“There has been a lot of talk about Apple possibly issuing a special dividend this month to please investors concerned about the higher taxes associated with the looming fiscal cliff,” Aabha Rathee reports for Wall St. Cheat Sheet. “However, at least one analyst does not believe the iPhone maker will make such a move. Deutsche Bank’s Chris Whitmore wrote in a note to clients on Monday that even though there were arguments to be made in favor of a one-time cash outlay to Appleshareholders, the task actually had little chance of being completed.”
Rathee reports, “‘Despite the wishes of many investors, the probability of a special Apple dividend appears low as we believe the company is more focused on building a track record of predictable dividend growth (vs. one time lump payment) and share buybacks,’ Whitmore wrote, according to Fortune. ‘Although a special dividend would be a big short-term positive development, it appears unlikely at this point in time as special dividends do not tend to have a lasting benefit to shareholders. Irrespective of its near term dividend policy, we think Apple remains attractively valued.'”
“The tax rate on dividends is likely to rise from 15 percent to about 40 percent in January if the changes related to the fiscal cliff are implemented,” Rathee reports. “In reaction, several companies, such as Costco Wholesale, have announced special dividends for shareholders, which will come this month and help the shareholders avoid the higher taxes.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple special dividend: Why AAPL shareholders are owed $30 per share by Christmas – November 29, 2012
Apple to distribute special dividend ahead of fiscal cliff? – November 28, 2012
I think Obama and Tim cook made an agreement when they met last time .
Every single time that you hear Obama talking about taxing “the rich,” please remember that Obama is playing a game, manipulating the ignorant pawns who voted for him, or for “free” stuff, or food stamps, or for whatever handout or pet issue they think matters more than the fiscal health of the country.
Do the math:
Raising taxes on everybody in the U.S. making over making over $1 million a year to 30% like Obama wants generates $46.7 billion over the next 10 years (source: non-partisan United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation). Or $4.67 billion per year on average.
The estimated $46.7 billion would reduce by 0.7% the $6.4 trillion increase in spending over the next 10 years estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, based on Obama’s 2013 budget plan. The 2013 budget proposed by the Obama administration stated that the “Buffett Rule” should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that the Buffett Rule plus the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax would increase the deficit by $793.3 billion in the next 10 years.
The U.S. debt is currently $16.164 trillion. That’s trillion. With a “T.” Obama’s “plan” (class warfare) generates just $46.7 billion over 10 years (before you subtract the negative impact on the economy of job creators not creating as many, or any, jobs, or even deciding to leave the U.S. altogether).
“Like Obama wants”
How do you know what Obama wants when you refuse to listen to anything he has to say?
Oh, you mean the devil you project upon the President – the devil of distortions and fallacies from the shadows of your heat?
If you spoke honestly, without straw man fallacies, you might actually participate in a discussion of ideas. Except that you know your ideas are bankrupt and selfish, so you throw dirt in our eyes and yell. Go away!
You guys covering for The One would be laughable if it wasn’t the coming grief this monter’s bringing. So you guys never read the man’s own words from hos books? He proudly boasts of surrounding himself with Marist professors and, even though he gave his most important mentor a phony name, he touts a cars-carrying commie as the man that gave him direction (although by tat time his laziness habit was ingrained along with his addictive personality, chooming and coking until Harvard). You Leftists have always claimed the victors (re)write history. This day and age, though, you have a lotta’ scrubbing to do to hide reality. You won, Liberty is dead, but now comes the hard part…maintaining control and progress. No one’s done it yet, and your Supreme Leader is way to lazy to maintain.
Foam at the mouth, elsewhere. This is not the free psych ward for angry half wits.
Frankly, I can’t wait for 2016. If I were Obama I’d simply plant my feet and say we’re not touching SS and Medicare except to expand them and raise the SS tax ceiling to $250K. Let Boehner, McConnell, and Norquist drive us off the cliff with their stonewalling, then make sure that all the voters know who’s responsible. A majority in both houses would be a foregone conclusion. You lost seats this time. You’ll lose even worse next time.
The more Apple focuses on investors the more it loses it’s identity.
What percentage of AAPL investors are in the US?
“Obama tax hikes”?
Seems to me it’s the Republicans and their puppet master, Grover Norquist, who have drawn a line in the sand and refused to move.
You don’t consider asking for 1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes a tax hike? You don’t consider an average of 2k per year per family a tax hike? Republicans are asking for this?
seriously? that’s the way you actually see it?
Thelonious, you were happy enough to take the tax cuts when they didn’t pay the costs of two completely unfunded wars, when they built weapons systems we’ll never use, when they paid for a drug prescription giveaway. Now it’s time to balance the budget again. You can cut social programs as much as you like, but there’s still not enough to pay for the splurge we had from 2001-2009. Time to pay the piper.
“…when they built weapons systems we’ll never use…”
The best bargain the republic can get is a weapon system that obviates it’s own use. Until you have been at the receiving end of someone else’s weapons, you ought not whine about providing the best to those who go in harm’s way in your stead.
USA spends almost as much money in to weapons as the rest of the world ie 6,7 billion people. The amount is ridiculous and you 330 million people can’t afford it.
How many $8.2B nuclear missile submarines does it take to protect us from goat herders making homemade bombs and delivering them on foot?
Buying and operating a dozen new nuclear ballistic missile submarines will cost the Defense Department $347 billion over the life of the submarines.
I personally am waiting for the unfunded war on “Poverty” to end! As Harry Reid says, “This war is lost!”
Funny how Progressives defend the minority’s rights, like one girl who is being raised by a single mom and no father can protest a schools father/daughter dance. So the dance must end and the minority screws it for the majority all because she lacks a dad. The left is completely fine with that. Funny how they bellyache and whine when the minority Republicans don’t want an increase in ANYBODY’s tax rate and then the lefties start to not care about minorities rights!
Grover Norquist?… I’d worry about the servile scum CEO of Costco, big Lib and supporter of Obama saying “O” is great for business. What does this idiot do and another BoD’s member who is Warren Buffet’s right hand man do?… They take a special dividend before the Obama tax hikes on dividends takes place thus denying the government millions upon millions of dollars to fund the government and pay the debt or programs. Can you say F’in Hypocrites?!
http://dailybail.com/home/santelli-annihilates-costco-ceo-for-blatant-tax-hypocrisy.html
I agree with you on that!
The Republicans agreed to across the board spending cuts if a new budget could not be negotiated before 01/01/2013. The Bush tax CUTS are set to expire after 2012. The Republicans have said they will not agree to anything if the Bush tax cuts are not extended in tact. That’s not Obama asking for a tax increase. That’s simply Republican denial of reality and arrogance.
In every economy total spending is determined by both budget and income. No matter how you slice it, there is a need for tax increases. You can’t cut enough to ever balance the budget.
Make a lot of money. Pay a lot of taxes- mark Cuban
House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.
The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
The offer is based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional “supercommittee” on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely-cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago.
“What we are putting forward is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House,” Boehner told reporters in a brief appearance at the Capitol. He said he hoped the administration would respond in a timely manner.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/270649-house-republicans-make-22t-counter-offer-to-obama-in-debt-talksklj
You are one great comedy writer!
FYI: RE: Headline. Taxes and tax policy are created, managed, and mismanaged by the house. These ‘tax hikes’ are actually taxes being raised to the pre-bush tax cut levels. This is a situation not created by Obama, the expiration just came during his Presidency. That being said, everyone needs to get this fixed.
Wow. So because Bush cut taxes, raising them back is not a hike?
So a 2% tax hike for workers, increased taxes for businesses, in particular small businesses, the end of the post 911 tax cuts, and the all new taxes for Obama’s health care plan are the fault of the House? Bush? Anything and anyone and everyone, except Jesus Obama?
Bush’s “Tax Cuts” were supposed to be “Temporary” (read Not Permanent) at least that’s what they said when they were implemented.
Actually, Obama was involved in the negotiations that kicked this can down to this road. It was his idea, I believe, to build in a sequestration for January 1. He cannot escape all responsibility. And when you increases taxes above what they are currently, they are in fact tax hikes, not ‘tax hikes’; how they compare to rates in the past is not pertinent. Obama proposed continuing those rates in 2009, because in a weak economy, as he said at the time, raising rates would be harmful to the economy. Why they would be less harmful now is not a case he has made.
Except Obama won’t raise taxes because he’s not a progressive. There’s a reason why he gives Boehner 98% of what he wants.
Progressive? As in progressively worse?
They are NOT Obama Tax hikes.
The Bush era tax cuts were designed to expire and were given a 1 time extension by President Obama in a deal with Congress to get unemployment benefits extended during the recession. It was said at the time that they would not be extended again.
