Corporate Business Law Partnerships

To further protect your online security, active links from Q&A has been disabled!

The client wants to start a business but is afraid it will terminate upon his death. He is also concerned he won't like his partners. Which business entity should he choose? Why? eg. Sole Proprietorship, General Partnership, Limited Partnership, Corporation, etc.

Best Answer

The US runs on capitalism (profits). And even though the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 says it?s a felony to assist, shelter, or employ an illegal alien, President Bush won?t raise a finger because small and large businesses love illegal immigrants for cheap labor, and republicans stand for big business. Just look around your own town and see how many local businesses use illegal aliens for cheap labor. And because so many Americans are profiting from cheap labor, the public outcry is diminished and ignored in Washington. Large corporations love the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide. They also love the thousands of annual H1-B visa immigrants that come to live in the US for skilled cheap labor. Small and large corporations despise hiring legal American citizens due to cost, plus illegal aliens work harder for less. In addition, big cities that invite illegal aliens have democratic mayors (New Haven, Chicago, San Francisco). These mayors hope to win the illegal immigrants future votes, once they become citizens, since most immigrants (about 80%) vote for democrats. But Bush has bigger plans to perpetuate an endless supply of cheap labor into this country for his corporate buddies by creating a NAU (North American Union) comprised of Mexico, US, and Canada by trying to pass the SPP (security and prosperity partnership) 413 amendment which Bush tried to sneak into his amnesty bill (Immigration Reform Act S.1639). Bush also tried to allow Mexican truckers easy access into the US but that also was defeated- for now. And Bush gave the green light to US Texas attorney Johnny Sutton (he works for Bush) to bring charges against two border guards for shooting a Mexican drug trafficker in order to intimidate US border guards and send a message to illegal aliens to keep on crossing. And because of the reasons stated above, I do not see any sign that President Bush?s cabinet or congress will take any major steps to thwart illegal immigration or enforce current immigration laws because the profits are too great as are the millions of future votes, even at the expense of the majority of Americans who oppose illegal immigration. American businesses and both republican and the democratic party benefit from illegal immigration. Start practicing your Spanish, Hindu, and Chinese languages! And one other thing mention. Soon after Bush?s immigration reform bill (amnesty) was defeated in the senate on June 28, 2007 due to public outcry, he pardoned Willis ?Scooter? Libby on July 2 to derail media attention and the political movement away from the illegal immigration issue.

Best Answer

I dont know, but it has to stop. The economy can not support so many freeloaders.

. Washington?s ?War Against Winners? A cap-gains assault on private partnerships would strike a dagger into the heart of U.S. capital formation. Last Friday?s precipitous stock-market plunge, with the Dow Jones dropping 185 points, is all about Washington?s continued war on prosperity. The latest assault comes courtesy of House Democrat Sander Levin. Late last week, he introduced a bill that essentially would abolish the 15 percent capital-gains tax preference for risk investing, and raise it by 20 percentage points to the 35 percent corporate and personal rate. This goes beyond an earlier tax attack on a public offering by the Blackstone Group, and would slam into all private partnerships, including buyout funds, hedge funds, venture-capital firms, real estate partnerships, and oil-and-gas deals. Incidentally, while attacking capital gains, the congressional Democrats are killing initiatives for across-the-board cuts on wasteful appropriation bills. According to the Club for Growth, House Democrats defeated separate measures that would cut spending by 4 percent, 1 percent, and 0.5 percent. Does this mean the Democrats favor tax hikes over real spending control? It appears so. Washington economist Kevin Hassett says this is part of the Democrats? ?war against winners,? and he?s right on the money. In particular, these willy-nilly changes of the tax rules would have a chilling effect on capital formation, and could constitute the biggest attack on capital since the 1930s. As mentioned, the lightning rod in this tax-hike endeavor was the Blackstone Group, the private-equity giant that went public last week. Blackstone?s investment-fund profits are taxed at the 15 percent cap-gains rate, and since these profits come from high-risk investments, that?s how it should be. But Democrats in Congress view these profits as plain income, and greedily want a higher take. But plain ol? income this is not. The recent crack up of two Bear Stearns sub-prime-mortgage hedge funds shows just how risky these ventures can be. Yes, there?s big money to be made when these private partnerships click. But the economy at large also is a beneficiary. Private buyout funds often save highly troubled companies from bankruptcy. They insert skilled managers who streamline operations and make businesses more efficient, a process that can ultimately lead to greater profits and business expansion. You know a lot of these companies: Chrysler, Staples, Sears, Domino?s, Dunkin? Donuts, Toys?R?Us, Clear Channel Communications, Hospital Corporation of America. All of these firms were brought back from the dead thanks to private partnerships. Nobody knows for sure whether Congress will green-light the Democrats? anti-growth agenda. The hope is that President Bush will veto any tax hike that lands on his desk. But the mere threat that Congress would embark on such a program of wealth destruction and economic impoverishment ? all in the name of taxing ?rich people? ? has investors reeling. Ironically, a lot of today?s anti-cap-gains momentum is the handiwork of former Clinton Treasury secretary Robert Rubin. He actually believes a low cap-gains tax has no economic growth impact at all. However, back when Clinton and Rubin were running things, the personal income-tax rate was lifted from 31 to 40 percent, while the cap-gains tax was reduced from 28 to 20 percent, making for a 20 percentage point tax advantage for cap-gains over regular income. Flashing forward, the current Bush administration lowered the income-tax rate to 35 percent and the cap-gains rate to 15 percent, preserving that 20 percent differential. Hmm . . . Is Rubin saying the cap-gains tax advantage was good for the Clinton boom, but not the Bush boom? Truth is, that differential provides a strong incentive for entrepreneurial risk taking and higher-risk, cutting-edge investment ? both of which lend real torque to the economy. Another unfortunate irony is that while Democrats think they?re striking out at the rich, they?re actually jeopardizing the retirement portfolios of millions of middle-income Americans. Firemen, police officers, and teachers, to name a few, are all represented by the big state and city pension funds. And these funds are heavily invested in the hedge and private-equity funds that the Democratic tax machine is targeting. Is this fact lost on the Democrats? And don?t they realize that two out of every three voters in recent elections owned stocks ? either directly or indirectly? Are they attempting to commit political suicide? If the Democrats get their way, job creation will be adversely affected, too. Clearly, you can?t create new jobs in the private sector unless there?s a new or expanding business to create those jobs. And since new and expanding businesses require capital for investment funding, if you tax that capital more, you get less investment and fewer jobs. In short, you can?t have capitalism without capital. The process works for ?rich people? and the middle class. Whenever Democrats wage war against the rich, the middle class becomes the collateral damage. This may be the law of unintended consequences, but it is something this Congress fails to understand. . ________________________________________

