Another? You tard... we have been discussing this since yesterday.

you guys will be around a lot longer than I will..

And you will still be posting fauxcrap.

#6 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-23 04:39 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Feel free dumbass. I have told you retards over and over that I am not a scumsucking investment adviser. You fucking morons just never seem to get it through your cement block heads.

You are wrong on the other thread and you're wrong on this one.

#6 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-23 04:39 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Your Delta Tau Chi name is now Paneotard.

Before the 2003 Tax Act, dividend income was taxed to individuals as ordinary income at their regular marginal tax rates.

Simply amazing that according to RightisWrong that no companies would pay dividends at all if dividends were taxed as ordinary income (up to 39.6%). What did people do before 2003 since no one was paying dividends?

many of them probably had more in muni bonds and other tax free dividend products.

Well that is beside the point. The point is that corporations paid dividends when the tax rate on those dividends was 39.6% and to claim that all corporations will stop paying dividends if the rate goes back up to 39.6% is ludicrous.

As to Noot, yes. I thought Noot's company was an S corp. Since all the income of an S corp flows to the shareholders personal return, the "dividends" are actually tax free distributons, since the income was already taxed on the personal return. S corporations do not have the double tax problem that a publicly traded C corporation has.

I see. So the dividends would acutally go up, helping Grammy and Gramps with more dividend income. Since a lot of elderly pay little or no income taxes, their spending money would go up.

I firmly believe triple tax free munis are the best way to go. Back during the 2008 collapse a lot of muni funds were paying rates higher than treasuries. Even now I have a fund that is yielding 5% triple tax free.

shareholders might be inclined to divest themselves of stock and move the other direction

Could happen. But they are not going to get a decent yield from a CD anywhere these days, and those have always be taxed at ordinary rates up to 39.4%.

The only thing they could seek to do is hit a muni fund or some other high yielding investment like a REIT.

#23 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-23 07:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

One more time Paneotard... how many dividend paying companies pay the 35% rate?

GE paid 0% last year. They pay a dividend.

Keep shilling for the 1%.

Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

And what is the wealth of those 75%?

You can throw cherry picked statistics out all you like.

Table 2: Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2007
Investment Assets
Top 1 percent Next 9 percent Bottom 90 percent
Business equity 62.4% 30.9% 6.7%
Financial securities 60.6% 37.9% 1.5%
Trusts 38.9% 40.5% 20.6%
Stocks and mutual funds 38.3% 42.9% 18.8%
Non-home real estate 28.3% 48.6% 23.1%
TOTAL investment assets 49.7% 38.1% 12.2%

Besides Paneotard, when the dividends are taxed as ordinary income, it will be taxed based on marginal rates, so seniors that live off of a few thousand in dividends and social security will likely end up paying 0 taxes on those dividends.

The top 10% own 81% of stocks and mutual funds and you are so quick to suck their junk you believe (or don't believe) that every senior in bottom 90% will be irreparably harmed by allowing the BUSH tax cut to expire.

First it is a proposed tax so no one is paying this yet

You obviously have your panties wedged up your vag over it Paneotard.

Second the repeal of the Bush tax cuts in not the complete Obama plan there is a change in dividend tax rate to:

Engrish?

Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare,

Surtax on Investment Income
There's yet another marriage penalty here, since the new 3.8% investment surtax for 2013 hits singles with more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income and joint filers with more than $250,000.

A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.

Didn't take long for Rupert to turn the WSJ into partisan piece of shit rag.

#31 Do you have a point. I have acknowledged the double tax effects of dividends. No fucking duh.

Obama's Dividend Assault
Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%â€"nearly three times today's 15% rate.
Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

#23 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-23 07:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

But you get your vag hysterics by shrieking that 64.1% tax rate on dividends which includes:

a) corporate rate at 35% that may are may not happen. GE paid 0% last year.
b) top personal rate at 39.6% which is only the tax rate for taxable incomes of $379,000
c) medicare surtax of 3.8% which is only for AGI of $200,000 or more.

Tell me another lie how A plan to triple the tax rate would hurt all shareholders.

You delta tau chi name is now Paneotard.

So tell me, what would the combined tax rate on a dividend from GE paid to a retiree collecting $20,000 social security and $5,000 of GE dividends, single, no other income, no itemized deduction be?

Here's a hint... it would be less than 1%.

Nowhere in any of these articles is GE used as an example.

That is because GE doesn't fit into their spin.

But you buy right into their bullshit.

And you are quick to parrot the meme of the day from the RNC.

Let's look at tax rates of dividend paying stocks.

And you are quick to parrot the meme of the day from the RNC.

Let's look at tax rates of dividend paying stocks.

Whatever the fuck that means.

It means whatever the fuck you make it up to mean peepee.

"Ironically both are stupid as sand when it comes to their idea of that caused the mortgage meltdown."

I guess writing bad loans, splitting them into mortgage backed securities and selling them as AAA is not enough of a cause of the mortgage meltdown?

"So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate..."

That would be assuming that they pay the 35% rate. Not all companies pay the 35% rate. So the assumption is false and designed to fit a premeditated outcome. Therefore is bullshit.

he thinks you're gullible enough to fall for it.

Nail meet hammer.

What exactly is a attainable assets the banks didn't go after?

I said banks wrote mortgages where they did not verify income or assets or even the fact that the applicant had a job.

If you want to put words in my mouth, that is your choice.

I guess someone as stupid as yourself would like to pretend any simpleton understands how they were rated, packaged and priced for the secondary and open market.

In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

You want to pretend you know wtf the author's intentions are,

No pretending needed. The author's intentions are apparent... scare the shit out of morons like you to give yet another tax cut to the top 10%. The gravy on the kibble would be to "expand the base" (RNC codespeak for increasing tax on the poor) to pay for it.

I know I alone verfied about 1000.

So because you did your work, that means that everyone else did their job properly too. You can personally guarantee that every mortgage written from 2002 - 2008 was documented properly, all incomes were verified. You gonna put your personally guarantee on that?