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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (164456)	3/16/2003 9:29:35 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574302

Also it can be reasonably argued that Buffet is wrong about this even in his own case. He owns companies or parts of companies and is already paying taxes through the corporate tax. Corporations are allowed a deduction under section 243 of 70% or 80% of any deductions they receive; if one owns stock in a corporation (Berkshire Hathaway, for example) which is a "public holding company", dividends received by it are virtually tax free anyway. If a principal asset of yours is stock in such a corporation, the receipt of dividends (almost tax free) by the corporation simply causes the net value of the holding company to increase by an equivalent per-share amount. This is, of course, tax free, since that asset is going to pass to your heirs appreciated with a step-up in basis. If you want to here Buffet scream, tell him you're going to eliminate the Section 243 deduction (the IRC 243 deduction being the corporate equivalent of what Bush has proposed for individuals). Tax matters are complex enough that a Buffet can pull a fast one and the media and the tax-and-spend liberals don't even know what happened...

To: tejek who wrote (164456)	3/16/2003 9:40:46 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574302

tejek, re:You honestly think the non rich own enough stock that the lack of a dividend tax will make a big difference? Perhaps, but I've read the real benefit is how it will restructure businesses.

To: tejek who wrote (164456)	3/16/2003 11:12:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574302

And its the most important of all of Bush's tax cuts. I'm not sure about that but even if it is true it would only be the most important one, out of a whole bunch. The rest would be more important. To me the most important one is the reduced tax rates. I wish he would go further with this but considering the deficit situation I can see why he does not. You honestly think the non rich own enough stock that the lack of a dividend tax will make a big difference? A lot of non rich own enough stock that it will make a difference. But more important then the direct difference is the indirect benefits to the whole economy. Tim, if God came down and told you that you were wrong, you would still disagree. I don't disagree with Buffet's statement of fact. But the case isn't that simple. He isn't considering the fact that he is already paying taxes on the income of the companies he owns through corporate tax. If Bush's tax cut was structured differently and gave the tax break to the company instead of to the investor then the practicaly effect would be almost identical but there would be no way Buffet could claim that he pays a lower % of income tax. I think it might be better to give the tax break to the company, just like they get a tax break on debt financing but it might be harder politically to get it passed so I can see why Bush didn't go this way. Tim