My guess is that it's too early to do anything.
1. By the time the competing factions and the law writers and politicians make the final changes, the rules and their effects might be much different from how pundits see the changes now.
2. I'd guess there'd be smaller changes made first. Not complete elimination of dividend taxes, but either limits or some easing in.
3. I guess there would also be some limits on the ability of taxpayers to totally escape paying taxes on dividends. Either a limit to how much could be avoided in any year (as is now done in limiting how much capital losses can be written off yearly), or some offset (take back) to the dividend give out (i.e taxpayer doesn't have to pay taxes on dividends received, but those dividend dollars are added back into the calculation to see if the taxpayer falls into that special AMT paying category; or perhaps for Soc. Security recipients, reduction of Soc. Sec. benefits by the amount of dividends received.
3. If double taxation is seen as unfair or wrong, and changes are to be made, then there is a philosophical argument that might be made (imo) about WHICH of the double is best removed. Should it be on the individual taxpayer-- put that money into the stock owners' hands, let them consume (spend)or invest as they see fit? Plus, maybe get people's votes at election time. Or maybe, keep the tax on the individuals and remove the tax or reduce it for businesses, which might make more money available directly for businesses for investment? Or maybe even a combination of dividend tax reductions for both individuals and businesses.
just ruminating,
Paul Senior
Somebody is going to pay $$ for our security spending and our possible war(s). I can't believe it won't be me. Therefore, reducing dividend taxes I pay (and I have a bunch of dividend paying stocks) will be offset, imo, in some other way.
It is my opinion that it cannot be that Uncle Sam will be letting me keep more money in my pockets when these tax law changes are done. |
