Top U.S. lawmaker sees hedge fund, dividend tax up (Reuters)
The long and short of it is, the Democrat who's been trying to tax HF income at 35% for the past decade may finally get his wish....why?
There's no separation of powers in the House....What don't the Democrats get....?
When Taxes go up fees go from 2 and 20 to 5 and 50. And when PE taxes go up it's the small, or not so small business owners, that suffer, not the big banks.
Currently both are taxed at 15%, which is why they attract incredible talent and make a ton of money for them selves and for their clients (the American people).
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P5RL20100…
This is a really upsetting bit of news, but the fact that the Senate decided to actually talk about the Financial reform rather than shove it through as fast as they could, may mean this doesn't make it to congress before the mid terms.
Will 35% taxes be the collective end of the Hedge Fund world for both the investors and the employees of the fund?
Discuss...
They're not looking to tax "income", they're looking to tax carry, which is the % of profit the fund takes for its team...
As it is now, they're taxed at 35% for base salary and bonuses but at 15% for their carry (typically 20% of profits above 8% return). This isn't necessarily a bad thing especially if the industry is expected to shrink after the crisis, it'll just help weed out the loosers even further in my opinion.
I also don't believe its right to tax carry at 15% anyway becuase its not a capital gain, ie the fund isnt placing personal capital at risk (besides the small GP commitment) in order to benefit from any upside as a capital gain. They're merely skimming 20% off the top as a reward to themselves for a good performance.
Business owners don't suffer from this capital gains tax, its directed at financial firms that utilize this loophole (HF & PE funds mostly)... Small businesses don't really benefit from Hedge Funds first off, secondly, small businesses don't typically benefit from PE capital unless it goes in as growth equity. A buyout is just financial engineering and a way for some small business owners (tiny businesses by PE standards) to gain an exit from a family type ownership (few of these actually go on)...
This is the most anti-business political climate in about 40 years. The democrats will insist on punishing the rich and raising taxes rather than cutting spending. If our socialist president gets his wish, financial services will suffer a crushing blow, and our economy will sink into a deep stagnation.
lol @ socialist president... I thought ppl were supposed to be educated here....
take that ignorant tea-party garbage elsewhere
im pretty sure liberals aren't allowed on this site. take your commie propaganda elsewhere.
Will this affect carry in the growth capital and VC spaces for the tech, biotech, and genomics industries? I haven't read any of the recent proposals on increasing carry taxation.
again... I thought people were supposed to be educated at WSO.... first socialist... now commie... I bet when he signed the bank bailout (which no doubt saved some of your jobs) you weren't calling him a commie/socialist. The hypocrisy is outstanding.
Communist President Bush signed the bailout, keep that in mind. Though, you heard nothing of the sort back then. People act like the Earth began the day Obama took office.
i don't like being an elitist dbag, but you're making it hard. you have a 3.1 from UofH. Quit calling people who aren't sophomores in state school uneducated.
secondly, TARP was the best investment the government ever made since the Louisiana purchase. anyone with their head screwed on straight knows populist demagogues are looking to score points for the mid terms so the dems don't get laughed off the hill. Punitively taxing banks and HFs doesn't solve any of the problems that led to the crisis. I've yet to see a piece of legislation go through the house/senate than even addresses any of the widely accepted causes of the crisis and it's sad.
I could care less about what you think of me.. dont sound uneducated if you dont want to be called uneducated (elitist d-bag)... sorry you couldnt get your point across other than callin someone who is clearly not a commie... a commie (which is pretty damn uneducated to me).
p.s. sorry you couldnt say what you said on your second post, on your first. It wouldve sounded alot more reasonable/educated :) (also my SAT/AP scores are well enough to show intellectual strength) I dont fret over short-term decisions (going to UH)... Ive found my calling and ill be where ur are (BB if you are in one).. in a matter of 7 years or so (give or take 1 or 2).
Hahahahaha sounds like you've got it all figured out. By the way, Bush put the majority of the bank bailouts into action not the socialist we have now. So shut up.
