The State of the Union (page 2)

rolling rock

Xander: Do you know who owns 1/3 of of all the stocks in the usa???

be wise

What is it with Americans and their president and country. Some of them are the most brainwashed and gullable people of all.doh.

Exemptions for dividends: Bush also wants to make dividends tax free to shareholders.

Making dividend income exempt from tax is believed to be a particular benefit to retirees, such as Cleve Baker of Woodland, Calif., who lives primarily off interest and dividend income from his savings.

"I don't have a pension," said Baker. "Taking the tax off dividends will certainly help with my cash flow, which is welcome."

About 34 million Americans pay tax on some dividend income, according to the Tax Foundation. About one-third of those are senior citizens.

This was taken from... http://taxfoundation.org/press-wealthywin.html

Putting a Face on Dividend-Earning Taxpayers

Tomorrow, President Bush will propose a tax break on dividends as part of a larger economic stimulus plan. In years past, the tax treatment of dividends has varied from fully exempt to fully taxable, and they've been fully taxable since 1985. Moreover, dividends are taxed as income to corporations before they're ever issued to shareholders, then taxed as income to the individuals who receive them. It is widely acknowledged that this double-taxation causes companies to issue far fewer dividends than they would in the absence of the tax.

The most immediate effect of eliminating the double tax on dividends would be a redirection of investment into firms that pay dividends. Many economists believe that investors who receive dividends put less pressure on companies to achieve short-term increases in share prices, and that this change will be a positive development in the effort to improve corporate governance.

According to the most recent IRS data, 34.1 million tax returns contained some dividend income in 2000. This represents 26.4 percent of total tax returns. Dividend income in 2000 totaled $147.0 billion, or 2.3 percent of total income reported by all taxpayers in that year.

Despite widespread belief to the contrary, dividend income was earned by taxpayers across the income spectrum. In fact, of all taxpayers that claimed some dividend income in 2000, nearly half (45.8 percent) earned less than $50,000 in adjusted gross income (which includes dividends). [See Figure below]. Moreover, 63.8 percent of those taxpayers claiming dividends earned less than $50,000 in just wages and salaries.

Another important factor to remember is that a tax return is a piece of paper that can represent a single person, a family, or even a business. Therefore, it is important to look at the number of people affected by a change in tax law, not just the number of returns affected. While "only" 34.1 million tax returns claim some dividend income, these returns represent 71.0 million people. Also, 13.1 million returns with some dividend income also had some self-employment or small business income reported.

taken from... http://taxfoundation.org/DividendIncome.html

You don't even want me to start on the death tax buddy...

LizardSnot

Xander,

Assisting the elderly with affordable meds is good right?

Why the hell shouldnt the rich get richer? So the less fortunate can catch up? I'll never understand that

So our intelligence has overlooked the posibility of neighboring countries developing WMD? Should we drop what we are doing and focus on them instead of evil Saddam?

The one point that we will agree on...the economy was better with Clinton.

Bush still wins in my book. I support him all the way baby!

Lizard

Xander

Actually, I'm fairly well versed in stock ownership in this country by income over the past few decades.

I honestly can't think of any '1/3' division?

Whereas 93 percent of households in the top 1 percent of income recipients (those who earned $250,000 or more) owned stock in 1998, only 52 percent of the middle class (those who earned incomes between $25,000 and $50,000), 29 percent of the lower middle class (incomes between $15,000 and $25,000), and only 11 percent of poor households (income under $15,000) reported stock ownership. And 92 percent of the richest 1 percent--versus 27 percent for the middle class, 13 percent for the lower middle class, and 5 percent for the poor--reported large holdings ($10,000 worth or more). Three-quarters of all stocks were owned by households earning $75,000 or more (the top 16 percent of income earners); 88 percent of all stocks were held by the top third of households in terms of income.

Marvin Shilmer

-> The top 1% of earners in America get more money back than the bottom 95% COMBINED?!?!

And do you know the ratio of taxes paid by this 1% versus the bottom 95%? Do you?

-> And WTF kind of person is BEHIND removing taxes on stocks DIVIDENDS?!?!

Every heard of capital gains tax?

Howd you like your take-home-pay to undergo a unique and ADDITIONAL federal tax simply because you TOOK THE MONEY HOME? Would that grease the rails of business investment, which in turn creates employment? What say you?

-> Actually, the Senator they just interviewed responded better to this. All Saddam's neighbor countries are developing WMD - ESPECIALLY Iran and Saudi Arabia. Whatever government replaces Saddam will have to develop WMD to defend itself. Do we then plan to occupy the entire region forever? Then what the hell are we doing in Iraq NOW?

And which of these countries has used WMD on its own citizens?

Bush continues talk of the budget and economy -> Interesting point. Whoever you think is to blame for the current crisis (IE., is this Bush's fault or fallout from Clinton?), you have to admit, under Clinton's White House, the gov't DID actually run a budget surplus. Under Bush, we are talking deficit after bigger deficit

Budget surplus versus deficit by itself is practically meaningless in the world economy. An unrelenting and significant trade imbalance of real goods is a far bigger threat to a single nations economy. Resources and the ability to trade them is what makes a communitys economy, whether that community is large of small. A national budget that greases the tracts of trade is an effective one, surplus or deficit.

The question of whether Bush is responsible for the declining economy is answered in the fact that the American and the worlds general economy started a downturn way before his election. Like a tired surfer, Clinton rode out the last gasping moments of a weakening wave. Its a cycle of balance.

Xander

Assisting the elderly with affordable meds is good right?

Yes, of course. Forcing them off of medicare so they can join an HMO is *NOT*

Why the hell shouldnt the rich get richer?

I have no issue at all with hard work = money.

How many really, really RICH people have you known that seemed like they deserved their money? Most get it through family, and are lazy SOBs who contribute nothing to society except meddling with the gov't to preserver their wealth. Perhaps more get rich by taking advantage of the poor or raping the environment (*cough*Bush family*cough*)

bigboi

nearly half (45.8 percent) earned less than $50,000 in adjusted gross income (which includes dividends)

That stat can be somewhat deceptive. What is the demographic breakdown of that 45.8 percent?

email

I think the president's speech was great... and the second part of the speech (as speech of its own) on Iraq even better. But of course Bush haters and radical left liberals hate that kind of speech.

I also agree that the response from the goverment of Washington state was pretty eloquent... but with some deciet on his words and going back to the old democrat retoric.

-> The top 1% of earners in America get more money back than the bottom 95% COMBINED?!?! YEAH, that's in favor of the average American

DUH!! of course... If the 1% pay MORE TAXES of course they will benefit more... they SHOULD get more OF THEIR hard earned money back...

-> And WTF kind of person is BEHIND removing taxes on stocks DIVIDENDS?!?! This is so unreal, it isn't even funny.

If taxes are payed on the gains of the corporation... why do stock holders have to pay taxes over that money again?

under Clinton's White House, the gov't DID actually run a budget surplus

Yes... thanks to the administration before him that put things in motion... then he had 8 years to literally screw things up... including cuts on our military.

It takes YEARS for an economy to flourish... and when the worse administration in U.S. history (Clinton's) left the White house... it'll take some years to get it back to normal again... But I guess you'll come back and say that thanks to AL Gore's invention of the internet we were on a surplus under Clinton.

Edited by - email on 28 January 2003 23:15:23

Sam Beli

Agreed Marvin!

Sam

The State of the Union

Share this