Quote:
Originally Posted by
jragosta 
#1 and #2 are OK. #3 makes no sense. The purpose of the tax holiday is to spur investment and create jobs in the US. Giving a dividend so that the shareholders can buy a new Lexus or buy a few more shares of AAPL in their IRA doesn't do anything to accomplish those objectives. Rather, the intent of the tax holiday is for the money to be put into R&D, manufacturing, and other things that create jobs.
No, it makes perfect sense. What you state is the *intent* of the tax holiday. But the previous tax holiday did not have that effect. What I suggest would allow companies like Apple to bring their money home at a discount (no tax on anything going for dividends,) put money in the hands od shareholders where which would allow for reinvestment as they see fit. Making investors happy with dividends is a benefit to the company thats essentially free, taking the sting off repatriating cash for other investments. You could have other provisions for other expenditures, but it would get difficult to regulate and may have perverse incentives and unintended consequences (as almost everything does.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jragosta 
It's a tax holiday only for the company.
Which is what it's intended to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jragosta 
If they distribute dividends, the stock holders still have to pay taxes (even if it's in a tax sheltered account, you'll eventually pay taxes).
Not from a Roth or certain other kinds of tax shelters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jragosta 
If, OTOH, the money is reinvested in growing the company, the stock holder will get their return when they sell the stock - where it will be taxed at capital gains rates. As long as they hold the stock over a year, reinvesting the money creates far less taxes than distributing dividends.
But I am not one who thinks taxes are bad. You see I drive on roads, use the courts, enjoy police protection, need an educated society, live in an economy where I can make money if it is properly regulated, etc. Also my government has obligations and needs taxes to meet them. A government cannot be run in all ways like a business. Unsurpisigly it's aims are far different and more dynamic than those of a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jragosta 
Heck, even if they don't reinvest and simply put the money in the bank, it would increase the share price - which would again be preferable for the stock holder. It would not accomplish the other objectives (job creation), of course, but distributing dividends is probably the worst thing they could do with the money.
The money is already in a bank. It would make little difference if it were in a bank here, or elsewhere. Only if the money is actually invested or distributed (think spent) will it be of benefit to Apple, the stockholders, or the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jragosta 
That's right - Apple last paid a dividend in 1995. And I suspect that shareholders are not disappointed in their return on investment during that period.
Dividends only make sense if you have nothing better to do with the money. Apple apparently thinks they have better things to do with it.
Fine, you agree I was correct. Apple has payed dividends in the past and will pay dividends in the future.

Yes, I have been happy with my return, but I would also like to receive dividends since the return has been subpar to that of other similar companies considering the far superior growth and value Apple has produced. Look at Apple's P/E compared with say Google or Amazon. I like my investment in Apple, but I'm getting older and will need to sell it some day. I want *all* of the value of my investment back, not just a fraction of it.
