SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mark Adams who wrote (3358)11/1/2001 12:18:47 PM
From: ahhahaRead Replies (4) of 24758
 
First, I maintain that the bulk of corporate activity is not public held entities, but private.

This isn't intelligible. One of the big complaints about being public is that you are under constant and excess scrutiny. If you think that this scrutiny is a smoke screen and that clandestine activities are rife, then you are operating on paranoia. This view is common with the liberals.

Where management and ownership interests are one and the same.

Most corporations, 99%, don't have a significant management ownership. This is a standard complaint among investors and why investors often look to smaller companies where management has a bigger stake. The strategy is based on the assumption that when managers have financial incentive via the self interest of ownership to perform, they do, and moreso than when they're just cogs in the wheel of a large corporation.

Second, I think you err in the assertion that structuring activity to minimize tax is illegal, immoral etc.

I stated in a post yesterday that it is the intent of Congress that everyone try to avoid paying tax.

You consistently assert that there is no difference between avoiding and evading tax liability.

In fact, I haven't used the word "evade" once.

Because corporate entities exert a greater influence on the legislature process.

They wish. Besides, lobbying Congress or legislatures has a long history and it works both ways. By "works" I mean its effects are randomly distributed and so corporations trying to manipulate legislators bring about the opposite of their intent if only because a corporation's competitor is also lining the same pockets.

Does any of that have anything to do with tax law? Corporations almost without exception have wanted lower tax rates on corporations. If we are to assume that corporations manipulate legislators, then why have corporate taxes increased?

And the bulk of these corporate entities are in fact proxies for private individuals and groups.

I have no idea what this sentence means,

Everything you say is classic liberal paranoia and it is what motivates people to pursue high tax rates on corporations and individuals.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext