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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (13851)	9/23/2003 1:03:02 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

you've got to admit there are more effective tax cuts to stimulate growth than a dividend tax cut. If one is interested in maximizing growth and wealth then the optimum level of taxes on capital gains is zero. I mean really there are so many things wrong with rewarding dividend payouts as a form of growth stimulation you have to wonder what people were thinking. For one thing, we want to encourage capital to go to GROWTH companies, that is where job creation is, and dividends are a symptom of maturity. Plust the people likely to be interested in dividend paying stocks as investments are not typical demand stumulus types. etc. I really don’t know what was actually passed through congress, but as proposed the tax reform also gave a break to companies that don't pay dividends. Any increase in retained earnings is added to the cost basis of the outstanding shares. Thus, shareholders get a capital gains break when they sell.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (13851)	9/23/2003 1:35:14 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

lizzie, the purpose of the dividend tax cut was achieved. who gets the most dividends? the elite wealthy. this method of tax reduction enabled the elite wealthy to get much more than everyone else and, thereby, drastically increase their purchasing power and true wealth. true wealth is RELATIVE. if bush's tax plan had gone through, buffet coulda manipulated his tax rate to 3%, and that includes social security and medicaid! the purpose was to enrich the elite wealthy and that's what it did.