JUst because you have investors does not mean you are incorporated or have LLC status. My google search lead me to an Estonian website that said there are three or so business regesterartions there that can be registered for limited liablity purposes, they metioned the LLC or limited, and a joint stock company, Here in the US you can have investors without being incorporated but I don't think you can sell your stock on the New York Stock Exchange, NASDQ or any of the other exchanges regulated by the SEC, but the NYSE and NASDAQ have their own rules anyway, NYSE rules being the strictet with capital requirements etc.--- 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] >
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/
