And by the way I’m not in agreement with most taxes; I am almost a Libertarian. I’m also not a Californian. I’m just saying, I think it’s not that big a deal in the grand scheme.
And by the way I’m not in agreement with most taxes; I am almost a Libertarian. I’m also not a Californian. I’m just saying, I think it’s not that big a deal in the grand scheme.
I'm using the language of statists because most people today are statists. It doesn't necessarily follow that I also personally agree with the idea, though I can see why you'd draw that conclusion.
It might be, but that's not what the tax is for. The $800 tax applied to LLPs, LLCs, and corporations isn't a tax on the privilege of operating a business in California: sole props and non-limited-liabilty partnerships can operate as businesses in California and don't pay the tax.
The privilege you pay for with the tax is that of offloading business failure risk onto the public while protecting your own personal assets with a publicly granted corporate liability shield.
No, it doesn't, you can do that as a sole prop or (non-LLP) partnership, and not pay the $800 tax applied to corporations, LLPs, and LLCs.
Asking the public at large to absorb for you (by granting you a personal liability shield) the risk that that the resources you give to the business plus those it is able to earn will not be able to meet the businesses liabilities is what you pay the $800 for. Which is why only the limited liability entities pay the tax.