Well I'm not alltogether sure about corporate law in EStonia but here
in the US you would not have a corporation unless you incorporatted
through 1 of the 50 state government, there are a few federal
corporations like FAnnie, MAe, Freddie Mac, maybe the Federal
Reserve, Maybe TVA but the vast majority of corporations and LLC (
limited Liablity COmpanies) and LLP's ( limited LIablity Partnerships
register through 1 of the 50 states, many through the state of
Deleware or Nevada because those state governments offer less costs
and more protection from lawsuits etc, although from what I
understand a corporation incorporated in another state is thought of
as a foreign corporation by the state it is doing business in, just
as a corporation incorporated in another country, the assets it has
in the foreign state can be attached in a lawsuit and the state
government can charge the foreign corporation a service fee or tax
for doing business in that state. There are over 23 million
businesses in the US accroding to bizstats.com, only about 20% of
those are corporations, only about a million or so is a limited
liablity company, most of those are professional businesses like a
doctors office or a law firm. Over 17 million business are sole
prioprtership with 1 owner although a wife or husband may be co
owner, most of the balance is small non limited liablity
partnerships, there are very few limited liablity partnerships but I
understand the numbers are growing. Of the 4 or 5 million
corporations out of the 23 million businesses the majority of
corporations are such small businesses that would not even be called
small cap companies if they sold their stock on the exchanges, about
1 5,000 to 10,000 of the corporations or no more than 2% have over
80% of the total corporate assets in the US, the top 1,000 have over
half. the top 1,000 corporations not only earn over half of the 17
million dollars a year plus in corporate revenue but over half of the
25 million dollars total business
revenue.
So if non corporate businesses were exempt from a state fee or
tax and corporations and LLC with 20 million dollars or less in
annual revenue, well over 99% of businesses would be
exempt.
It is true a small business can have investors without
incorprating or LLC status, even large companies, all of Lllyods of
Lodon associates until a few years ago pleadge the fortunes to back
the liablity of the company, some individual members still do
although most members now are either corporations or Scottish Limited
Liablity Partnerships. Its interesting to read the story and history
of Lllyods on their website, there was some very brave noble
investors that could have lost it all and been sent to debtors
prison I imagine..--- In [email protected], Urmas Järve
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can define a small family business as an organization
continuing the beyond the life of its founders. When my parents
founded their first company one of their purposes was to leave it to
my brother and I. When my brother and I founded our first company our
intent was the same. Now we have investors that come and go depending
on the projects and partners in over two dozen countries. Do we have
a small business or a corporation? I still see it as my own small
company. Is it a small business or a corporation?
>
> If there is to be such a tax on business revenue it should be on
all business revenue. Companies must be equal in front of the law. If
they are not you punish the most successful entrepreneurs and also
disturb the market.
>
> Capital gains should most definitely NOT be taxed.
>
> Best wishes,
> Urmas
>
> On 07/02/2006 00:09, terry12622000 wrote:
> >
> > A corporation is a business or non profit organaztion that
registers
> > with a state governments for the purposes of incorporating,
> > continuing the organaztion beyond the life of its founding
> > stockholders, other type owners or members, one of the main
> > advantages of a corporation which may be also shared by
registered
> > limited liablity companies and registered limited liablity
> > partnerships is limited liablity spelled out in state
government
> > corporate laws and Anglo/ American common law, third party
liablity
> > can be a bonus but, natural law, common law and the 7th
amendment in
> > the bill of rights to the US consitution forbids using
corporate
> > status to escape justice. The 7th amendment says In suits at
common
> > law where the value of the controversy shall exceed 20
dollars, the
> > right of trial by jury shall be perserved, and no fact tried
by a
> > jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United
> > States, than according to common law. Some states also have
similar
> > clauses in their state constitution usually in the declaration
of
> > rights section. Thus a state government can not grant third
party
> > limited liablity outright but it can insure the corporation or
Limted
> > liablity company or limited liablity partnership. Nor should
the
> > state demand any waiver against suing for third party liablity
to
> > state residence in exchance for recieving benifits that comes
from
> > state incorporation fees but private insuers should be allowed
to ask
> > for waivers in exchanging compensation for a waiver not to
> > sue.
