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: ahhaha who wrote (3359)	11/1/2001 1:15:51 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

While I don't disagree with anything in regards to what you say about public corporations, Mark's point was that most corporations are not publicly held but private. You misunderstood what he said. He said: First, I maintain that the bulk of corporate activity is not public held entities, but private. I think he means exactly what he says, that most corporate activity is under the umbrella of a privately held corporation. I don't think that is ambiguous. To me it means that private corps outnumber public ones and a higher dollar figure moves through them. I don't know if that is correct but I believe that is what he meant. Private corporations are, of course, not subject to the same level of scrutiny that public ones are but if there are tax changes covering corporations they would share any benefits or drawbacks.

To: ahhaha who wrote (3359)	11/1/2001 2:20:59 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24758

ahhaha - ... 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?... One theoretical possibility would be that some corporations are able to manipulate legislators to provide custom tax breaks for themselves and to also increase general tax rates so as to impact their competitors. It is an inevitable result of virtually unlimited government power that corporations must lobby just to protect their own interests from attack, in addition to trying to buy special favors in some cases. Regards, Don

To: ahhaha who wrote (3359)	11/1/2001 6:37:56 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

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

To: ahhaha who wrote (3359)	11/1/2001 7:06:02 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

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? Do you have a source that corporate taxes have increased? I seem to recall a 15% corporate income tax rate on the first 50k of _net_ income. That don't seem high to me, especially if >70% of privately held (or closely held) corporations are mom and pop operations that achieve income levels in that range. FWIW: ctj.org