Dividends are thus actually preferred by most investors, and buybacks generally only advantage the biggest investors.
Additionally, corporations don't get special capital gains rates but do get dividends received exemptions for dividends from related company, so in many cases corporate shareholders would prefer dividends over share buybacks.
Buybacks are big not for tax reasons (because in most cases, companies make buybacks out of borrowed funds, not profits), but because they artificially inflate the stock price, which increases the value of the executive compensation packages of the executives that authorized the buyback.
Historical equities compound growth almost entirely comes from constantly reinvesting dividends to buy more shares which compounds to increase future dividends. So as an example, take a company that returns 5% of their share price and an investor pays a 20% tax rate allowing them to reinvest 4% after tax money to buy more shares. After 40 years, they'd have 1.04^40=4.8 times the proportion of the company. If the same company spent all of its money buying back shares, you'd have 1.05^40=7.039 times the company. Now you still have to pay that 20% on gains once you sell so after you'd have (1.05^40-1)*.8+1=5.83 after selling but that is still a 21% benefit for share buybacks in that example.
Also, I wouldn't call that "artificially inflate the stock price". They are reducing the number of outstanding shares thereby increasing the earnings per share which increases the amount that can be returned to each share such as through higher dividends. It is effectively reinvesting the dividends for you back into the company.
With a buyback, you have fewer shares after the buyback. If you "reinvest" in the company you give up all the proceeds you received to buy back the shares that you just sold to the company. But you've paid taxes as a result of the initial buyback so you have less money than you received to reinvest, and now presumably the shares are all more expensive as well. Your position is economically worse off if you reinvest than when you started, because you have the same amount of shares (or fewer) but paid some tax to get there.
With a dividend, you can keep the dividend, or buy more shares of the company or some combination of both. Your economic position is improved either way regardless of the amount of tax you pay.
Not sure who "you" is but the company will have fewer shares outstanding, investors who don't sell will have the same and those investors will also now own a greater % of the company as well as a greater earnings per share.
> If you "reinvest" in the company you give up all the proceeds you received to buy back the shares that you just sold to the company
I am 100% not saying that as that would eliminate the benefit. The benefit is to long term investors who buy, hold and reinvest dividends and reinvesting dividends to buy more stock is key as that is where the historical exponential returns are because it increases your ownership share and future dividends.
That is where my example numbers come in because you can only reinvest to buy more shares and thus your ownership % the dividend amount minus tax amount whereas the company can spend the entirety of a dividend buying shares to remove them from the outstanding market. The difference between those two numbers (1.05 and 1.04 in my example) then compounds and effectively goes towards increasing share prices which do eventually get taxed but they get the benefit of compounding while the owner holds.
Also, while you need quite a few shares, you can estimate and sell the percentage of shares a company is buying back in order to keep the same % ownership thus acting like a dividend so I myself would prefer all companies I invest in to never give out dividends and only do buybacks unless their P/E ratio is truly absurd.
