Why are corporations evil?

[NYcarbineer]

I heard a short piece this morning about how John F. Kennedy went after the steel corporations, yes, the same JFK that conservatives like to pretend was one of them back then.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't know if all of you are aware of what a Cessna 152, 172 family is but they are the single engine aircraft that you often see that along with piper made civilan aviation famous to the average pilot here in this nation. The advent of the Cessna 162 Skycatcher or the new version of the famous 152 serve to show just how low we have gone in terms of being able to do the things we once were able to do ourselves.

On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[16] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[17]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[18][19]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009, with customer deliveries expected by the end of 2009
Specifications

One of the reason I posted this was just to show that these sorts of things are not just limited to people like Wal-Mart

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

There is some merit in the case of Govt. providing an atmosphere where business can thriveand at least in my opinion that is the true nature Govts. role in commerce as well as protecting the general public in matters of safety. However, these companies do have to live up to some standard of corporate ethics when it comes to living in the community in which they seek to operate in. In the case of Cessna , they are a worldwide marketer of civilian aircraft , but are an American based company, so the real question is, as an American based company how much does Cessna and companies like them wish to promote the nation in which they are from? There is no reason why for example Cessna could not have , as in the case with Boeing, performed final assembly on these aircraft in the United States with those very same Chinese components. It's true though that Govt. should not be so heavy handed that it sends companies offshore , but rather should do everything they can to encourage them to come here. Keep in mind though that we have as a nation gone after other nations for self promotion in the WTO for doing things like providing all the R&D funding for new aircraft from Govt. funds. There is nothing however stopping a local community with a little Federal encouragement from providing a friendly environment for business to operate.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if all of you are aware of what a Cessna 152, 172 family is but they are the single engine aircraft that you often see that along with piper made civilan aviation famous to the average pilot here in this nation. The advent of the Cessna 162 Skycatcher or the new version of the famous 152 serve to show just how low we have gone in terms of being able to do the things we once were able to do ourselves.

On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[16] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[17]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[18][19]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009, with customer deliveries expected by the end of 2009
Specifications

One of the reason I posted this was just to show that these sorts of things are not just limited to people like Wal-Mart

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

There is some merit in the case of Govt. providing an atmosphere where business can thriveand at least in my opinion that is the true nature Govts. role in commerce as well as protecting the general public in matters of safety. However, these companies do have to live up to some standard of corporate ethics.

And I believe that they will and do when the company demands it. Back in the 70's, the Nestle Corp. decided to expland its infant formula in 3rd world countries and was giving away the product free to uneducated mothers as superior to mothers' milk. They gratefully received the product, lovingly fed it to their infants, and their own mothers' milk dried up. And then Nestle charged them for the product which of course many could not afford. Severe nalnutrition of many babies was the result.

This was so horrendous a practice that many of us organized a massive boycott of Nestle products. That wasn't easy because it is incredible how many different kinds of things Nestle makes from sweet stuff to coffee creamers to cosmetics to Jenny Craig. But we had a marginal effect on their bottom line but a significant effect on their public image and they ceased and desisted that practice. Since then there are still some who go after Nestle for this or that 'unethical' practice, but for the most part I think Nestle does work closely with WHO and does try to be mostly responsible with both the products they offer and their marketing strategies.

In matters of interstate and international commerce, the US government is constitutionally required to be involved, but I don't want the US government to be involved in corporate policy or ethics. Just like in welfare issues, it is too easy for it to become politically motivated to reward 'friendlies' and punish 'unfriendlies' which of course would be in the eye of whomever happened to hold the power at the time.

If the people want ethics in commerce and industry, they will demand it and they will get it. The more the government meddles, however, the more that process will be sidetracked.

 

[rdean]

I don't know if all of you are aware of what a Cessna 152, 172 family is but they are the single engine aircraft that you often see that along with piper made civilan aviation famous to the average pilot here in this nation. The advent of the Cessna 162 Skycatcher or the new version of the famous 152 serve to show just how low we have gone in terms of being able to do the things we once were able to do ourselves.

On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[16] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[17]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[18][19]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009, with customer deliveries expected by the end of 2009
Specifications

One of the reason I posted this was just to show that these sorts of things are not just limited to people like Wal-Mart

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

And-- don't forget that corporations in the United states pay the 2nd highest corporate tax in the World at app 37%.

But they also get loads of tax write-offs. Their "base" tax percentage may be at 37%, they may actually pay nothing.

