won't. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer will vote for it.

I think it might be 6-3 for gay marriage. My Supreme Court law class was a couple years ago and I focused most heavily upon Breyer (as he was my assigned justice), so don't go betting money on this if you're afraid to lose that gwap.

[Vengeance]

Shinrei, on 27 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 27 November 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I didn't say you didn't own what is being taxed.

Quote

You aren't going to be taxed on the stock you own,

Then what does that mean?

And when you claim a newspaper is lying without any counter proof of your own, what am I supposed to say?

I hope that you won't mind if I jump into this conversation.

First off shin you are correct there is legitamit fear that dividends will be taxed higher. However any such rules will not take effect until the new year and as someone who deals with dividends for most of my day I can tell you that if your holding dividend stocks you are going to be in for a great end of the year. The great majority of companies are releasing huge special dividends before the first. A lot of them are doing do by not having dividends for the first couple of quarters in 2013. Several are doing all of next years dividends here in dec.

So you will be able to get a good chunk of investing money for Xmas.

[worry]

amphibian, on 12 December 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

worrywort, on 11 December 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

http://thinkprogress...lity-to-murder/

I'm thinking less and less that he's a right wing troll and more that he is just plain stupid on a fundamental level. I'm nervous about the two upcoming SCOTUS gay marriage cases, but as far as I've read this is one of the issues that Kennedy is actually reasonable on, so I'm still more or less optimistic.

Thomas and Scalia will vote against gay marriage. Alito and Roberts, I'm not sure about. Kennedy probably won't. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer will vote for it.

I think it might be 6-3 for gay marriage. My Supreme Court law class was a couple years ago and I focused most heavily upon Breyer (as he was my assigned justice), so don't go betting money on this if you're afraid to lose that gwap.

Agree with basically all of this, but if it really turned up 6-3 as opposed to 5-4, I would be ecstatic. Alito is still something of a mystery to me in terms of temperament, but Roberts seems able to be conservative without being outright cruel (ie Thomas and Scalia).

[LinearPhilosopher]

Vengeance, on 12 December 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 27 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 27 November 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I didn't say you didn't own what is being taxed.

Quote

You aren't going to be taxed on the stock you own,

Then what does that mean?

And when you claim a newspaper is lying without any counter proof of your own, what am I supposed to say?

I hope that you won't mind if I jump into this conversation.

First off shin you are correct there is legitamit fear that dividends will be taxed higher. However any such rules will not take effect until the new year and as someone who deals with dividends for most of my day I can tell you that if your holding dividend stocks you are going to be in for a great end of the year. The great majority of companies are releasing huge special dividends before the first. A lot of them are doing do by not having dividends for the first couple of quarters in 2013. Several are doing all of next years dividends here in dec.

So you will be able to get a good chunk of investing money for Xmas.

So wealth is being xfered out of corporations into the hands of the individuals at a higher rate? I'm happy with this.

[Vengeance]

BalrogLord, on 12 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

So wealth is being xfered out of corporations into the hands of the individuals at a higher rate? I'm happy with this.

Only to get around the new taxes that everyone is assuming will happen in the new year. Next year though will be smaller dividends if company's have them at all. I would not expect strong dividends (from a lot of companies; there are always exceptions) until 2014.

[Gnaw]

Vengeance, on 12 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 12 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

So wealth is being xfered out of corporations into the hands of the individuals at a higher rate? I'm happy with this.

Only to get around the new taxes that everyone is assuming will happen in the new year. Next year though will be smaller dividends if company's have them at all. I would not expect strong dividends (from a lot of companies; there are always exceptions) until 2014.

That's why I like preferred stocks. But some of my favorites are using early redemption to refi at lower rates. My dad's Allianz PS are probably going to be called in June. That makes me sad. 8.25% interest from a solid company. But all his money is in my Mom's Beneficiary IRA and he doesn't have to pull anything out for another 18 months or so. And when it does come out it's just taxed as income. Meaning essentially no tax for him.

[Vengeance]

Gnaw, on 12 December 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 12 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 12 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

So wealth is being xfered out of corporations into the hands of the individuals at a higher rate? I'm happy with this.

Only to get around the new taxes that everyone is assuming will happen in the new year. Next year though will be smaller dividends if company's have them at all. I would not expect strong dividends (from a lot of companies; there are always exceptions) until 2014.

That's why I like preferred stocks. But some of my favorites are using early redemption to refi at lower rates. My dad's Allianz PS are probably going to be called in June. That makes me sad. 8.25% interest from a solid company. But all his money is in my Mom's Beneficiary IRA and he doesn't have to pull anything out for another 18 months or so. And when it does come out it's just taxed as income. Meaning essentially no tax for him.

Strangely enough today I saw several companies redo there div streams for next year. They are still dumping a big div here in dec, but now they are having the div stream for next year be as solid as this year just with out the big bump at the end of the year.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Vengeance, on 12 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 12 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

So wealth is being xfered out of corporations into the hands of the individuals at a higher rate? I'm happy with this.

Only to get around the new taxes that everyone is assuming will happen in the new year. Next year though will be smaller dividends if company's have them at all. I would not expect strong dividends (from a lot of companies; there are always exceptions) until 2014.

Well TVM being what it is this is great news.At the same time if they weaken future dividends that will decrease their stock price,i feel bad for anyone who owns stocks with short options.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 12 December 2012 - 09:56 PM

[Vengeance]

BalrogLord, on 12 December 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 12 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 12 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

So wealth is being xfered out of corporations into the hands of the individuals at a higher rate? I'm happy with this.

Only to get around the new taxes that everyone is assuming will happen in the new year. Next year though will be smaller dividends if company's have them at all. I would not expect strong dividends (from a lot of companies; there are always exceptions) until 2014.

Well TVM being what it is this is great news.At the same time if they weaken future dividends that will decrease their stock price,

The weaking of there price is not as considerable as you might think. One of the great things about companies doing this is that if the first and second quarter of 13 are strong then they can do dividends again. They just don't have any preannounced.

[worry]

Interesting history of the "Right to Work" movement. Color me not surprised.
http://www.nsfwcorp....h/right-to-work