wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.

You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status.
Two different things.


So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate
one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share.

Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.

There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.

Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.

If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them.

A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.

You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status.
Two different things.


So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate
one

from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share.

Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.

There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.


Not legally.
Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.


Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.
If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them.

A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.

You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status.
Two different things.


So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate
one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share.

Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.

There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.


Not legally.

Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your
legal advise.

Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.


Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.

?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with
being a responsible corporate citizen?

If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them.

A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking
about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.






--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.


You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status.
Two different things.


So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate
one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share.

Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.


There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.


Not legally.

Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your
legal advise.


Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.



Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.

?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with
being a responsible corporate citizen?


If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them.


A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking
about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.







How else do you grow your business? Growth almost always requires new
capital expenditures. New employee? New desk and computer. Get it?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.


Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders. "Excessive" CEO pay is lost profits for shareholders
and can affect the value of the stock - something the executives watch
very closely. They are self-policed to a degree.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.


Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders. "Excessive" CEO pay is lost profits for shareholders
and can affect the value of the stock - something the executives watch
very closely. They are self-policed to a degree.


Yeah, they're self-policing to about 1 degree. I guess all those CEOs of the
banks were just out of luck when they asked for those big paychecks. The
stockholders said no, and that was that. Same goes with GM. Oh wait....


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:02:10 -0400, Larry wrote:

Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders.

That is a joke. Controlling interest in virtually every corporation is
owned by big funds and voted by money managers who play golf with the
CEOs.


Thank you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:37:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.

It is not an expense until you spend it. If you bank the profit it
would be taxed and that money would not be available to build the
business. That encourages business to borrow money instead of saving
for expansion. Certainly the interest is deductible but it is still
paying more than you should for things because the banker gets a cut..


Umm... you said, "use it to build the business." And, I replied, "used to
build the business." How does one use it without spending it...
infrastructure, new equipment, etc.?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:37:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would
be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due
to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.

It is not an expense until you spend it. If you bank the profit it
would be taxed and that money would not be available to build the
business. That encourages business to borrow money instead of saving
for expansion. Certainly the interest is deductible but it is still
paying more than you should for things because the banker gets a cut..


Umm... you said, "use it to build the business." And, I replied, "used to
build the business." How does one use it without spending it...
infrastructure, new equipment, etc.?

... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my
business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a
foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around
saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without
borrowing.
It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt.


Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they put
in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated
about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor
experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what I
used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think
otherwise.

--
Nom=de=Plume