pengeezer (March 26th, 2015)
HughC (March 27th, 2015)
I think that conceiving of a company as a "middle man" is the flaw in your perspective. In the example above, "Company" and "Ranch" are analogous. They are both property. Although assets can be compiled within a company, a company cannot "own" anything. Only "owners" (to include shareholders) can.
Considering I own rural property ( as you would say a "ranch") in several different structures being partnership and company ( tightly held btw) I think I have rather more first hand knowledge of the example than you do. Both have benefits and disadvantages and there are differences.
You miss the obvious, the company can sell the ranch and buy another venture/business and your relationship with the company as a shareholder remains unchanged....you still have shares in EXACTLY the same company it just doesn't own a ranch anymore just something different. Even if the company you own the shares in employs you you still remain an employee...just doing a different job. That you decided what the company should do doesn't change your relationship with the company as such ( ie you don't have to reorganize your personal finances...another entity does the buying and selling).
Given your thinking you need to ask "why would anyone incorporate?" as you can see no difference. There are benefits in the longer term for even family operations in such areas as asset protection outside the company ( assets held by individuals) and succession planning amongst others, there are also disadvantages that can occur.
I'm quite surprised that you believe to know my background and real estate portfolio and are able to compare it to yours. Property you (or I) own is irrelevant to the discussion, and a poor (and logically fallacious) appeal to authority. The "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" remark is also misrepresentative and irrelevant as phrased. Either you can present a clear and rational argument of the ideas being discussed, without the condescension and rhetoric, or you can't. If you can't, then please spare us both the waste of time.
I do not miss the obvious, and it seems quite the contrary. You are presenting a straw man by mis-representing my argument and then "disproving" it. I used a ranch (which can be incorporated) as an analogy for the more traditional notion of a company, because the tangible assets are more obvious and better illustrates the principle that it (like any other company) is nothing more than property. In your example of a company "owning" a ranch as one particular asset, you confuse who the true owners/shareholders are. It is not the "parent" company, which is in fact property owned by someone. You are essentially asserting that (in the case of your incorporated ranch) you own the ranch, but not the cows since those belong to the ranch.
My assertion remains. A company (like Hobby Lobby) is property of its owners. Rights and obligations fall upon the owners, not the property.
A ranch cannot be incorporated. A ranch is an asset that is owned by another entity be it a company/individual/partnership or likewise.
When you incorporate you create an independent legal entity which is separate from it's owners. The main benefits are liability protection and that companies can continue indefinitely. The downsides are greater cost as regulatory and tax functions are greater and double taxing ( the company pays and so do the shareholders on their dividend).
"Why incorporate ? " Incorporation is not ideal for most small business of , say a married couple, because it just adds extra work and cost, using the ranch as an example if a couple where living on and running the ranch incorporation would bring no benefit unless they held significant assets elsewhere they wished to protect from the ranch business failing. Without other assets no benefit is gained as the end result is the same whatever the structure if the business fails. Incorporation becomes more attractive as those non business assets grow because they are protected from business failure, by default incorporation ( of small/ family businesses) is a business decision often based on liability protection.
Your assertion is partly correct in that a company is owned by it's shareholders and incorrect in that the obligations fall on the company ( because it's an independent legal identity) and not the shareholders. The latter is the reason for incorporation in most cases because of the liability protection ( which means the shareholders are protected from personal loss if the business fails). As I said before think of the company as the middle man.
Hopefully you will now have figured out why the "why would anyone incorporate... you can see no difference" was rather relevant.
Last edited by HughC; March 27th, 2015 at 04:17 PM.
The discussion is devolving into jargon and semantics. Take "A ranch cannot be incorporated", for example. A ranch can be incorporated; but the land, buildings, equipment, livestock, etc... become assets. If one considers the "ranch" as the land and other material items, then of course that cannot be incorporated. "Rights and obligations", where I intended the context to be ethical (and that was the context of the Hobby Lobby discussion), could also be construed in other ways such as financial. Truth depends on context.
The issue is whether or not a company must provide a thing, even if that violates the owners' religious beliefs.
A company does not provide things. It is the legal vehicle through which the owners provide things (or not). More specifically, Hobby Lobby does not provide employment. The owners of Hobby Lobby provide employment. Hobby Lobby does not provide insurance. The owners do. The owners of Hobby Lobby are neither morally nor legally obligated to provide abortion insurance to their employees, if it violates their religious beliefs. It does not force their beliefs on their employees, and the employees do not force their beliefs on the owners. Both parties are free to spend their own money in accordance with their individual beliefs.
Although it pains some for religion to be able to "get away" with this sort of thing, the real shame is that only religion can do it. If the ethical opposition to abortion was based on anything other than religion, I suspect the case would have gone the other way. In other words, the government is free to force you to pay for something you find morally objectionable, as long as that moral objection isn't based on religious belief.
Last edited by dneal; March 28th, 2015 at 02:24 AM.
Reread post #237. I stated that no Hobby Lobby employee brought the suit against the owners;it was the head of HHS. Since
there wasn't a legal connection between the gov't and the privately held company,the suit had no merit. That said,the owners
did not have to follow to the letter the health requirements put out by the gov't. They had the right to make their health choices
for their employees according to their biblical--not religious--beliefs. These beliefs are based on convictions,not opinions. BTW,I
don't think the gov't can force one to pay for something objectionable if there is proof that that requirement or service is unnec-
cessary and the status quo would work.
