Korporate America

sits on 1.8 trillion in cash
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/corporations_not_hoarding_cash.html

and America's monthly SS bill is $59 billion.
In other words, Korporate America can easily pay SS benefits for one year.

 

nothing to say?
I thought for sure this would have prompted at least something?

 

where can I get some that SSI?..

 

i'm not going to bite a chunk, i'm only going to nibble, so you can't say you were ignored completely, Aponymous...when we devolve to forcibly taking the assets of one group to redistribute to another, we are just like riots where people bust windows, steal goods and then run off laughing...or like plunderers in a war. this guy proves my point...he knows he's full of shit, and doesn't want to be caught out saying what he really means:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dem...-saying-he-supports-redistribution-of-wealth/

so, is it ok to simply decide 'i want this; i'll give it to these people'? if so, our society is fucked. the premise of private property is gone. i have read that history shows private property as a concept is crucial to a society continuing for any great length of time. if no one has anything, then they have nothing to lose.

 

well i don't really think a person can be ignored on a public forum. I would simply look at it as I brought something up that others had no interest in.
Which might be the case here.

On the one hand I do agree w/ you that we can't simply go around redistributing assets as we see fit.

On the other hand we already have a very drastic uneven distribution of wealth. Corporations have leveraged stratospheric profits to put lawmakers in their pockets and have forgotten that they arrived their on the backs of the consumers. Unfortunately the consumer also has forgotten this and seems to be completely unaware of their power to demand better.

These corporations are hoarding this cash because of the uncertain economy and until more money gets to the consumer, the economy will not turn around.

 

Here's my say.. If you're poor and don't like it... DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! America is full of people looking for handouts and have a philosophy that if you do something.. you should always be reimbursed for it.. bullshit.. everyone wants to be free.. but they want the government to put food on their table as if they still live with their mother

 

^^^ My problem is that I feel that the system is complete shit from the start. I would love to be proactive and support change and try to better our government processes and redistribute money and take care of the sick and give my grandparents some more money for food. Yet, for this all to happen I need 1. Time, which 35+ of my hours weekly are alotted to work. 2. Money, which sadly, no matter what we try to do, controls the general consensus. Also, with money being a factor, THOSE WHO HAVE THE MONEY FROM THE START TO PUT THEIR FAMILIIES IN A BETTER SOCIETAL POSITION GET THE BETTER SERVICES AND ARE GOING TO SUSTAIN THEIR SPOT ON THE SOCIETAL LADDER SO TO SPEAK.

With only a couple factors alone the average middle class, or now, being peg-holed down, the working class is trying hard to survive alone. They, we, us, you and I, friends, family, we are concerned only with ourselves because we have no other choice in the fucked up perpetuating system.

I for one would love to go to college and better myself and make change, but I almost don't feel like I even want to contribute to the system. I more and more want to just work on starting sustainable living for myself and others. I don't need this system and it's beliefs to hinder my greater well-being in life.

 

Assuming those figures are reasonbly accurate (yes, I read the article), the assertion is correct.

U.S. employers, including those "incorporated", already provide half of everything paid into the SS system by paying an amount equal to that deducted from the wages of employees.

One might logically ask why they (the employers), or anyone else, should again provide what's already been paid for.

 

:iagree:

 

Consumers may have bared their backs for loading (to continue the metaphor) by assuming a "price only" mindset when selecting goods or services for purchase. Too many times, they fail to consider that purchase of a quality product might serve their long term financial interests better than an inferior, less expensive one. And, that purchases of domestically produced items have a positive effect on a nation's economy by increasing the value of the domestic worker producing that item.

 

YES! YES! YES! Damn right.

 

Can I get a motherfucking crazy check.. come on now, how many doctors I need to bite already..

 

I'm all for rewarding risk taken on by big business and understand and agree that the incentives have to be in place for people and businesses to take measures that promote growth not only internally but in the economy as well.

