How to make $5.1 Billion (US) and not pay federal taxes

[ParticleGrl]

That answer lies in the voluntary agreement between them that results in the wealth creation, not in the opinions of others. The pie you speak of is the sum of wealth created by private voluntary transactions, and is privately, not publicly, owned.

I never said it was publicly owned. I simply suggested that there is an obvious way that the middle class isn't sharing in the "pie" they helped create. The market isn't being pareto efficient.

Part of the reason is probably the asymmetric power balance in the labor market. One symptom of which is that (at least in the 90s) raising the minimum wage had no effect on unemployment. See Card and Krueger's famous study. This can't happen in a truly efficient market.

 

[talk2glenn]

If we think of the wealth created by a company as "the pie" than the board of directors of the company is seeing an increasingly larger percentage, compared to the workers. When the workers become more productive, who should see the gains? Between 2000 and 2005 (to avoid the effects of the recession), productivity rose 16%, while income fell 2%. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118005313993514160.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ). Is a rising tide lifting all boats?

After creating massive negative value for their companies, CEOs of financial institutions walked away with golden parachutes. The board of Borders attempted to give themselves large bonuses even as the company went into bankruptcy.

You're clueless. Get a job in business before you critique its practices.

Generally speaking, board member receive no direct cash compensation or benefits. Varying by firm, members receive vesting (an ownership position in the company they serve) and per-meeting compensation (a stipend paid for showing up to Board meetings - about 9/year on average, it totals to very little).

What you're referring to is compensation for executives, not board members.

 

[Alfi]

You're clueless. Get a job in business before you critique its practices.

wow.



So if you're not in the military, or not in medicine ... you have no say on war or medicare?


I critique war and medicine and business ... but I'm just an Electronics Technologist.
Guess I have no opinion about anything else but my field as per you.

If you're not in politics... what then? ... don't vote?

 

[ParticleGrl]

You're clueless. Get a job in business before you critique its practices.

I apologize most humbly for accidentally substituting the word "board" for "executives." The point still stands. Executive compensation has nothing to do with value added.

 

[talk2glenn]

wow.
So if you're not in the military, or not in medicine ... you have no say on war or medicare? I critique war and medicine and business ... but I'm just an Electronics Technologist.
Guess I have no opinion about anything else but my field as per you.

If you're not in politics... what then? ... don't vote?

Let me be more specific: Educate yourself, and failing that, defer to the opinions of experts.

Particlegirl's argument (that Boards are robbing investors) is laughable on its face, given that Board members are elected and serve at the discretion of investors and owners, who pay very close attention to Board conduct. It is one of the most ethically respected and prestigious positions in corporate America, and its total cost to the company is miniscule (something like $7-$10 million per year for publicly traded companies, real money to be sure but in context, a pittance).

Only someone completely foreign to corporate structures could make this kind of mistake. Given that, how can you take anything that claims to follow from this egregiously fact-free premise seriously?

Executive compensation has nothing to do with value added.

Again, this claim is so silly one should be emabressed to make it. In a free market, capital flows to where it is most highly valued. I am not a fan of throwing my money away, and neither are the very wealthy and very intelligent people in capital investment. There is a reason executives (especially the good ones) are very highly compensated: they do a job you cannot do, at any price. If you think you could do better, start and/or run a company. The odds of you creating a fraction the wealth of, say, a Steve Jobs are maybe 10 million to 1, even holding everything else constant. Just look at the turn-around in the company that followed Jobs' return, as a case study.

In simple linear regression, we find a direct correlation between a companies return on investment, CEO compensation (as a proxy for CEO quality), and stock returns. This is first-year business school stuff.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Only someone completely foreign to corporate structures could make this kind of mistake. Given that, how can you take anything that claims to follow from this egregiously fact-free premise seriously?

I've apologized for the typo. I think my posts speak for themselves, and I try to argue in good faith.

Again, this claim is so silly one should be emabressed to make it. In a free market, capital flows to where it is most highly valued.

Your premise doesn't address the facts I presented- Joe Cassano had a retention/consulting fee of $1 million per month after he practically single-handedly bankrupt AIG. Border's executives attempted to hand out millions in bonuses after bankrupting their company. These are obviously extreme examples- but they run in the opposite direction your theory would suggest.

