Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea

Not sure who "you" is but the company will have fewer shares outstanding, investors who don't sell will have the same and those investors will also now own a greater % of the company as well as a greater earnings per share.

> If you "reinvest" in the company you give up all the proceeds you received to buy back the shares that you just sold to the company

I am 100% not saying that as that would eliminate the benefit. The benefit is to long term investors who buy, hold and reinvest dividends and reinvesting dividends to buy more stock is key as that is where the historical exponential returns are because it increases your ownership share and future dividends.

That is where my example numbers come in because you can only reinvest to buy more shares and thus your ownership % the dividend amount minus tax amount whereas the company can spend the entirety of a dividend buying shares to remove them from the outstanding market. The difference between those two numbers (1.05 and 1.04 in my example) then compounds and effectively goes towards increasing share prices which do eventually get taxed but they get the benefit of compounding while the owner holds.

Also, while you need quite a few shares, you can estimate and sell the percentage of shares a company is buying back in order to keep the same % ownership thus acting like a dividend so I myself would prefer all companies I invest in to never give out dividends and only do buybacks unless their P/E ratio is truly absurd.

We're talking about different types of avoidance. I'm talking about real business spending, i.e., on facilities, equipment, employees, etc., as a means of tax avoidance. High taxes encourage this type of spending because (a) businesses that are growing are going to do this anyway and (b) they effectively get a discount for this anyway if they're making enough money to actually pay taxes.

But most people are referring to tax avoidance strategies like IP shifting, off-shoring, etc. I'm saying, that based on my professional experience as a tax advisor for a decade, that these activities are not motivated by high tax rates, and indeed were highest during periods of lower tax rates. (In the examples I mentioned above in the earlier comment, the companies weren't engaging in tax avoidance strategies, they were making business investments. The difference is that tax avoidance is entirely or primarily motivated by avoiding taxes and is pursued despite the lack of an actual business need; business investment may be motivated in part by avoiding taxes but is primarily driven by actual business needs and will not be pursued absent a business case for the spending.)

Which is itself dubious. I'm pretty sure "we" don't want people to unilaterally exempt themselves from taxes by relabeling consumption as a business expense

I don't understand where you're going with this. You brought up examples that are considered legitimate business expenses by the tax code, and have been for decades. Hell, they're the basis for all the in-office perks tech companies gave their employees pre-COVID. If you have an issue with whether they should be deductible on moral grounds, that's a separate discussion.

And again, my argument is based on how my clients, and US businesses in general, have actually responded to tax cuts and tax increases, and not to how they were theoretically expected to behave by people who aren't actually running successful businesses.

Or large apartment complexes. But isn't that where most real estate investing goes? Detached single family homes are mostly owner-occupied.

> Generally, no. Under a triple-net lease, they would not get to deduct these costs because they're not paying them. Most commercial properties are leased on a triple-net basis, so the tenant is paying maintenance costs.

But then the tenant is paying correspondingly less rent, which means less taxable income to the property owner. It's a wash either way.

> Also, I'm not sure if you are aware of this but an S-Corp does not pay corporate income taxes

You're right, I meant C-Corp.

My point being that if the investor is a "corporation" in the sense that it's paying corporate income tax itself, that has little to do with the thing it's investing in. If it buys ownership of a REIT and the REIT itself doesn't pay corporate income tax, and the corporate tax rate is high, that's more advantageous than the same corporate investor buying shares of Union Pacific, whether or not the entity doing the investing then pays corporate income tax on the income it receives from the investment.

> Yes, that's the point, but more to the point, that's the entire point of real estate investing.

It's one of the two options. Option one, you zero out your taxable income while building equity, and then sell to liquidate. Option two, you zero out your taxable income while building equity, then once the loan is paid off you get to keep the rental income, which can be used as down payment on additional properties if you prefer to invest further rather than pay the tax and spend the money.

> Right, but the flip side of you divesting is someone else investing, at appreciated costs from you paid.

The point being that high turnover during periods of low taxation isn't a result of people wanting to get into the real estate market, it's a result of people wanting to get out. So it tends to cause housing to become more affordable rather than inflating a bubble because people hold who would rather sell if not for selling incurring a major tax bill.

> They have actual businesses, and correspondingly tend to spend more on upgrades during periods of higher taxes.

That's evidence of what I'm saying -- when corporate taxes are high, people move investment from businesses to real estate. Making improvements to real estate is investing in real estate. Lower taxes and they stop because they make more to invest the same money in other businesses.

E.g. in NZ you buy property, but the local government taxes it, so you are essentially paying a small lease. Enough so that some retirees with no income have to downsize because the rates are a significant burden.