Over 50% of publicly traded United States corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware.
Why so?
Delaware charges no income tax on corporations not operating within the state, so taking advantage of Delaware's other benefits does not result in a state income tax cost. In general, the state is viewed as a positive location for corporate tax purposes because favorable laws of incorporation allow companies to minimize the corporate expenditures (achieved through legal standardization of corporate legal processes), creating a nucleus in Delaware with operating companies often in other states.
Simple answer: They save money, leading to higher profit for the owners of the company, through stockholders such as you and me
Unfair? Only if you are not part of any of the US financial system. For example, if you don't only individual stocks or bonds, if you do not have a 401(k), if you do not have a standard IRA or a Roth, if you have no benefit from the Teachers Retirement Union or Railroad Retirement Plan. In other words, the only income you have is from the sweat of your brow and if you can't make it financially through that, the federal government gives you money to maintain a standard of living. The money grants from the federal government are from you and me, who do have retirement incomes. We worked for that through many years. Is it fair now that we should support people who did not properly plan for their retirement? This United States of America was founded on the basis of a land of opportunity for hard-working people, who could properly control their assets, and not be dumping money into the coffers of King James through taxes.
Howeve, r we have developed an unfair system of double taxation for corporations. The IRS taxes corporations on their profits and then again taxes the stockholders, such as you and me, on any remaining profits. That's very simply double taxation; taxing not only the golden goose but also the eggs of the golden goose.
You and I and the corporations themselves can do essentially nothing to eliminate unreasonable double taxation. However, the corporation still have an obligation to maximize profit for your and my benefits. Incorporation in Delaware is one of the standard ways to do this.
Why all this preamble?
It is really based on Socialistic Senator Bernie Sanders latest attack on corporations. His latest attack is on the profits from overseas corporations. Various US corporations have subsidiaries for sales and manufacturing in various countries of the world. If they operate efficiently, they make a profit which can subsequently be used for expanding the foreign physical facilities to generate even more profit. Since timing of reinvestment and construction is of significance, most corporations retain their foreign generated profits in an offshore facility, such as the Cayman Islands, until such time as the funds can be efficiently used.
Bernie Sanders doesn't like this. He doesn't want those corporate profits held for foreign reentry reinvestment. He wants to immediately apply the standard corporate tax which is again the manifestation of double taxation.
Why would he do this? Very simple. As a tax-and-spend liberal for redistribution of wealth. He wants money in his coffers to spend in any way that he will subsequently think is appropriate; whether indulging in a program of carbon tax to generate even more funds for his eventual squandering on people who have never been allowed to understand the realities of individual responsibility. When he does this, it puts him in a position of extreme power. He then tells the masses what they must do, and he'll dole out a little bread along the way in order to pacify them.
Bernie has latched onto a new term for his latest corporate attack. That is: "The Ugland House". He calls it a scam, but it is not a scam. It is simply another way for corporations to handle foreign profits in the same way that incorporation in the state of Delaware efficiently handles domestic profits. The Ugland House in the Cayman Islands is the registered home of 18,000 corporations holding profits from foreign operations for eventual reinvestment.
What is there a scam about this? The corporations hold their profits there until each of them find in opportunity for an appropriate reinvestment. Congress has previously encouraged foreign investment through such operation of holding money outside the United States where it will be delayed for taxation until such time as it is returned to the United States. Bernie Sanders doesn't like this. He wants to change congressional rules so that the IRS can use double taxation now, rather than sometime in the future.
Bernie also runs a poll. He asks whether corporations should pay their fair share of income tax. Responders will always say "yes" to that question, on the assumption that if such corporate opportunities as the Ugland House is eliminated, it will immediately increase the tax revenue for the federal government and expectedly reduce taxes for the middle class. He doesn't say anything about the unfair aspect of double taxation, nor does he say anything about long-term investment opportunities in order to develop corporate positions for generating increased profit. In short, he is deceptive, deceptive, deceptive. The more people we have like him in our federal government; not only the Legislature but the Administration, the quicker we will see this country decline into a state of economic oblivion.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Texas Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick's Legislature
That is primarily of interest to Texas residents.
Open Email to Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick:
Dear Lt. Gov.
Your latest newsletter concentrated on the recently passed budget by the Texas Legislature, which in your judgment has made wonderful progress.
