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.
Gotta to love the guy, he's trying to turn us into a Europe state.
Guess at 72 I won't have too many problems for too much longer,I'm sure he will take care of us
Well to most people retired that will not apply. But the fed policy he promotes hurts all by printing money ;devaluing it and by keeping interest rates near zero that is killing savings earnings which really hurts retirees especailly.
In his new budget blueprint, President Obama is proposing to tax dividends of the wealthiest taxpayers as ordinary income subject to their top income-tax rate, which was the practice until the Bush administration lowered the rates. The proposal, released on Monday morning with other parts of the budget, would raise about $206 billion over 10 years.
And,
Quote:
Mr. Obama once again proposed no change for taxing dividends of Americans with taxable income less than $250,000.
Cool. No change (nor hammering) for this retiree ... and probably no change/hammering for the vast majority of people reading this.
Cool. No change (nor hammering) for this retiree ... and probably no change/hammering for the vast majority of people reading this.
I had a good discussion with out of town company today on this very topic. I have reservations about it as one of the outcomes will be to increase the borrowing cost of state and local government. If taxable and tax free bonds both become taxed at the same rate the spread between them will disapear and the borrowing costs/debt service of government will just go up. This is not helpful for public pension funds as any increase in government costs will hurt goverment contributions to those funds. Many of the tax free bonds are held by the wealthiest Americans and pulling them out of that investment will have unintended consequences.
Mr. Obama once again proposed no change for taxing dividends of Americans with taxable income less than $250,000.
Whew.... looks like I lucked out again! I'm confident the top 2% can take care of themselves. Of course, since this requires Congressional action, it really doesn't matter. It's a safe bet nothing constructive is gonna come out of there anytime soon.
> If taxable and tax free bonds both become taxed at the same rate
The WSJ article (which I have now scanned) only refers to corporate dividends.
There is some convoluted reasoning that might be correct. They (WSJ) say that if dividends are taxed more for high-income people, then companies will find it less attractive to pay dividends. (It's not quite stated, but this is presumably because decisions about how much to pay in dividends mainly get made by people in the high-tax brackets). And then if companies pay less in dividends this hurts retirees who are counting on dividend income.
This is more or less logical reasoning. I'm not sure it completely holds water because if a company retains dividends it either invests the money (and its stock goes up) or it buys back stock (and its stock goes up). If retirees own stock then they would benefit from the increased price.
Don't know how much you have been in Europe. However it consists of many countries, as diverse or more diverse than our states. Some countries have problems (Italy, Greece, etc.) and some have remarkably strong economies and a very high standard of living (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland,...). These from the second group have very good and universal health care; a moderately flat income distribution; strong democratic institutions; and in many cases educational systems that are superior to the US, at least below the university level (where the US might be a bit better, but only a bit). Personally I would be delighted to live in any of these countries.
I had a good discussion with out of town company today on this very topic. I have reservations about it as one of the outcomes will be to increase the borrowing cost of state and local government. If taxable and tax free bonds both become taxed at the same rate the spread between them will disapear and the borrowing costs/debt service of government will just go up. This is not helpful for public pension funds as any increase in government costs will hurt goverment contributions to those funds. Many of the tax free bonds are held by the wealthiest Americans and pulling them out of that investment will have unintended consequences.
It's a good point - I'm sure that there will be consequences that, whether intended or not - will be negative consequences. On the other hand, as the article says, the proposal is really just reverting to past practice - " ... to tax dividends of the wealthiest taxpayers as ordinary income subject to their top income, which was the practice until the Bush administration lowered the rates." Were individuals/local and state governments/the economy better off prior to the lowering of the tax rates on dividends, or worse?
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.
I'm confident the top 2% can take care of themselves. Of course, since this requires Congressional action, it really doesn't matter. It's a safe bet nothing constructive is gonna come out of there anytime soon.
