I did some looking to see if there was any data to support my contention that private corporations substantially outweigh public corporations, in number and gross revenue.
Census Table 8.55
In 1997, 4,710,000 corporations reported 15,890 billion dollars in revenue, with 915 billion dollars net income. Contrast this to a mere 7000 or so listed stocks, some of which are CEFs, trusts, partnerships and other non corporate entities. The Wilshire5000 is purported to be a whole market index. This suggests that private corporations far outweigh public entities.
census.gov
Ahh, but I see in another post to Grace, you have a different definition of public than I do. You include 'closely held' corporate entities as public.
I also took a look at who bore the burden of Social Policy costs. Derived from NIPA table 3.2- the portion of Federal Revenue from:
49.32% Personal income taxes
11.47% Corporate taxes
33.78% Social Insurance taxes
bea.doc.gov
It's likely that almost half the Social Insurance costs are born by corporate entities. But as you would point out, in the ultimate macro scene, the consumer and producer alike bear all the costs in the end anyway. So what really matters is the cost of collection and administration, and changes in the existing system that often create dislocations and loopholes for some subsets.
>>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.
I agree with the public scrutiny, and adding accouting and filiing costs. I don't follow the balance of your statement. You seem to imply I'm suffering from Paranoia, that efforts to miminize tax liabilities in public corporations would be clandestine. I suggest you do a google search on 'Tax Shield' and observe the hits you find.
>>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.
Insider ownership becomes a serious issue at both extremes. Large insider ownership lets the management/owner run roughshod over the minority holders.
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.
Somehow I missed that. And I know we both agree that such is not probably the best use of resources, from the larger picture.
>>You consistently assert that there is no difference between avoiding and evading tax liability.
In fact, I haven't used the word "evade" once.
A search shows that you have shown care regarding that word.
Message 16521124
Message 16588312 |
