Tax on buybacks makes sense in the context that dividends are already taxed. In a world where dividends were not taxed, they would be practically equivalent to buybacks. That’s why buybacks are currently exploding, they are stealth dividends that IRS cannot currently grab.
Dividends and buybacks are by and large equivalent. The main difference is that a dividend stream returns shareholders' money over time, while a buyback tends to be a one-time event.
Both have the very important effect of letting shareholders reallocate capital dollars from a company that does not have much use for the, e.g. in a mature industry, to one that has good opportunities for growth. Forcing a company to stop implementing buybacks, even when it doesn't have many opportunities to use the money internally, leads to stupid investments and excessive spending on management perquisites.
The main criticism of buybacks is that they "goose" the company's share price, and so holders of options (e.g. management) has incentives to declare buybacks even when the company could use the money productively. But that is exactly the same as declaring a dividend increase, which also results in a price pop and less money inside the company. Yet I have heard no proposals to tax dividend increases (as opposed to dividend levels).
As a moderate, a retired business guy, and a fellow long-time shareholder of Berkshire, in principle I agree with Buffett and you on buybacks. But...
But while criticizing taxes on buybacks, why doesn't someone as sensible and fair-minded as Buffett - or you - recognize that few taxes are really fair—and choosing taxes is a matter of trade-offs. The reality is buybacks are not only much more tax-efficient and tax-effective than dividends for companies—but for their shareholders, most of whom are already disproportionally wealthy and tax-advantaged,. As a long-time heavy shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway, I like their buybacks in part because I don’t have to pay taxes on dividends.
If Buffett wants to be troubled by ugly taxes, he could choose better targets than taxes on buy-backs. Why not write about taxes on carried interest or 1031 exchanges. Or – , as one who likes to criticize "dynastic" wealth transfers, he could shine the light on the relative ease with which a sophisticated rich person can pass ~$20M to his kids tax-free.
Tax on buybacks makes sense in the context that dividends are already taxed. In a world where dividends were not taxed, they would be practically equivalent to buybacks. That’s why buybacks are currently exploding, they are stealth dividends that IRS cannot currently grab.
Dividends and buybacks are by and large equivalent. The main difference is that a dividend stream returns shareholders' money over time, while a buyback tends to be a one-time event.
Both have the very important effect of letting shareholders reallocate capital dollars from a company that does not have much use for the, e.g. in a mature industry, to one that has good opportunities for growth. Forcing a company to stop implementing buybacks, even when it doesn't have many opportunities to use the money internally, leads to stupid investments and excessive spending on management perquisites.
The main criticism of buybacks is that they "goose" the company's share price, and so holders of options (e.g. management) has incentives to declare buybacks even when the company could use the money productively. But that is exactly the same as declaring a dividend increase, which also results in a price pop and less money inside the company. Yet I have heard no proposals to tax dividend increases (as opposed to dividend levels).
As a moderate, a retired business guy, and a fellow long-time shareholder of Berkshire, in principle I agree with Buffett and you on buybacks. But...
But while criticizing taxes on buybacks, why doesn't someone as sensible and fair-minded as Buffett - or you - recognize that few taxes are really fair—and choosing taxes is a matter of trade-offs. The reality is buybacks are not only much more tax-efficient and tax-effective than dividends for companies—but for their shareholders, most of whom are already disproportionally wealthy and tax-advantaged,. As a long-time heavy shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway, I like their buybacks in part because I don’t have to pay taxes on dividends.
If Buffett wants to be troubled by ugly taxes, he could choose better targets than taxes on buy-backs. Why not write about taxes on carried interest or 1031 exchanges. Or – , as one who likes to criticize "dynastic" wealth transfers, he could shine the light on the relative ease with which a sophisticated rich person can pass ~$20M to his kids tax-free.