> > I would perfer it be a state tax or fee ( I would also
perfer that
> > the fee not be collected on at least the first 20 million a
year in
> > revenue) and the federal government take its cut from each
state
> > according to the population size of that state but the current
16th
> > amendment probably only applys to corporations and other
privildges
> > thus an indirect tax not to individuals which would be a
direct tax
> > which the constitution including the 16th amendment does not
allow
> > except such as my stated perference of based on population
size. No
> > popularity should not be the base for the course of action
alone and
> > sure does not justify stealing or extortion but a 80% to 95%
> > popularity of a revenue source is much more likely to pass
than say a
> > national sales tax or a flat rate tax plus when it is actually
a user
> > fee by choice it is not extortion, clearly if a business or
non
> > profit is forced to incorprate by the state or federal
government
> > that is exortion, if a corporation has a monoply that is also
> > extortion on the buyer but the answer to that is to end forced
> > incorporation and end the state backed monoply, in simlar
fashion the
> > federal government should not necessarily stop operating a
postal
> > service but they should end the monoply, I think as long as
the state
> > government does incorpration services the residence of the
state
> > should be compensated either through direct money and or
through
> > services, one big compensation would be to end all taxes on
> > individuals and non corporations, they can end taxes and fees
on
> > corportions as far as I'm concerned but i'm calling for ending
all
> > taxes on individuals and non corprations first not off
corporations
> > or dividend, interest or capital gains from corporations
first,
> > unless a business is forced to be a corporation by the
government
> > then it is ok to untax them first. Its best that all taxes be
ended
> > at the same time but if someone is exempt from taxes first
good for
> > them they don't have to share my pain as long as they did not
help
> > cause the pain.--- In [email protected], Urmas
Järve
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What exacly is a corporation and what is a small business?
> > >
> > > Also this kind of tax would only be a tax on the minority
just like
> > the first proposed income tax what was ruled unconstitutional.
> > >
> > > What would be the "safeguards" of that tax being in place
at that
> > level? The second time income tax was proposed in US it was 2%
and
> > the proponents made fun of their counter parts who argued it
could
> > raise to 20% or more. That argument was considered absurd and
look at
> > where we are now.
> > >
> > > Also does popular tax mean it is the right course of
action? Does
> > popular justify stealing?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Urmas
> > >
> > > On 07/01/2006 19:58, terry12622000 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Polls show that only 5% say corporations pay to
many
> > taxes, so
> > > > ending
> > > > > the tax on individuals and non corporations (
which are
> > mostly
> > > > small
> > > > > busineses) would i'm sure be vastly popular.
It's
> > basically the
> > > > > political wonks who can't see it.--- In
> > > > > [email protected], "terry12622000"
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually a corporate tax would not be a
tax in most
> > cases it
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a user fee for the service of
incorporating, it
> > would be a tax
> > > > when
> > > > > a
> > > > > > group was forced to incorporate or when
individuals
> > and groups
> > > > are
> > > > > > forced to deal with corporations. Still
ending all
> > direct taxes
> > > > on
> > > > > > individuals and noncorporate and non
limited
> > liablity businesses
> > > > > and
> > > > > > nonprofits would put the political class
> > establishment to the
> > > > test
> > > > > (
> > > > > > can it create enough value to sustain
itself) while
> > freeing up
> > > > > > billions, possibly into trillions of
dollars for
> > people to
> > > > > > participate in alternative markets and
mutual aid.--
> > - In
> > > > > > [email protected], "John
Stroebel"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought of you all as I was
readying this
> > post for a few
> > > > other
> > > > > > groups.
