Cameron Builds Perfect Climate for U.S. Income Investors

Comments (2)

  1. KenU says:

    Which situation poses more of a political risk?

    David Cameron. There are tons of unknowns across the pond. And apparently the author is unaware that the U.S. stock market typically performs better when there is a Democrat in the White House.

    “on the whole, the stock market has performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. Much, much better. The average monthly return under Democrats was 0.73 percent versus 0.38 percent for Republicans, and Democrats posted an average yearly return of 15.31 percent against 5.47 percent for their political counterparts.”

    From “Republican or Democrat Presidents: Which Are Better for the Stock Market?” DailyFinance quoting a Canadian study

    Additional articles:
    “Ask not what the GOP will do for you: Historically, markets do better under Democrats” in Money.USNews

    “The (GOP) platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growth.
    The recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economy.
    Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services.
    Economic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the (GOP) platform which addresses this issue.”

    From “Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!” -Forbes

    Please note: I am in no way promoting voting Democrat here, just pointing out the facts. Perhaps someone in the GOP will come up with a better platform for the party, because the one it has now does NOT work. Even some Rep candidates for POTUS are (thankfully!) talking about income inequality. The aforementioned article suggests that this is one of the biggest indicators of economic problems for the U.S. and the GOP certainly isn’t going to change that situation, now is it?

    In my opinion the author would have done his article more justice if he had written “(insert name of Republican Presidential hopeful here)” in place of “Hillary Clinton”.

    As for me, I will invest more heavily in U.S. stocks if Clinton or any other Dem is elected. But if a Republican gets elected? Perhaps then I will invest in Great Britain and its newly elected Conservatives. That sounds a lot less risky than a Republican President (and likely Republican Congress) to me.


  2. Robert says:

    UK dividends are paid net of tax currently 20%. If they were paid gross dividends would be 25% higher. Do you know of any countries where dividends are paid gross and not subject to with holding tax? I believe this happens in Australia provided you are not resident there.


Add Comment