A key question looming on the minds of dividend investors and the stock market in general surrounds the taxation of dividends in 2011.

By way of context, dividends are taxed at the corporate level – as income, as well as at the individual level. This results in double taxation, and has long been fodder for philosophical debate over the fairness of the system. One school of thought holds that individuals should not pay taxes on dividends at all, because they’ve already paid as partial owners of the companies in question.

 In 2003, President Bush signed a tax reform bill into law that brought the dividend tax rates down from the standard wage tax rate.  For “qualified” dividends, taxes were paid at a rate of either 5% or 15%.  Lower income taxpayers saw qualified dividend rates drop to 0% in 2008-2010.  This rate structure mimics the long-term capital gains rates.  Note:  qualified dividends are paid on stocks held for all of the 120 day period around the ex-dividend date, which is the date on which the shareholder base is determined with regard to who will receive dividends.  In other words, if a shareholder owns the stock on or before ex-dividend date, he or she will receive a dividend for that period.

The 2003 cuts were significant, as the top tax bracket had dividend taxes cut from 35% to 15%.  Perhaps more importantly, the two lower brackets dropped from 10%/15% to not paying any taxes on dividends.  Unfortunately, the dividend tax rate is set to expire beginning January 1, 2011.  At that point, taxes on dividends will revert to the rates paid on wages.  Right now it is unclear what will actually happen at that point, however.

Simply extending the lower dividend rate seems like an option.  However, that would be considered a tax cut, which would require Congress to justify under PAYGO rules.  In short, the higher rates are factored into our federal revenue projections, and we’d have to pay for lower rates – even in the case of an extension – by cutting spending or raising revenue somewhere else.

Undoubtedly, any plan to raise taxes on dividends is designed to raise revenues to help pay for the dramatically increased government spending that has taken place over the last decade.  However, in its most extreme form, an unintended consequence could be to weaken the balance sheets of US corporations, such that they are less well equipped to deal with economic downturns.  That is because raising taxes on dividends could incent corporations to use debt instead of equity.  At least, it may dis-incent them to use equity, as the tax would be the same on interest payments as on dividends.

Furthermore, the recent health care bill already includes an additional 3.8% tax on investment income beginning in 2013.  This includes dividends.  So the rate is going up, one way or another.

What makes this a particularly stick situation is that the dividend tax decision impacts the wealthy as well as lower-income taxpayers.  Per a  Wall Street Journal report, the Tax Policy Center estimates that six million lower-income households will return to paying taxes if the Bush administration changes are simply allowed to lapse. Most Republicans, many Democrats, and President Obama have all stated that they believe dividends should be taxes at the lower capital gains rate, rather than standard income tax rates.

Bottom line

It is still anybody's guess as to how this will play out for taxpayers.  How will it play out for investors? Certainly, dividend stocks are more attractive under the current taxation plan than they were when dividends were taxed at the standard income rates.  However, the outsized returns achieved by dividend stocks that I highlighted in a previous blog post were  were largely gained under non-preferential tax rates.  Consequently, the argument for dividend stocks outperforming the market over the long-term remains strong, regardless of the direction of dividend taxes.  Within reason, of course.

Much has been made recently about the story of Grace Groner.  For good reason.  If you're unfamiliar, Ms. Groner died last week at the age of 100.  While working at Abbott Labs, she bought 3 shares of stock in 1935, reinvested the dividends, and lived within her means for the rest of her life.  That investment is now worth $7 million, which she has donated to her alma mater.

There are a couple of interesting story lines associated with this.  Most of them center on frugality and charity.  Again, deservedly so. This is a great lesson in both.  Although she doesn't perfectly fit the mold, Grace Groner's behavior would have made her a good subject for Thomas Stanley's The Millionaire Next Door series.

There are a couple of other vectors here that are interesting, though.  In his Wealth Report column, Robert Frank highlights one of them, which involves the power and risk of putting all one's eggs in one investing basket, especially when that basket belongs to your employer.  He points out that luck played a big role here.

In reality, though, if she had invested in the broader market, she would have enjoyed impressive returns as well.  But how impressive?  That is the story line that is most instructive, and it involves the power of compounding, which is coincidentally a favorite topic of this blog.

Let's look at some data.  In 1935, stocks were up 46.74%.  That's a nice way to launch a long-term investment.  The next year, the market was up 31.94%.  In other words, if Grace Groner would have invested in a broad stock index fund on January 1, 1935 (had they existed then), she would have almost doubled her money after two years!  Of course, the market is a volatile beast, and 1937's 35.34% drop was undoubtedly a good reminder.  Nonetheless, from 1935 through 2009, the average broad stock market return was 12.23%, according to the Federal Reserve's numbers.  What was Grace Groner's return?  By my calculation, it was just under 15.4%, with full reinvestment of dividends, etc.  That is what allowed Ms. Groner to donate $7 million to Lake Forest College.

But what about Robert Frank's assertion that luck played a huge role in her investing success?  How much would she have been able to donate to Lake Forest if she had instead been able to invest in the broad market for 75 years? $919,042.85!  In other words, the difference between a 12.2% and a 15.4% per year average return on a $180 investment for 75 years is more than $6 million and almost 87% of the final value of the investment.

That leads me back to two fundamental points:  1) the power of compounding cannot be overstated, and investing early is a huge advantage if one is hoping to build wealth, and consequently 2) finding inexpensive investment vehicles makes a huge difference, provided the associated returns are similar.  If Ms. Groner had paid 100 basis points, or 1%, for management of her Abbott investment, she would have ended up with a bit less than $3.8 million.

A common, folksy investing maxim is to invest in good companies that you understand.  It's not a bad place to start, but as this Bloomberg article on Apple's valuation underscores, the downside is that such companies may have prices that are assuming perfection.  If that perfection doesn't happen, the stock price may be in trouble.  Even if they hit the targets, the likelihood that the investment will grow at a rate greater than the overall market is often low.

Note that this is not a commentary on Apple specifically, or whether or not I agree with the author.  The point is that investing - particularly in individual companies - cannot be done in a vacuum.  The quality of the company is not necessarily correlated with the quality of the investment.  What really matters is how the market values the company.  There are good companies and mediocre ones that make good investments.  The same is true of bad investments.