I completely disagree for the following reasons:
While the legislature substantially reduced business and property taxes, the gain was essentially blown away by subsequent increases for social engineering, which ultimately led to a 5% budget increase.
Here's the way the legislature now plans to fritter away state revenues through social engineering:
it fully funds public education plus an additional $1.5B to increase the basic allotment formula from $5,040 to $5,134 in 2016 and $5,140 in 2017, improves equity and provides funding for more school facilities. Reforms education by providing $60M for math and reading training for K-3 teachers. Adds $25M for career counseling for middle school students.
That's all wrong. It is not the responsibility of the state government to educate its people nor use state funds for developing systems and grants which accomplish the same thing. The responsibility for education lies with the populace. It achieves its education through its own expenditure of personal funds, in cooperation with private educational institutions, and the support of various private trusts. The state should be out of the education business. Each municipality continues its educational programs through a school board, which hires qualified teachers usually funded by local property taxes. The responsibility for qualifying for a job lies within the individuals, not within the state to grant funds to make individuals qualified.
Similarly, the budge adds $60M for Graduate Medical Education to provide sufficient funding for every Texas medical school graduate to have a residency in Texas. It is the responsibility of hospitals to provide for facilities and funding for residency of qualifying medical school graduates. Hospitals do so through their normal budgetary process, wherein they obtain work from the medical school graduate residents.
Increasing mental health funding by $258.8 million is too nebulous. Are we short of psychiatric retention facilities to incur individuals dangerous to our society? If so, let's say so. Otherwise, I will consider it an expense down another rathole.
With respect to women's health, there is no need for any state funding. If women have health problems, they go to the doctor, the same as men, and children. If they are unable to afford it, they are declared indigent and receive the benefits of welfare, which should have nothing to do with a $50 million allocation for "women's health".
Conversely, I agree with an $811 million increase for border security. It is the federal government's responsibility to do that job, but the record shows that they have not and will not act to preserve the rule of law. This still leaves the problem wide open and we will have to do our best to fill the gap.
I also agree with the expenditure for highway construction and improvement. I generally avoid or the socialistic aspect of a highway system, but it is one of the fewer aspects of socialism that we need to accept for the benefit of the greater good. The previous record of the socialistic highway system has shown that it is not detrimental to the welfare and development of the people.
Open Email to Lieut. Gov. Dan Patrick:
Dear Lt. Gov.
Your latest newsletter concentrated on the recently passed budget by the Texas Legislature, which in your judgment has made wonderful progress.
I completely disagree for the following reasons:
While the legislature substantially reduced business and property taxes, the gain was essentially blown away by subsequent increases for social engineering, which ultimately led to a 5% budget increase.
Here's the way the legislature now plans to fritter away state revenues through social engineering:
it fully funds public education plus an additional $1.5B to increase the basic allotment formula from $5,040 to $5,134 in 2016 and $5,140 in 2017, improves equity and provides funding for more school facilities. Reforms education by providing $60M for math and reading training for K-3 teachers. Adds $25M for career counseling for middle school students.
That's all wrong. It is not the responsibility of the state government to educate its people nor use state funds for developing systems and grants which accomplish the same thing. The responsibility for education lies with the populace. It achieves its education through its own expenditure of personal funds, in cooperation with private educational institutions, and the support of various private trusts. The state should be out of the education business. Each municipality continues its educational programs through a school board, which hires qualified teachers usually funded by local property taxes. The responsibility for qualifying for a job lies within the individuals, not within the state to grant funds to make individuals qualified.
Similarly, the budge adds $60M for Graduate Medical Education to provide sufficient funding for every Texas medical school graduate to have a residency in Texas. It is the responsibility of hospitals to provide for facilities and funding for residency of qualifying medical school graduates. Hospitals do so through their normal budgetary process, wherein they obtain work from the medical school graduate residents.
Increasing mental health funding by $258.8 million is too nebulous. Are we short of psychiatric retention facilities to incur individuals dangerous to our society? If so, let's say so. Otherwise, I will consider it an expense down another rathole.
With respect to women's health, there is no need for any state funding. If women have health problems, they go to the doctor, the same as men, and children. If they are unable to afford it, they are declared indigent and receive the benefits of welfare, which should have nothing to do with a $50 million allocation for "women's health".
