@ beans Corporations are what they were intended for to limit liability , if an Insurance company insures them, then the Insurance company
No expenses are deducted from profit. But at each quarter or at the end of each year everything is squared
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans Corporations are what they were intended for to limit liability [/quote]
Right, but if they aren’t seen as a “person” who do you sue?
Who is liable?
And it is also very much non-recourse based formation, as well as torts.
No one would insure an entity that isn’t actually an entity. And I don’t think you can insure against neglegence outside of professional services.
Expenses are deducted from revenue, the result is profit or loss.
But I think I know what you are getting at. That said what do you suggest happens to items of Other Comprehensive Income, things like Fair Value adjustments and Discontinued Operations?
Everything is already squared at all times. That is the beauty of it all. In the end, it all equals zero.
Interestingly, with Obama running the most despicable ad in modern politics, Romney’s tax returns have become a non-topic. I don’t know that this issue was headed anywhere, what with liberals even saying it was a red herring and complaining about the baseless insinuations of Romney evading taxes, but it’s been flushed down the toilet as the news focus shifts to the sleaziness of the “Mitt-is-a-murderer” ad.
Well done, Obamabots.
EDIT: to be more precise, the ad is being run by a pro-Obama super-PAC over which Obama’s campaign has no control, but of course, if the campaign asked that they not run it, they wouldn’t. The Obama campaign has refused to do so.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans Corporations are what they were intended for to limit liability [/quote]
Right, but if they aren’t seen as a “person” who do you sue?
Who is liable?
And it is also very much non-recourse based formation, as well as torts.
No one would insure an entity that isn’t actually an entity. And I don’t think you can insure against neglegence outside of professional services.
Expenses are deducted from revenue, the result is profit or loss.
But I think I know what you are getting at. That said what do you suggest happens to items of Other Comprehensive Income, things like Fair Value adjustments and Discontinued Operations?
Everything is already squared at all times. That is the beauty of it all. In the end, it all equals zero.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans Corporations are what they were intended for to limit liability [/quote]
Right, but if they aren’t seen as a “person” who do you sue?
Who is liable?
And it is also very much non-recourse based formation, as well as torts.
No one would insure an entity that isn’t actually an entity. And I don’t think you can insure against neglegence outside of professional services.
Expenses are deducted from revenue, the result is profit or loss.
But I think I know what you are getting at. That said what do you suggest happens to items of Other Comprehensive Income, things like Fair Value adjustments and Discontinued Operations?
Everything is already squared at all times. That is the beauty of it all. In the end, it all equals zero.[/quote]
[/quote]
It’s funny they’ve Insured my businesses . They were simple Limited Liability Companies
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It’s funny they’ve Insured my businesses . They were simple Limited Liability Companies [/quote]
An LLC is a “person” just like a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of the law.
Your accountant must love you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interestingly, with Obama running the most despicable ad in modern politics, Romney’s tax returns have become a non-topic. I don’t know that this issue was headed anywhere, what with liberals even saying it was a red herring and complaining about the baseless insinuations of Romney evading taxes, but it’s been flushed down the toilet as the news focus shifts to the sleaziness of the “Mitt-is-a-murderer” ad.
Well done, Obamabots.
EDIT: to be more precise, the ad is being run by a pro-Obama super-PAC over which Obama’s campaign has no control, but of course, if the campaign asked that they not run it, they wouldn’t. The Obama campaign has refused to do so.[/quote]
I wouldn’t be so fast to say that the ad in question is not having the impact that the Obama people want. They were aware that the ad would be controversial but they are still getting the teary eye’d dim witted women with this one. Each of their strikes has an appeal to a certain group.
For example, the “Romney doesn’t pay his taxes” attack is aimed directly at the middle class vote.
Yes, Obama is running the dirtiest Presidential campaign in modern history. But it is helping him keep the topic off the economy and many things that he’s done wrong as President. And the Romney team has been slow to respond or responded inappropriately. Thus Obama remains ahead in the national polls by about 4 points and in the key state polls as well.
In short this filthy campaign that the Obama mob is running is working so far!
Edit: Romney is slow to attack Obama personally because he is afraid that Obama is too popular with certain groups and there would be a boomarang effect–He’s wrong but that is the theory that they’re operating under.
And if he doesn’t change the tide soon it will be too late!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It’s funny they’ve Insured my businesses . They were simple Limited Liability Companies [/quote]
An LLC is a “person” just like a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of the law.
