- citr,
proof?
It's a fairly common thing. Google for instances of large companies negotiating tax breaks w/ local municipalities for expanding or constructing facilities. I believe there was one in Kansas involving Boeing that was kinda notorious.
proof?
but big business says if you tax me i will move and they do
But by the very structure of the corporation, these everyday people who own and operate the corporation are divorced from the long-term, long-range consequences of the decisions they make, which creates a moral hazard and causes them to focus on extracting wealth in the short term instead of creating wealth in the long term (as capitalism requires). And "supported by customers" is a bit of an exaggeration - it's more that customers have to shop somewhere, and when all of the choices are big corporations, that's where they end up going; it's not by choice, but the result of lack of choices.It seems very popular right now (well, the last 50 years) with one party in particular to stick it to "corporations." Because, by nature, they are "evil." This is nonsense. They are operated by every day people, they are owned by (GE is a public company) everyday people, they employ everyday people, they are supported by customers who are...you guessed it, everyday people.
Only because companies "invest" their employees' 401k contributions in their own stocks. I've worked for several large corporations where my 401k plan consisted mainly of the stock issued by the company I worked for; this wasn't my choice, it was an arrangement between the company and the 401k fund manager they hired. Again, not by choice, but the result of lack of choices.In fact, employee retirement funds hold trillions in stock of corporations.
I agree that corporations are legal fictions, however, the owners (or rather the boards of directors) of those legal fictions have fought tooth and nail (and sometimes cloak and dagger) to get those legal fictions declared "persons," with an existence independent of their owners. Under US jurisprudence (based on a deliberate misrepresentation of a court ruling), these "persons" can own assets; the corporation's shareholder-owners cannot touch those assets (unlike sole proprietors or partners) until the corporation "dies," and then they only get what's left over after the creditors have picked the carcass clean. The most a corporate shareholder-owner can do is sell his or her stock, but that sale of stock does not remove assets from the corporation (unless the corporation is buying the stock back), and the selling price of the stock is not based on its actual redemption value (the book value of the corporation divided by the number of outstanding shares), it's based on whatever stock market traders are willing to pay for it, and that is based largely on the ability of the corporate managers to hype the corporation (usually through shady accounting - think Enron - or by inflating the company's book value - see below).Then, they presume that the "corporation" can own or hold money. This simply isn't true. A corporation is a legal fiction, it doesn't really exist except that we all agree it does. By virtue of it not actually existing it cannot hold money.
Dividends are treated as expenses by corporations, so corporations do not always pay dividends out of their profits; instead, the board of directors chooses to "reinvest" the profits back into the corporation, sometimes to fuel expansion, sometimes to increase the company's book value (usually right before the company goes on sale), or oftentimes merely to inflate the corporation's profits to make the company's stock seem more attractive (and thus raise its trading value). And, as I mentioned above, the real people who own the company's stocks cannot touch the company's assets until it "dies."Either the money is paid out in returns to shareholders, or is spent as costs. There is no magical GE walking amongst us that gets to keep all that cash. The shareholders, together, own all the assets. So, no matter where they put the money, a real person owns it.
That's not exactly true either. Large companies distort markets around them, which has a ripple effect on any competitors that haven't been run out of business. Consumers don't really have a choice when large chains are the only choices left and all of those chains are distorting markets to suit their short-term growth goals regardless of the long-term impact of their actions. Competition - fair, level-playing-field competition - is the heart of capitalism; anti-competitive, market-distorting behemoths are not. Throw in the fact that the boards of directors of the corporations use corporate resources to influence the political process in favor of their legal fictions, and consumers have very little say in the matter of what large corporations can and cannot get away with; simply shopping at one large corporation instead of another has little effect on the underlying oligarchy dynamic.Further, these "evil" companies are only as evil as the consumer lets them be. If you think Wal-Mart is evil then stop shopping there. Go to "honest" Whole Foods (honestly charging double for some identical goods).
thanks for the back up and validation...seems that some of these members don't own their own business. if they did, these stupid ass comments would not be posted.LOL
No corporation or business pays taxes and thats the way it should be. The taxes (in a free market) are a cost of doing business.
My Father's medical practice for example charges patients a set fee based on a procedure done. within that fee is a calculation about a whole range of costs including taxes to be paid that are passed along to the consumer. what is left is profit. Sure you still have to pay tax on income that you make personally, but the business passes along its tax costs to the consumer. Dissect any business and you will find this. sure there may be a tax bill paid but that came out of the fees charged not from the pockets of the owners.
