“Now we know why CEOs didn’t want this data released,”

[DBT]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

How do you define wealth?

You tell me. You can give examples if you like.

 

[barbos]

Corporate buybacks are intended to boost stock prices, and one effect of income inequality is said to be asset inflation, so it seems reasonable to me that more money invested in stocks results in higher prices.

Yes, but the reason for doing that is to avoid tax on dividends.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

How do you define wealth?

You tell me. You can give examples if you like.

Net worth is simply assets - liabilities. And with most assets in the US tied up in stocks, when stocks go up, assets go up, net worth goes up. No need to overthink this!

 

[Horatio Parker]

Corporate buybacks are intended to boost stock prices, and one effect of income inequality is said to be asset inflation, so it seems reasonable to me that more money invested in stocks results in higher prices.

Yes, but the reason for doing that is to avoid tax on dividends.

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

 

[barbos]

Corporate buybacks are intended to boost stock prices, and one effect of income inequality is said to be asset inflation, so it seems reasonable to me that more money invested in stocks results in higher prices.

Yes, but the reason for doing that is to avoid tax on dividends.

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

Tax on dividends is higher than capital gain tax. And with buyback shareholders have option when to get cash and how much. If someone wants to use dividends to buy more stock they would have to pay tax on it. With buyback there is not tax.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

Tax on dividends is higher than capital gain tax. And with buyback shareholders have option when to get cash and how much. If someone wants to use dividends to buy more stock they would have to pay tax on it. With buyback there is not tax.

Less tax on the seller. Who is not the corp.

 

[barbos]

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

Tax on dividends is higher than capital gain tax. And with buyback shareholders have option when to get cash and how much. If someone wants to use dividends to buy more stock they would have to pay tax on it. With buyback there is not tax.

Less tax on the seller. Who is not the corp.

Sellers are the shareholders who decide whether or not to pay dividends.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Less tax on the seller. Who is not the corp.

Sellers are the shareholders who decide whether or not to pay dividends.

Whatever.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Corporate buybacks are intended to boost stock prices, and one effect of income inequality is said to be asset inflation, so it seems reasonable to me that more money invested in stocks results in higher prices.

Yes, but the reason for doing that is to avoid tax on dividends.

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

Yes it is to boost share price which in most cases helps the CEO with options. So the tradeoff on which one is better is how much per share the dividend is compared to the increase in stock price resulting from the buy backs. I'm not sure which studies have shown to be a bigger payoff though one is more guaranteed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

You want evidence that the majority of wealth held by the super rich is in stocks? What else would it be in? Of course real estate is a major major investment for most wealthy people. But it pales in comparison to stocks.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...1214/where-does-bill-gates-keep-his-money.asp

The accumulation of wealth by the super rich can be completely unrelated to increases in stock prices, even if they hold the majority of their wealth as stocks.

You can have a million dollar portfolio because you bought $1,000 of stocks which then increased in value to $1m; OR because you bought $850,000 of stocks which then increased in value to $1m.

Only in the former case is the majority of the wealth due to increasing stock prices; But in both cases, the majority of the wealth is held as stocks.

You are rebutting a different claim from the one made.

But the ones with huge business interest holdings created that value. The interests weren't worth nearly that much when they acquired them.

 

[Emily Lake]

Accumulation of wealth by the super rich has little to do with stock prices going up. But if that is your claim, you need to do more than state it. You need to show me studies that happen to support your claim.

How do you define wealth?

You tell me. You can give examples if you like.

No, I'm the one who asked the question. You're the one making the claim, define your own goddamned terms.

 

[jonatha]

Corporate buybacks are intended to boost stock prices, and one effect of income inequality is said to be asset inflation, so it seems reasonable to me that more money invested in stocks results in higher prices.

Yes, but the reason for doing that is to avoid tax on dividends.

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

Corporations of the kind one can invest in via the stock market (C corporations) do pay tax on dividends (since dividend payments are not a deductible expense for the purposes of income tax)

 

[jonatha]

Tax on dividends is higher than capital gain tax.

The two rates have generally been the same in the US since 2003.

- - - Updated - - -

Sellers are the shareholders who decide whether or not to pay dividends.

The board decides whether or not to pay dividends, not the shareholders.

 

[DBT]

You tell me. You can give examples if you like.

Net worth is simply assets - liabilities. And with most assets in the US tied up in stocks, when stocks go up, assets go up, net worth goes up. No need to overthink this!

Assets and net worth that far surpasses the assets and net worth of the working class.....hence, wealth and extreme wealth.

 

[DBT]

You tell me. You can give examples if you like.

No, I'm the one who asked the question. You're the one making the claim, define your own goddamned terms.

Assets - property, shares, various investments/art, jewelry, gold, income, etc - with a net worth that far surpasses the assets and net worth of the working class.....hence, the wealthy and extreme wealthy.

You're the one making the claim, define your own goddamned terms.

You appear to be quite tense.

 

[barbos]

Tax on dividends is higher than capital gain tax.

The two rates have generally been the same in the US since 2003.

Not if you plan to reinvest in the same stock.

- - - Updated - - -

Sellers are the shareholders who decide whether or not to pay dividends.

The board decides whether or not to pay dividends, not the shareholders.

Well, indirectly shareholders decide that. Large shareholders certainly can put the their own people on board.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Are you suggesting that corporations pay tax on dividends they pay out? Because dividend receivers subject to capital gains are not the corp.

My understanding is the goal of a buyback strategy is to boost share price, which also happens to boost CEO pay.

Corporations of the kind one can invest in via the stock market (C corporations) do pay tax on dividends (since dividend payments are not a deductible expense for the purposes of income tax)

Got it, thanks.

 

[Emily Lake]

Assets - property, shares, various investments/art, jewelry, gold, income, etc - with a net worth that far surpasses the assets and net worth of the working class.....hence, the wealthy and extreme wealthy.

So in your mind, "wealth" is "having a lot more than other people"?

You're the one making the claim, define your own goddamned terms.

You appear to be quite tense.

No, I've just gone round this carousel with you before in other topics.

 

[jonatha]

Not if you plan to reinvest in the same stock.

I don't know what you're trying to say, and I suspect you don't either.

If the corporation pays a dividend, the shareholder will pay a tax on the dividend.

If the corporation (or anybody else) buys the shareholder's stock, the shareholder will pay a tax on the gain.

The two tax rates have been the same since 2003. It matters not what the shareholder does with the money he receives - buy more of the same stock, buy different stock, bet on the ponies, hire Stormy Daniels, ....

 

[barbos]

Not if you plan to reinvest in the same stock.

I don't know what you're trying to say, and I suspect you don't either.

If the corporation pays a dividend, the shareholder will pay a tax on the dividend.

If the corporation (or anybody else) buys the shareholder's stock, the shareholder will pay a tax on the gain.

Yes, but you are not the one selling or buying. You are merely holding and watching how your stock goes up as a result of buyback. Instead of paying tax on dividends and then using remaining money to buy more stock.

The two tax rates have been the same since 2003. It matters not what the shareholder does with the money he receives - buy more of the same stock, buy different stock, bet on the ponies, hire Stormy Daniels, ....

That would be a good thing, but I am not sure it's possible to make them exactly the same no matter what.