F. George McDuffee wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 19:31:08 -0800, "
wrote:
snip
So as I see it your plan lets the government decide that the
company should pay taxes on the profits, and then the stockholders
should pay taxes on top of that on at least half of the profits. Good
for the government, tends to suck for the stockholders.
snip
I suggest you check the current US tax regulations on this. If
you are saving for retirement, properly constructed 401k or
IRA/Keogh should shield any dividend income from taxation until
it is withdrawn and spent.

On the other hand, why should stockholders *NOT* pay taxes on
their income? When they don't pay their taxes, someone else must
make up the shortfall or it adds to the deficit (with compound
interest to the bond holders). We seem to have created a class
of nobility in this country that feels that by right they are
exempt from paying their full share of the cost of government,
while demanding at least their share of governmental services
such as police, fire, courts, patents, customs, etc.

Stockholder pay taxes on dividends when paid, they don't pay taxes on
capital gains until they sell the stock.

As for this "class of nobility", does Bill Gates use more government
services than someone living on a park bench? Does Bill Gates pay more
taxes than a person living on a street corner?

I'm sorry, but you've let your rhetoric go to your head if you think that
people who have significant investments pay less tax than people who cannot
afford to make such investments.

You look at the exceedingly small number of very well run
American corporations with long-term ethical management, I look
at the much larger number of poorly run American corporations
with short-sighted amoral management, and we naturally reach two
very different conclusions.

Changes in corporate policy by changes in the board of directors
is a pipe dream that Wall Street still sells and the suckers
continue to buy. SEC stock proxy rules, staggered director terms
and "poison pill" defenses are specifically designed to prevent
this. The only thing that has ever put any starch in a
director's backbone is the threat of a stockholder class-action
lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty and/or the Sorbains-Oxley
act with some jail time.

So? Stock proxy rules do not prevent any person from voting his own shares.
Staggered terms mean that it just takes longer to replace the board.

I am continually amazed that the mutual funds, that now own a
majority of corporate stocks, allow the corporations to amass and
manage excessive amounts of retained earnings

Why? You think that mutual funds can't make money from capital gains?

and have done
nothing to stop the profit skimming attributable to excessive
executive compensation.

What fraction of the actual income of the company goes into "excessive
executive compensation"?

If you directly or indirectly own stock in a corporation, those
earnings are *YOUR* money.

So why is it your business how I handle MY money? You seem to insist on
substituting your judgment for mine in the matter of how I want that money
handled. If you want dividends then buy stock from companies that
historically pay dividends instead of demanding that companies in which you
invested without doing your homework change their behavior to suit your
desires.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)