John
Merriam Webster defines a Ranch as :
: a large farm especially in the U.S. where animals (such as cattle, horses, and sheep) are raised
: a farm for a special crop or kind of animal
Which means the later is correct.
Perhaps a bit deeper than that in that is appears a key factor in the Hobby Lobby case was that the company reflected the beliefs of the owners in the way it operated. Hobby Lobby managed to convince a majority it did act so as to reflect it's owners beliefs and in effect that a company can express a religious belief as expressed by it's shareholders. Given the wide range of religions and equally wide range of beliefs it may be that this ruling has some interesting future ramifications. I'd expect future case will test this out.
Your assertion that the company is irrelevant in what it provides doesn't take into account that, by definition, a company is a legal identity separate from the shareholders. A companies governance is provided by a board of directors appointed/elected by the shareholders and it's the directors that run the company, the directors need not be shareholders. The other factor is that those elected and motions passed at shareholder meetings are a majority decision and not necessarily of all shareholders. The legal responsibilities and governance of the company lies with the directors not the shareholders. By virtue of it being a legal identity the company offers employment, conducts the business and not the shareholders. If you didn't what this structure you wouldn't incorporate. Nothing demonstrates the difference better than what happens if it fails, in a company structure the shareholders personal assets are protected ( one of the main reasons to incorporate) and generally the directors personal assets as well if no wrong doing has occurred ( such as trading while insolvent) where as in an unincorporated business the owners personal assets may well be at risk. You can't have it both ways.
No doubt if based on anything other than religion it would have failed. Govt. makes the rules, that gives a lot of power to them.
Q.E.D.
It may interest you to know that there are a great many ranches in the U.S. that have been incorporated.
The bolded portion is quite pertinent, and will be interesting in light of Indiana's recently passed RFRA (more in a moment)Originally Posted by HughC
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I understand your perspective. I'm trying to explain the rationale by which Hobby Lobby argued its position (which they did successfully, BTW).Originally Posted by HughC
Although I'm tempted to get into a discussion about Govt power, power derived from the people, voters and politicians, etc... It would be too much of a digression.Originally Posted by HughC
Indiana's RFRA seems to have created quite a stir, and is portrayed in the news as an attack on homosexuality by fundamentalist Christians. The whole thing is an enormous can of worms. Most of the arguments center around wedding cakes and such, with the basic form being: "Can a Christian bakery refuse to sell a wedding cake to a LBGT couple because they find homosexuality offensive on religious grounds?"
The variations, in context of morality based on religion and morality based on philosophy noted above are quite interesting.
Should an LBGT bakery be able to refuse to bake a "God Hates Fags" cake for the Westboro Baptist Church?
Should a Jewish bakery be able to refuse to bake a Nazi-themed cake for a member of the Aryan Nation? (or vice-versa?)
The problem is that it seems one must involve offense to religious beliefs in order to refuse service, so the Christian bakery could refuse service to the LBGT couple but the LBGT bakery couldn't refuse the WBC (as an aside, there is evidence of the latter occurring - although it wasn't the WBC making the request).
The whole thing gets even more messy, with endless permutations. For example: Can a Vegan bakery be forced to bake a cake that uses eggs and milk in the recipe?
The crux of the issue seems to hinge on minority status and protection, with some groups (i.e.: the LBGT community) striving to make themselves considered "minorities"; and the whole thing "backfiring" when other groups (i.e.: Christians) want similar protections.
Regardless of how it appears the ranch (land as per definition) is an asset of the owner or owners whether it be an individual, partnership, company or any other setup.
I've had a bit of a look at the "storm" Indiana's RFRA has created and "an enormous can of worms" seems an apt description !!
I can't believe that so much time and effort is wasted on homosexuality, it's not exactly "new" and without a doubt predates christianity by a few millenniums. It's a fact and that's all there is to the subject. The whole issue is more a display of the strength of indoctrination than any other reason. Probably the greatest "obscenity" in all this is groups such as WBC claiming to be "religious" , actually more obscene is a Govt. deciding WBC needs a legal mandate. WBC is a toxic example of extreme religious views, why is it tolerated ?
On the upside it seems to have been so poorly received that it will be quickly altered. A rather stark example of a politician trying to use the legislative process to further his political ambitions by appeasing a group with some political force so you probably won't see Mike Pence featuring in the Republican nomination process now ( an example of how to stuff up your political future). An added extra is that no one else will be so stupid to try the same legislation anywhere else for a long time.
LBGT protests aside, the RFRA really doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality or civil suits. It revolves around government actions (and their compelling need) and the effect on religious liberty.
The way special interest groups and the media spin things, and the frenzy they create never cease to amaze me. Yesterday it's Indiana, today it's Arkansas...
After finishing Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States, last week, there's very little that I would think was done unintentionally in the US.
Crazyorange (April 2nd, 2015)
Was written:
>> I don't think the gov't can force one to pay for something objectionable
As I am sure this is not true , what is the intention of the statement.
Jody
Bookmarks