Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every advanced economy on earth uses a sort of preferential tax treatment for income devired from risk-taking, i.e. Investment.
I think all those learned people who created, and support such treament are a bit better at juding than some bunch of jealousy-driven, shallow-thinking, idiot liberal fools.
Let me again put it this way the only result from the Bush tax cuts was that dividends increased and treasury stock purchases increased. It was nice for me since my dividend checks got bigger, but lets not pretend it had any effect on the economic to spur investment.
Simply put when you make the option of paying dividends cheaper people are going to reinvest profits less and pay dividends more.
But now part time is capped at under 30 hours rather than under 40 hours.
Case study from real world.
A while back, Hawaii instituded single-payer health care, that collapsed, naturally, of its own weight.
As a substitute, they mandated than employers provide health care to all full time employees.
In response thereto, employers put significant numbers of employees on a part time schedule, and now many people have to work two or three part-time jobs to earn their living.
That has not been proven ever...that there is a relationship between growth and investment income tax rates. In fact, very good economists have basically found that rather then encouraging growth all it does is encourage excess money to be used for dividends and stock buybacks rather then investment in expansion.
Demand, not tax rates, encourage growth. No demand, no growth.
And the share buybacks happen when companies have money in order to raise the share price as well as divident payout.
In this economy it gives a semi-false sense of a company doing better each quarter when in reality it may not be but since there are less shares in circulation, each share is worth more.
When an economy is doing well and growing and the price of stock goes up, not due to share buybacks, you tend to get a lot of stock splits to lower the price to encourage more shareholders which then increases the share price.
Let me again put it this way the only result from the Bush tax cuts was that dividends increased and treasury stock purchases increased. It was nice for me since my dividend checks got bigger, but lets not pretend it had any effect on the economic to spur investment.
Simply put when you make the option of paying dividends cheaper people are going to reinvest profits less and pay dividends more.
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't change anything. Risk-taking (investment) is given preferential treatment for very good reasons that, perhaps, you can't understand, or, more likely, refuse to accept to suit your agenda.
Demand, not tax rates, encourage growth. No demand, no growth.
And the share buybacks happen when companies have money in order to raise the share price as well as divident payout.
In this economy it gives a semi-false sense of a company doing better each quarter when in reality it may not be but since there are less shares in circulation, each share is worth more.
That is exactly right. Therefore if you want to stimulate the economy you should encourage demand. Not make it easier to pay dividends and plow money into upping stock prices.
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't change anything. Risk-taking (investment) is given preferential treatment for very good reasons that, perhaps, you can't understand, or, more likely, refuse to accept to suit your agenda.
Perhaps you don't understand what an anecdote is. You continue to give these vague responses about encouraging investment but really demand is what drives investment. As such any tax policy that wants to encourage investment should give preferential treatment to the people who will spend that money the quickest.
Let me again put it this way the only result from the Bush tax cuts was that dividends increased and treasury stock purchases increased. It was nice for me since my dividend checks got bigger, but lets not pretend it had any effect on the economic to spur investment.
Simply put when you make the option of paying dividends cheaper people are going to reinvest profits less and pay dividends more.
Every advanced economy on earth uses a sort of preferential tax treatment for income derived from risk-taking, i.e. Investment.
I think all those learned people who created, and support such treament are a bit better at juding than some bunch of jealousy-driven, shallow-thinking, idiot liberal fools.
Demand, not tax rates, encourage growth. No demand, no growth.
And the share buybacks happen when companies have money in order to raise the share price as well as divident payout.
In this economy it gives a semi-false sense of a company doing better each quarter when in reality it may not be but since there are less shares in circulation, each share is worth more.
When an economy is doing well and growing and the price of stock goes up, not due to share buybacks, you tend to get a lot of stock splits to lower the price to encourage more shareholders which then increases the share price.
That is NOT happening in today's market.
I'll bet they don't talk about that on MSMBC or teach that in liberal schools.
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't change anything. Risk-taking (investment) is given preferential treatment for very good reasons that, perhaps, you can't understand, or, more likely, refuse to accept to suit your agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Perhaps you don't understand what an anecdote is.
Typical left wing response. Distract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
You continue to give these vague responses about encouraging investment but really demand is what drives investment. As such any tax policy that wants to encourage investment should give preferential treatment to the people who will spend that money the quickest.
I think you should stop going to school. Tax policy does encourage preferential treatment to the people who spend their money the quickest to buy the stock.
Let me again put it this way the only result from the Bush tax cuts was that dividends increased and treasury stock purchases increased. It was nice for me since my dividend checks got bigger, but lets not pretend it had any effect on the economic to spur investment.
Simply put when you make the option of paying dividends cheaper people are going to reinvest profits less and pay dividends more.
The Bush cuts had ZERO impact on corporate taxes.
It was for individuals. It was to kick start a recession by letting people keep more of their money to spend.
It was put in place for 10 years. It worked for what its purpose was. The current crisis is a whole n'other ballgame and should have required different rules to play by.
The Bush cuts extension was a cheap way out by the Dems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