That's not exactly true either. Large companies distort markets around them, which has a ripple effect on any competitors that haven't been run out of business. Consumers don't really have a choice when large chains are the only choices left and all of those chains are distorting markets to suit their short-term growth goals regardless of the long-term impact of their actions. Competition - fair, level-playing-field competition - is the heart of capitalism; anti-competitive, market-distorting behemoths are not. Throw in the fact that the boards of directors of the corporations use corporate resources to influence the political process in favor of their legal fictions, and consumers have very little say in the matter of what large corporations can and cannot get away with; simply shopping at one large corporation instead of another has little effect on the underlying oligarchy dynamic.
thanks for the back up and validation...seems that some of these members don't own their own business. if they did, these stupid ass comments would not be posted.
Some of us do - and manage to do just nicely, thank you. We just happen to run our businesses differently - focusing on the long-term economic stability of the communities we serve, and not on how much money we can extract before we move on. The more stable your community, the more stable your company and the more money you earn in the long-run; chasing short-term profits exposes you to short-term fluctuations in the market and can compromise your long-term earnings potential.thanks for the back up and validation...seems that some of these members don't own their own business. if they did, these stupid ass comments would not be posted.
Beat me to it again! I must've been typing at the same time you were. :redface:Some do, and they still don't agree with you or willhorse. I'm a prime example. I've owned two businesses. One for web and my current which is rooted in the entertainment industry.
Beat me to it again! I must've been typing at the same time you were. :redface:
but big business says if you tax me i will move and they do
for those that have not read NYTimes best seller list ATLAS SHRUGGED Ayn Rand...
buy the large print or cd and get ramped up
So, if the business closes tomorrow, where does that money go? Does it evaporate?You forgot about one simple accounting 101 line called retained earnings. GE does not pay out all the profits it makes in dividends, nor does it spend the remaining money. Apple has billions in cash on its balance sheet, By stating this argument you show yourself as very naive and ignorant of the facts.
If you think that Jeff Immelt is an every day person you really need to take a step back and take a reality check,
No. Little companies turn into large ones because people choose to shop there. We didn't just start with a multi-billion dollar Wal-Mart. Sam Walton started with a single store (a mom and pop, believe it) in a town with 3,000 people. Just looking around here, if people hate Wal-Mart (which is packed almost all day) they have lots of other options.But by the very structure of the corporation, these everyday people who own and operate the corporation are divorced from the long-term, long-range consequences of the decisions they make, which creates a moral hazard and causes them to focus on extracting wealth in the short term instead of creating wealth in the long term (as capitalism requires). And "supported by customers" is a bit of an exaggeration - it's more that customers have to shop somewhere, and when all of the choices are big corporations, that's where they end up going; it's not by choice, but the result of lack of choices.
Sounds a little shady to me. You should call your 401k administrator and negotiate another option. If it is truly a lack of options then you'll have no trouble getting support for more options. In almost all cases where a company requires you to buy their stock there is a holding period, after which you can make a change.Only because companies "invest" their employees' 401k contributions in their own stocks. I've worked for several large corporations where my 401k plan consisted mainly of the stock issued by the company I worked for; this wasn't my choice, it was an arrangement between the company and the 401k fund manager they hired. Again, not by choice, but the result of lack of choices.
Its a legal fact, you don't have to agree or disagree.I agree that corporations are legal fictions
Thats the legal fiction.however, the owners (or rather the boards of directors) of those legal fictions have fought tooth and nail (and sometimes cloak and dagger) to get those legal fictions declared "persons," with an existence independent of their owners.
Which case would this be?Under US jurisprudence (based on a deliberate misrepresentation of a court ruling), these "persons" can own assets;
Again, that depends on the company. If this type of arrangement bothers you I suggest you either don't buy stocks, or invest only in companies that have more agreeable dividend arrangements.And, as I mentioned above, the real people who own the company's stocks cannot touch the company's assets until it "dies."
This is more proganda than fact. There are many choices. Just because the chains are the most visable doesn't mean its the only choice. Further, there are MANY choices within a given market for a given good. If you don't like one company you can go to another. If that doesn't work you can do without. Simply saying "I want it" doesn't entitle you to endless choices from companies that you find ethical. If you don't like car companies, ride a bike. Don't like bike companies, walk; ect ect ect.Consumers don't really have a choice when large chains are the only choices left and all of those chains are distorting markets to suit their short-term growth goals regardless of the long-term impact of their actions.
This is true.Competition - fair, level-playing-field competition - is the heart of capitalism; anti-competitive, market-distorting behemoths are not.
I disagree strongly, where you put your money makes all the difference.Throw in the fact that the boards of directors of the corporations use corporate resources to influence the political process in favor of their legal fictions, and consumers have very little say in the matter of what large corporations can and cannot get away with; simply shopping at one large corporation instead of another has little effect on the underlying oligarchy dynamic.