It does make you look a little extremist to call the president a "socialist" when Bill O'Reilley refuses to do it. Given that most of the financial folks on these forums buy into Chicago-school economics or something even more conservative, you're not surrounded by "uneducated" socialists (or even Keynesians). You are surrounded by a lot of commonsense people who lived through the crash and understand (if quietly) that some regulations need to be restored. We don't have to go back to the '70s when banks weren't allowed to compete on interest rates, but some will quietly say that it might be wise to at least rethink some of the implications of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
I'm from the Midwest, and actually, the problem is that we didn't have electricity until Obama took office. In fact, us folks between the coasts haven't gotten a lot of information from Washington since Reagan won the Civil War.State Capitalism gets upper hand...
mezzket was the only smart/relevant poster on this thread.
As for VC, the same points advanced by mezzket apply. It may reduce some investment, but the industry is in need of a thorough shakeout anyway. there still is too much me2 copycat investing being done and enough bubble era GPs still lagging around.
A One, Two Punch
@LazyIntellectual: You mock people right out the gate, but suggest those you flagellate are the ones who are ignorant? If you disagree with what they say, post something constructive to prove your point-of-view. Possibly then you will convince them, me, and/or others they are wrong and you are right. Anyone can flame; it takes intelligence to respond.
@m.c.Trader: With regards to the O.P. while a hike in taxes is rarely positive, I don't see how it's going to sink the HF/PE industry in the least. I would think given the level of income they are receiving, there would be more concern of the re-instatement of the Estate or "Death" tax as follows from the article:
"Another hot tax issue is the estate tax, which expired last year after lawmakers were unable to reach a deal to extend it. Levin said he expects to re-enact the tax retroactively at 2009 levels this year.
That would tax estates at a rate of 45 percent, after a $3.5 million exemption for individuals and $7 million for couples. Congress is compelled to act because if no action is taken, the rate jumps to 55 percent next year with a $1 million exemption amount."
Not only are they looking to make it retro-active, which will impact individuals who chose to exit this mortal coil early in hopes of escaping the tax. Secondly, realizing a 45% tax on-top of the regular income/capital gains tax for HF/PE high-flyers will be killer. With the estate tax you're really looking at a 64.25% average tax rate under 35% income tax per $100, or 67% average tax rate under a dividends rate of 40% per $100. I realize that expenditures will greatly reduce income pre-death, but that too me is the real kicker of the article.
Anywho, sorry if I jacked the thread a little. Again, re-iterating my original opinion, which concurs somewhat with others already expressed on the thread, higher taxes force out weak competitors. Like the stray gazelle falling to an crocodile, so too will under-performing HF's/PE's at the hands of Federal taxes.
-N.
People do not necessarily need to be educated in order to compute basic math.
Raising these taxes and the government taking over everything is only going to hurt everyone. I mean where do you think these companies such as the banks are going to get this money?
They are going to raise fees on everyone from the rich on down. I don't believe in punishing the rich if they have worked hard and worked honestly for their money. They deserve it. If people want their share then they should earn it. The constitution says nothing about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
Let's be honest carry is not really a capital gain, it's just structured to look like one from a tax perspective. Hedgies and PE guys know this and the change is probably overdue. As someone looking to return to PE in the next couple years I obviously hope none of this goes through (although I will hopefully be in sunny Sydney so doubt I'd be affected anyway) but the OP's assertion that fees would rise is wholly incorrect - pressure on fees is in the other direction at the moment (I know Blackstone for example recently reduced their take of management fees charged to portfolio companies). LPs will NEVER allow funds they invest in to jack up performance fees, and management fees won't be affected by a change in CGT rules anyway.
And Obama a socialist? Puh-lease. I live in London at the moment and all three parties contesting the election are more interventionist and anti-bank than Obama. Is social security communist as well? Get a grip.
Ive got it (sorta) all figured out. 2 more yrs dble major finance/econ TT 1 yr postgratuate econ at UT while working as a credit analyst/businesss analyst at some commercial bank 2 more yrs of that work apply for top 10 (hopefully top 5) MBA program and get in IBD at BB here I come!
p.s. I didnt mean to insult anyone but when I see ppl who are supposed to have an ivy league education (or at least a college education) sounding like "Joe the Plumber" then I have to speak up.... I thought only idiots were buying into this "Obama is a socialist!" bit.
what fool would pay 5 and 50 for someone to manage his money? you have to be kidding me. 2 and 20 is already a racket.
Yeah, so horrible that hedge funds would actually have to pay income taxes like everybody else. I'm so upset. What will the hedge fund millionaires do? The way you idiots carry water for the millionaires that would rather see you ground into a meatloaf than give up a dime of income is pretty pathetic.
Small businesses will remain largely exempt from this. Most small-businesses are flow-through entities like S-corps, LLPs, and LLCs and would not be affected, as the owners are already taxed on that income as ordinary income. Also, C-corps benefit from a low tax rate if they earn below $100K/year, so I don't think small business owners will get unfairly hurt by all of this.
What we really need to do is eliminate taxation of corporations- or reduce the taxes to 5-10%, and tax capital gains (less inflation) and dividends as ordinary income.
It's really hard to find an intellectually honest way to oppose this unless you come out and say that people should get a discount on their taxes because they work at a hedge fund.
Increasing the tax rate on capital gains will drive people away from riskier (but important) investments in entrepreneurship. If they (the investors) stand to make less on an investment whose risk level hasn't changed, they'll be motivated to move to an asset class whose risks are more proportional to expected return (relative to pre-tax-change levels). Didn't Congress set the capital gains tax rate where it is now in order to provide an incentive to invest in the more innovative sectors?
Perhaps the issue is that Congress likes to make broad proposals, without recognizing that a change in carry or capital gains taxation affects multiple industries, from real estate to biotech. You have to admit, the amount of capital available to innovators the past few decades has done a lot for our standard of living at home, at work, and in the hospital.
It has nothing to do with providing an incentive to make risky investments. In fact, if you're getting taxed at 15% on dividends and capital gains from your business, you're actually missing out on the tax efficiencies of an S-corp.
It's really only going to affect hedge funds- and the desirability of going into a few sectors of money management. But if it gives us a tax system that's fair and creates fewer situations where two people doing effectively the same thing (managing money) get taxed at two different rates, I don't think there's a huge problem with it.Carried interest is not going to impact small business owners, since most of them are benefitting from more efficient tax treatment than dealing with capital gains/ qualifying dividends tax in the first place.
I think it's naive to think that taxing carry at income tax levels won't impact fees.
There is some Ren Tech funds that are have a 2 and 40 or 2 and 50 schedule supposedly, and I know there is funds at Soros and SAC that fee higher than 20% on return.
If I'm your fund manager and I come to you and say, the government just took 20% more of my money than they did last year, all I'm going to do is take 10% more of your money, I don't see investors saying "F*** it I'll invest in some incredible tax efficient Mutual Funds!"
I like the point on the Estate Tax, I did Estate/Tax planning the year before this one (I'm a Junior) and I completely agree. If the Estate Sunsets, and it will because people are focused on other things, AND this tax passes, AND some collective bank tax passes.....does that mean the Dems will lower the federal income tax?
Its unbelievable how much money DC makes off the death of some rich guy, in some cases upwards of 500 MM......there's so much room for reforming Bureaucracy of this country, as much or more than Financials.
Also, you guys who have been bashing the Millionaire Fund Managers, remember that they pay income taxes like all of us, except more. I'm talking about the funds carry/income/capital gains, which is investor money (though yes, the investors are also people in the fund).
If you wanna attack HF Millionaires, find a better way to do it than taxing the fund, IMO.
We wouldn't exempt Major League Baseball players from income tax; why should we exempt hedge fund managers?
Nobody is attacking "HF millionaires." We're simply trying to make the tax system fair.Tax revenues that are then redistributed to others for other reasons than the common good are never 'fair.' The progressive nature of the U.S. tax system is equally 'unfair' if one can describe it as such. A flat tax with 100% participation is about as 'fair' as they come, but would essentially eliminate broad swaths of current industries and negate politicians ability to force citizen compliance i.e. newly enacted Democratic Healthcare, so don't expect it anytime soon. Then again, no one said life was fair right?
