Amid all the talks of fiscal cliff 2013, which we'll hit Jan. 1 if Congress doesn't act, some analysts are warning of the impact on dividend stocks.
That's because some of the tax increases associated with the fiscal cliff could deliver a hefty tax hike to dividend income.
But the possibility of higher dividend taxes doesn't mean you should ignore the sector altogether.
History shows that dividend-paying stocks have outperformed non-dividend shares even at a time when taxes were much higher. For income-seeking investors, any pullback in dividend-paying stocks as the fiscal cliff approaches may just be a buying opportunity.
Investors early to the game will enjoy dividend payments and also benefit from these companies' healthy market performance.
Fiscal Cliff Effect on DividendsIf nothing is resolved before year-end and Congress fails to take action, dividends received will be taxed as ordinary income instead of the current maximum 15%. Ordinary income tax rates are scheduled to revert to pre-2003 levels, with a maximum of 39.6%.
In addition, a new 3.8% tax will be tacked on to help pay for the Affordable Care Act. For some taxpayers, dividend taxes would nearly triple.
But remember, before investors enjoyed the 2003 dividend tax breaks that put dividend taxes on par with capital gains taxes, payouts had been taxed for decades at ordinary income rates. For some, the tax was as much as 91% in the late 1950s and early 1960s, 70% in the 1970s and 50% in the early 1980s.
Despite those lofty tax rates, dividend stocks continued to maintain a prominent position in portfolios of income oriented investors, and these stocks continue to share their wealth with satisfied shareholders.
From the end of 1979 through July 2012, dividend-paying stocks in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index carried an annualized total return of 12.1%. That compares with a 10.7% return for nonpayers, according to data from research firm S&P Capital IQ.
MarketWatch did the math and calculated that an initial investment of $10,000 in the dividend bunch would have morphed to a whopping $408,000 over that time frame compared to $271,000 for the nonpaying group.