Taxes for Thee, but Not For Me

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
Liberals typically argue that marginal tax rates really don’t make that much difference to economic behavior. So then why are so many companies rushing to pay special dividends before the first of the year, when taxes on dividends will triple? Chief among them is the Washington Post, which just announced it will pay an early dividend:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Washington Post Co. will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases.
The media and education company said Friday that its dividend of $9.80 per share is payable Dec. 27 to shareholders of record as of Dec. 17. The payout is instead of regular quarterly dividends next year.
Washington Post is the latest company to move up its quarterly payout or issue a special end-of-year payment to protect investors from potentially having to pay higher taxes on dividend income starting in January.
I guess the Post‘s management doesn’t read the Post‘s editorial page. Hey wait a minute: Warren Buffett is the Post‘s largest shareholder.
Taxes for Thee, but Not For Me | Power Line

Liberal hypocrisy at its best!!!

Most of the liberal comments on this and other articles I've read lately have really focused on the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. The long knives are coming out in full force.
 

tommyjo

New Member
It seems, as usual, that you are listening to propaganda and not looking at facts or history.

The propaganda is that the dividend tax rate will triple on everyone. This is the Fox News, Tea Party BS. The only proposals for dividend tax rate increases are on those with the highest incomes. $250k+ for couples...$200k+ for individuals. If you are married and have an AGI under $250k...none of the tax proposals will impact you.

The history of the matter is that marginal taxes rates in this country are the lowest they have been in any of out lifetimes. The highest marginal tax rate is now half what is was as late as the aeraly 1980s and almost 1/3 what it was in the 1950s and the country survived just fine. (They don't tell you that on The Blaze or Fox News do they?)

From the tax planning standpoint, if you know some of your shareholders (more importantly your LARGEST shareholders) are going to pay extra taxes if you distribute a dividend on Jan 1 as oppposed to paying it on Dec 31...of course the company will pay it on Dec 31. It is just common sense.

Why does that shock you? Why would that surprise you?
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
$250k a year for a married couple isn't rich.
Why do you support the destruction of our economy?

 

mamatutu

mama to two
$250k a year for a married couple isn't rich.
Why do you support the destruction of our economy?

Agree; $250/yr for a couple is not rich, especially if they are facing additional taxes. King Obama is trying to destroy the US economy so that he can remold it to his liking. Meanwhile, he takes a 17 day vacay to the tune of millions of dollars; it certainly is a 'let them eat cake' attitude. Personally, I find Obama disgusting, and he will never have my respect; main reason is that he is a liar. JMO
 

abcxyz

New Member
From the tax planning standpoint, if you know some of your shareholders (more importantly your LARGEST shareholders) are going to pay extra taxes if you distribute a dividend on Jan 1 as oppposed to paying it on Dec 31...of course the company will pay it on Dec 31. It is just common sense.

Why does that shock you? Why would that surprise you?

Really? :popcorn:
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
It seems, as usual, that you are listening to propaganda and not looking at facts or history.

The propaganda is that the dividend tax rate will triple on everyone. This is the Fox News, Tea Party BS. The only proposals for dividend tax rate increases are on those with the highest incomes. $250k+ for couples...$200k+ for individuals. If you are married and have an AGI under $250k...none of the tax proposals will impact you.

The history of the matter is that marginal taxes rates in this country are the lowest they have been in any of out lifetimes. The highest marginal tax rate is now half what is was as late as the aeraly 1980s and almost 1/3 what it was in the 1950s and the country survived just fine. (They don't tell you that on The Blaze or Fox News do they?)

From the tax planning standpoint, if you know some of your shareholders (more importantly your LARGEST shareholders) are going to pay extra taxes if you distribute a dividend on Jan 1 as oppposed to paying it on Dec 31...of course the company will pay it on Dec 31. It is just common sense.

Why does that shock you? Why would that surprise you?

It seems, as usual, you missed the point. Gosh, I hate folks who have no cognitive reasoning/analytical powers. I'm not wasting my time on you. Guess in liberal cases, it just comes naturally as one can't teach stupid.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The history of the matter is that marginal taxes rates in this country are the lowest they have been in any of out lifetimes. The highest marginal tax rate is now half what is was as late as the aeraly 1980s and almost 1/3 what it was in the 1950s and the country survived just fine.

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com

True, but - almost nobody was paying those really high rates. And the tax loopholes back then that protected people in the highest brackets are closed - so that they're still paying about the same.

So, fundamentally - an irrelevant argument.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.

Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.


Great Find ...... I figured the truth would come on eventually

like the Clinton Taxes Rates and a booming economy - we had the DOT COM Boom going on, and a Republican Congress to keep spending in check - WELFARE Reform anyone ?
 
Top