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?