Secondly, President Obama pushed and got a temporary reduction in withholding taxes to increase the amount of cash in people’s hands during the recession- also temporary.
Allowing temporary tax cuts to expire is not a rate increase. Only in Republican-Land does that kind of perverted logic get serious consideration.
The Bush era tax cuts are a prime example of the failed fantasy of supply side economics. During the Bush era taxes were cut and deficits exploded. Additionally, the net increase of jobs under Bush was the lowest of any President in modern history.
What we will be seeing is a return to the tax structure we had under the bulk of the Clinton Era when we had massive job growth and balanced budgets.
Don’t buy Grover’s BS.
“Allowing temporary tax cuts to expire is not a rate increase.”
Up is up. Down is down.
Temporary is Temporary. See how that works?
http://youtu.be/mM5Ep9fS7Z0
Here’s the thing though. I’m totally in favor of the fiscal cliff. Let’s quit the crying and drive off the cliff. Bring on the recession.
But.. uh… Clinton? Clinton was held in check because of a Republican dominated congress. The only thing he could get raised was, well, you know.
‘Fiscal cliff’ is a scary sounding, inaccurate, metaphor made up by Ben Bernanke. (W’s boy) I love how the media all instantly started parroting it. It was almost as if their masters had sent them a talking points memo.
There will be no recession, enjoy your GOP induced scare hysteria while it lasts…
There will be inflation to a hurtful degree, if not a recession, and that inflation harms the lower income more than the upper income. So enjoy your Democrat complacency while it lasts…
Me too. I like the fiscal cliff. Bring it on! Let’s cut defense spending and raise taxes. I love it. And when people complain we can point to Mitch McConnell, Norquist, and Boehner as the causes. Democratic control of both houses of congress should be a cinch.
Don’t be fooled by President Obama. Every working American that has a job is going to pay higher taxes. Just wait and see what 2013 holds for us taxpayers. We will all get suckered as always. Just my opinion.
Me on November 6th: “Hurray! The election is over! No more blatantly political posts on MacDailyNews!”
Me today: “Oh, November 6th me, you were so naive…”
——RM
Fiscal Cliff Daily News
The tax increase would be for those earning more than $250,000 and up. This doesn’t affect everyone. This is only a small percentage of the American households. This would raise tax revenue to about 1.6 trillion dollars over 10 years.
The President’s plan is to decrease spending and preserve the tax cuts for middle-income earners but increase the taxes for the top 2% earners-the wealthy. Spending would go to infrasturcute (roads bridges, etc.)
Know that if you add the salaries of the 98% of Americans you still don’t make the salaries of the top 2%. The 2% make more money than the rest of the country combined.
It is a no-brainer to seek the tax revenues of the top 2%. No one is saying that they don’t deserve it, that they don’t work hard but this is America and everyone has to pay their share. This isn’t a fix-all solution either. There are way too many variables to fix everything.
The biggest problem are the politicians catering to a select few and those who only vote on along party lines.
Every single time that you hear Obama or one of his minions talking about taxing “the rich,” please remember that Obama is playing a game, manipulating the ignorant pawns who voted for him, or for “free” stuff, or food stamps, or for whatever handout or pet issue they think matters more than the fiscal health of the country.
It’s simple. Just do the math:
Raising taxes on everybody in the U.S. making over making over $1 million a year to 30%, as Obama desires, generates $46.7 billion over the next 10 years (source: non-partisan United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation). Or $4.67 billion per year on average.
The estimated $46.7 billion would reduce by 0.7% the $6.4 trillion increase in spending over the next 10 years estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, based on Obama’s 2013 budget plan. The 2013 budget proposed by the Obama administration stated that the “Buffett Rule” should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that the Buffett Rule plus the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax would increase the deficit by $793.3 billion in the next 10 years.
The U.S. debt is currently $16.164 trillion. That’s trillion. With a “T.” Obama’s “plan” (class warfare) generates just $46.7 billion over 10 years (before you subtract the negative impact on the economy of job creators not creating as many, or any, jobs, or even deciding to leave the U.S. altogether).
Speaking of “Math” almost 1/5 (20%) of the U.S. Budget goes to the Dept. of Defense. I didn’t see that mentioned in your rant.
The U.S. spends as much as the next 17 countries COMBINED on defense. (P.S. That includes Russia, China and all the other “Enemy States”)
Any room for a cut in the budget in your plan or does that get the Romney/Ryan $2B increase. Maybe, we could cut back to just the next 7 countries combined. What do you think?