sturg33
I
Re-posting this for fun
CBO: Top 40% paid 106% of income taxes...
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Re-posting this for fun
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
The investor class is the problem, you're right it's on the businesses to do but a change in Capital Gains coudl stop short trading and other issues.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
But this is just simple math. We don't know the taxable income base adjustments that accompanied rate changes. The bottom line of any tax system is to raise government revenue at a level that reaches the budgeted amounts. So if Rate Structure A times Tax Base B equals the amount of revenue you seek, it only follows that Rate Structure A - x times Tax Base B + y could raise the same amount of aggregate revenue. The other issue that still remains, however, is how you want to distribute the tax burden.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
And how does that track with economic conditions? That was the verbiage, right? And you see how that's not the most meaningful number, absent context, right? If there's a big split between the cap gains rate and the top rate on income, you're just going to see a ton of money moving from one bucket to the other.
I'll preface this by saying that this graph doesn't tell the whole story, but here is another interesting data point:
Correlation of .12.
OK, this is not supposed to be some kind of showstopper. I'm not trying to prove that there is no relationship between the cap gains rate and economic growth. I'm saying that the big picture is complex and hard for anyone to grasp and speak authoritatively about. What I'm getting from you, in this thread and all of the others, is a lot of absolutes: taxes are always bad, lower is always better, and there is no societal benefit to a tax regime that redistributes wealth.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
OK, noted. I was trying to answer a specific challenge, without being too long-winded. I meant that the tax regime is not, in practice or intent, punishment for the fact of affluence.
Upthread, I stated specifically what kind of a tax regime is my preference. Do I think I have the right of the argument? Sure. Am I arguing that my opinion reflects deeper moral truths? No. Not here, anyway.
FreemanFan
Danville Rookie
Apple employees don't own any Apple stock? If they do then a rise in the stock price benefits them. What is a stock buyback if not an investment in the company?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Higher ups may but I don't think the geek squad or whatever can afford 400 bucks for one tiny share. Apple has an employee stock purchase. But that dilutes the value of the stock. Which is the opposite of what Icahn wants.
FreemanFan
Danville Rookie
How does Apple employees buying the stock dilute share value? They are buying shares already outstanding.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That not how typical ESPP work. I can't say how Apple does it since I don't care to research it, but typically what happens is a company creates stock. Lets say Apple creates 1000 shares for the ESPP. Then they offer it to employees for a discount, say of like 15%. Now you can either have stock saved up (most companies do) that goes to ESPP, or you can actively create (way too much work) but regardless the creation of stock dilutes the value.
Apple about 2 years ago started a stock repurchasing plan of 45 billion dollars where basically they'll scoop up all outstanding shares. This was done to appease the investor class because of the dilution that was occurring because of the ESPP. This allows Apple to stock up on stocks for their employees without creating stocks and pissing off their shareholders.
Stock buybacks are appeasements to shareholders. They sureup the value of the stock because the company is less likely to need to add more stock for benefits paid out to it's employees. Less stocks out there more value for the investor.
Apple about 2 years ago started a stock repurchasing plan of 45 billion dollars where basically they'll scoop up all outstanding shares. This was done to appease the investor class because of the dilution that was occurring because of the ESPP. This allows Apple to stock up on stocks for their employees without creating stocks and pissing off their shareholders.
Stock buybacks are appeasements to shareholders. They sureup the value of the stock because the company is less likely to need to add more stock for benefits paid out to it's employees. Less stocks out there more value for the investor.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That's more or less common. Again the ESPP usually comes from an allotted set of stocks. The company doesn't want to pay the going rate for stocks. Instead they usually have some horded away. Altough I can't speak for the inner workings of Apple.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Correct, but what was happening with Apple from what I understand was the stock giveouts were happening too much for the investors or something along those lines and so to appease them Apple started their buyback.
I don't know anything about that but normally the #1 reason for a stock buyback is if the company believes its stock is undervalued. It sends a positive message to the market that the company is confident moving forward.
The apple stock buy back happened because Apple has so much cash on hand that they used that cash to buy back shares to appease stock holders. The big share holders all wanted apple to do something with all their money whether it be buy netflix, buy hulu, buy TWC, buy ATT and many big apple holders just wanted stock buy backs to raise their value. The buy back is the easiest thing to do
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well Apple's was many fold. They probably believe they were undervalued. But it realy had a lot to do with Employee Stock. Both through purchasing and through rewards to executives, etc. Apple was sitting on a mountain of cash and decided to sure up their stock profile. Apple doesnt really need them, they just help.