In simple linear regression, we find a direct correlation between a companies return on investment, CEO compensation (as a proxy for CEO quality), and stock returns. This is first-year business school stuff.

I think you should study some literature before making these claims (or do such a regression yourself). Look at the work of Bebchuk, Cremers and Peyer on CEO compensation- they discover that "Firms with a higher CEO pay slice generate lower value for their investors. Relative to their industry peers, such firms have lower market capitalization for a given book value" (worse Tobin Q) and "firms with a high CEO pay slice are associated with lower profitability." In short CEO quality is loosely negatively correlated with CEO compensation.

You are describing how things are supposed to work. Unfortunately, reality is more messy than first-year business school.

 

[WhoWee]

I did! It was in the post you quoted. Follow the link.

If its golden parachutes- look at Joe Cassano. He more or less single-handedly destroyed AIG, and yet they retained him for a million a month. See pretty much any article on Cassano.

For Borders bonuses, see any business paper in the last few days. This turned up in google http://www.businessinsider.com/borders-bankrupt-bonus-2011-3

My original request was regarding Board members compensation - which you clarified. Also, I followed (it) but the link was talking about men in their 30's not doing as well as their fathers?

As far as AIG goes - weren't most of the problems at their European derivatives desk? Wasn't the rest of the company sound?

My bigger concern was the hundreds of billions that went to Europe and elsewhere in the bank bailout.

 

[ParticleGrl]

My original request was regarding Board members compensation - which you clarified. Also, I followed (it) but the link was talking about men in their 30's not doing as well as their fathers?

Read the article, it references all sorts of productivity vs. wage increase studies.

As far as AIG goes - weren't most of the problems at their European derivatives desk? Wasn't the rest of the company sound?

Cassano ran the Financial Products Division. He sold something like half a trillion in uncapitalized credit-default swaps, which is the root of the problem. Michael Lewis had a good article in Vanity Fair, which made the strong argument that AIG's trouble was largely bad management.

My bigger concern was the hundreds of billions that went to Europe and elsewhere in the bank bailout.

A lot of the bailout money just moved around in the US, most of the major US banks (Goldman, etc) were holding the other side of the AIG swaps.

 

[OmCheeto]

If you think you could do better, start and/or run a company. The odds of you creating a fraction the wealth of, say, a Steve Jobs are maybe 10 million to 1, even holding everything else constant. Just look at the turn-around in the company that followed Jobs' return, as a case study.

Hey! That's what I plan on doing when I retire in 1171 days.

Though starting from scratch, looking at the Jobs case study would probably be a waste of time. Unless of course, my sales reach into the tens of billions of dollars.

But anyways... I do try and keep this thread on topic from time to time, so maybe we should go back and ask what was the purpose of the OP.

Is it a psychological? "If GE makes $5.1 billion dollars and doesn't have to pay taxes, then why should I?"

If too many people perceive that it's ok to cheat, then we'll just end up like Greece.

We already know it's political. So asking that question would be redundant.

Is it fair? Many posts have been made to what is fair already in this thread, and in many other threads. There is no such thing as fair as far as I can tell.

So why did we all join this thread? To give our opinions, obviously. To show how much we know, obviously. And... to try and resolve a "perceived" problem maybe?

Ok then.

I've done two things:
1. I divested from GE in protest.

(It was 25% of my portfolio. I may be idealistic, but I know when a stock is undervalued. My brother actually discouraged me from investing in the company because they did business with Iran. So I googled; "US companies that did business with Iran", and Halliburton popped up. Given that my brother is more Republican than Russ Waters will ever dream of being, I decided to invest in GE.)​

2. I joined a local(state) tax activist group.

Not really joined in the, "I'm donating time and money" kind of way, but in a, "Ok. You're on facebook, and I agree with everything you've said so far." way. And I've exchanged kind words with the leader of the group, stating that she should be the president of the United States.​

A couple of very disconcerting things I've noted in the last two days, was the sad state of finances in America, and the sad state of taxation in America.

Finances? From GRB 080319B's post: http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266513/", I ran across the fact that the top decile* starts out at only around $100,000 a year. This somewhat freaked me out because that's not what I would call a lot of money.

