Seeking Alpha

"Enough about the 'fiscal cliff.' What about the dividend cliff?" Jason Zweig notes that on Jan....

"Enough about the 'fiscal cliff.' What about the dividend cliff?" Jason Zweig notes that on Jan. 1, the maximum dividend tax rate will go from 15% to either 18.8% or a heart-fluttering 43.4% - which means some companies expected to pay billions in dividends in the first few days of 2013 could save investors a bundle by moving a little sooner. Don't miss: He harks back to Ben Graham's drastic proposal that all surplus cash go to dividends unless an annual-meeting vote explicitly provides for reinvestment.
Comments (46)
  • elsrmp56
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Well, that would be a welcome surprise.
    Tax increase on dividends will not have any effect on IRAs right?
    13 Oct 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2512) | Send Message
     
    @eismp56

     

    If you mean Roth IRA, yes. Traditional IRA would escape/defer taxes until age 70 1/2 when Required Minimum Distribution (http://bit.ly/TVMttb) kicks in. Then dividend tax will accrue at the higher rate stipulated by the 'Cliff'.

     

    The smart thing to do, in my opinion, and provided you have that free cash in a taxable account, is to move as much from the Traditional IRA bucket to the Roth IRA bucket during the ages from 65 to 70 1/2 after quitting work into retirement, and pay those taxes now and then.

     

    In this way one might, and just might become a tax-free citizen at 70 1/2. (But don't hold your breath yet, the taxman and the politicians are becoming more and more ingenius day-by-day, and nothing is certain in the future in this era of insane government spending.)

     

    Best to you!
    TK
    13 Oct 2012, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    Taxes on dividends should go up on people making millions, (Mitt Romney) who pay less in % than average working families. Remember the US still owes for the wars and bank bailouts of the W. Bush term.
    13 Oct 2012, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2727) | Send Message
     
    The wars are winding down, and the bank bailouts were a one year cost. How does that explain the $1 trillion + deficit each year over the last 4 years? Over the last 12 months, $262 billion has been paid out in dividends. Even if half of that went to the government, a rate that we can likely all agree is too high for the country as a whole, it only reduces the deficit by 10%. We have a spending problem as much as we have a revenue problem.

     

    If instead, we got rid of our current worldwide tax system, and let US companies bring money back into the US without being taxed twice (as happens in the majority of the developed world), there would be a huge flood of capital into the country, which could be used to pay down debt, pay dividends, build factories, or hire and train workers. The government would see increased tax revenue from new jobs and expanding profits, and the economy might start growing enough to meaningfully drop U-6.

     

    http://bit.ly/Qw2kZE
    13 Oct 2012, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8914) | Send Message
     
    You mean the wars that Joe Biden and his fellow liberals VOTED FOR?
    Go get some more Kool Aid .
    13 Oct 2012, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    The deficit and its resolution is a complex problem that will not have a single avenue in its resolution.

     

    Claims like "Even if half of that went to the government, a rate that we can likely all agree is too high for the country as a whole, it only reduces the deficit by 10%." seem to assume that the political leadership today and in the future intends to do nothing more or less than this single item in order to address our fiscal issues. I do however acknowledge and value the rest of your comment and its points.

     

    I think we all agree that one of the most jaw dropping issues the fiscal cliff brings to the fore is that it isn't even close to being a fix for the problem as it's only value is that it reduces deficit --growth-- not the deficit itself.

     

    Therefore, in attempting to resolve the issue of spiraling debt we will simply need to take it one step at a time in order to not completely crush what is arguably a currently fragile economy.
    13 Oct 2012, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9973) | Send Message
     
    mike,
    Then presumably you also advocate getting rid of the worldwide tax system for individuals as well and not just corporations ... right? Any particular reason you think that corporations should have tax preferences and advantages that individual US citizens do not also get?

