The economy and particularly that which affect small business has become the centre talking point of the American presidential election. The influence of American economic prosperity on UK small business has been witnessed for years.

The FTSE 100 index follows the up and downs of the Dow Jones market like the preverbal sheep and rarely, if even does the influence actually work the other way around.

And so there is the choice between the Republican candidate who believes that by initiating a spending freeze on public finances and tax incentives to larger businesses, the American giants of commercial enterprise will lift the ailing economy and provide prosperity to everyone.

The Democratic ticket on the other hand believes that these larger businesses and their corporate managers who have enjoyed record profits until recently can afford to pay more in tax.

This would enable the newly elected President (if this happens) to provide tax cuts to over 95% of working families.

There is rarely such a clear cut distinction separating two economic policies and the voters in the presidential election, particularly those who own a small business have to decide which of these contrasting policies they believe will work.

The Republican Small Business Policy

An important point that should be borne in mind is that during presidential elections, it is quite possible for candidate to say one thing and whether deliberately or due to unforeseen circumstances, veer from their stated commitments.

For the moment at least, each candidate will be taken at their word.

American big businesses are among the most talented in the world and in pursuit of their own self interest, can create jobs, compete effectively and increase the wealth of the country through innovation and commercial marketing.

It could be argued therefore that the Republican plan provides nourishment to the experts and charges them with doing what they do best.

Those against point to the evidence that smaller businesses enjoy little of the gains bigger corporations make and therefore many in the country and the economy as a whole does not benefit.

The lessons currently being learned from the manner in which big businesses crippled the global markets does not lend itself to a further endorsement of the laissez-faire doctrine.

It may be the self interest that creates an insurmountable conflict whereby large American corporations can not serve both themselves and the wider economy at the same time.

This leaves small businesses to fend for themselves and accept that at any time, the actions of big corporations can render their attempts to trade and be profitable absolutely useless.

The Democratic Policy

Tax breaks for 95% of Americans is the claim, but what will these people do with their allocation of money. Should they decide to save it then the economic kick start the Government would hope for may never materialise.

In fact, saving will provide additional coffers for the big businesses who can then carry on as normal. However in this case, given that small businesses would then have some or increase savings, their levels of anxiety should decrease and their confidence about trading should rise.

Spending some or all of the tax gains would help the entire economy and realise the elusive feel good factors which is current absence from many if not all of the global consumer markets.

Economics aside for a moment, doesn’t this plan seem fairer? More humane? At least if it does not work, then the American people have had a stake in its destination.

In the presidential election, the essence of which party’s antidote will work might be best defined by the fact that the Democrats appear to have had a consistent plan from the start. The Republicans did not even want to talk about the economy and after personal attacks fails, and the Palin affect became a regret, they launched their plans to help small business.

The Democratic plan seems a fairer, more thought out proposal and most of all, it is not Bush Republican.

I have been advised that I should register a dormant company as a means of protecting the trading name I currently use for my sole trader business. I have a couple of question however and would appreciation some further information about the subject.

These are as follows:

• How does the dormant company option work?
• Would I still be able to continue working as a sole trader under the same name?
• Would I need to start paying company taxes?
• How easy would it be to make it active and would there be a cost involved?
• What are dormant company accounts and how are they submitted?

It sounds like a viable option but I would like to know a few more details.

Dear Sirs,

I have a question concerning a joint venture between two UK limited companies and I would be grateful if you could provide some information on both the formation aspects, shareholding and the eventual dissolution of the business.

1. In a limited company – can companies own shares rather than individuals? We are thinking of having two people as act as directors but then two companies as shareholders.

2. If we set up a company we would aim to have very limited or zero dividends – but if there were any, would they just divide between the shareholders (or the Directors?)

3. How do you wind up a limited company – is it messier than dissolving a partnership or easier? What happens to the trading name if the company is folded?

4. Would a buy out of shares be available so we could allow a third Director to join and buy some of our shares so he could also be a shareholder at a later date?