There's the Sort of Rich. That's everybody in the top 10 percent, who today earn about $100,000 or more. There's the Rich. That's everybody in the top 1 percent, who today earn about $368,000 or more. And there's the Stinking Rich. That's everybody in the top 0.1 percent, who today earn about $1 million or more. (The blunt terminology is mine, not Saez and Piketty's.)

Ok. What next? The sad state of taxation.

Ai68 provided this http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml".

I spent several hours yesterday trying to balance the budget by changing tax rates on everyone from the poor to the "stinkin" rich, but ran out of time before my brain shut down.

The only thing, in my little head, that would work, would be to raise the taxes on the top 1% back to their near usurious levels: 70%.

A. The people in the top 1%, in 2005 anyways, are taking home, after taxes, in one year, as much as the people in the bottom quintile are taking home in 70 years.

(That's take home, and does not include state and local taxes. It takes the paupers 3.5 generations to bring home as much as the top 1% does in 1 year.)​

B. The people in the top 1% would take home, after taxes, in one year, as much as the people in the bottom quintile are taking home in 30 years, if their taxes were raised from 30 to 70%
C. It would make 295 million people in America do the; "Yah. Take that rich boy. U bin pwned!" dance.
E. Economics is a social science.

*top decile = top 10%
D. is for the dufus, that I left out, that is about to arrive, and argue with my **** ***.

Actually, I noticed that I'd left out the D, and decided to make a political statement out of it, rather than attempting to be perfect. :p

 

[Al68]

I never said it was publicly owned.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I interpreted your question about who should "see the gains" in productivity as implying that it was our (public) place to judge such things.

I simply suggested that there is an obvious way that the middle class isn't sharing in the "pie" they helped create. The market isn't being pareto efficient.

Part of the reason is probably the asymmetric power balance in the labor market.

This is obviously contradictory to the situation I was referring to: private voluntary transactions, which by definition are between parties with no power (to compel) over each other.

One symptom of which is that (at least in the 90s) raising the minimum wage had no effect on unemployment. See Card and Krueger's famous study. This can't happen in a truly efficient market.

First, I would note that minimum wage laws necessarily don't exist in a truly efficient market.

Second, I agree with you there. In an otherwise efficient market, raising the minimum wage without affecting unemployment rates simply can't happen.

But minimum wage jobs are not voluntary private transactions, even approximately for this purpose, since the minimum wage laws themselves are only relevant to those voluntary private transactions which they prohibit. All voluntary private transactions are either unaffected by minimum wage laws or prohibited by them.

 

[ParticleGrl]

This is obviously contradictory to the situation I was referring to: private voluntary transactions, which by definition are between parties with no power (to compel) over each other.

Believe it or not- the need to earn/support your family can be awfully compelling. As such, its hard to have a labor market with no power asymmetry, as its harder for one side to walk away. In the absence of something like collective bargaining, the employer almost certainly has a better BATNA than the employee.

 

[WhoWee]

Read the article, it references all sorts of productivity vs. wage increase studies.



Cassano ran the Financial Products Division. He sold something like half a trillion in uncapitalized credit-default swaps, which is the root of the problem. Michael Lewis had a good article in Vanity Fair, which made the strong argument that AIG's trouble was largely bad management.



A lot of the bailout money just moved around in the US, most of the major US banks (Goldman, etc) were holding the other side of the AIG swaps.

I was referring to this aspect of TARP:

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/August-2010/us-bailout-funds-saved-european-banks-without-much-transatlantic-reciprocity.html

"When the U.S. government led a bailout program of $700 billion in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the money was generally described as bailout funds for U.S. banks and other major financial institutions. But in fact, substantial amounts went to foreign banks, according to a congressional watchdog, the Congressional Oversight Panel. Headed by Elizabeth Warren, the committee has just issued a report highlighting this dimension of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).


Out of the 87 banks that saw benefits from the U.S. bailout measures, 43 were foreign banks – many of which are based in Europe. Along with France and Germany, TARP also induced positive results in Denmark, Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands, the report said.

In the largest specific case, TARP’s $70 billion bailout of AIG has beneficially contributed to other nation’s firms and institutions, most successfully to France and Germany. The insurance company AIG insured many “derivatives” and other financial instruments held by foreign banks and was obliged to cover their losses on these investments when market values plunged. U.S. TARP funds then made good AIG’s losses."