 

[rdean]

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

There is some merit in the case of Govt. providing an atmosphere where business can thriveand at least in my opinion that is the true nature Govts. role in commerce as well as protecting the general public in matters of safety. However, these companies do have to live up to some standard of corporate ethics.

And I believe that they will and do when the company demands it. Back in the 70's, the Nestle Corp. decided to expland its infant formula in 3rd world countries and was giving away the product free to uneducated mothers as superior to mothers' milk. They gratefully received the product, lovingly fed it to their infants, and their own mothers' milk dried up. And then Nestle charged them for the product which of course many could not afford. Severe nalnutrition of many babies was the result.

This was so horrendous a practice that many of us organized a massive boycott of Nestle products. That wasn't easy because it is incredible how many different kinds of things Nestle makes from sweet stuff to coffee creamers to cosmetics to Jenny Craig. But we had a marginal effect on their bottom line but a significant effect on their public image and they ceased and desisted that practice. Since then there are still some who go after Nestle for this or that 'unethical' practice, but for the most part I think Nestle does work closely with WHO and does try to be mostly responsible with both the products they offer and their marketing strategies.

In matters of interstate and international commerce, the US government is constitutionally required to be involved, but I don't want the US government to be involved in corporate policy or ethics. Just like in welfare issues, it is too easy for it to become politically motivated to reward 'friendlies' and punish 'unfriendlies' which of course would be in the eye of whomever happened to hold the power at the time.

If the people want ethics in commerce and industry, they will demand it and they will get it. The more the government meddles, however, the more that process will be sidetracked.

A reponsible government would have stopped the practice immediately. People in poor countries can't always "organize" and "boycott".

 

[Foxfyre]

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

And-- don't forget that corporations in the United states pay the 2nd highest corporate tax in the World at app 37%.

But they also get loads of tax write-offs. Their "base" tax percentage may be at 37%, they may actually pay nothing.

Those that don't show a profit probably don't pay much if anything. Just like almost 50% of individuals in this country. But the fact remains that, overall, business/corporate federal and state taxes on U.S. business is the second highest in the world. Only Japan has a slightly higher rate, but several of the states--mostly those in real trouble right now--pay more than even Japan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know if all of you are aware of what a Cessna 152, 172 family is but they are the single engine aircraft that you often see that along with piper made civilan aviation famous to the average pilot here in this nation. The advent of the Cessna 162 Skycatcher or the new version of the famous 152 serve to show just how low we have gone in terms of being able to do the things we once were able to do ourselves.

On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[16] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[17]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[18][19]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009, with customer deliveries expected by the end of 2009
Specifications

One of the reason I posted this was just to show that these sorts of things are not just limited to people like Wal-Mart

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

And-- don't forget that corporations in the United states pay the 2nd highest corporate tax in the World at app 37%.

Except that none of them, unless they're complete muppets, actually pay that rate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except that none of them, unless they're complete muppets, actually pay that rate.

No, most of them do in most years. A 2008 study found that 57% of corporation essentially paid no federal taxes in one or more years leading up to the study. The reasons cited were 1) business losses rather than profits; 2) tax credits (authorized by the government); 3) ability to shift profits to subsidiaries in lower tax countries.

There is no effective way to tax a loss, so that we would be stuck with in any system.

The government cannot blame corporations or anybody else for taking advantage of tax credits that the government authorizes for whatever reason.

And if our tax rates on corporations were the same as or lower than those in other countries, there would be no incentive to shift profits to lower tax rate countries and we would get the money instead of them.

So why don't we look at:

a) Ways to help American business be more profitable,

b) Make sure that authorized tax credits will stimulate business activity in a way to produce more profits and therefore more tax revenues, and

c) Lower our corporate tax rates to be competitive with those in other countries so that our commerce and industry will keep their money here.

Wouldn't that be a far more sane approach than demonizing corporations and attempting to socialize them?

 

[SFC Ollie]

And what if we had a government who recognized WHY it was more profitable to both Cessna and their customers to manufacture a product in China rather than the USA? And rather than condemn that, what if they looked for ways to help American manufacturing enterprises stay here? Make it profitable, attractive, and desirable to keep production here? Instead they condemn, attack, accuse even as they heap on more and more regulation, taxes, mandates, restrictions, requirements, and controls that make it more and more desirable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

And-- don't forget that corporations in the United states pay the 2nd highest corporate tax in the World at app 37%.

