Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Would Candidates’ Tax Plans Affect Investors? ^ | October 15, 2012 | Daniel Wagner

Posted on 10/15/2012 3:24:23 AM PDT by Son House

With the outcome of next month’s presidential election increasingly hazy, here’s a shred of clarity that investors can cling to: The tax rates they pay on investment income such as stock profits and dividends are almost certain to change.

Whether rates rise or fall could affect the prices of some dividend-paying stocks, experts say. Some, mainly Republicans, believe that lower rates would boost the economy and lift markets.

Under the current system, people pay the government 15 percent on most dividends and capital gains, the profits from selling investments. Both candidates’ proposals would divide taxpayers into two categories: Those who earn more than $200,000 per year — $250,000 for families filing joint tax returns — and those who earn less.

President Barack Obama would boost the rate on capital gains to 20 percent for higher earners and leave it at 15 percent for everyone else. Mitt Romney wants to maintain the 15 percent rate for wealthier people and eliminate the tax entirely for everyone else.

The differences are more dramatic when it comes to dividends. Obama would tax high earners’ dividends as ordinary income, up to 39.6 percent for the wealthiest Americans. As with capital gains, Romney would maintain the 15 percent rate for richer people and eliminate the tax for people who make less.

The proposals reflect philosophical differences between the parties. Republicans think lower rates will encourage more people to invest, juicing the listless economy.

“It would encourage you to take more risks, put more capital into the economy and hopefully spur economic growth,” says Taylor Griffin, who advises Republican campaigns and served in the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush.

Democrats say it’s only fair that people who have succeeded in amassing wealth should pay a larger share of the nation’s expenses. Higher rates did little to discourage investment during the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was in office and the economy boomed. During that period, Obama said last month while explaining his tax plan, “we created 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a whole lot of millionaires, to boot.”

The election is not the final word on next year’s tax rates. Both houses of Congress would have to approve any changes. Lawmakers have been deadlocked for years on taxes and spending, so any changes would likely be part of a broader bargain to postpone or avoid the so-called fiscal cliff at the end of 2012.

That’s when automatic government spending cuts would take effect if lawmakers can’t agree. In another blow, if no deal is reached, tax rates for everybody would return to the higher levels in effect before a series of cuts first passed during the Bush years.

Dividend rates for the highest earners would be almost three times as high, “a huge increase,” says Raymond Radigan, managing director with U.S. Bank’s wealth management division.

Retirees and others who rely on investment income, even if they’re in lower tax brackets, could find dividend-paying stocks less attractive, says Adrian Day, whose Adrian Day Asset Management invests about $180 million for wealthy clients. To replace the lost income, they might buy riskier assets such as junk bonds, Day says.

Yet raising the tax rate on dividends wouldn’t necessarily hurt dividend stocks. Some companies might simply eliminate their dividends, says Cliff Caplan, a financial planner with Neponset Valley Financial Partners in Norwood, Mass.

Apple, for example, announced its first dividend in July, after running out of other uses for its colossal cash reserves. If the tax rate on dividends nearly triples, Caplan says, “I can see them saying, ‘Screw it. Why pay it out when your investor is going to get killed on taxes?’ ”

If the universe of dividend stocks shrinks, people who need reliable income would rush into the remaining options. Those would include stocks such as utilities, whose regulators sometimes require dividend payouts; and those that must pay out their profits to enjoy lower tax rates, like real estate investment trusts and some energy partnerships.

If many other companies stopped paying dividends, Caplan says, demand for utilities, REITs and energy partnerships could surge, boosting their share prices.

The proposed changes to capital gains rates are unlikely to have much effect on markets or on the economy, several experts said. Caplan calls that debate “a lot of hooting and hollering about nothing.” Investment was strong when rates were much higher, before and during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, says Caplan, who has managed money almost 35 years.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: economy; investors; plans; tax
What the media isn't telling us? Obama doesn't have the aptitude to learn economics. He took 3 days to prepare, after 4 years of running the economy, and still completely lost a debate on economics. That isn't the logical conclusion in a normal world, it should have at least been a draw. And why hasn't the economy improved in the last 4 years? Same reason, no aptitude for economics.


Acquired or natural ability (usually measurable with aptitude tests), for learning and proficiency in a specific area or discipline. Aptitude is expressed in interest, and is reflected in current performance which is expected to improve over time with training.

1 posted on 10/15/2012 3:24:38 AM PDT by Son House
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Son House

What can we expect on inflation and Dollar move? Gold?

2 posted on 10/15/2012 3:58:07 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

What an idiotic analysis!
People may be stuck with Hobson’s choice as far as investing at all but they will not take risks and start ventures or expand for a crippled gain.

Vehicles will be created that will try and work around but for the most part we will continue with stagnation and a gradual erosion of the workforce, decreased standards of living and increased misery index if BO continues to call the shots.

If the payroll taxes are allowed expire and dividends/capital gain tax goes up, the Goverment will harvest less and less take from more and more taxation and medicare/obamacare will be like the dollar store, any care you want as long as it only costs a $. The American dream will be a memory and we will question if it ever was real.

3 posted on 10/15/2012 5:10:57 AM PDT by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Son House

I’m sorry. But I cannot accept a ‘comparison’ of the candidates’ tax plans because BOTH candidates do not have tax plans. There is only one plan - Romney’s be that as it may.

Obama doesn’t have a plan. The implications of what is being called his plan are the result of letting the law revert back prior rates. He hasn’t delineated a comprehensive plan, nor will he - until after the election. Even then, if he wins, it will be implemented however he can shunt it around Congress via Executive Order. THERE IS NO OBAMA PLAN PUBLISHED! They carp and snipe at Romney’s plan, but offer nothing but bullshit in return.

Obama won’t publicize his ‘plan’ because if the electorate got wind of what he really wants to do, he’d be ridden out of office on a rail.

4 posted on 10/15/2012 5:50:21 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson