Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (339731)	1/7/2003 5:22:06 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Spirit, it just occurred to me that the State of WA is talking about issuing bonds to upgrade its institutions of higher education. The Bush proposal will adversely impact the interest rates the State of WA will pay on the bonds. The bonds will be tax exempt but dividends will also be tax exempt. The bonds will have to compete with corporate dividends. Therefore, a higher interest rate.

To: American Spirit who wrote (339731)	1/7/2003 5:54:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769670

The lead editorial from today's Baltimore Sun... Stimulating the rich Editorial The Baltimore Sun Originally published January 7, 2003 DOUBLE TAXATION of corporate dividends - first as corporate profits and then as income to stockholders - doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense. But attempting to cure this distortion by making dividends tax-exempt for investors, reportedly the centerpiece of the economic stimulus plan to be announced today by President Bush, also isn't very logical - unless the goal is tax relief for the well-off. Here's what's wrong with this idea: The president's plan would be costly (an estimated $300 billion in lost taxes over a decade). At least two-thirds of the tax break would go to the top 10th of all taxpayers, those making more than $100,000 a year. As these wealthy investors are more apt to save - not spend - their windfalls, it's hard to see how it would provide much of a short-term boost to the U.S. economy. Perhaps, as the administration argues, tax-free dividends would bump up ailing stock prices, re-inflating shrunken retirement accounts and raising investors' confidence. But even then, this would be fertilizing a short-term flowering - not the long-term growth - of the economic tree. All this makes it hard to swallow the regressive notion that wealthier stockholders shouldn't pay taxes on dividends, while less well-off savers who may invest in, say, U.S. savings bonds should keep on paying their fair share of taxes. Even though it might be cast as a corporate handout, ending double taxation of corporate dividends makes much more productive sense if accomplished by giving companies - not investors - a tax deduction for dividends. This corporate deduction would have to be partial: It would be much more costly than making dividends tax-exempt for investors, because half of all dividends are paid to pension or retirement funds and thus do not even trigger taxes. But even a partial corporate deduction for dividends would still make more sense. Here's why: It would tend to raise corporate profits, promoting greater capital investment. Rising levels of such investments - stagnant since the terrorist attacks in September 2001 - would provide more stimulus and a firmer foundation for an economic recovery than tax breaks for well-off stockholders. It also would make funding corporate investments with borrowing less attractive. Right now, companies receive tax deductions for their interest payments, a key incentive encouraging over-borrowing. Wall Street - and the economy - would derive long-term benefit from much less leveraged companies. So the administration may be correct in asserting that double taxation of dividends is a distortion that needs fixing in the interest of economic health. But it's got the wrong fix in mind, one that seems less about stimulating the economy than about rewarding the most affluent. Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun baltimoresun.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (339731)	1/7/2003 5:56:33 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 769670

Hi AS, thanks for the link about Bush's economic plan. I thought this was particularly interesting, if indeed Reason Magazine is libertarian, it's striking that the dividend tax cut is confusing to them as well: But Reason magazine -- a libertarian organ whose editors never saw a tax cut they didn't like -- is also skeptical of the White House justification for this one. Today's Reason editorial calls the new Bush plan "just weird," noting that claims it will stimulate the economy have "already drawn hoots of derision from across the economic landscape." The Reason editors candidly admit that too few people actually pay dividend taxes for the cut to create a stimulative effect. It will, as they point out, favor big business at the expense of smaller, newer companies (and it will also, as they don't point out, place a competitive financial burden on cities and states that are already destitute).