2Mo
And any dividend tax will reduce your potential total return at the end of your investment journey. 🧳🛑🤷♂️
•
11
•
2Mo
@TechNav Only if you intend to sell your shares 🤷♂️
•
11
•
@TechNav Ultimately, every tax counts, whether through the receipt of dividends or the sale of shares.
••
@TechNav is only potential. But I have the dividend for sure. If my company doesn't pay a dividend and the CEO drives the thing to the wall, then I have nothing left.
Then I'd rather pay taxes and not leave with 0 profit.
Then I'd rather pay taxes and not leave with 0 profit.
•
22
•2Mo
@Andre2023x The dividend tax is already due now, so you have to say goodbye to part of your assets immediately. If, on the other hand, you don't sell the shares for another 30 years and pay tax then, every euro that has not been paid as dividend tax will have increased by then. For example, your assets could have increased by 1000%, so €1 would have become €10. I would then be happy to pay 30% of this as capital gains tax, i.e. €3, because I still have €7 left over. This is not the case with dividends, as you have to pay tax earlier. In addition, the company itself has already paid taxes, which is a burden on its profits. This is precisely why a company like Berkshire Hathaway does not pay dividends.
•
11
•2Mo
@DividendenWaschbaer Simply set a stop loss to ensure that you don't lose more than you have invested, or limit your loss to a certain level.
••
2Mo
@SSIT Every time you receive dividends, you pay tax on them. It is not the gross dividend that ends up in your account, but the net dividend, as the state has already taken some of your money before it is transferred. In addition, the share price on the ex-dividend date falls by the amount of the gross dividend...
•
11
•2Mo
@TechNav That may be true in itself. If the investment strategy is not to sell the acquired shares at all at some point and simply pocket the dividends later, but without reducing the portfolio, then the taxes incurred now must be accepted. The theoretical total return with regard to a point in time X in the future may fall as a result, but if you try to avoid dividend payers as much as possible, your choice of attractive stocks is very limited.
•
33
•
@TechNav Well, since the advance lump sum, it's no longer such a big difference.
•
33
•@TechNav and if... It doesn't matter in the long term. I have a few shares in my portfolio for over 30 years with a price increase of over 500% and a personal dividend yield of >18% per year. In other words, I have received far more dividends than I paid for the shares. In other words, I got back all the money I invested plus a lifelong dividend on top.
Someone else say dividends aren't worth it... 😉
Someone else say dividends aren't worth it... 😉
•
22
•2Mo
@financial_ninja_104 If you had invested in non-dividend stocks like the S&P 500, your portfolio would be larger now, with a higher total return than your current price appreciation plus the dividends you've received so far.
You could always switch to dividend stocks if you want monthly payouts. Try it out and see how much MORE money you would have if you had simply invested in the S&P.
This isn't luck or a random stock pick - it's the simplest and safest strategy that anyone can implement at any stage of life.
You could always switch to dividend stocks if you want monthly payouts. Try it out and see how much MORE money you would have if you had simply invested in the S&P.
This isn't luck or a random stock pick - it's the simplest and safest strategy that anyone can implement at any stage of life.
••