Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Adams who wrote (3358)	11/1/2001 12:18:47 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to 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.

To: Mark Adams who wrote (3358)	11/1/2001 1:38:14 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

First, I maintain that the bulk of corporate activity is not public held entities, but private. Where management and ownership interests are one and the same. Is this bad? Are you implying that closely held corporations should be taxed differently than public ones because the ownership is to a small group of people rather than the large numbers of fractional ownership that exists in a public company? If you are, why? If I start a corporation with money from an inheritance or one from the capital markets are these two enterprises necessarily different? If I sell one corp and start another with that money is that worse than putting that money into publicly traded stock? If I start a corporation to manage my vast wealth is that different than starting a corporation to manage others wealth?