Best Answer

I think you might have already answered your own question, so why are you asking us? Do you want to know if we agree with you? I personally do not exactly agree. The greatest growth occurred in the U S during a time when taxes on the rich were relatively high, about 90% if I recall correctly. There was a time when the tax code was used to redistribute the wealth of the nation more or less. With 1% of the population owning 90% of the wealth, there is not a lot of potential for continued growth, only potential for a society of very rich and very poor. It is more of a society associated with those of the middle east rather than the democrocies that GWB is trying to pedal on the world. As an example for the world the U S currently is falling short in more categories than this one.

Please read and let me know how you would analyze this article:The Water Crisis: Analysis and Proposals By Celine Tan Water and sanitation is the first of five priority action areas under the WEHAB plan for the post-WSSD implementation of sustainable development. The challenge of providing safe and clean water and sanitary conditions for an increasing world population, in the face of rising inequities, is phenomenal. Forty percent of the world?s population, in 80 countries, currently suffer from serious water shortages. A billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to adequate sanitation (Global Economic Outlook 2002). Yet, the biggest threat to universal access to clean water and adequate sanitation is not mother nature but corporate globalisation. Privatisation of water is aggressively exported to the developing world under the rubric of poverty reduction and debt relief strategies, free trade and economic development. By turning a scarce resource into an economic commodity, the world?s economic leaders and policy planners claim that existing water resources can be managed and consumed efficiently in accordance with competitive market principles. These claims are not only misguided, they are deceitful. There are two myths being projected: first, that placing a price on water will encourage conservation and wise water consumption. Secondly, that market competition will lead to more consumer choice and better services. In reality, the water sector is monopolistic when placed in the hands of the market. It is thus alarming that the commodification of water resources is now heralded as the answer to the world?s water woes. Monopoly and subsidies for corporations Water is a US$400 billion global business, controlled by a handful of European transnational companies and consortiums, namely French multinationals Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise, SAUR and British water companies Thames Water, Anglia Water and United Utilities. The global drive towards privatisation of water services is thus pursued not by a collective of democratically elected governments acting in the interest of the world?s population, but by a cartel of corporations motivated by profit and market conquest. To make matters worse, these companies are subsidised by their governments (and invariably their taxpayers) through support from domestic export credit agencies, and by multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank. They are also subsidised by developing countries who raise credit from international financial institutions to upgrade their water systems prior to private takeover. This corporate subsidy comes at the expense of consumers, most of them in developing countries, who are made to pay for what is a necessity of life. For the poor this means no access to water. Additional loans to facilitate the privatisation process are raised by developing country governments from multilateral and bilateral sources. Often, these loans are also used to finance the creation of an ?enabling environment? for foreign water and wastewater investors. This includes the drafting of local investor protection legislation to guard against re-nationalisation of the water industry and to provide for hefty compensation for any attempt to renege (for good reasons) against the privatisation contracts. In many cases, corporate access to a developing country?s water system is paved by a loan or debt relief conditionality requiring the poor or indebted country to privatise its water and sanitation services. For example, the IMF insisted that Tanzania privatise its Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority (DAWSA) as a condition of its debt relief package under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Fallacy of privatisation Experience shows that the privatisation of water services cannot ensure universal delivery of safe water and efficient sanitation. Privatisation imposes additional financial obligations on governments. They may have to bail out failed privatisation project, and also shoulder the costly legal risks of rescinding a privatisation contract with a wealthy transnational, even if the company?s performance is unsatisfactory. Argentina, Hungary and Bolivia have found that the legal claims for compensation by private water companies in Tucuman, Szeged and Cochabamba respectively, have made terminating contracts prohibitively expensive. The dominance of foreign water companies and the liberalised investment climate - mostly facilitated by structural adjustment, and now under trade agreements including those under the WTO Ð in developing countries will also ensure that a large portion of profits from water privatisation will not accrue to the countries themselves but are repatriated abroad instead. The imposition of full-cost water pricing as a result of privatisation will only deprive more and more people of access to clean and safe water by forcing poor communities to seek alternative sources of water for consumption, such as untreated well water and water from sewage-ridden urban rivers. Forced upon rich and poor, consumers and industrial producers, similar rates for water use will also result in greater income disparity and deeper social cleavages, leading to higher risks of civil unrest. In 2000, martial law