     

    BTW, you might want to read the reseach on the last tax amensty for corporate worldwide profits that was granted and see what the conclusions of such studies were with regard to tax revenues, jobs created, etc. And you will find that the results were pretty dismal, which is exactly why many who are familar with that research highly oppose corporate tax amensty on corporate worldwide profits.

     

    http://reut.rs/TTGXnY

     

    Or maybe the more practical alternative is to simply have all US individual income of all forms simply be deemed to be corporate income for tax purposes and thereby receive the same tax treatment that corporations pay billions in political donations for and hire armies of high priced lobbyists to attempt to garner preferential tax treatment for.
    13 Oct 2012, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Remember the US still owes for the wars and bank bailouts of the W. Bush term."

     

    And which every honest person knows is only about 1/3 of what Obama owes as a result of his reckless spending since taking office. At the end of the year, it will be about 1/4 of what Obama owes as a result of his reckless spending since taking office.

     

    Terry330, how about we start working on the current problems instead of living in the past. Or why stop with Bush, why not go all the way back to Roosevelt, because that is where the reckless spending started.
    13 Oct 2012, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2727) | Send Message
     
    I am for a territorial tax system for the US, corporate and individual alike. And that research is for a short term tax amnesty program, not a reform of the system. An amnesty program provides relief for past actions, and has limited impact on the future because it is not designed to influence the future. Allowing US multinationals to repatriate earnings each year, without the threat of being double taxed by changing our tax code is much different than allowing for a one time amnesty.
    13 Oct 2012, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    Mike.........

     

    Your post is spot-on, & well stated!

     

    Outside of Keystone XL I have thought the best, no-brainer government decisions, to positively effect the U.S. economy & jobs, was to allow U.S. multinationals to repatriate earnings without being taxed twice. As you know the argument from the left is; all the companies will do is pay out dividends &/or enrich their balance sheets. Like this would be a bad thing!! Anyone with a scintilla of business savvy knows these companies, with their institutional & public ownership, will not leave over 1 trillion (estimate) on their balance sheets for long. I agree with you, let them bring it home now! Some, maybe most of these earnings will make their way into the economy!
    13 Oct 2012, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Neil.... other than the Stimulus Bill which added less than a Trillion (over 4 years) what other policy was enacted under Obama that increased deficits?

     

    Perhaps it's all from the Great Recession and previous policies.
    13 Oct 2012, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Take5, all I know is that the deficit has been added to by more than 1T each year Obama was in office. It was not that way under Bush. Sure Bush pushed it over 1T the first time in his last term as a lame duck with no power, but Obama has done it on purpose.

     

    Hell, Obama will not even prepare a budget. Why? Because if people see what he plans to spend he is done as President. He is not upholding the laws of the nation and should be impeached. But, now it is just quicker to toss him out in November. It does not matter who replaces Obama as there is no one in DC that could do worse.
    13 Oct 2012, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    TakeFive........regarding your question to Neil, how many examples will suffice?

     

    First, Neil is correct.........without a budget we don't know where the money is spent except for the headline's with all the billions of tax dollars wasted on green energy. Solyndra alone was at least half a billion! Then $2 billion tax dollars that we know about spent in Brazil to help them with oil E&P costs! Much of this spending is so huge even the NYT can't sweep it under the rug for him. It has become serious money even by Washington's standards.

     

    Now lets take the Dodd Frank Consumer Protection Agency, when fully staffed has the potential to be the largest federal government agency. Tax payer costs so far, who knows, no budget, easily hundreds of billions annually. check it yourself on Wikipedia.

     

    That's a start for you.
    13 Oct 2012, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    gh... thanks for the talking points rundown.

     

    Breaking News: Propaganda aside, for many, many decades Congress has approved of spending bills.

     

    As for Solyndra that would fall under "Stimulus" in my comment. BTW, I called that a mistake likely long before you heard the political talking point. It did of course have a positive economic impact when you consider where the dollars went, but I'm not justifying this bad decision.

     

    The Brazil talking point has been debunked many times.... whatever.