 

[talk2glenn]

Though starting from scratch, looking at the Jobs case study would probably be a waste of time. Unless of course, my sales reach into the tens of billions of dollars.

The Steve Jobs example is so useful precisely because it is a real-life case study in how things go based on choice of Chief Executive starting from a relatively consistent capital base. Apple's virtually overnight change in corporate well-being followed Jobs' return as its head, not some sudden influx of new capital, patents, or products. It's more complicated than that, of course, but its a useful point.

If too many people perceive that it's ok to cheat, then we'll just end up like Greece.

Agreed. It is the widespread pervasiveness of nonsense beliefs like "executives don't create value" which empowers government to meddle and intervene in the private sector beyond its classical and economically appropriate mandate of correcting for externalities and asymmetries. This creates dirty incentives for companies like GE: they start making what the government wants them to make, not what the market wants.

Believe it or not- the need to earn/support your family can be awfully compelling.

Again, this is an emotional appeal devoid of reason. Does the labor consumer have less an incentive to "support his family" than the supplier? What's with the liberal penchant to dehumanize one side of an argument, and then make it some kind of war between the frail and human and abuse-prone victim on one side and the inhuman, villainous construct on the other?

There is no labor market asymmetry of any kind, either in mainstream economic theory or in observed economic data. Economists observe that wage rates in competitive labor markets behave exactly as one would anticipate, controlling for external factors (wage laws, structural factors, etcetera). So-called "collective bargaining" is code for labor market monopolization and collusion, conduct which is highly illegal in every other American market. The reason is it is anti-competitive. The bargainers monopolize the labor supply, then dictate terms ex-post to firms (the so-called hostage problem). This results in a higher price, lower consumption, and lower productivity. Again, this is the theory, and it is supported by the data. The most stark example would be the US iron and steel industry in the '70s and '80s. When the unionized industry was opened up to foreign competition (specifically from Brazil) over the cries of foul from labor and the left, productivity doubled virtually overnight.

Read the article, it references all sorts of productivity vs. wage increase studies.

From what flawed conceptual understanding of economics does it follow that productivity increases should be associated with wage increases?

Typically, productivity growth is fueled by external threats, ie new competition or otherwise diminished market position. Given that, one should not be surprised to see no immediate reflection of productivity changes in the wage rates. In the long run, total growth (in wages and elsewhere) is driven entirely by productivity gains, however - see the Solow growth model.

Productivity is a measure of short-run production per employee, while wage measures short-run cost per employee. Firms have an incentive to maximize productivity above the wage rate to create surplus - this is value added to the firm by the new hire. If there is perfect correlation between productivity and wage, there is no incentive to hire, as the firm generates no new value by adding the employee. Indeed, this is why in introductory micro courses one learns that the solution to the firms labor optimization problem is to stop hiring when marginal productivity equals the wage rate.

In the long-run, the increased productivity of the average worker will create additional demand for labor. This puts upward pressure on prices, unless additional supply is willing & able to go to work at the existing wage. Given the lack of labor shortage in the United States over the past decade, it should come as no surprise, then, that productivity improvements haven't resulted in wage inflation. We only observe inflation in the price of any good - including labor - when there is a supply shortage relative to demand, which is only possible at or near full employment. The economy is obviously not operating at or near this point.

These are obviously extreme examples- but they run in the opposite direction your theory would suggest.

These firms are now bankrupt, by your own admission. A firm goes bankrupt when and only when it is unable to attract and retain sufficient operating capital to continue production.

Ergo, by definition, these cases support the theory. Clearly, AIG and Borders made bad investment decisions. Markets are efficient, but individuals are not. This would be like citing high bankruptcy rates in the United States relative to India as evidence that the Indians should be a lot wealthier than we are. Of course, they are not, and the opposite is true: high bankruptcy rates are a symptom of high capital mobility and are regarded as a positive economic indicator.

You are describing how things are supposed to work. Unfortunately, reality is more messy than first-year business school.

Using the data I happened to have available (Bloomberg data on 209 CEO salary's from 1990), the simplest case regression shows for a 1% change in a firms return on equity, we observe an increase of approximately $18,000 in CEO salary. Which came first, the salary or the delta ROE? Can't say. But the data is conclusive, at least in this case (and I promise it was chosen arbitrarily): higher CEO salary is positively correlated with better business performance.

