it doesn't actually matter.
But Keynes answered that. They purchase it because they think others will purchase it for more in the future.
If you'd like to see another example: Might I suggest gold.
Gold pays no dividends. All you have is the gold. And mines keep diluting the stock by...
Someone who invested $1k in Berkshire Hataway in 1980 would be a millionaire now. They don't issue dividends. They have been in business since 1965.
Your theory is empirically disproven.
My index funds, as with the index itself, has continued to rise in value despite a lack of dividends...
I will quote John Maynard Keynes on this:
It is not a case of choosing those [faces] that, to the best of one's judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to...
Agreed on all points. The landscape gets more and more complex as we consider more and more of how theory plays out in reality. It's a danger of clinging too hard to theory.
Berkshire Hataway investors are paying $250,000 / share (give or take).
Except at Berkshire Hathaway. (and Facebook, and Google, and such; but I know you assume those will someday give dividends maybe).
To a point... but we are not simply discussing speculative investors.
Having liquid...
I'll agree that there is an ROI at which the risk outweighs the reward.
Of course: higher tax rates actually mitigate risks (because you recoup more money from the declared loss) in addition to dampening rewards.
It's poker. The smart company will declare profits in low tax areas and losses...
Corporate marginal tax rates actually go up *and down* as you move through the brackets. The rate on the top bracket ($18.3 million) is not the highest rate.
in fact: taxes on income over $18million are only 1% higher than on income between $75k and $100k.
As opposed to not investing with its...
Here's the thing about taxes.
Taxes are zero-sum.
We are going to spend $X, so we need to collect $X from population Y.
You can move the burden around however you want, but you will have to average $X/Y per capita.
So whenever you say "we need to change the tax code"; you generally say...
That's just speculation... and it's speculation in direct opposition to official findings of every AG that investigated, the GAO, and the hired 3rd party.
Prove your original claim.
You aren't just equivocating my claim, but also your own. Another fallacy.
I agree then. 0% for the bottom 95% of taxpayers and 100% for the margin would not be regressive. I don't think it's *good*, but I certainly concede it's not regressive.
It's not the OP's...
True. Mr.Ponzi's new scheme could be legit; but it would be a terrible assumption to work from.
He's had three major issues. He's been deliberately fraudulent every time. Here's a new issue from him. Wonder if he's suddenly completely different.
False equivalence fallacy.
I know for a fact that the credit requirements are lower for a purchase than for a lease (though usually with money up-front). The underlying reason is mostly about risk for the lender. The leasing company takes on far more risk than the loan company for a purchase...
You seem to have confused "proof" and "conjecture".
Do you have any proof?
BTW: Here's some people advocating and discussing those who buy stocks with no plans to ever offer dividends.
What is the incentive to buy a stock without dividends?
$X is taken from a population of Y people.
There's nothing at all you can do in terms of tax code to change $X. The overall burden is not at all effected by tax code.
You *can* distribute the burden among Y people in different manners.
As someone in the upper-half of incomes: you advocate...
There are a large number of methods used to validate the various dating methods. Checking them against one another is one of the most obvious.
Checking them against known values is another.
For example: We calibrate C14 measurements using items of known age. Trees you've aged by ring count, or...