Conversely, I agree with an $811 million increase for border security. It is the federal government's responsibility to do that job, but the record shows that they have not and will not act to preserve the rule of law. This still leaves the problem wide open and we will have to do our best to fill the gap.
I also agree with the expenditure for highway construction and improvement. I generally avoid or the socialistic aspect of a highway system, but it is one of the fewer aspects of socialism that we need to accept for the benefit of the greater good. The previous record of the socialistic highway system has shown that it is not detrimental to the welfare and development of the people.
New Attorney Cheryl
Open Email to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Dear Sen. McConnell,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama is ranting and raving about the Senate delay in confirming Loretta Lynch as the new Attorney General.
You are on the right track, but we need to do more. We do not need to delay her confirmation as Attorney General. We need to give her a thumbs down; i.e. never approve her.
Why? Because she is not qualified for the job. She is not qualified, because she is a black woman.
The job of a Attorney General is tough. It requires enforcing the laws of the United States passed by the United States Congress. That Involves putting people in jail, and it also involves putting people in jail based upon some consideration of their offenses, since the Justice Department has limited capability to pursue every federal law breaker in the US. But women by nature are nurturers. This means in performing the duties of Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is pretty much guaranteed to go easy on lawbreakers; giving lighter sentences, pursuing only those cases that have political import, etc.. That will not fulfill the requirements of the United States as a government based upon the rule of law
As a black woman, she is loaded with additional baggage. All of the previous history of the United States in the form of black misstreatments are on her back. She would obviously show preference for lighter sentences and reduced penalties for any black lawbreakers.
These two things automatically disqualify her as a potential upholder of the basic law of the land. She needs to be turned down as a potential candidate for Attorney General.. We need a white man with male characteristics suitable for the potential difficulties of the job. He must also have shown a record of being in any way unbiased toward race, so that he gives equal judgment to blacks, whites yellows, etc. I'm sure there are many such persons who can qualify for this job. Go find one.
Dear Sen. McConnell,
According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama is ranting and raving about the Senate delay in confirming Loretta Lynch as the new Attorney General.
You are on the right track, but we need to do more. We do not need to delay her confirmation as Attorney General. We need to give her a thumbs down; i.e. never approve her.
Why? Because she is not qualified for the job. She is not qualified, because she is a black woman.
The job of a Attorney General is tough. It requires enforcing the laws of the United States passed by the United States Congress. That Involves putting people in jail, and it also involves putting people in jail based upon some consideration of their offenses, since the Justice Department has limited capability to pursue every federal law breaker in the US. But women by nature are nurturers. This means in performing the duties of Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is pretty much guaranteed to go easy on lawbreakers; giving lighter sentences, pursuing only those cases that have political import, etc.. That will not fulfill the requirements of the United States as a government based upon the rule of law
As a black woman, she is loaded with additional baggage. All of the previous history of the United States in the form of black misstreatments are on her back. She would obviously show preference for lighter sentences and reduced penalties for any black lawbreakers.
These two things automatically disqualify her as a potential upholder of the basic law of the land. She needs to be turned down as a potential candidate for Attorney General.. We need a white man with male characteristics suitable for the potential difficulties of the job. He must also have shown a record of being in any way unbiased toward race, so that he gives equal judgment to blacks, whites yellows, etc. I'm sure there are many such persons who can qualify for this job. Go find one.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Pres. Obama is a Denier
The Washington Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying, "I am not a tax and spend liberal."
Most murderers in penal institutions say they are not murderers, but they are.
We don't judge people on what they say they stand for. We judge them on what they do.
Most murderers in penal institutions say they are not murderers, but they are.
We don't judge people on what they say they stand for. We judge them on what they do.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Environmentalism Again Gone Awry
California is in a drought stage. Gov. Jerry Brown wants to conserve water through restrictions on city inhabitants by letting the lawns dry up and cutting personal showers.
The fact is that 40% of California fresh water is running right into the Pacific Ocean. Why so? Simple answer. California will not build dams and reservoirs to collect the water for city use. Why so? Because it might endanger some fish species. Ridiculous? Right! Most reasonable people would think that humans should have priority for water, for washing cars, watering lawns, and taking showers even if a few fish may be inconvenienced.
This is another example of environmentalism gone awry. This fits in with the snail darter and the prairie chicken. I can hardly wait for someone to take the Endangered Species Act all the way to the Supreme Court, where it should be declared unconstitutional; not being a part of the original Constitution nor any of its amendments.