This was done in Stata 11.

 

[Al68]

Believe it or not- the need to earn/support your family can be awfully compelling.

I understand that quite well, but an employer is not the source of that compulsion. Nature is. (or God, according to many).

As such, its hard to have a labor market with no power asymmetry, as its harder for one side to walk away...

That's either faulty logic, or faulty semantics. It's harder for one side to walk away because of the natural compulsion you refer to above, not because of a power asymmetry between employer and employee. Each has 100% power to decline any agreement.

 

[Amp1]

Al6, I apologize. I misstated what I really wanted to say. BTW, thanks for the 2004-5 data and site.

What I meant to say is, and pardon if I sound like I’m parsing Obama, looking at the difference in incomes between the poverty level and upper middle class incomes, they highest 25% can still comfortably utilize ten times more buying power than the lowest 25%; even at an effective rate of 25.2 %.

They are paying 5.86X the rate of the lowest 25% and still coming away with 10X more income. Imagine if conglomerates and corporations not truly¹ small businesses G.E., G.M., Goldman Sachs, etc, really paid 25.2 %. Maybe jobs would come back, maybe the deficit will get smaller, who knows?

BTW – (IMO, I doubt that true levels of income were reported by entities capable of utilizing legal justifications for not being completely up front.)

(1) - Sarcasm

 

[ParticleGrl]

Agreed. It is the widespread pervasiveness of nonsense beliefs like "executives don't create value" which empowers government to meddle and intervene in the private sector beyond its classical and economically appropriate mandate of correcting for externalities and asymmetries.

If you believe my point is that executives don't create value than you aren't reading carefully. Its that compensation isn't behaving as a good measure of value added-and there is a significant body of mainstream work suggesting the opposite- excessive CEO compensation can be a symptom of poor governance (see Bubchek). You yourself brought up Steve Jobs, whose salary from '97 onward has been $1 (plus reimbursements for things like private jets to business trips, something like $200,000 a year). Does this measure his value to the company?

Does the labor consumer have less an incentive to "support his family" than the supplier? What's with the liberal penchant to dehumanize one side of an argument, and then make it some kind of war between the frail and human and abuse-prone victim on one side and the inhuman, villainous construct on the other?

You seem intent on misconstruing my point. The issue is that generally the employer has more alternative options than the employee, not that they are greedy and evil. This is why I specifically phrased the issue as one of BATNA in my post.

There is no labor market asymmetry of any kind, either in mainstream economic theory or in observed economic data.

This is incredibly false. There are all sorts of theory papers discussing all sorts of potential labor market asymmetries, generally in order to explain involuntary unemployment. Start with Akerloff on the difficulty of an employer to gauge a worker's productivity, and the very related work of Spence on education as signaling to overcome this. Stiglitz also did related work with his interesting model of efficiency wages. All three are, of course, Nobel laureates for this and related work (how much more mainstream can you get?) More recently, work has been done on bargaining under informational asymmetries and wage dynamics.

There also is evidence of this market malfunctioning in economic data, as I suggested by mentioning the Card and Krueger study. Raising the minimum wage in an efficient market should lead to increased unemployment. This was not observed in minimum wage increases in a few states in the 90s. Meta-studies correcting for publication bias by Thurston support their conclusion.

From what flawed conceptual understanding of economics does it follow that productivity increases should be associated with wage increases?...In the long-run, the increased productivity of the average worker will create additional demand for labor. This puts upward pressure on prices

You answered your own question. I don't know of a single macro book that disputes the correlation between productivity growth and real wage growth, and the two I have at hand specifically mention that high productivity means high wages. You are welcome to show me one.

In the long run, increased productivity should lead to increased wages. Hence, studies from the mid 1970s onward that show increasing productivity without increasing wages are demonstrating something novel in our economic history. See, for instance, this chart of BLS data going back to the 40s: http://tinyurl.com/4bmazte

Also, given the number of papers written trying to explain this wage-productivity gap (many of which are discussed in the Slate series of articles linked to by another poster) clearly professional economists find it interesting enough to study.