> > > > > > > I thought of the reaction I got over
the
> > federal gov't paying
> > > > an
> > > > > > agreed
> > > > > > > sum (adding up to a pittance) to the
Ute people
> > for a contract
> > > > > > (treaty)
> > > > > > > signed in the 20's. Man. Some folks
really got
> > them panties in
> > > > a
> > > > > > twist
> > > > > > > over having to be 'indebted' for THAT
deal! ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, I saw THIS little charm....so
why is it
> > that, I wondered,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > these Libertarians aren't cryin' a
river over
> > an estimated 500
> > > > > > BILLION
> > > > > > > DOLLARS cost for these lil'
occupations the
> > government is
> > > > > carrying
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > in our name?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ute easier pickins????
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ahemmm....the post. ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THREE LIL' LIES WE ALL SWALLOWED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hmmm...while I am still wondering,
what IS this
> > course we are
> > > > > > staying???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The estimated costs for this useless,
needless,
> > obscene war of
> > > > > > > aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan by
> > 2007...500 Billion. Wanna
> > > > > see
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > in digits? $500,000,000,000.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I digress....this is an
excellent article
> > about three
> > > > > wonderful
> > > > > > > myths we Americans have fallen
for....WMD,
> > Zarqawi and Iraqi
> > > > > > > sovereignty. enjoy! ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (did I say myths? Why of course I
meant bald
> > faced lies. Bush's
> > > > > > pants on
> > > > > > > fire.)
> > > > > > > Cost of wars in Afghanistan &
Iraq 2 top
> > $500 BILLION in 2007
> > > > > > Three
> > > > > > > Iraq Myths That Won't Quit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By Scott Ritter
> > > > > > >
> > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13764.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 06/26/06
> > > > > > > "AlterNet" -- -- It is hard sometimes
to know
> > what is real and
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > fiction when it comes to the news out
of Iraq.
> > America is in
> > > > > > its "silly
> > > > > > > season," the summer months leading up
to a
> > national election,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > media is going full speed ahead in
exploiting
> > its primacy in
> > > > the
> > > > > > news
> > > > > > > arena by substituting responsible
reporting
> > with headline-
> > > > grabbing
> > > > > > > entertainment. So, as America
closes in on
> > the end of June
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > celebration of the 230th year of our
nation's
> > birth, I thought
> > > > I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > pen a short primer on three myths on
Iraq to
> > keep an eye out
> > > > for
> > > > > as
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > "debate" the various issues
pertaining to our
> > third year of war
> > > > > in
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > country. The myth of sovereignty
Imagine the
> > president of the
> > > > > > United
> > > > > > > States flying to Russia, China,
England, France
> > or just about
> > > > any
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > nation on the planet, landing at an
airport on
> > supposedly
> > > > > sovereign
> > > > > > > territory, being driven under heavy
U.S.
> > military protection
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > U.S. Embassy, and then with some five
minutes
> > notification,
> > > > > > summoning
> > > > > > > the highest elected official of that
nation to
> > the U.S. Embassy
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > meeting. It would never happen,
unless of
> > course the nation in
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty
continues to
> > be hyped as a
> > > > > reality
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > in fact it is as fictitious as any
fairy tale
> > ever penned by the
> > > > > > > Brothers Grimm. For all of the talk
of a free
> > Iraq, the fact is
> > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > > remains very much an occupied nation
where the
> > United States
> > > > (and
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > ever decreasing "coalition of the
willing")
> > gets to call all
> > > > the
> > > > > > shots.
> > > > > > > Iraqi military policy is made by the
United
> > States. Its borders
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > controlled by the United States. Its
economy is
> > controlled
> > > > > largely
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > the United States. In fact, there
simply isn't
> > a single major
> > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > of actual sovereignty in Iraq today
that can be
> > said to be free
> > > > of
> > > > > > > overwhelming American control. Iraqi
ministers
> > continue to be
> > > > > shot
> > > > > > at by
> > > > > > > coalition forces, and Iraqi police
are
> > powerless to investigate
> > > > > > criminal
> > > > > > > activities carried out by American
troops (or
> > their mercenary
> > > > > > > counterparts, the so-called "Private
Military
> > Contractors").