However, the way things currently stand their is a huge discrepency between the incetives for business and the individual. The result, business grows and grows and grows. Gets more powerful, more buying power and all on the backs of the worker. Where's the incentive for the worker? To buy American?
Even if that were to happen, anyone who thinks that the worker will grow through wage growth, IMO is missing a lot of the peices.

idk, to me it seems like we have extenuating circumstances and the distribution system of wealth in this country needs a major attitude adjustment.
I see a lot of similarities between today and the roaring 20's/Great Depression.
Uneven distribution of wealth, wage stagnation, massive corruption are the main ones.

I'm not saying we are in a great depression, QE has prevented that so far. But at this rate, this IMO, is the start of the end of America as we know it.

This is not because of the poor or tha lazy. Of which I am neither. Been working since I was 12, hold 3 associates degrees, been at the same job for almost 12 years. Pay my taxes, contribute to a retirement account, etc...

 

those funds are in trust. question is, who are the beneficiaries under the trust instrument or entitlement order...

 

Is that public information?
Where would one find the answers to your questions?

 

Yeah, I can see how someone spending all their time earning $100k a year on a boring job would resent a tiny fraction of that going to feed some hungry people.

 

if anyone wants to know the percentages of gross profit, or any other information, they will have to read and calculate those from the p&l and balance sheet themselves. i'm not going to do it..if anyone is that lazy, they prove the point of 'not deserving charity'. the question becomes 'how much is enough?'; 'is voluntary participation not adequate?'; 'how much responsibility does the individual bear for participating in their own livelihood?'. again, you get your own answers...

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Imports/ccr2010/community_ccr.aspx

http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/

that's two visible examples...you can bet they are more vigilant about where their money is going, and how it is spent than the government. any company data you might wish to see is online.

remember what i have said before....there are limited resources, whether anyone believes it or not.

 

well did you know any "person" in commerce is a trust? a person, just like ownership, money, trust are very general terms which when looked at closer reveals legalese at a high level. what kind of ownership do people have today. did you know there were different kinds of "persons". Each section of code and statute has a definition section revealing the legalese and unless you look at them and understand them you have no idea what the law, money or the surrounding circumstances around them are. let's look at black's law dictionary for some of these:



Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition pgs 534-535:

Person. 1. A human being. also termed natural person. (interestingly enough, natural person appears only a few times in statute).

artificial person. An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being.



Under the internal revenue code, title 26 usc, under the definitions section a person generally is:



TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a TRUST, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


More specifically, a US Person is defined as:

(30) United States person
The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) ANY TRUST if—
(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.




Now what creates a trust:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106551,00.html

Basic Trust Law

Q: What is a trust?

A: A trust is an entity created and governed under the state law in which it was formed. A trust involves the creation of a fiduciary relationship between a grantor, a trustee, and a beneficiary for a stated purpose. A trust may be created by any of the following methods:

A declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds the property as trustee;
A transfer of property by the owner during the owner's lifetime to another person as trustee;
A transfer of property by the owner, by will or by other instrument taking effect upon the death of the owner, in trust, to another person as trustee or
An exercise of a power of appointment to another person as trustee or an enforceable promise to create a trust.

Q: Who is a grantor of a trust?

A: The grantor (also known as trustor, settlor, or creator) is the creator of the trust relationship and is generally the owner of the assets initially contributed to the trust. The grantor generally establishes in the trust instrument the terms and provisions of the trust relationship between the grantor, the trustee, and the beneficiary. These will usually include the following:

The rights, duties, and powers of the trustee;
Distribution provisions;
Ability of the grantor to amend, modify, revoke, or terminate the trust agreement;
The designation and selection of a trustee or successor trustees; and
The designation of the state under which the terms and provisions of the trust agreement are to be governed.

The money place in things like CAFR accounts are placed there by trustees for the benefit of the beneficiaries and or entitlement holders per statute. look at your city and state CAFR and you can find out many things about what funds are in trust and who are the trustees. Since any person is a trust, any gratuitous transfer of property placed with a person is considered a trust:



http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica03.pdf

Who are the parties to a trust?

Parties Trusts are defined in terms of parties (grantor, trustee, beneficiary) and
relationships pertaining to the trust property.

