Benefits of a PLLC and why the PTB don't want the average person to have access to this

I don't know which forum to place this into, so MODS move where necessary. I am going to attempt to explain a business structure that is reserved only for the elite, rich, and well educated (i.e. compliant, obedient, professionals governed by the status quo). I believe that if regular individuals are able to form a business model based on the benefits provided under the PLLC entity, that we could come out of the recession we are in and the entity in the hands of average Americans would allow them to partner with neighbors, pool resources, and begin working again.

A PLLC is called a Professional Limited Liability Corporation. This business entity is designed as a vehicle for professionals to form partnerships, but treats them like a corporation. You will see the PLLC indicator following law firm names, doctors offices, accounting firms, etc. A PLLC is not designed for manufacturing, it is designed for service related enterprises based on a profession.

Structure of the PLLC:

1. All shareholders have to actually work in the business
   
2. All shareholders have to give up their shares if leaving the company; selling them back to the entity
   
3. Shareholders are not paid for their work on either hourly or salary basis, they receive dividends based on their shares
   
4. A PLLC and its shareholders can be taxed either personally or as an entity, but not both
   
5. A PLLC can employ other employees, but must comply with applicable labor laws
   
6. A PLLC can create new shares to give to new partners in the business that add skill to their organization
   

So what this means, is that a PLLC can operate with very limited overhead daily. If the company makes no money one week, they are not out of business as they have no employee expenses (providing they chose not to hire any employees). If the PLLC makes a ton of money one month those monies are divided up amongst the shares in the business and serves as payment for their work contributing to the entity.

----------------------------

Why is this business entity reserved only for professionals when by its design is one of the most fair, economical ways to operate a partnership? Imagine for an instance that this business model was made available to your friends and family. Imagine just for a moment that you could coordinate with a few friends to operate some type of business that you have dreamed up. Imagine that you could find others needed with the skills to operate the business by offering them shares in the company. When you form the company there is a no overhead outside of a physical location if necessary and supplies which will be dependent on business levels anyway. Imagine that a person leaving the business will not be allowed to suck up revenue from those working in the business, as they must return their shares. This allows the greatest benefit for those working inside the business.

----------------------------

The PTB does not want you to have this type of business structure for yourselves. As it would enable every person the ability to coordinate and start service oriented businesses, without hiring a single person. You would be able to distribute monies to those of the partnership in accordance with their value and skills provided to the organization. All without spending much if any money that is taxable. You would give shares as incentives, and create shares where additional talent or skill is needed to grow the organization. This type of business structure would allow you and your family or friends to open a law care service with 15 people all without labor overhead. Imagine that! Income would also be distributed more fairly amongst the owners of the organization.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

The PTB does not want you to have this type of business structure for yourselves.

I know plenty of people that have incorporated themselves and worked the same career as they did before. I don't see where "They" or "TPTB" don't want you to have this. All you have to do is find an accountant or booker keeper and they can do most of the paperwork for you.

There are drawbacks with this method though as well. And the most important thing is keeping track of expenses, taxes, etc. Hence the use for an accountant...

reply to post by boncho


On a side-note, when I registered my first company I went to the government office where it's done. No one was waiting for me there in dark sunglasses or a blacked out grand marquis. I just walked in, paid the fee, (Did a listing search) and then walked out the with the papers.

I didn't notice any PTB, NWO, or Illuminati lurking in the shadows....

reply to post by boncho


Incorporating yourself and hiring a book keeper or accountant is the type of business entity available to the average person. But what if you wanted to run a 30 person business? You have to pay the employees, there are laws. A one man show, while not impossible to produce a good income, will not get the same business that a 30 person operation would garner.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Why is this business entity reserved only for professionals when by its design is one of the most fair, economical ways to operate a partnership? Imagine for an instance that this business model was made available to your friends and family. Imagine just for a moment that you could coordinate with a few friends to operate some type of business that you have dreamed up.

How are you stopped from doing this? Is what I don't understand.

And in fact, friends and family are some of the last people I would want to operate a business with. Many people start their own businesses every year and friends and family operations are not the best off.

