This is definitely something to keep in mind as we move along with our virtual businesses. What is great about Vermont’s idea of incorporation is:
- No requirement of physical presence
- No restriction on location
- Income tax only required on in-state sales
- $275/yr for registration fees
This is a helluva deal if it is as good as it sounds… Supposedly this was passed into law in summer of 2008.
The state of Vermont is set to become the first in the nation to offer a legal framework for virtual companies. In May, the state’s legislature voted to pass a law, which is expected to be signed this summer by Governor Jim Douglas, that would allow any private company to register in Vermont without opening a physical office, holding an in-person meeting, or filing a single sheet of paper. Companies could meet these requirements — which are mandated by most states in order to legally register or open a bank account — by using e-mail, instant messaging, or other software programs.
Vermont plans to charge fees of up to $275 a year for each virtual company registered, with state income taxes applying only to income generated in Vermont itself. The hope is to mimic the success of Delaware, which collects some $700 million a year in incorporation taxes and fees by offering low taxes, few regulations, and a business-friendly judicial system.
“This is a grand experiment,” says Robert Litan, vice president of research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Missouri. Litan says the Vermont law will allow entrepreneurs all over the world to take advantage of the relative legal certainty of the Green Mountain State. An entrepreneur in Africa, for instance, could register a company in Vermont without hiring a lawyer or even traveling to the U.S. “This is going to allow for ways of doing business that we can’t even imagine yet,” Litan says.
—————–
Sources:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080701/a-haven-for-virtual-companies.html
Should We Nationalize Banks? Sorry, already happened…
Posted in Economic Commentary, Resources, tagged bailout, banks on February 27, 2009| Leave a Comment »
The big debate right now is whether or not we should “nationalize” banks…but, in my opinion it has already happened. A quick look at bailout numbers over the past 7 or 8 months courtesy of New York Times running tally:
These numbers do not even include the $500B+ in note guarantees to keep US banks solvent. There truly is a lot of money on the line and without it, our banking system would have collapsed already. The fact that the government had to step in and invest money in non-performing assets to to keep them solvent pretty much defines “nationalization” to me. I am not making a judgment on whether this is the right or wrong decision, because I am not an economist, but I do believe we should label things as they are.
Instead of calling what has been done up to this point in time “nationalization”, it is called something different by the US Government (credit Barry Ritholtz):
…why don’t we call it by a more accurate, precise, and less scary name: FDIC mandated, pre-packaged Chapter 11, government funded reorganization.
That is an accurate description of what occurred with Washington Mutual (WAMU) now part of JPM Chase, and Wachovia, now part of Wells Fargo. The Feds step in, seamlessly transfer control of the assets to a new owner, while simultaneously wiping out the debt, the shareholders, and giving a huge haircut to the bondholders.
Let’s look at each of these in turn:
What emerges is a clean bank, no debt, well capitalized, and free of deadly toxic assets. You can see why so many people would find this state of affairs utterly objectionable.
In all seriousness, I understand the objection by shareholders — already down 90% — who would be wiped out by this. I fail to see the merit in the save-the-banks-at-any-cost arguments so many are proferring and preferring.
————————–
Sources:
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/nationalization-the-new-n-word/
Read Full Post »