ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th February 2013, 01:01 AM   #81
stevea
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,394
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
It seems to me that if the government can simply assess my house at $1m, and my neighbor's house at $200k for similar houses, it doesn't really matter whether the millage rate is 'equal'.

This system sounds a lot more arbitrary than it is equal.
If there is a particular systematic bias in the assessment, then it might violate equal protection. However if there is more or less arbitrary error in the assessment - you're boned.

My OPINION is that at least where i live the property assessments are done by a board motivated to maximize the assessed value and therefore taxes, rather than arrive at a fair and equitable valuation. Should be performed by a 3rd party, not a government agency.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2013, 04:39 AM   #82
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,208
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Yes there would be a need since subsidiaries have no shareholders.
Are you serious??? A wholly owned subsidiary has one shareholder - the holding company.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Your website clearly states the subsidiary must be managed in the interest of the "holding company" (i.e. the constructive owners).
I don't know which website you got that mis-information from but "my" website clearly shows that a director must act in the best interests of the subsidiary unless "the constitution of the subsidiary expressly authorises the director to act in the best interests of the holding company". and even then he must not cause the subsidiary to become insolvent.

It is significant to note that there is no equivalent to section 187 in the corporations act for companies owned by a single individual.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Your citation does not address the issue of "artificial person" at all, but supports my claim that the corporation is distinct from the shareholders/"company members".


The ridiculous person is the one who extrapolates from corporate entity to "artificial personhood".
"Artificial person" means nothing more than separate legal entity. It is a form of strawman to insist that I mean something completely different by the term.

That said, the courts sometimes do attribute human-like characteristics to corporations. It is not unheard of for a company to successfully sue an individual for "pain and suffering" even though companies can't feel any pain.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
If your mis-interpretation was correct, then how could anyone divine the "interests" of the non-sentient corporate entity ?
If someone is accused of not acting in the '"interests" of the non-sentient corporate entity' then who do you think will deal with the complaint? The courts of course!

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
Next you'll be imputing motives to a pen or a sheet of paper.
You are getting as bad as Tippit the way you dig your in heels in the face of documented evidence that you are simply wrong.

Last edited by psionl0; 4th February 2013 at 04:44 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2013, 06:44 AM   #83
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,208
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
All corporations are companies, but not all companies are corporation.
For example I have a privately held company (two actually) that is/are not incorporated and therefore not corporations - no shareholders. Partnerships are not generally incorporated in the US.
Partnerships are not companies. They are two entirely different things.

All assets in a partnership are jointly owned by the partners and all partners are jointly liable for the debts incurred through the partnership. Each partner must individually record his share of the profits of the partnership as his own income when he does his tax returns.

In contrast, a company is a separate entity that owns its own assets and files its own tax returns independently of the shareholders or officers in the company.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.