Grantor Every express trust has one or more grantors who contribute the property to the trustee and state the terms of the trust. The grantor is deemed a substantial contributor/disqualified person with respect to the trust, under IRC 507(d)(2)(A).

Other names for the grantor include:
creator
donor
founder
settlor
Trustor



Property Alternative names for the property transferred to the trust are the:
Capital
Corpus
Estate
Principal
Res

Document title The written document governing the trust typically is given one of the following titles, although no title is necessary:
agreement
declaration
deed
indenture
instrument
will/testament (for testamentary trust)


As you can see, trusts can be created by operations of law and no title is necessary to establish one:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title30/ar4/ch2.html


IC 30-4-2
Chapter 2. Rules Governing the Creation of Trusts
IC 30-4-2-1
Written evidence of terms; definite terms; validity of inter vivos trust; existence of trust beneficiaries; creation of trust by exercise of power of appointment
Sec. 1. (a) A trust in either real or personal property is enforceable only if there is written evidence of its terms bearing the signature of the settlor or the settlor's authorized agent.
(b) Except as required in the applicable probate law for the execution of wills, no formal language is required to create a trust, but its terms must be sufficiently definite so that the trust property, the identity of the trustee, the nature of the trustee's interest, the identity of the beneficiary, the nature of the beneficiary's interest and the purpose of the trust may be ascertained with reasonable certainty.

IC 30-4-1-2
Other definitions
Sec. 2. As used in this article:

(19) "Trust property" means property either placed in trust or purchased or otherwise acquired by the trustee for the trust regardless of whether the trust property is titled in the name of the trustee or the name of the trust.


http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i3520a/ch01.html

Grantor

A grantor includes any person who creates a trust or directly or indirectly makes a gratuitous transfer of cash or other property to a trust. A grantor includes any person treated as the owner of any part of a foreign trust's assets under sections 671 through 679, excluding section 678


http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/implied-trust.html

implied trust

Definition

Trust that arises from the un-expressed and presumed intentions (inferred from a trustor's conduct, language, or relationships), or is enforced by a court as a result of surrounding circumstances. For example, if 'A' purchases property in the name of 'B', there is a presumed intention that 'A' holds that property in trust for 'B.'

 

reb,

The funds I'm talking about are the funds that companies ship to overseas tax havens.
These funds are not subject to any taxes and amount to 100s of billions of dollars.

I've looked into setting up such an account for myself.
First I'd have to pay a couple of thousand dollars to set up a corporation or a seperate entity from myself. Then the income earned by that entity can declare that income in the tax haven account. Problem w/ this is that I am not a business owner, so basically as an individual I do not have a similar tool to help lower or eliminate my income tax hit.

I do have another option. I can open a trust and declare the trust's income in a tax haven account. Problem w/ that is I have to give up control of the funds that go into the trust.

So what incentive do I have to eliminate my income tax hit?
none.
What incentive do I have to reduce my income tax hit?
Buy a house which I've already done.
A house that is almost underwater (i'm not concerned about that because I plan on dying in this house) not because of anything I did or didn't do. But because Korporate America has taken every advantage put in front of them regardless of the effect it has ont he big picture.

Like I said before, I completely agree that incentives have to be in place. However, the reality is that incentives for the those of us who play by the rules are being reduced and eliminated. The policy makers have given me mostly useless tools to get a head.
You wanna know which tool I use that has a great balance between risk/return?
My credit card. I haven't paid interest in about 7 yrs and they pay me a pittance of about $400/yr.

My retirement account is worth about 1/3 my house so I look forward to turning 70.
My stock account is useless because the investment tools I have (corporate income statements, etc...) are wrought w/ corruption and accounting tricks. And then on top of that since it's not in a retirement account income taxes bring my returns down to a level of uselessness.

Korporate America does owe the little guy something for the games that they've played to our detrement and that of the entire system that makes the foundations of America.

 

Didn't know that

Knew that.

So combining the 2 quotes above are you saying.
any person is a trust.
and there are different kinds of trusts, so
there are different kinds of persons?

Yes, I understood that.
Part of my job is to initially review service contracts and your statement above was one of the first things I realized when I started this job.

well read and reread the rest of what you wrote.