> > > > The
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > of this myth is that the timeline for
the
> > departure of American
> > > > > > troops
> > > > > > > from Iraq is being debated (and
decided) in
> > Washington, D.C.,
> > > > not
> > > > > > > Baghdad. Of course, as with
everything in Iraq,
> > the final vote
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > made by the people of Iraq. But these
votes
> > will be cast in
> > > > > > bullets, not
> > > > > > > ballots, and will bring with them not
only the
> > departure of
> > > > > American
> > > > > > > troops from Iraq, but also the demise
of any
> > Iraqi government
> > > > > > foolish
> > > > > > > enough to align itself with a nation
that
> > violates
> > > > international
> > > > > > law by
> > > > > > > planning and waging an illegal war of
> > aggression, and continues
> > > > to
> > > > > > > conduct an increasingly brutal (and
equally
> > illegitimate)
> > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > The myth of Zarqawi I have said all
along that
> > the poll figures
> > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > Americans to be overwhelmingly
against the war
> > in Iraq were
> > > > > > illusory.
> > > > > > > Only 28 percent of Americans were
against the
> > war when we
> > > > invaded
> > > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > The ranks have swelled to over 60
percent not
> > because there has
> > > > > > been an
> > > > > > > awakening of social conscience and
> > responsibility, but rather
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > things aren't going well in Iraq, and
there is
> > increasing angst
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > American heartland because we seem to
be losing
> > the war in
> > > > Iraq,
> > > > > > and no
> > > > > > > one likes a loser. So when the word
came that
> > the notorious
> > > > > > terrorist,
> > > > > > > Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed by
American
> > military action,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > president suddenly had a "good week,"
and poll
> > numbers adjusted
> > > > > > slightly
> > > > > > > in his favor. However, the facts
cannot be
> > re-written, even
> > > > by
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > slavish American mainstream media.
Zarqawi was
> > never anything
> > > > > more
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > a minor player in Iraq, a third-rate
Jordanian
> > criminal whose
> > > > > > exploits
> > > > > > > were hyped up by a Bush
administration anxious
> > to prove that the
> > > > > > > insurgency that was getting the best
of America
> > in Iraq was
> > > > > > > foreign-grown and linked to the
perpetrators of
> > the 9/11 terror
> > > > > > attacks
> > > > > > > nonetheless. The reality of just how
wrong such
> > an assessment
> > > > is
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > was) has been pounded home in blood.
Since
> > Zarqawi's death, the
> > > > > > violence
> > > > > > > has continued to spiral out of
control in Iraq,
> > with Americans
> > > > > > > continuing to die, Iraqis still being
> > slaughtered, and Zarqawi
> > > > > and
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > organization, successor and all,
still as
> > irrelevant to reality
> > > > > as
> > > > > > ever.
> > > > > > > The war against the American
occupation in Iraq
> > is being fought
> > > > > > > overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The
insurgency is
> > growing and becoming
> > > > > > > stronger and more organized by the
day. This,
> > of course, is a
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > that the Bush administration cannot
afford to
> > have the American
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > know about in an election year, as a
compliant
> > media, having
> > > > sold
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > soul to the devil in hyping of the
virtues of
> > an invasion of
> > > > Iraq
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > in 2002-2003, continues to dance with
the party
> > that brought
> > > > them
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > supporting the Republican position,
by and
> > large, that the
> > > > > conflict
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > Iraq is a winnable one for America.