The fact is that 40% of California fresh water is running right into the Pacific Ocean. Why so? Simple answer. California will not build dams and reservoirs to collect the water for city use. Why so? Because it might endanger some fish species. Ridiculous? Right! Most reasonable people would think that humans should have priority for water, for washing cars, watering lawns, and taking showers even if a few fish may be inconvenienced.
This is another example of environmentalism gone awry. This fits in with the snail darter and the prairie chicken. I can hardly wait for someone to take the Endangered Species Act all the way to the Supreme Court, where it should be declared unconstitutional; not being a part of the original Constitution nor any of its amendments.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Unnecessary Convention to Control Government Spending
The Washington Times reports that there is a movement to use a Constitutional Convention to support a program which would rein in excessive government spending. This would more properly be called a Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention.
The problem, with a Constitutional Convention called for by the states is that it opens a process by which any issue can be introduced for Constitutional Amendment; it would not be limited to the reigning in of excessive government spending. Democrats/Socialists would love this procedure, since it would be an open door to modify the Constitution in any number of ways, with the only provision that there would be enough states to agree. The traditional way to establish a constitutional amendment is through Congress and this has worked satisfactorily in the past.
In addition, let's also remember that the voters already have control of government spending through Congress through the simple electoral process. Voters simply need to address the fact that if they asked a Congressional representatives to vote positively on every porkbarrel spending program, it will break the back of the country. If the voters also see that their Congressional representatives are not voting to curtail government spending, the voters can then vote out of office the non-cooperating legislator.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention.
The problem, with a Constitutional Convention called for by the states is that it opens a process by which any issue can be introduced for Constitutional Amendment; it would not be limited to the reigning in of excessive government spending. Democrats/Socialists would love this procedure, since it would be an open door to modify the Constitution in any number of ways, with the only provision that there would be enough states to agree. The traditional way to establish a constitutional amendment is through Congress and this has worked satisfactorily in the past.
In addition, let's also remember that the voters already have control of government spending through Congress through the simple electoral process. Voters simply need to address the fact that if they asked a Congressional representatives to vote positively on every porkbarrel spending program, it will break the back of the country. If the voters also see that their Congressional representatives are not voting to curtail government spending, the voters can then vote out of office the non-cooperating legislator.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Iran As a New Entry to the Nuclear Club
The Washington Times says, "Obama takes victory lap on 'historic' nuclear deal with Iran".
Obama is wrong and that Netanyahu is right.
As long as Iran is permitted to have the physical facilities to prepare fissionable raw material for an atomic bomb. It will eventually do so.
Mined uranium consists of two forms. The form in very low concentration is fissionable; that is it can be used to make an atomic bomb. The present state of the art is to separate the two forms by use of a centrifuge. It is a very difficult process to obtain significant quantities of the fissionable U-235. Many hundreds of centrifuges need to operate for long periods of time, but eventually a sufficient quantity of U-235 can be obtained to make an atomic bomb. Iran has had many hundreds of centrifuges operating for at least two years.
The present agreement with Iran allows them to continue having and using centrifuges. This automatically guarantees an eventual ability to produce an atomic bomb.
We understand that following the agreement Obama refers to, there was celebration in the streets of Tehran, because Iran will now be able to eventually become a world power based upon its atomic capability and threat of its use.
Obama is wrong and that Netanyahu is right.
As long as Iran is permitted to have the physical facilities to prepare fissionable raw material for an atomic bomb. It will eventually do so.
Mined uranium consists of two forms. The form in very low concentration is fissionable; that is it can be used to make an atomic bomb. The present state of the art is to separate the two forms by use of a centrifuge. It is a very difficult process to obtain significant quantities of the fissionable U-235. Many hundreds of centrifuges need to operate for long periods of time, but eventually a sufficient quantity of U-235 can be obtained to make an atomic bomb. Iran has had many hundreds of centrifuges operating for at least two years.
The present agreement with Iran allows them to continue having and using centrifuges. This automatically guarantees an eventual ability to produce an atomic bomb.
We understand that following the agreement Obama refers to, there was celebration in the streets of Tehran, because Iran will now be able to eventually become a world power based upon its atomic capability and threat of its use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