Except that none of them, unless they're complete muppets, actually pay that rate.

Are you a tax lawyer? Or is this just something that is generally thought?

 

[Jay Canuck]

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Paulie]

With events the last few days it's very clear that some people thing corporations are the face of evil in the world. Why?

What is it that makes corporations so much worse than LLCs, Partnerships, sole proprietorship?

Also, what's so evil about profits? Why is it wrong for companies of any size and shape actually producing a profit?

I don't think corps are evil, per se, but they differ from typical LLC's, partnerships, and SP's because they are an entity separate from their creator.

With the other business types, the business is treated as an extension of the person(s) who created it. They are single taxed, and are a direct reflection on the creator.

With a corp, it can become out of control because the people who are in charge of it might not even necessarily, and often times don't, have any personal liability.

With a corp it becomes a matter of profitting however possible, sometimes without regard for the consequences.

 

[Foxfyre]

With events the last few days it's very clear that some people thing corporations are the face of evil in the world. Why?

What is it that makes corporations so much worse than LLCs, Partnerships, sole proprietorship?

Also, what's so evil about profits? Why is it wrong for companies of any size and shape actually producing a profit?

I don't think corps are evil, per se, but they differ from typical LLC's, partnerships, and SP's because they are an entity separate from their creator.

With the other business types, the business is treated as an extension of the person(s) who created it. They are single taxed, and are a direct reflection on the creator.

With a corp, it can become out of control because the people who are in charge of it might not even necessarily, and often times don't, have any personal liability.

With a corp it becomes a matter of profitting however possible, sometimes without regard for the consequences.

Very few American corporations exist separate from their creators. I would venture that probably more than 90% of corporations, whether S Corps, C Corps, or however they are structured, are closely held entities owned by one or a few members of a single family, or are a logical extension of a partnership when liability became a concern. Even Wal-Mart is essentially a family owned and operated business.

 

[Paulie]

With events the last few days it's very clear that some people thing corporations are the face of evil in the world. Why?

What is it that makes corporations so much worse than LLCs, Partnerships, sole proprietorship?

Also, what's so evil about profits? Why is it wrong for companies of any size and shape actually producing a profit?

I don't think corps are evil, per se, but they differ from typical LLC's, partnerships, and SP's because they are an entity separate from their creator.

With the other business types, the business is treated as an extension of the person(s) who created it. They are single taxed, and are a direct reflection on the creator.

With a corp, it can become out of control because the people who are in charge of it might not even necessarily, and often times don't, have any personal liability.

With a corp it becomes a matter of profitting however possible, sometimes without regard for the consequences.

Very few American corporations exist separate from their creators. I would venture that probably more than 90% of corporations, whether S Corps, C Corps, or however they are structured, are closely held entities owned by one or a few members of a single family, or are a logical extension of a partnership when liability became a concern. Even Wal-Mart is essentially a family owned and operated business.

No, Wal Mart is not family owned and operated. Not anymore. Almost its entire board of directors, and senior management, is not even from the Walton family. So you really can't say the family operates it. Some in the family are major shareholders, and I don't know the percentages of their voting rights, but to say it's a "family owned and operated business" is a bit misleading.

As far as the corporations not being separate from their creators, you may be right. But corporations don't die with their creators, so at some point they all eventually become separate from the creator.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think corps are evil, per se, but they differ from typical LLC's, partnerships, and SP's because they are an entity separate from their creator.

With the other business types, the business is treated as an extension of the person(s) who created it. They are single taxed, and are a direct reflection on the creator.

With a corp, it can become out of control because the people who are in charge of it might not even necessarily, and often times don't, have any personal liability.

With a corp it becomes a matter of profitting however possible, sometimes without regard for the consequences.

Very few American corporations exist separate from their creators. I would venture that probably more than 90% of corporations, whether S Corps, C Corps, or however they are structured, are closely held entities owned by one or a few members of a single family, or are a logical extension of a partnership when liability became a concern. Even Wal-Mart is essentially a family owned and operated business.

No, Wal Mart is not family owned and operated. Not anymore. Almost its entire board of directors, and senior management, is not even from the Walton family. So you really can't say the family operates it. Some in the family are major shareholders, and I don't know the percentages of their voting rights, but to say it's a "family owned and operated business" is a bit misleading.

As far as the corporations not being separate from their creators, you may be right. But corporations don't die with their creators, so at some point they all eventually become separate from the creator.