Your accountant must love you. [/quote]
An LLC has a tax number other than that it is not a person .My Corp can not vote , you can not put a corp in jail,it does not eat,sleep, breath air or serve any function other than a vehicle to make money . I think my account probably does love me :).
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It’s funny they’ve Insured my businesses . They were simple Limited Liability Companies [/quote]
An LLC is a “person” just like a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of the law.
Your accountant must love you. [/quote]
An LLC has a tax number other than that it is not a person .My Corp can not vote , you can not put a corp in jail,it does not eat,sleep, breath air or serve any function other than a vehicle to make money . I think my account probably does love me :).
[/quote]
Again, an LLC has the same status in the eyes of the courts (for the most part) as any INC. The major difference is the flow thru of income to the members of the LLC while an INC has to pay dividends.
The idea of corporate personhood, the talking point you are refering to, is just so an entity can sue and be sued. It protects the shareholders from paying for the debts and torts of the company, and has the company held responcible.
Does this situation lead to the option of ruthless individuals who run the corps to do bad things? Yes. But so does our government, the police department, the corner store and a cute little puppy.
The video you linked is bascially 2012’s Reefer MAdness with a little bit of Communist Manifesto mixed in. Too bad it could have a great message but they are going to fuck it all up, because, like Occupy and you, they don’t even understand what it is they hate and are mad at.
Funny part is, corps, the mega corps in that video are run by Boards, which I would figure the pinko commies would like: the collective runs the corp.
I know there are some that see corp.s as people . If they are people they are truly sociopathic.
The video is from a left point of view but it covers some really good points . When Corp.s started to gain personhood was when blacks gained theirs . And there were more court challenges from Corp.s than from blacks .
We need to return to a tax code that is simple enough for us all to understand other wise it will never be fair.
If you watched the video they do not bash the corporation, they bash what it has became . It is not a person and deserves no such rights .It should not be able to make political contributions , it should not be able to shelter money from taxation . It should be the vehicle that is was designed to be , one that limits the liability of the investors to that of the corporation . And if they want to be self insured then they post a bond .
Do not fool yourself there are all kind of Isurance companies out there that will Insure any one against anything.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interestingly, with Obama running the most despicable ad in modern politics, Romney’s tax returns have become a non-topic. I don’t know that this issue was headed anywhere, what with liberals even saying it was a red herring and complaining about the baseless insinuations of Romney evading taxes, but it’s been flushed down the toilet as the news focus shifts to the sleaziness of the “Mitt-is-a-murderer” ad.
Well done, Obamabots.
EDIT: to be more precise, the ad is being run by a pro-Obama super-PAC over which Obama’s campaign has no control, but of course, if the campaign asked that they not run it, they wouldn’t. The Obama campaign has refused to do so.[/quote]
Don’t forget Harry Reid…who knows a guy, who knew a guy, who was the janitor for one of the guys, who worked at Bain for Romney.
Janitor - “THAT DUDEZ ROMNZ PAYS NO TAXZ”
Mainstream Media - “ROMNEY PAYS NO TAXES”
Joe Shmoe (half drunk, watching the news) - “FUCKING RICH PRICK”
Reid - aaaaaaaaaand my work here is done
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interestingly, with Obama running the most despicable ad in modern politics, Romney’s tax returns have become a non-topic. I don’t know that this issue was headed anywhere, what with liberals even saying it was a red herring and complaining about the baseless insinuations of Romney evading taxes, but it’s been flushed down the toilet as the news focus shifts to the sleaziness of the “Mitt-is-a-murderer” ad.
Well done, Obamabots.
EDIT: to be more precise, the ad is being run by a pro-Obama super-PAC over which Obama’s campaign has no control, but of course, if the campaign asked that they not run it, they wouldn’t. The Obama campaign has refused to do so.[/quote]
Don’t forget Harry Reid…who knows a guy, who knew a guy, who was the janitor for one of the guys, who worked at Bain for Romney.
Janitor - “THAT DUDEZ ROMNZ PAYS NO TAXZ”
Mainstream Media - “ROMNEY PAYS NO TAXES”
Joe Shmoe (half drunk, watching the news) - “FUCKING RICH PRICK”
Reid - aaaaaaaaaand my work here is done[/quote]
My favorite is:
Joe Shmoe: Venture Capitalists are evil scum. They go it, rape the company for all teh profits, and then bankrupt them by leaving after they cut all the employees.
