221–230 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lining investor pockets Investors are often normal people like you and me, using dividends and the sale of shares to put food on their families' tables.
I've never once met a person who would otherwise go hungry if they didn't get dividends, have you? What you really mean is those "normal people" would have to sell their third car or maybe rent out their summer home without that dividend, which is just fine by me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most tech companies don't dividend... you buy the stock or sell it based on their current profits.
I cannot for the life of me understand why’d someone who’s not an institutional investor (say Buffet) would want to own stock in a company that doesn’t pay dividends. It’s basically buying a vanity plate and hoping someone else will buy it for more down the road.
> The fundamental answer to all of this is that the profits must be shared with shareholders at some point. This is what terminates the infinite regression. If a company believes that they can retain their earned profits to further grow and generate even more profits, they will do so. However if a company continues to grow and do well, eventually they will accumulate so much cash in the bank that they can’t find good use for all of it. At this point they will have to pay it out to shareholders through a dividend or stock buyback. If they refuse to, at some point the shareholders will band together and vote for new management that will pay it out.
https://stuffexplained.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why_buy_stoc...
So even if the company does not pay dividends currently (reinvesting it instead), there will eventually come a point at which their growth flatlines, and they will start paying out dividends. If the market is rational, it will have forecasted this flatlining and the stock price will have taken that into account.
Danish lawyer here. The proposal only limits payments to companies that have received more than DKK 60 million (around EUR 8 million) in aid. So this is not your usual business owner. These are generally larger companies with a well paid management. As for companies registered in tax havens, the EU has made an official list of tax havens, which will be followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_tax_haven_…
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/malta-a-fiscal-black-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, companies acting completely legally by seeking to minimize their tax burden, which serves to further maximize the money available for their owners, get penalized. Likewise, companies acting completely ethically, by returning much of their profit to their shareholders via dividends instead of hoarding it themselves get penalized. And this gets celebrated?
I think you'll find a lot of people do not agree with your definition of "penalized". Not giving something to someone who was never entitled to it is not penalizing. > So, companies acting completely legally by seeking to minimize their tax burden, which serves to further maximize the money available for their owners, get penalized It's fairly simple. If you don't want to pay the government, the government doesn't wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the response would be that most of these governments* are not spending the money to keep the businesses open - they're spending it to keep employees solvent. To accomplish that, not all businesses need to be saved. *The USA is an obvious exception where for at least a substantial group of people, the purpose is to keep the businesses intact. They really couldn't care less about the employees.
There are 30.2 million small businesses in the US, which comprise a whopping 99.9% of all United States businesses and make up for the lion's share of employment. This is very different from Europe. By bailing out the small business owners, you have a better chance at maintaining employment or for employment to re-emerge after a crisis. Small business ownership is also a huge source of middle class wealth here in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do a majority of publicly traded companies not pay dividends? I've noticed before that for many companies by identifier (ISIN, SEDOL, CUSIP, take your pick) that there are no dividend histories. The only example that I know the reason why is Amazon. [If you buy Amazon stock you either 1) expect dividends at some later stage or 2) plan on selling the stock for a higher price.]
Some companies 'reinvest' profits in their operations and don't pay dividends. Others avoid dividends, as dividends are profits that are taxed twice. (Once for corporate income taxes, and again for individual income taxes.) Selling the stock for a higher price has opportunity for favorable tax treatment at the lower long-term capital gains vs dividends taxes as regular income.
Dividends are generally taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, not as ordinary income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "because we like them and we feel a patriotic/moral/righteous duty to help them" Sounds like an abusive relationship. Again, if a company wants to be bailed out by the tax payer, I don't think it's a stretch to ask that they pay taxes . Otherwise it's like me, a foreigner with no connection to Denmark other than that I've 'helped the economy' when I went on vacation there last year asking for a bailout. > But if th…
Just replying to myself, I was incredulous that cruise lines were requesting a bailout from the US taxpayer. They've been registering their ships in Panama, the BVI and Liberia to avoid minimum wage law, labor laws and paying taxes. They make staff work 8-20 hours a day 7 days a week for months on end, paying well below market wages. [1] Need a bailout? Ask the Liberians. Similarly, these companies should be asking f…
Why wouldn't you expect them to ask for free money? It doesn't cost them anything. They didn't receive the bailouts for the reasons you mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should tax payers bail out a tax avoiding company? Tax avoidance also tends to be on profits. A lot of companies in the US have done corporate inversions, but they're still paying local payroll, property, and sales taxes. Freezing dividends and buybacks punishes the people who benefited from the tax avoidance, but you have to be careful not to do this at the expense of workers. The other argument, and this is f…
I think the response would be that most of these governments* are not spending the money to keep the businesses open - they're spending it to keep employees solvent. To accomplish that, not all businesses need to be saved. *The USA is an obvious exception where for at least a substantial group of people, the purpose is to keep the businesses intact. They really couldn't care less about the employees.
To accomplish that, they only need to deposit money into people’s bank account. No employer middleman is required.
Danish lawyer here. The proposal only limits payments to companies that have received more than DKK 60 million (around EUR 8 million) in aid. So this is not your usual business owner. These are generally larger companies with a well paid management. As for companies registered in tax havens, the EU has made an official list of tax havens, which will be followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_tax_haven_…
The list of EU defined tax havens is intentionally incomplete without including Ireland, Malta and Switzerland. https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/malta-a-fiscal-black-...
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/1215...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the response would be that most of these governments* are not spending the money to keep the businesses open - they're spending it to keep employees solvent. To accomplish that, not all businesses need to be saved. *The USA is an obvious exception where for at least a substantial group of people, the purpose is to keep the businesses intact. They really couldn't care less about the employees.
There are 30.2 million small businesses in the US, which comprise a whopping 99.9% of all United States businesses and make up for the lion's share of employment. This is very different from Europe. By bailing out the small business owners, you have a better chance at maintaining employment or for employment to re-emerge after a crisis. Small business ownership is also a huge source of middle class wealth here in the…
Why is the goal to maintain employment? Seems like the government wants to keep people on their little hamster wheels.