You'll notice that Wal-Mart is listed among the top 150 American family-owned businesses.
Family Business - The guide for building and managing family companies. While Wal-Mart has certainly been a factor in many many individuals accumulating significant wealth, the Walton family continues to have controlling interest in the business and there is always a Walton at the top.

And yes, many corporations die when their founder dies, and yes, sometimes the family carries on. The exact same scenario is true of LLCs, sole proprietorships, and partnerships.

"Corporation" is not synonymous with anti-social, anti-American practices. It is simply one of numerous business structures that can be adopted as a legal vehicle for the conduct of business.

 

[Paulie]

Very few American corporations exist separate from their creators. I would venture that probably more than 90% of corporations, whether S Corps, C Corps, or however they are structured, are closely held entities owned by one or a few members of a single family, or are a logical extension of a partnership when liability became a concern. Even Wal-Mart is essentially a family owned and operated business.

No, Wal Mart is not family owned and operated. Not anymore. Almost its entire board of directors, and senior management, is not even from the Walton family. So you really can't say the family operates it. Some in the family are major shareholders, and I don't know the percentages of their voting rights, but to say it's a "family owned and operated business" is a bit misleading.

As far as the corporations not being separate from their creators, you may be right. But corporations don't die with their creators, so at some point they all eventually become separate from the creator.

You'll notice that Wal-Mart is listed among the top 150 American family-owned businesses.
Family Business - The guide for building and managing family companies. While Wal-Mart has certainly been a factor in many many individuals accumulating significant wealth, the Walton family continues to have controlling interest in the business and there is always a Walton at the top.

And yes, many corporations die when their founder dies, and yes, sometimes the family carries on. The exact same scenario is true of LLCs, sole proprietorships, and partnerships.

"Corporation" is not synonymous with anti-social, anti-American practices. It is simply one of numerous business structures that can be adopted as a legal vehicle for the conduct of business.

Like I said, I don't know the voting power of the family at this point. But there is basically one Walton that is at the top, Robson Walton.

Otherwise, there is a plethora of non Waltons making decisions on a daily basis. If they maintain controlling interest via shares, then I will stand corrected. At the very least, they select board members.

But no, corporations do not die with their founders. You are definitely mistaken there. Corporations have a perpetual lifetime. An LLC can die with its founder, which is typical in most states, but can live on through the deceased's estate. They also typically have state set existence limitations of around 30 years.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships die with their founders.

This is business 101.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, Wal Mart is not family owned and operated. Not anymore. Almost its entire board of directors, and senior management, is not even from the Walton family. So you really can't say the family operates it. Some in the family are major shareholders, and I don't know the percentages of their voting rights, but to say it's a "family owned and operated business" is a bit misleading.

As far as the corporations not being separate from their creators, you may be right. But corporations don't die with their creators, so at some point they all eventually become separate from the creator.

You'll notice that Wal-Mart is listed among the top 150 American family-owned businesses.
Family Business - The guide for building and managing family companies. While Wal-Mart has certainly been a factor in many many individuals accumulating significant wealth, the Walton family continues to have controlling interest in the business and there is always a Walton at the top.

And yes, many corporations die when their founder dies, and yes, sometimes the family carries on. The exact same scenario is true of LLCs, sole proprietorships, and partnerships.

"Corporation" is not synonymous with anti-social, anti-American practices. It is simply one of numerous business structures that can be adopted as a legal vehicle for the conduct of business.

Like I said, I don't know the voting power of the family at this point. But there is basically one Walton that is at the top, Robson Walton.

Otherwise, there is a plethora of non Waltons making decisions on a daily basis. If they maintain controlling interest via shares, then I will stand corrected. At the very least, they select board members.

But no, corporations do not die with their founders. You are definitely mistaken there. Corporations have a perpetual lifetime. An LLC can die with its founder, which is typical in most states, but can live on through the deceased's estate. They also typically have state set existence limitations of around 30 years.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships die with their founders.

This is business 101.

Do you know for a fact that all the others are not Waltons? I would imagine some are not, but I bet you a lot of them are even though they don't have the Walton surname. But the board of directors is in charge of policy and business strategy and is not necessarily the controlling interest of any corporation. Business 101.