To emphasize the point: http://www.bigmattress.com/weblog/government.jpg
-N.
not in the mood to punctuate on some forums k? personally I think wall street will be more stable, and over time become stronger due to this bill.
p.s. scored a 670 on the writing as well as 5s in both english APs
Defending your stats on an anonymous internet forum is retarded.
Full disclosure: I got a 1600 on my SATs
But seriously wondering if you were a Presidential Scholar back in '03.
This long overdue. Barack Obama was elected for a reason. We all missed the boat folks, just face it.
Remember most Wall Street CEOs/MDs supported Obama before he was elected and still support, they have faced the music they know whats coming and trying to get somewhat of a central decision is the best idea.
This is not a US centric decision as someone mentioned look at Germany, Britian, France.
You can always goto Dubai, Abi Dabhi or Qatar there is no banking bonus, hedge fund or PE taxes there.
Well your capital gains proposal was hypothetical anyway (carry is what is being proposed right now), who's to say what Congress would include and exclude? And why would a capital gains tax change only affect hedge funds? Because that's the rhetoric Congressmen use when talking about this shit? How would it NOT affect VC or growth capital? When you brought up the hypothetical did you mean to specify the proposal would strictly be for hedge funds?
Okay, I follow that. If the change only applied to managers, then yeah, I do not see anything wrong there. I was pushing the argument, because I remember this was an issue the summer of 07. I do not remember there being a specification in that proposal that the change would only apply to managers.
I'm all for moderate taxes, but you've got to pick your battles wisely.
As long as the law doesn't tax HF managers' own investments in their HFs at 35%, I think the tax makes sense.
There is something to be said about the New Classical economic approach to this regulation. If the government was more consistent in it's fiscal activities (i.e they made a consistent rule to never bailout) firms would never have been as risky. The fact that the firms knew they could corner the government into action (very Keynesian like) made them do exactly that. If you make it known far and wide that bailouts will never happen again, you reduce unpredictable behavior of the government. The taxes seem to have much more of a punishing purpose rather than a regulatory purpose, which quite frankly is bull.
Also, to clarify my earlier post, I don't believe Democrats are the only expounders of such injustice, Republicans are under the same yoke. The reality of government, no matter what the expansion is such that:
-N.
I don't see how people can call Obama a "communist" for his healthcare reform package and not go completely ape shit over Bush passing the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits program (which isn't paid for) or the Iraq War (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and not paying for it. Give me a break.
But the fact is that there are battles you can win and battles you can't. Fixing the deficit is a battle we can win. Eliminating or even not raising taxes with a $12 Trillion debt? Not a battle you can win. Taxes will have to go up- probably to 40-45% federal marginal tax rates on the rich and maybe 30% on the middle-class. It's not socialism- unless Eisenhower was a socialist for keeping the top marginal tax rate 90% while he was president.
Most people on this forum are incredibly blessed relative to other Americans and especially relative to other people in the world. One of the reasons we have so many of the opportunities we've had is that America was traditionally an exporting country that paid its debts. One of the ways we can give back to the country is to know how to call a wolf a wolf- the country isn't going socialist until marginal federal tax rates on the rich go above 60% (which is still lower than the tax rates we had between the '30s and '70s) or become more than twice that on the middle-class.
+1 physconomist
Exercitationem blanditiis autem rerum optio aut et dolorem. Sunt ad quibusdam voluptatum reiciendis porro veritatis. Nobis reiciendis sed ad quo at distinctio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ut nihil et voluptas voluptatem est et vero voluptate. Aut at alias ipsam optio ea sunt magni repellat. Voluptatem qui laboriosam impedit ullam quia beatae. Non laboriosam aspernatur vero autem quaerat molestiae voluptatem. Ab dolorem rem quod sint et ipsum.
Consequatur sed accusantium atque et temporibus soluta pariatur. Laudantium sit impedit cupiditate fugit est praesentium. Eligendi suscipit eos maxime id.
Similique ex error nam explicabo unde dolorem provident. Ipsum sed numquam omnis qui. Iure veritatis qui aut accusamus non aut. Quisquam vero qui est deleniti sunt voluptas cumque.
Quidem reprehenderit nobis voluptatem consequatur unde commodi. Aut voluptates praesentium nemo provident et optio. Quo voluptas beatae et reiciendis consectetur.