And finally, you treating me as if I'm an intellectual invalid is getting old. I've repeatedly supported my points with references to the literature (which should indicate to you that I have at least a passing familiarity with the subject at hand). You, however, seem to be blissfully unaware of nobel prize winning work on informational asymmetries in the labor market that date back to the 80s.

Using the data I happened to have available (Bloomberg data on 209 CEO salary's from 1990), the simplest case regression shows for a 1% change in a firms return on equity, we observe an increase of approximately $18,000 in CEO salary. Which came first, the salary or the delta ROE? Can't say. But the data is conclusive, at least in this case (and I promise it was chosen arbitrarily): higher CEO salary is positively correlated with better business performance.

I would argue ROE is a weaker indicator of CEO performance than Tobin's Q. Further, you are comparing across different industries by using the Bloomberg data. To use ROE as a comparison of CEO performance, you should separate industries to avoid adding additional variables. Are there enough auto company CEOs to compare separately? Or computing/technology companies?

Did you read the previous study I mentioned? Have you read any of Bebchuk's work on CEO compensation?

 

[Al68]

What I meant to say is, and pardon if I sound like I’m parsing Obama, looking at the difference in incomes between the poverty level and upper middle class incomes, they highest 25% can still comfortably utilize ten times more buying power than the lowest 25%; even at an effective rate of 25.2 %.

They are paying 5.86X the rate of the lowest 25% and still coming away with 10X more income.

I'm not sure what you mean by "still coming away with 10X more income". They "went in" with >10X. So the result of the taxation was that that factor decreased.

Imagine if conglomerates and corporations not truly¹ small businesses G.E., G.M., Goldman Sachs, etc, really paid 25.2 %.

I have to point out again that a corporation itself cannot logically be an actual "payer" of taxes. The actual payer of every tax dollar collected from a corporation must logically be either their stockholders, employees, or customers, or a combination of those. Getting by with talking about corporate income taxes as if they applied to some source of wealth separate from those sources is one of the biggest political frauds in history.

 

[Amp1]

A corporation is an entity created in implied perpetuity. "A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1]" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation
[1] Members = shareholders/stakeholders
Kinda sound like umm religious to me.

 

[Al68]

A corporation is an entity created in implied perpetuity. "A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1]" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation
[1] Members = shareholders/stakeholders
Kinda sound like umm religious to me.

Yes, but that doesn't change the point I made. A corporation's assets are those of it's stockholders.

But the religious aspect you see must be flying over my head, I don't see it.

 

[Amp1]

No, actually the assets are the corps. The BOD or upper level management can decide if it should be disbursed or reinvested back. The ones investors like disburse.

 

[WhoWee]

No, actually the assets are the corps. The BOD or upper level management can decide if it should be disbursed or reinvested back. The ones investors like disburse.

I'm not sure what your point is - the shareholders own the corporation that owns the assets. The board is accountable to the shareholders and the executive management is accountable to the board.

 

[Amp1]

The def. I gave says a corp is a person to the law. Notwithstanding ownership by stakeholders, a corp doesn't have to give them yield on revenue.(am i wrong?)

 

[WhoWee]

The def. I gave says a corp is a person to the law. Notwithstanding ownership by stakeholders, a corp doesn't have to give them yield on revenue.(am i wrong?)

Sometimes reinvestment or debt reduction might serve the corporation better than a dividend disbursement. Given that a corporation is an on-going entity - it's ability to survive should be a priority. The same could be said of a government - in order to survive it must control it's expenses and debt.

 

[Al68]

No, actually the assets are the corps. The BOD or upper level management can decide if it should be disbursed or reinvested back. The ones investors like disburse.

Either way, the corp, and its assets are owned by the stockholders. The only difference is whether the value is reflected in a higher stock price or in dividends.

The def. I gave says a corp is a person to the law. Notwithstanding ownership by stakeholders, a corp doesn't have to give them yield on revenue.(am i wrong?)

A corporation doesn't have to "give" stockholders anything: they already have it. If a corporation re-invests all revenue instead of issuing dividends, it makes the stock of the corporation more valuable, since stock is ownership of the corporation as a whole, not just a claim on dividends.

 

[GRB 080319B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSoglDcRbAg"

The article he refers to in the video is attached below:

Additional material:

 

[GRB 080319B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSoglDcRbAg"

The article he refers to in the video is attached below:

Continued: