Well, you pay taxes when you realize the gain (i.e. when you sell the shares). Until then, it is only theoretical and there is nothing to tax (the share price can also go down, not only up).
Another POV is, that when company pays dividends, they are not sure what to do with the money, they have nothing interesting in pipeline and therefore they can not provide better return on investment than the investors individually can.
Regarding the paying of dividends representing the lack of innovation, I have this to ask: have we ever had a company with such massive cash reserves relative to the balance of the market?
I think it makes (common) sense that this is a signal of ending innovation, however, Apple has so much cash, it is difficult to fathom what they could possibly do with it other than return it to the shareholders (which they ARE doing).
That is the other strange thing I see about all of this, they ARE returning value to the shareholders in terms of dividends, are these big shareholders (Einhorn et al) just not happy with the rate at which they're being paid?
This is an important point. The traditional "dividends mean mature company with declining innovation/growth" line of thought may not apply here. Apple has more cash on hand than the state of California spends from the general fund in a year. Apple is in uncharted waters for a private company here.
That doesn't matter, if Apple can invest that money the returns on that investment are also taxed lower. Giving the cash back says they have no way to make you a better return.