It doesn’t even make logical sense that would be a regular course of action. Not on any level.
People will believe what they want to believe
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I know there are some that see corp.s as people . If they are people they are truly sociopathic.
The video is from a left point of view but it covers some really good points . When Corp.s started to gain personhood was when blacks gained theirs . And there were more court challenges from Corp.s than from blacks .
[/quote]
Dude, people have been bitching about corporations, and their “rights” since the 18th century.
This isn’t a new issue.
How about people educate themselves? I don’t feel the need to dumb anything down to the lowest common denominator.
And I’m telling you, a “fair” tax code, and all those poor people will be crying for Reagan to come back to life.
So it can’t sue and be sued?
I disagree.
I would prefer that corps (& PACs) had to pay, in tax, equal to 50% of their contribution.
They want to give 2.2 to a canidate? They cut a check for 2.2 to the canidate, and 1.1 to the treasury.
I feel like the attack ads would stop and we’d see a few more debates as the money dried up quickly.
A C-Corp is the hardest form of organization to do this under.
Well, you have to give them personhood then.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need to return to a tax code that is simple enough for us all to understand other wise it will never be fair.
[/quote]
You didn’t read my beer story did you?
The evil rich people would end up paying less if it were “fair”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need to return to a tax code that is simple enough for us all to understand other wise it will never be fair.
[/quote]
You didn’t read my beer story did you?
The evil rich people would end up paying less if it were “fair”[/quote]
Where did evil rich people come from ?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need to return to a tax code that is simple enough for us all to understand other wise it will never be fair.
[/quote]
You didn’t read my beer story did you?
The evil rich people would end up paying less if it were “fair”[/quote]
I guess fair would be a subjective subject
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need to return to a tax code that is simple enough for us all to understand other wise it will never be fair.
[/quote]
You didn’t read my beer story did you?
The evil rich people would end up paying less if it were “fair”[/quote]
Where did evil rich people come from ?
[/quote]
I’m being an asshole. Sorry
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I guess fair would be a subjective subject [/quote]
I’ve heard this before. Please be the first to explain what is subjective fair to me.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need to return to a tax code that is simple enough for us all to understand other wise it will never be fair.
[/quote]
You didn’t read my beer story did you?
The evil rich people would end up paying less if it were “fair”[/quote]
Where did evil rich people come from ?
[/quote]
I’m being an asshole. Sorry
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I guess fair would be a subjective subject [/quote]
I’ve heard this before. Please be the first to explain what is subjective fair to me.[/quote]
No need to apologize . I can not speak what is fair for you , but in my opinion If my dollar had the same value as every one’s and if all income were taxed . then my rate could be lower. Maybe not a rocket scientist’s explanation but I think adequate .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I reiterate,
Better questions:
-Why didn’t Obama deliver on his “hope and change” promise?
-Why are we now at 46 straight months of unemployment over 8%? The highest since the great depression!
Why do we have a national debt of almost 16 trillion dollars? 5 trillion dollars higher since Obama took office.
-Why did government just take over 1/6th of the US economy with the national health care bill? When a free market solution was never even tried.
-Why did Obama just pass the largest tax increase in the history of the US in order to pay for health care?
-Why does Obama hate small business people taxing them into oblivion and telling them that they are not responsible for their own success?
-Why is Obama threatening to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which would raise taxes an additional 5% on every working American. And no doubt send the economy into another recession.
There are far better questions than Romney not releasing his last 1000 years of tax returns. He released the same number of years as every other candidate who ever ran for office. Matters not if he’s worth 300 billion dollars and keeps it in the bank of China. Obama is trying to make this an issue because he has failed as President and has no record to run on! Everything that is not related to the economy and the long-term success of the US economically is a sideshow and meant to take the voters attention off the real topic.
We need to get rid of Obama he’s a complete and total FAILURE! [/quote]
Zeb your post has a hint of truth but for the most part it is up there with FAUX news[/quote]
Yet, as always you can never quite tell me where I am wrong…you just know that I am somehow.
Ha.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why didn’t Obama deliver on his “hope and change” promise?
Ha.[/quote]
You act as rhough Obama is in charge, when he doe’s accomplish a goal you liken him to Hitler or Satan 