was declared in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba as a result of city-wide riots precipitated by high water prices. A private consortium led by International Water doubled the water prices to city residents. Water bills went up by 35% and some, twice that. The World Bank supported full-cost water pricing and prohibited any use of its structural adjustment loans to subsidise water services for the poor. Future fears and WSSD outcomes There is no agreement on the text in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation that commits governments to supporting the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford, safe drinking water and access improved sanitation (paragraphs 7 and 7[alt]). However, the most pressing concerns over universal coverage of water and sanitation services are not expressed in these bracketed paragraphs. Rather, they are reflected in the general lack of political will demonstrated by developed countries to address the systemic issues leading to a crisis of sustainable development in the south, and the alarming emphasis placed on public-private partnership funding and implementation of sustainable development programmes. The relinquishing of responsibility by developed countries is marked by their reluctance to commit to specific disbursements of ODA and by repeated references to voluntary partnerships and initiatives as a means of financing WSSD programmatic outcomes. In the absence of firm commitments by governments, Type II partnerships on water and sanitation services will only increase private sector involvement in this crucial area. The private sector is already identified as a key implementer of the ?Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) for All Initiative? involving 28 countries, six UN agencies, the World Bank, and the Asian and African Development Banks. Another major threat to universal access to water and sanitation is liberalisation under the WTO?s rules. Although Member countries have the right to liberalise at their own pace, and even choose not to open up a sector under the WTO?s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), there is tremendous pressure especially on developing countries to liberalise. Thus in the ongoing negotiations at the WTO, developed countries are submitting extensive ÒrequestsÓ that seek access to every sector in the developing world, including water services and sanitation. If developing countries succumb, privatisation of water services initiated under World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes could become permanent under the binding rules of the WTO. Once a country is locked into the GATS regime, the right of its government to regulate liberalized service sectors will be diminished, paving the way for foreign transnationals to enter the domestic market. Any attempt to reverse the situation would be subject to WTO disciplines and penalties. Any real effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goal must therefore include commitments to review loan conditionalities that impose privatisation and countries must not be pressured to offer water services under GATS liberalisation. Essential services should be exempted from GATS. Conclusion Privatisation does not address the deeper economic and ecological issues of water shortages. Questions of why there are water shortages in countries not under water stress are not resolved by shifting responsibility of service provision to private companies. Water management and water distribution are also key factors in determining water supply and universal coverage. Until and unless rich countries fulfil their commitment to provide resources for developing countries to build solid, cost-effective water delivery systems which support the needs of the world?s population equitably and ecologically, the water woes of the world will not go away. At the same time, all governments need to recognise and support the diversity and replication of community water management systems and practices. These have proven in many countries to be the most sustainable approach to rural water management for rural populations. The WSSD process and the last 10 years of the work of the CSD have called for good and best practices in sustainable development. However, where water resources are concerned the trend and emphasis are privatisation which has proven destructive. Firm commitments must be made at the WSSD to reverse the trend of corporate takeover in the water and sanitation sector, rather than to accelerate the process of privatisation and corporate monopoly. Undermining the sovereign power of governments to regulate supply of water in their countries and passing the bucket onto private transnationals to steward the world?s water resources would probably be a most anti-development and anti-ecological step.

Best Answer

yikes thats alot to type ummm ask a friend whos got the same homework and brain storm or whatever its a waste of time putting that on this website coz no one is gonna read all of that

1. The rule that presumes a person acts with due care is the business judgment rule. fairness rule. insider trading rule. corporate opportunity doctrine. 2. A signed document providing for the distribution of a person's property at his or her death is known as a living will. will. surety. fiduciary. 3. An individual who owns part of a corporation is called a(n) partner. proprietor. shareholder. director. 4. The ability to transfer pension benefits from one job to another is known as participation. portability. vesting. funding. 5.The first shareholders to be paid are those who hold preferred stock. par value stock. common stock. no-part value stock. 6.A will transfers title to cars. houses. valuable jewelry. valuable property. 7. Most partnership law is set forth in the Articles of Partnership. Uniform Uniform Partnership Act. Tenancy in Partnership Act.

Best Answer

No, some of those first answers are wrong. 1 is "Business Judgment Rule" 2 is a "will" 3 is a "shareholder" 4 is "portability" 5 is "preferred stock" and 6 is "valuable property", not just jewelry