Good
> > ratings, more dead
> > > > > > Americans
> > > > > > > (and Iraqis, but who is counting?)
and a war
> > that will never
> > > > end
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > > the United States finally slinks out,
defeated,
> > its tail tucked
> > > > > > firmly
> > > > > > > between its legs. The myth of WMD
Regardless
> > of what Sen. Rick
> > > > > > > Santorum and the lunatic
neoconservative fringe
> > want to think,
> > > > no
> > > > > > > weapons of mass destruction have been
found in
> > Iraq. Citing a
> > > > > > classified
> > > > > > > Department of Defense report that
claims some
> > 500 artillery
> > > > > shells
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > been found in Iraq by U.S. forces
since the
> > invasion and
> > > > > subsequent
> > > > > > > occupation of Iraq in March 2003,
Santorum and
> > his cronies in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > right-wing media have been spouting
nonsense
> > about how Bush got
> > > > > it
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > all along, that there were WMD in
Iraq after
> > all. He
> > > > conveniently
> > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > to report that there is
nothing "secret" about
> > this data, it
> > > > has
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > been reported before (by the Bush
> > administration, nonetheless),
> > > > > and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > the shells in question constitute old
artillery
> > munitions
> > > > > > manufactured
> > > > > > > well prior to 1991 (the year of the
first Gulf
> > War, and a time
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > which the government of Saddam
Hussein stated --
> > correctly, it
> > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > out that no WMD were produced in
Iraq). The
> > degraded sarin
> > > > > nerve
> > > > > > agent
> > > > > > > and mustard blister agent contained
in the
> > discovered munitions
> > > > > had
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > since lost their viability, and as
such
> > represented no threat
> > > > > > > whatsoever. Furthermore, the
haphazard way in
> > which they were
> > > > > > > "discovered" (lying about the ground,
as
> > opposed to carefully
> > > > > stored
> > > > > > > away) only reinforces the Iraqi
government's
> > past claims that
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > chemical munitions were scattered
about the
> > desert countryside
> > > > in
> > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > areas following U.S. bombing attacks
on the
> > ammunition storage
> > > > > > depots
> > > > > > > during the first Gulf War. Having
personally
> > inspected scores
> > > > of
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > bombed-out depots, I can vouch for
the veracity
> > of the past
> > > > Iraqi
> > > > > > > claims, as well as the absurdity of
the claims
> > made today by
> > > > > > Santorum
> > > > > > > and others, who continue to hold
personal
> > political gain as
> > > > being
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > more than the blood of over 2,500
dead
> > Americans. These three
> > > > > > myths --
> > > > > > > WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi sovereignty --
are what
> > members of
> > > > Congress
> > > > > > > should be debating in their halls of
power, the
> > American media
> > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > discussing either in print or across
the
> > airwaves, and that
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > should constitute the foundation of a
movement
> > towards
> > > > > > accountability,
> > > > > > > where the citizens of the United
States finally
> > point an
> > > > > accusatory
> > > > > > > finger at those whom they elected to
represent
> > them in higher
> > > > > > office,
> > > > > > > and who have failed in almost every
regard when
> > it comes to
> > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > then again, silly me for thinking
this way,
> > believing that
> > > > there
> > > > > > was an
> > > > > > > engaged constituency within America
that knows
> > and understands
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Constitution of the United States and
seeks to
> > live each day as
> > > > a
> > > > > > true
> > > > > > > citizen empowered by the ideal and
values set
> > forth by that
> > > > > > document. I
> > > > > > > had overlooked the Fourth Myth --
that American
> > citizens are
> > > > > > engaged in
> > > > > > > our national debate. Scott Ritter
served as
> > chief U.N.
> > > > weapons
> > > > > > > inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his
> > resignation in 1998. He
> > > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > author of, most recently, " Iraq
> > Confidential: The Untold
> > > > Story
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine
the U.N.
> > and Overthrow
> > > > Saddam
> > > > > > > Hussein "
> > > > > (Nation
> > > > > > > Books, 2005
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message
have been
> > removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
