Creating A Washington Corporation

The first step to setting up a Washington Corporation is finding someone to act as your Registered Agent.

This person must live in Washington, and will provide a physical address in case legal service must be provided. That agent can file using a P.O. box, but you're going to need a physical address for your agent, too.

There are companies that have been set up to act as your registered agent. One is Washington Registered Agent. If you go to their website, they offer you some real value for a low price. This is not a recommendation for this particular firm. Just an example.

The reason why setting up a Washington corporation makes sense for most of us is simply our proximity to the border. Most of us have friends or family across the river, and a Registered Agent doesn't need to be a part of your business, they're just a name for contact.

I'm sure that you'll look at all of the comparative advantages offered by other states' corporations divisions. If you're living in the central valley, incorporating in any state should involve a discussion of comparative tax advantages. There is a strong case made for incorporating in Nevada. Remember, there are reasons why you incorporate.

Acting as a sales agent for an out-of-state corporation can significantly reduce your exposure to tax liabilities. If your wholesale corporation provides your inventory and employees, revenues to an Oregon entity can be radically shifted.

Good luck with your planning. As your business grows, you'll appreciate the amount of savings that you can achieve by moving as much of your business activity as you can to another state.

Economic Good News!

If your idea of good economic news is huge federal budget deficits for the next decade. More wonderful news at the link.

H/T Mankiw.

UPDATE: From The Corner.

Heritage Foundation budget expert and NRO contributor Brian Riedl parses the CBO's ten-year budget baseline. Some key points (emphasis added):

—While the CBO projects a ten-year deficit of $6 trillion, a more realistic current policy baseline – that assumes the tax cuts are extended, the AMT is fixed, and discretionary spending grows with the economy – shows a ten-year deficit of $13 trillion.

—By 2020, this more realistic budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of $22 trillion (98 percent of GDP), and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion (one-quarter of all tax revenue).

—Compared to the historical average, 88 percent of the added 2020 budget deficit comes from higher spending, and just 12 percent comes from lower tax revenues – and even that assumes all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched. Clearly, spending is the problem.

—After the debt slowly grew to $5.8 trillion through 2008, the more realistic baseline shows the federal government adding an astonishing $16.3 trillion in new debt between 2009 and 2020—$130,000 per household over those 12 years.

—Overall, from 2001 through 2009, federal spending surged 51 percent faster than inflation. Federal spending per household expanded from $21,510 in 2001 to $29,813 in 2009.

—This baseline does not count the cost of president Obama’s proposals, such as health care and cap-and-trade, which would increase spending further.

Riedl's full report, if you can stomach it, can be found here.

Interested In Learning?

William Briggs is on my "every day" list.

You won't find that list on this site. But, his site is listed over there»»»»

If you would like to learn about statistics and how to use a statistical analysis computer program, why not head over to his website and download R.

Follow his instructions and make sure that you keep up with his lectures.

Imagine, the power of the intertubes.