I can think of at least five different businesses, all C Corps in the Albuquerque area, that closed their doors when their founder died or retired this last couple of years, none of the kids wanted to run the business, and they did not want the reputation and legacy they had built up over decades pass to strangers who might or might not respect it. I did their final audits and all were profitable and healthy at the time they closed. And since the largest number of corporations in the country are owned by a single individual or a single family, that is not an uncommon occurrence at all. Business 101.

On the other hand, I can think of at least a half dozen proprietorships, LLCs, and/or partnerships that changed hands when they were passed on to beneficiaries of a will or were bought out by other entities. I have a family member right now with an LLC who has it up for sale. And I know of numerous other LLCs with multiple, non-related owners.

I can think of one business here in the Albuquerque area--a dealership--that is a combination of about a dozen separate businesses, some S Corps, some C Corps, some partnerships, and some LLCs all owned and operated by the same individual. That is by no means especially unique. It's all in the best way to structure one's holdings to build in the most advantageous tax policy while limiting one's personal risk as much as possible.

 

[Paulie]

You'll notice that Wal-Mart is listed among the top 150 American family-owned businesses.
Family Business - The guide for building and managing family companies. While Wal-Mart has certainly been a factor in many many individuals accumulating significant wealth, the Walton family continues to have controlling interest in the business and there is always a Walton at the top.

And yes, many corporations die when their founder dies, and yes, sometimes the family carries on. The exact same scenario is true of LLCs, sole proprietorships, and partnerships.

"Corporation" is not synonymous with anti-social, anti-American practices. It is simply one of numerous business structures that can be adopted as a legal vehicle for the conduct of business.

Like I said, I don't know the voting power of the family at this point. But there is basically one Walton that is at the top, Robson Walton.

Otherwise, there is a plethora of non Waltons making decisions on a daily basis. If they maintain controlling interest via shares, then I will stand corrected. At the very least, they select board members.

But no, corporations do not die with their founders. You are definitely mistaken there. Corporations have a perpetual lifetime. An LLC can die with its founder, which is typical in most states, but can live on through the deceased's estate. They also typically have state set existence limitations of around 30 years.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships die with their founders.

This is business 101.

Do you know for a fact that all the others are not Waltons? I would imagine some are not, but I bet you a lot of them are even though they don't have the Walton surname. But the board of directors is in charge of policy and business strategy and is not necessarily the controlling interest of any corporation. Business 101.

I never said upper management and BOD was the controlling interest, rather I conceded that I was mistaken when I said the family is not currently operating the business after you said they have controlling interest. I said I didn't know what their share holdings were, but if they have controlling interest through their share holdings than they get to elect directors and establish upper management to suit their desires. I guess you missed that.

I can think of at least five different businesses, all C Corps in the Albuquerque area, that closed their doors when their founder died or retired this last couple of years, none of the kids wanted to run the business, and they did not want the reputation and legacy they had built up over decades pass to strangers who might or might not respect it. I did their final audits and all were profitable and healthy at the time they closed. And since the largest number of corporations in the country are owned by a single individual or a single family, that is not an uncommon occurrence at all. Business 101.

On the other hand, I can think of at least a half dozen proprietorships, LLCs, and/or partnerships that changed hands when they were passed on to beneficiaries of a will or were bought out by other entities. I have a family member right now with an LLC who has it up for sale. And I know of numerous other LLCs with multiple, non-related owners.

I can think of one business here in the Albuquerque area--a dealership--that is a combination of about a dozen separate businesses, some S Corps, some C Corps, some partnerships, and some LLCs all owned and operated by the same individual. That is by no means especially unique. It's all in the best way to structure one's holdings to build in the most advantageous tax policy while limiting one's personal risk as much as possible.

I'm not sure if you really understand what you're talking about here, but corporations have perpetual lifetimes by nature. They do not die.

What does it mean that corporations have "perpetual existence"?- ABA Family Legal Guide

And SP's and Partnerships die with their founders. I'm sorry, but you're wrong on that. The assets are directly connected to the owners, so when the owners die the business transfers to the estate of the deceased so the assets can be liquidated.

Now of COURSE they can be sold to someone else, or left in a will, but absent specific instructions for the business upon the owner's death, the business dies when the owners die.

You're involved in the financial world and you don't know this stuff???

 

[Foxfyre]

Like I said, I don't know the voting power of the family at this point. But there is basically one Walton that is at the top, Robson Walton.

Otherwise, there is a plethora of non Waltons making decisions on a daily basis. If they maintain controlling interest via shares, then I will stand corrected. At the very least, they select board members.