You do realize it takes (most cases) two years before a business will become profitable right? The majority of people are either lacking capital or at the very least the drive to operate their own businesses. Including seeing them through past the first couple years.

This is what separates workers from leaders. And it is not such a bad thing. Most people at the bottom do not want the responsibilities that come with being at the top.

I see this everyday at my office. People complain why they don't get "this and that" but when they are asked to spend the weekend working, or take something home with them to do, they cry "Labor Law".

Explain how this is being withheld from people, or how "TPTB" don't want "average" people to use these tools.

It is more like "average" people don't want anything to do with the world of biz.

IMO.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by boncho

 

...But what if you wanted to run a 30 person business?

No. All 30 people would have to be shareholders and not take a salary. That's all. My dad's medical practice was set up this way. He started it and eventually had 3 other partners. In addition, you can hire pure "employees." You just need to abide by the local labor laws in that hiring. I don;t get your point with this whole thing. In your OP you even use some Dr.s and law firms as an example. While I am not an attorney, I do have a JD and I can assurre you I am not part of the PTB.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot


I am almost certain you misread my post, because you tell me no then go on to explain what I said to begin with. You are right, if you want 30 partners you just pay them dividends. This was my point. The current business structure for average individuals does not allow you to start a business with 30 unpaid people and work until there is actually an income. I am wondering, did you just come into this thread to disagree with me. It sounds like you have some vested interest in not allowing a PLLC type model for average people, being you are from a family of doctors.

reply to post by boncho


It sounds like you advocate that people should own their own business and hire workers. That is fine if you believe that. I simply do not understand why you would be opposed so drastically to allowing average people the ability to not have to hire each other, where a few are in charge. Why would you deny me the right to form such an agreement amongst other willing people? The benefits of a PLLC are not the same as individual partnerships. I want the benefits of a PLLC without starting a professional corporation. What is your problem with that? Because you think most people cannot run a business and lack drive like you?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Sounds very similar to an S-Corporation. Anyone can set one up.

reply to post by bozotheclown


The problem with an S-corp is people do not have to work in the organization to obtain shares. They also do not have to sell shares back if they leave the organization. The point of the PLLC is that the organization cannot be controlled by outside influences, and the shareholders must work inside the organization in order to get a benefit. The moment they stop working is the moment they get no cut of the profits.

This business organization in the hands of jobless Americans with the proper coordination would allow everyone to get back to work.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


OK. Maybe this is a better way of getting to the core issue. What, exactly, is stopping you from starting and operating a PLLC? Nothing stopped my dad and he was not an "elite" or "TPTB." Nothing is stopping me. Who/What prevented you from starting a PLLC? That would be a prerequisite to make this some sort of conspiracy.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I simply do not understand why you would be opposed so drastically to allowing average people the ability to not have to hire each other, where a few are in charge. Why would you deny me the right to form such an agreement amongst other willing people?

Okay I think I understand now. So you are mad about the clause that states only licensed professional services are able to form PLLCs? Why all the nonsense saying "they, don't want you to have this"

Why not just specifically say that you think that clause is unfair. Or at least explain that, that was what you were referring to.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I simply do not understand why you would be opposed so drastically to allowing average people the ability to not have to hire each other, where a few are in charge. Why would you deny me the right to form such an agreement amongst other willing people?

Nothing is stopping you from doing that. That's where you're are mistaken. For one, you do not need an PLLC for that. You can do that with different platforms. You can also make contract agreements between business partners.

This whole thing is not making that much sense.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ExPostFacto

I simply do not understand why you would be opposed so drastically to allowing average people the ability to not have to hire each other, where a few are in charge. Why would you deny me the right to form such an agreement amongst other willing people?

 

Okay I think I understand now. So you are mad about the clause that states only licensed professional services are able to form PLLCs? Why all the nonsense saying "they, don't want you to have this"

Why not just specifically say that you think that clause is unfair. Or at least explain that, that was what you were referring to.

Ahhhh. OK. If that's the case, maybe I can see that. But how is that a conspiracy? Professional is the "P" in PLLC, isn't it?

Wouldn't one way around this be to include shares in the benefits package to employees? Pay them all in shares if you want (and they agree). However, I doubt John Q. Public will work for shares in a company if that requires them to take a personal interest in making that business work (and what that takes beyond your 40 hour work week). They'd rather have their paycheck and not have to worry about making the business profitable. You don't get unemployment benefits when your shares no longer pay dividends.

I'm a little confused by this model. Where is the monetary benefit realized from it? Shares, shmares. I want some cold, hard cash!
I mean, I understand that you can receive shares of the company as payment in lieu of a salary or hourly wage. Is there a cash-value attributed to each share? If so, who valuates it and how is it exchanged? Can you sell some of your shares while you are there?

Just curious. Thanks for the info

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by boncho

 

I didn't notice any PTB, NWO, or Illuminati lurking in the shadows....

I did...but at the time my ex. business partner hadn't yet revealed himself as an illuminati insectoid. It was only revealed to me after I employed the services of a grey accountant.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
I'm a little confused by this model. Where is the monetary benefit realized from it? Shares, shmares. I want some cold, hard cash!
I mean, I understand that you can receive shares of the company as payment in lieu of a salary or hourly wage. Is there a cash-value attributed to each share? If so, who valuates it and how is it exchanged? Can you sell some of your shares while you are there?

Just curious. Thanks for the info

edit on 20-6-2011 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)

Thanks for that comment.

And here is my point, where people are happy with what they receive. Running a business/corporation is not for everyone.

A lot of people like to take their paychecks, go home and spend time with their friends and families, as opposed to spending all their time worrying over biz problems.

So be it, they must be the "average" ones.

reply to post by boncho


It sounds like you think everyone is a slave, mundane, worker bee that just wants money, money, money. How about a fair job that pays you an decent split of the profits? I think there are many that fit your mold, and I imagine only you and others like you believe that everyone not running a business is not cut out to do so. What I am advocating here is no different then what is currently in use by the average business model, except that each worker is an owner of that business. I suppose you think there is no way possible a line level employee would want that responsibility. I think you are wrong. There are many employees that want to help the company they are with, but they have bosses such as yourself that will tell them they cannot do something because of some golden secret only the boss knows but won't disclose.

I suppose you want workers working for you. I want a better society, where people that actually do the job have a say in it, and where they receive a good portion of the profits for improvements or extra business they make. Is there something so wrong with this? Why would you be so opposed? Just because there are some that just want a steady paycheck? Tell that to all the unemployed right now that have no single paycheck nor opportunity to get one. How about people form partnerships and start working again? When the money starts coming in it will be better then sitting on their butt. And they will be able to do the job far cheaper then any regular business out there.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


There are plenty of companies that offer common stock to their employees. Actually, I know a couple of people at Apple that saw there net worth skyrocket when the stock went from $50 to $300 a couple years ago.

Small business rely on their workers. But if you have run one, you know it's hard to find people that will be dedicated to your company. Also, concessions have to be made when running a business.

It's not about worker bees, or slavery or anything else. It's about owners and management having to make sacrifices when times are tough, and for the most part, workers like to keep their standard of living the same all the time.

If you have me 10 dedicated people that are going help run the company smoothly, I have no problem splitting the business with them. Of course, they need to earn those positions though.

reply to post by boncho


I think you live in some fantasy driven ideology that prevents you from seeing that many workers do not want steady anything, they want more. Management making sacrifices, are you kidding me? You mean laying off workers, finding foreign vendors that deplete the quality of life at home. Most business decisions I have seen management make can be made by any person with half a brain about the business they operate. Cut employees, cut services, charge fees, pass expenses to customers, but do so in a way that doesn't upset either. If these are the sacrifices you are speaking about then I disagree entirely. I see the workers as the one who makes the sacrifice, as they become unemployed. I suppose that to some management their sacrifice was allowing their own people to suffer, and what a heart ache that must be for them.

It should be noted that I refer to big and moderate sized corporations, not small businesses that must make these decisions to survive. I am talking about well funded, well established corporations.