From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 07:15:41 MST
In a message dated 11/1/2002 8:42:32 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: So I predict that since so few now favor government
involvement, the term in the future shall come to mean merely "owned
collectively".
## The problem with that theory is that those arrangements have a long and
secure position under capitalist law.
Just to confuse you, if you and I are dentists that share the expenses
of an office but nothing else then under the law we are each running a sole
proprietorship. Just sharing an office does not make us partners. On the
other hand your coop under tax law is probably only a partnership. Each of
you that bought into the coop are owners and partners.
"So co-ops are socialist in that sense. What exactly distinguishes
them from corporations in which the employees own stock?"
Basically the law. Look, if you form that coop and operate as
partners you personally can probably be sued for every debt the coop has and
for every malpractice that any partner in the co-op is guilty of.
On the other hand if you form any one of a couple different
partnerships or a corporation you will have your liability limited to your
share of what the partnership owns. In addition it might be set up so that
you are not responsible at all for any other partners malpractice.
I suggest you talk to a good attorney if you are serious about any of
this. At this time in my life I am a wanna-be tax accountant -- it will be
another year or so before I am even a tax accountant.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:56 MST