But no, corporations do not die with their founders. You are definitely mistaken there. Corporations have a perpetual lifetime. An LLC can die with its founder, which is typical in most states, but can live on through the deceased's estate. They also typically have state set existence limitations of around 30 years.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships die with their founders.

This is business 101.

Do you know for a fact that all the others are not Waltons? I would imagine some are not, but I bet you a lot of them are even though they don't have the Walton surname. But the board of directors is in charge of policy and business strategy and is not necessarily the controlling interest of any corporation. Business 101.

I never said upper management and BOD was the controlling interest, rather I conceded that I was mistaken when I said the family is not currently operating the business after you said they have controlling interest. I said I didn't know what their share holdings were, but if they have controlling interest through their share holdings than they get to elect directors and establish upper management to suit their desires. I guess you missed that.

I can think of at least five different businesses, all C Corps in the Albuquerque area, that closed their doors when their founder died or retired this last couple of years, none of the kids wanted to run the business, and they did not want the reputation and legacy they had built up over decades pass to strangers who might or might not respect it. I did their final audits and all were profitable and healthy at the time they closed. And since the largest number of corporations in the country are owned by a single individual or a single family, that is not an uncommon occurrence at all. Business 101.

On the other hand, I can think of at least a half dozen proprietorships, LLCs, and/or partnerships that changed hands when they were passed on to beneficiaries of a will or were bought out by other entities. I have a family member right now with an LLC who has it up for sale. And I know of numerous other LLCs with multiple, non-related owners.

I can think of one business here in the Albuquerque area--a dealership--that is a combination of about a dozen separate businesses, some S Corps, some C Corps, some partnerships, and some LLCs all owned and operated by the same individual. That is by no means especially unique. It's all in the best way to structure one's holdings to build in the most advantageous tax policy while limiting one's personal risk as much as possible.

I'm not sure if you really understand what you're talking about here, but corporations have perpetual lifetimes by nature. They do not die.

What does it mean that corporations have "perpetual existence"?- ABA Family Legal Guide

And SP's and Partnerships die with their founders. I'm sorry, but you're wrong on that. The assets are directly connected to the owners, so when the owners die the business transfers to the estate of the deceased so the assets can be liquidated.

Now of COURSE they can be sold to someone else, or left in a will, but absent specific instructions for the business upon the owner's death, the business dies when the owners die.

You're involved in the financial world and you don't know this stuff???

Yes you can bequeath your business to heirs and you can bequeath your shares, even controlling shares, in a corporation to your heirs. All the Findlaw text states is that a corporation doesn't dissolve because a shareholder leaves. Nor does a business organized as a sole proprietorship or a partnership or an LLC dissolve when the principal dies or quits if there is somebody prepared to take it over and keep it running. A legal filing is required to change the officers of a corporation and a legal filing is required to change the owner of a proprietorship etc. But if you think the principals of a corporation cannot dissolve that corporation any time they choose, you're nuts. I've unincorporated or helped unincorporate three of them when they outlived their usefulness. And when the owners of the business hold all the shares, which is more often than not the case, it is a very simple thing to do.

Again it is how the organization is structured for tax purposes and limitation of liability that is at issue. The legal structure makes the business no more or no less moral than any other structure would make it.

 

[noose4]

Without checks and balances corporations are potentially "evil" as their sole purpose is profit and damned be anything that gets in its way whether it is a person's livelihood, land, or clean air and drinking water, the bottom line is increased profits and all else be damned, that is why regulations are a good thing.

Wanna know what Seimens did with their profit? Matched contributions to Haiti relief fund over $500,000 in donations. They also provide good health care benefits and matching 401k's for the people they employ and they are NOT union.

Well bravo to them.

And your point is? Seimens=all corporations?

 

[goldcatt]

Corporations (and the labor unions, don't forget) are tools created by humans for a purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. Like any tool they can be good or bad, constructive or destructive, depending on how they're used. Used properly, the corporation AND the union serve darn good purposes.

The problem is the nature of these entities as an artifical construct - a tool. The only real difference when you look at it between a corporation and a hammer is that one is used for manual work and can be touched, the other is created to conduct business with certain legal protections and cannot be.

Should a hammer have its own right to influence the political process, separate from its user and with a veil that hides who swings it? Should fire? Should money? That's the absurdity here, not some hack talking point. Nice straw man, though.