     

    Then you mention Dodd Frank which hasn't gone into affect yet. It's nice to know that safety of our financial system is not a priority for you but this has nothing to do with my question.

     

    While I appreciate the talking points in case after years of repetition I might have forgotten them.......

     

    You've failed miserably to answer a very simple question.
    13 Oct 2012, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    TakeFive......."you've failed miserably to answer a very simple question"

     

    Well, that's you're opinion, & you know what they say opinions are like!

     

    You asked Neil "what other policy was enacted under Obama/" Dodd Frank was a unilateral action by a democrat congress, signed into law by Obama. While all its regulations are not complete, (God help us!) the latest I have read about 50% of the regulations are complete. I call that "enacted"! Ask small bankers if Dodd Frank hasn't gone into effect.

     

    As for your contention that I don't care about the safety of our financial system........I did not say there weren't some aspects of the bill that have merit. But, it fails badly where it was intended; too big to fail. And the unintended consequences may bury small banks with needless regulation costs. And, who knows what else, as you say its incomplete.

     

    I stand by my post; we have no budget so we don't know what rat hole into which the tax dollars are falling. And you seem to be okay with that.
    13 Oct 2012, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    He did vote for those wars, but then he looked right in the camera the other night and lied! Just flat out lied, Why? I think because he knows most American's are to lazy to look up the facts! It was stunning, but hey I just shrug it off and said what do you expect from a career politician, one that has been told how special he is for most of his life.
    How Ryan and the Democratic moderator let him get away with that was also stunning. 

     

    TERM LIMITS
    13 Oct 2012, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    I tell my Children this no matter what, above all else in life, ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH "ALWAYS" NO EXCEPTIONS. I grew up in the liberal 60' 70's and 80's, most of the adults during this time failed a generation. One of the most important things in a society is TRUTH.

     

    I did not always tell the truth in my 20's and I can never ever get that back, it haunts me! If I was to tell Children one thing it would be that always tell the truth, no matter how much it burns! Every High School Student should have to take a ethics class, and we as a society should never ever glorify dis-honestly.
    13 Oct 2012, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "You've failed miserably to answer a very simple question."

     

    We will never be able to provide you with logic to replace your bias and ignorance of common sense. What you need to do is ask where this bias came from. We don't know, but it probably has to do with your friends, family, or education. This is were people are programed to ignore reality and common sense for the sole purpose of getting along with the other people in their life.

     

    A lot of young people do not figure this out until they pass 40. Then they think about how stupid they were. If a young person is reading this, please try to do your own research and come to your own ideas. If you do, you will find that the most popular things you read and hear is pure BS and its not until after you peel back several layers that you find the truth. This truth exists and is impossible to hide but very easy to cover up with propaganda.
    14 Oct 2012, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Speaking of bias and common sense....... /eyes roll.

     

    Let's see, I ask for one policy change - other than the Stimulus - that would have created deficits and I get Dodd Frank as an answer. Taken to its illogical theoretical extreme, the Consumer Protection Agency will grow to be the largest government agency.

     

    If I understood gh correctly he makes reference to a cost to the taxpayers and not federal deficits in the future and it certainly hasn't impacted deficits to date. Check, if there has been some initial allocation for the agency then I'll acknowledge this small amount.

     

    Not sure why protecting consumers is so offensive but not sure this agency was a great idea since it may have rumored power but no real power - without Congressional approval (or the FED). But this sounds more political than practical.... speaking of biases.

     

    BTW, if Romney is elected, since I deem him to be a RINO, he suits me fine.

     

    Enjoy your *sources.*
    14 Oct 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    TakeFive...............

     

    What is offensive, or should be is government regulation burden with its resultant legal & accounting costs, over businesses that had nothing to do with the financial crisis & MBS abuse. These are called unintended consequences & is why no legislation, certainly of this magnitude, should pass through congress with zero votes from the other side. Speaking of RINO's; when you people on the left can't get Olympia Snowe to support legislation even you TakeFive should be sharp enough to realize something is wrong with this picture!

     

    As you are participating on an investment website it would seem to me that you might be a tad concerned that the U.S. has a shrinking private sector & growing government sector. The 12 month average published in August, for new businesses in the U.S. is negligible & the lowest since this data has been kept.The market is propped up by free money. If you hadn't noticed public companies paying more than 2% dividends are using nearly free money to take their company private.
    14 Oct 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Breaking News: Propaganda aside, for many, many decades Congress has approved of spending bills."

     

    The real issue, if you are not biased and full of propaganda, is what is happening today. Not what happened with Bush, Clinton, or even Roosevelt. I can tell you are biased and full of propaganda because of your ridiculous argument about the current problems being someone else's fault. We have one President in office that can veto these stupid spending bills and he is not doing it. Therefore he needs to go and it does not matter who did it before him.

     

    As it does not matter if he changed the spending pattern or not. It only matters that he we have 3 years of 1T+ budget deficits and these deficits under Obama amount to more deficits than all other Presidents combined.

     

    That is the common sense that you ignore. Hope you feel good reflecting on your righteousness before bedtime, because voters with your agenda are killing business, which in turn kills jobs, which in turn kills the country.
    14 Oct 2012, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    Neil.....

     

    Spot-on, & well said!

     

    Not sure why he doesn't stay on Huff-Post love-fest, with the other anti-capitalist & where everyone would agree with him!
    15 Oct 2012, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • Deepv
    , contributor
    Comments (440) | Send Message
     
    I hate tax increases but this isn't much of a worry. I mean this will still be the lowest tax rate I pay on any type of income. Plus it isn't a cliff. I like most probably do just let the dividends roll over. The truly well off using dividends for income aren't falling off any cliff at 18%.
    13 Oct 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    Pay more taxes to the drunken sailor! I love how so many just see raising taxes as the solution, all while our Fed has destroyed the fixed income market. I will list all the taxes and hidden taxes I pay below.

     

    1. Federal Taxes
    2. AMT Tax
    3. State Taxes
    4. Property Taxes
    5. Auto Plate Fees ( a tax)
    6. Village Auto Sticker Fee (a Tax)
    7. Fishing License (a Tax)
    8. Public School Fees ( a Tax)
    9. Sales Tax 7.75 % Lower on Food.
    10. Fee to do Taxes ( a tax)
    12. Cap Gains Tax
    13. Div. Income Tax
    14. Social Security Tax
    15. University Fees ( a Tax)

     

    Oh right VP Joe is just an average Joe, and our Hollywood President is just looking out for us middle class. Yes George Bush in my mind was a horrible president, terrible leader, but Obama is leaderless, arrogant, aloof, and he himself a multi millionaire. Obama actually sits there with a straight face and tells us, if the rich just pay more into the system we can solve our deficit issues. That's like saying if the Bartender would pour more whiskey for the consuming alcoholic he will feel better. Problem is like the alcoholic our Gov. tolerance level for debt is so high we need more and more of the juice to feel good, and in the end we all know, the vital organs shut down and the drunk dies! Why our nation did not give Ron Paul a chance, is because most of us are fat, drunk and ignorant and have become a society of me me me first. Just listen to CSNBC or Fox News poison, mean, dishonest, so called media outlets. Like Lincoln said a nation divided will fall. Our VP's behavior the other night and the Grover Norquist supporters are killing our nation.America is the greatest nation on the planet we could solve these issues, we know how, for instance in Germany they have low unemployment because the value "apprentice programs" they graduate electricians we graduate liberal arts majors! I would love to pay taxes for this program, however I fear I pay taxes for food stamp beer purchases. I say f you to everyone on the far right and far left, I say screw you CSNBC & FOX... You are both anti American.

     

    Ron Paul would have given us fiscal responsibility... But this dumb nation punted. Try and count to 1 trillion bet you can't. Its not about paying more or less taxes, its about spending that money in a way that will benefit society, and giving 100% transparecy on how those dollars are spent.
    I say install Term Limits, Give a President one 6-Year Term and Lets set some honest goals for our nation.
    God bless our great nation, but we better come together fast.
    All thsi talk about this tax or that tax is a waste of time until we can get real honest leadership.
    13 Oct 2012, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    I like your idea in regards to doing it like Germany with apprenticeships. Marketable skills. This country has no problem handing out blank checks for educations that have no tangible value. Amazing how somebody can go to public schools until their 18, then college for another 4-6 years (sometimes more), and then get out of college and have to enter a job training program. The problem, like always, is the federal government just hands out unlimited stacks of cash for people to go to college for 10 years to study topics that have absolutely zero market value. And no, it does no good to have a Doctorate in 14th century Slavic poetry when the only demand for that knowledge is from future doctorates of 14th century Slavic poetry. Its a circular system fueled by the almighty government printing press, and will eventually collapse.
    13 Oct 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    bbrady,

     

    So sad, I feel for the young boys of America that are not the top10% of there class, really today they are just passed through a liberal arts program handed worthless degrees and have a hard time finding any high paying work. Look at these awesome young men, the ones that can't excel in traditional education or beat on, toss aside as losers and given little hope today, unless they can throw a ball well or run fast. We can do better, tax dollars should go to companies that can train these young men, as mechanic, welders, Paramedics, electricians, plumbers, excavators, iron workers, pilots, tool and die, warehouse managers, masons, ect.... We are going to pay a heavy price if we ignore our young men, they all can't be lawyers, programmers, Dr. or in the worst case deployed. We need real leaders!
    13 Oct 2012, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • gh1616
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    baseballman24.....

     

    Very good point. More young folks should pursue trades today combined with some level of business administration. There would be virtually 10's of thousands of opportunities to eventually start a small business. The trades you mention, many companies are paying signing fees to competent applications.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    My biggest point abouve is this

     

    * Install Term LIMITS
    *Give Presidents 1 Six year Term

     

    * 100% Transparency of Tax expenditures

     

    * A National goal for taxes, a vison, a purpose, accountability!
    13 Oct 2012, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • yblarrr
    , contributor
    Comments (983) | Send Message
     
    The tax issue is a Bogeyman set up by the republicans try and scare
    the little guy into voting for them. What is really to be afraid of, should
    the republicans win, is that they will establish a Mean testing program
    to determine your tax rate as well as your SS and medicare benefits.
    This would further the decimation of the middle class.
    13 Oct 2012, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8914) | Send Message
     
    yblarr
    Ever look into the new taxes imposed by obamacare? You should, might learn something.
    What's wrong with means testing so millionaires don't get benefits they certainly don't need.
    13 Oct 2012, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Yblarr, spoken like a true recipient. Who cares about taxes when you don't pay them?
    13 Oct 2012, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    yblarr,

     

    you are very ignorant and part of the problem. Stop thinking in terms of Dems vs. Rep. and start thinking about building a better society for our children, they are the ones that will be stuck with the hang over. Better sober up ubarr! Both parties want to keep you drunk.

     

    Write in Ron Paul for President.
    13 Oct 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3183) | Send Message
     
    How would mean's testing destroy the middle class???

     

    Unless they were over whatever limit is set up.

     

    And where do we get the idea that the middle class needs someone to take care of them? Aren't they adults?

     

    Instead of actually addressing real issues - like government spending, a broken health care system, expanding energy production in a responsible way...... all we get are these nonsensical rantings and ravings about destroying the middle class if even ONE government program is scaled back or ended.

     

    I don't need nor want the government trying to take care of me and I believe most of the middle class (other than some government bureaucrats) doesn't either.
    13 Oct 2012, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Dennis J.
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    I am middle class and never needed Goverment for anything! They all lied to get elected. Vote them out!
    13 Oct 2012, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • anarchist
    , contributor
    Comments (1518) | Send Message
     
    Dennis,
    You don't drive on the highways, been protected from harm by the police, fire/rescue and military or any of the many other things Local, State and Federal Governments paid for with your tax money. You probably think S.S. wont be there for you but it will, are you going to pass on that income? Are you going to reject Medicare because your so rich? Get a grip, of course you need Government for something.
    13 Oct 2012, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2803) | Send Message
     
    This is rich, an anarchist promoting government involvement. LOL
    13 Oct 2012, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3183) | Send Message
     
    Government is needed to protect the country. And government should do what it is unreasonable to expect an individual to do. Thus government builds roads, sewer systems, etc. And government does things like NASA, NIH, FDA, etc.

     

    The issue isn't the idea of government doing nothing. Its that we have lost completely the idea of government of the people, by the people, for the people. Its now government of the bureaucrat, by the politician, for the financial elite (with bureaucrats and politicians getting their large cut along the way).

     

    When Obama says he's going to tax "millionaires and billionaires", I assume he's referring to all the federal employees with million dollar pensions (and they do - to provide the same income they are promised you'd have to have about 1.4-1.7 million in investments).

     

    We should have an idea of what our government does.... but I highly doubt today that any average citizen could describe even 1/3 of what any particular government agency does. We have intelligence agencies upon intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, State Department, FBI, NSA, and about 10 more. They churn out tons and tons of reports.... done by people in the 20's and 30's that have never spent any meaningful time in the countries they write about. They churn out tons of rules and regulations telling you what you can't do.... no matter how stupid or insignificant.... and your recourse?? Obey or else.

     

    You can end up with a totalitarian regime in more than one way. A revolution did it for the USSR..... We just seem to be heading there one day at a time, one more bureaucrat at a time, one more law at a time, one more dollar spent to appease the masses and keep the politicians living the good life.

     

    One day we will wake up and realize nothing is better than freedom. No government program. No subsidy. No program. No entitlement.

     

    I just hope when that happens it isn't too late.
    13 Oct 2012, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • yblarrr
    , contributor
    Comments (983) | Send Message
     
    Anarchist:
    Well said.

     

    Most of us do pay taxes and partake of the benefits that we helped pay for.

     

    How many of these "down on the government"
    people have turned down their SS or Medicare. Are they ready to
    step in and help their parents,so they can do away with their benefits as well. Have they requested that their represenatives
    not ask for special money for their state?

     

    The hard cold facts is that we are a socialist country
    or nearly so. Yet the "rugged,hard driving individual" wants to perpetuate the myth that we are a capitalist society.

     

    Then there is the story of corporate welfare,for which
    we all are paying for,will they say no?

     

    Could we as a country do better,sure But it will
    take fair minded ,willing to compromise people who purpose is to
    do what is best for all the people and not just chosen few.

     

    With out getting into party politics most people
    know which party has done the most for the middle class.
    13 Oct 2012, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3183) | Send Message
     
    With out getting into party politics most people
    know which party has done the most for the middle class.
    ----------------------...
    The answer to that is neither. Not if you care about the lives your children and grandchildren will lead. Neither party seems to be able to restrain spending nor do the simplest arithmetic.

     

    And since I believe you were referring to Democrats doing more for the middle class. I'd ask when the last budget was passed so I might go and look at it and try to make a determination whether or not it "does something for the middle class". If ignoring your constitutional responsibility counts as such then I guess the Senate Democrats qualify. But personally I'd say they are a bunch of gutless wonders who should be thrown in jail for failing to meet the obligation of their office.
    13 Oct 2012, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    I don't understand why folks talk about the budget.

     

    Budget not being passed recently merely means that the last budget which was passed, is still in effect, and no new spending has been authorized, via a budget. That's all.

     

    New spending may still be authorized by new bills, but any bill passed into law after the last budget, will have had to make it through a Democrat controlled Senate and a Republican controlled Congress, and so it is would be a bipartisan product.

     

    What's far more relevant is both budget proposals, which delineate positions, and whether or not they have the honest to goodness ability to make it into law via bipartisan agreement (proposing the unpassable is fairly dishonest).
    14 Oct 2012, 07:07 AM Reply Like
  • gjg49
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Superb comment, spald_fr. What irony!
    18 Oct 2012, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Budget not being passed recently merely means that the last budget which was passed, is still in effect, and no new spending has been authorized,"

     

    Wrong. The previous authorizations include automatic increases in spending, without any action by Congress (also wrong.) That is why there is never any decrease in spending.
    18 Oct 2012, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • baseballman24
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    Like I said its not taxes, "its leadership" its been missing for over two decades, no common vision, no plan, no real cultural plan, just loose policy and get mine behaviors. No leadership = no good tax plan, no leadership = no energy policy, no leadership has us worried about a tax or a date. No leadership has our nation divided, no leadership = trillions of dollars in debt. No leadership will some day lead to a civil war, think it can't happen guess again. Blacks vs. whites, Rep vs. Dems, Christians vs. Muslims, rich vs. poor, female vs. male, gay vs. straight, north vs. south, young vs. old.!!!! Me think the life long politicians like it this way???? Why would that be??? 
    TERM LIMITS PEOPLE > TERM LIMITS
    13 Oct 2012, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • Be Here Now
    , contributor
    Comments (4984) | Send Message
     
    What struck me was this quote from the article: "Bolshevik-sounding suggestion" to force companies to pay out all of their free cash as dividends. Sounds just the opposite to me: ownership rights strictly enforced.
    13 Oct 2012, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    I've pointed out, a few times, it's intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of sensible budgets, from one side of one's mouth, and to argue against the sequestration ("fiscal cliff") from the other.
    13 Oct 2012, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • elsrmp56
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    You are all a lot smarter than me regarding the above discussed political matters but a few things I know for sure:
    1. I depend on my investments in the stock market. The stock market under Bush (who i voted for as a good 4th generation Republican should do) collapsed by 50%. Under Obama the market has risen more than 100%.
    2. I am a veteran and a retired businessman. I depend on my Social Security and Medicare. I paid into them for many many years. Medicare is a single payer system that works very well for us seniors. Veterans healthcare is also single payer system and works very well. If you don't think our veterans deserve this medical care you have either not served our country or are too much under the influence of non military people that say they support our troops but in fact have little regard for them. Our military and their families, as well as vets, are being treated very well by the current administration. Better than I can remember for more than 65 years (Thank you President Obama and especially Mrs. Obama).
    3. Those of you that constantly say Social Security and Medicare can not be sustained, I say figure out a way to make it sustainable. When I was younger, like I suspect many of you are, I never thought I would need either SS or Medicare but boy was I wrong. Perhaps getting out of countries we don't belong and more importantly out of wars we have no business supporting would go a long way in making these programs sustainable. How much money do we waste each year on paying farmers not to plant?
    4. I consider myself middle class and can't for the life of me figure out how taxing me more and giving the super rich a tax break. I also can't figure out how my GOP (that has lost it's way) is able to convince middle class people like myself to support middle class tax increases while giving tax breaks to Romney and his buddies.
    5. Another thing, as long as you have a "for profit" variable in the healthcare equation there will continue to be a healthcare crisis. There will continue to be a "bean counter" somewhere authorizing the minimum healthcare we need. I'm not saying there is no place for private insurance companies as I myself pay over $160/month for supplemental insurance that helps pay for what Medicare does not.
    I'm not nearly as smart about politics as most of you are but I do know that I and our veterans and their families are much better off than we were in 2008.
    I can't help but imagine the financial ditch I would have been in if Social Security had been privatized in 2000. It's bad enough that trillions of dollars in surplus in 2000 was run into trillions of dollars in deficits by 2008. And you talk about financial ditches. In 2008 our economy was in the worse ditch of my lifetime. I know trillions of dollars have been added to that deficit but at least we are recovering and like I said before the stock market has doubled.
    16 Oct 2012, 09:36 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs