Senate Democrats Would Keep Dividend Taxes Low, But Why?

By :: July 24th, 2012

Senate Democrats, who will vote this week to allow most of the 2001/2003 tax cuts to expire for high-income households, are likely to make an exception for capital gains and dividends.

Under their proposal even top bracket taxpayers would pay a maximum rate on this investment income of 20 percent in 2013 (plus an additional 3.8 percent under the tax provisions of the 2010 health law). That would be far below the rate on ordinary income, which Democrats would restore to 39.6 percent.

Their choice is interesting, especially since the evidence is mixed at best on whether the big tax cuts on investment income in 2003 did much to help the economy.  Indeed, economists still don’t agree on how much the 2003 dividend tax cut boosted payouts to shareholders, and whether it was good for economic growth or not.

Some of the nation’s best tax economists have been peering at the data for a decade and the most they agree on is that firms did increase dividends after the tax cut passed. But did the tax cut cause the change? That, it seems, is the matter of more than a little debate. University of Illinois economist Dhammika Dharmapala has a nice summary of the research in the book “Tax Policy Lessons from the 2000s” edited by Alan Viard (AEI Press, 2009)

To understand what’s going on, keep a couple of things in mind. First, remember that companies can choose what to do with their profits. They can distribute them directly to shareholders through a dividend, or indirectly by buying back their own stock( which makes remaining shares more valuable).

They also can retain earnings, eventually reinvesting them in new equipment, hiring new workers, or buying other companies.  In that event, those returns might eventually be distributed to shareholders as future dividends or capital gains.

Thus, one key question is whether the cut in dividend taxes increased the total amount companies distributed to their shareholders or just changed the way they did it by, for instance, increasing dividends but reducing share repurchases.

In addition, about half of all corporate dividends are paid to investors that don’t pay tax—pensions, non-profits, foreign entities, and the like. Changes in the dividend tax rate don’t affect their tax bills. However, they still might care if higher dividend payouts boost the share prices of their investments.

Sorting it out isn’t easy, especially since there was so much else going on in the early and mid-2000s. For instance, the post dot-bomb corporate governance scandals drove many firms to pay dividends regardless of the tax rate. Rising stock prices from 2003 to 2007 may have discouraged share repurchases.

The weight of the evidence seems to be that companies did boost dividends after the 2003 tax cuts and those increases were concentrated in firms where managers owned a lot of stock. Make of that what you will.

(ADDENDUM: A new paper by Federal Reserve Board economist Jesse Edgerton  throws more cold water on the claim that the dividend tax cut generated more payouts. Among other things, he finds that the increase in dividends corresponded to a comparable rise in corporate profits).

But what did this mean for the overall cost of capital, which is the real question? On that, even 10 years after the 2003 tax cut, we simply don’t know. As Dharmapala notes, research shows that while the value of firms with high dividend yields rose, the value of non-dividend paying firms rose even more.

Given all that uncertainty, Senate Democrats are making a curious choice. They seem to want to continue a dividend tax cut, despite the lack of evidence that it did much to help the economy over the past decade.





  1. Michael Bindner  ::  3:05 pm on July 24th, 2012:

    Having dividends match capital gains makes sense, especially if the Pease provisions are allowed to come back into force getting us to an even 24% on both. These provisions have little effect on shares paid to non-mutual fund investors – but have a significant impact on dividends paid to CEOs through either carried interest or dividends as part of executive compensation. Having the rates match minimizes gaming the form of compensation, while any increase will, on the margins, reduce efforts to cut labor costs, since a higher tax rate on dividends and capital gains means that the executive suite has less incentive to cut labor costs to feather their own nests. While an even higher rate (say 28%) is preferable, going to 25% (including Pease and ACA provisions) is a good start in heading toward long term tax reform where dividends, capital gains, the top income rate and corporate rate all settle at some point in the mid to high 20s.

  2. Ralph H  ::  4:21 pm on July 24th, 2012:

    Howard, I disagree with you. In my opinion the Democrats are acting responsibly in having a lower dividend rate than on ordinary income. I for one have in vested more money in stocks than I would have because of the current 15% rate (which is one of the reasons for it). It is very much in the interest of our country to encourage savings, especially with our retiring baby boomers needing income. The alternative is more corporate debt, and this would add to interest writeoffs, which i’m sure you do not want to encourage. Whether it increases dividend payouts or not is not as important as incrasing net pay to savers.

  3. Vivian Darkbloom  ::  7:07 pm on July 24th, 2012:

    ” As Dharmapala notes, research shows that while the value of firms with high dividend yields rose, the value of non-dividend paying firms rose even more.”

    Haven’t read the book, but on the face of it this is kind of a no-brainer. If Company A and B have identical earnings and Company A is retaining all its earnings (even if simply piling up cash) and Company B is paying a significant percentage out in dividends, one would expect that, over time and all else equal, the value of Company A would be greater than Company B simply because part of the value of the latter has left the corporate solution. That’s why there is a disincentive for insiders with options to re-purchase shares or retain earnings rather than distributing them as dividends.

    Any meaningful comparison would not just look to “value” in the sense of market capitalization or share price but to the total returns to shareholders, including both market appreciation and distributed earnings.

    The overall empirical evidence regarding restrictions on the flow of capital and goods seems uncontrovertible: such restrictions prevent optimal allocation of capital and impede economic growth. This is just as true with respect to impediments on transfers between corporations and shareholders as it is, for example, between countries. Or, is this the new Dark Age of economics?

  4. Tax Roundup, 7/25/2012: Thrifty thief sentenced; trashy trusts; fleeing France « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  9:31 am on July 25th, 2012:

    […] Congress is pretending to address Taxmageddon, the expiration of the Bush-Obama era tax cuts at the end of the year.  Coverage includes Anthony Nitti’s Republicans Propose Their Own Way of Dealing With the Bush Tax Cuts, Kay Bell’s Republican definition of ‘temporary’ tax breaks depends on your income bracket, and Howard Gleckman’s Senate Democrats Would Keep Dividend Taxes Low, But Why? […]

  5. Vivian Darkbloom  ::  6:40 pm on July 26th, 2012:

    ” That’s why there is a disincentive for insiders with options to re-purchase shares or retain earnings rather than distributing them as dividends.”

    This should have read there is an *incentive* for insiders…”

  6. US budget updates, 2nd quarter GDP, june’s durable goods, new home sales, et al | r.j.'s space  ::  6:45 pm on July 29th, 2012:

    […] the senate 51 to 48…although the bill taxes earned income at these slightly higher rates, it exempts dividends & capital gains from those rates, and also reverts the estate tax to 35%, the lowest level ever reached under the regressive bush […]

  7. Around The Dial – July 30, 2012 | South By North Strategies, Ltd.  ::  3:05 pm on July 30th, 2012:

    […] TaxVox wonders about the logic of taxing dividends at low rates. […]

  8. bootcut womens Yoga pants Plus size  ::  12:51 am on August 2nd, 2014:

    What many people don’t realize is there are many more muscles benefiting from it.
    These exercises were recommended for them to tone the vaginal muscles
    in order to reshaping them and to strengthen the weakened bladder.

    They’re fitted at the hips and straight on down toward
    the knees.

    My web blog … bootcut womens Yoga pants Plus size

  9. midi Bodycon dress xl  ::  1:02 am on August 23rd, 2014:

    They are a top choice for many women for the height boost and slimming effects.
    The higher the carat of gold, the more yellow, richer and golden the
    gold ring design will appear. Deep condition often, and use a leave-in conditioner.

    Review my web site – midi Bodycon dress xl

  10. social media marketing tactics  ::  1:20 am on August 26th, 2014:

    We offer a whole range of SEO Services in Singapore.
    Constantly run 2 ads on Adwords for every ad group.
    Submitting articles is an excellent way to market your website.

    Have a look at my website :: social media marketing tactics

  11. Deck Painting tips  ::  7:31 pm on September 12th, 2014:

    You don’t want to linger until the last minute to make
    your plan so I would recommend reading the waterway guidebook
    in advance. With the high temperature sensitivity of some perishable goods, it’s easy to understand why so many companies rely on vacuum insulated panels such a Thermo – Cor to
    ensure the quality of their products. Use your guam tar on the net trap
    and go at least two squares away from it.

    My web-site; Deck Painting tips