Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood at the Political Forums; If corporations are people , why are they so different from us? [If two of them] are the same gender ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 06:29 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,242
Thanks: 700
Thanked 2,630 Times in 1,920 Posts
Default The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

If corporations are people, why are they so different from us?

Quote:
[If two of them] are the same gender and they want to merge, would that be prohibited in states that don't recognize civil unions?

Would mergers between a male and female corporation be considered marriage?

If you sue a corporation into bankruptcy, should that now be considered murder?

If you sign paperwork to form your corporation and the financing falls through, is that a miscarriage?

When humans get sick, they see a doctor or go to the hospital. When corporations get sick, they see a lawyer or go off shore.

Whereas cloning humans is illegal, cloning corporations can just be considered franchising.

Corporations can also split like amoebas or merge like pieces of clay, which are abilities that humans do not possess.
The tax code gets confusing also.

Quote:
If corporations are "people," then why don't they use our human tax tables?

Unless they are married (merged) or head of household, I'd think that they should pay at the single rate. There should be no "corporate" tax rate, since they are just like the rest of us. I don't dare to think of the tax write-offs, but perhaps the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) rule that some have to follow would be appropriate.

When corporations can't exempt themselves from the AMT, they pay at a rate lower than many humans do, and that is after they file for the foreign tax credit, if they can. It does seem a bit unpatriotic to be willing to pay other countries' taxes and then complain about ones in the country that you call home.

We human beings are paying for the roads that the company trucks are driving on, among other perks that some corporations get for free.

Another great thing about being a corporate person is that, in some cases, you don't even have to be "born" here to be considered a domestic corporation. As long as you set up shop in Delaware or Nevada, you can be recognized as domestic versus being considered foreign in any other state.

It begs the question: If undocumented immigrants got together and incorporated themselves, would they be allowed to stay? If they were corporate people, it seems like the answer would be yes.

What makes me a bit nervous is that the corporate people may now start demanding unlimited Second Amendment rights. Some of those people can easily afford their own fighter jets, tanks, ships, cruise missiles and a well-armed militia to protect themselves with. I suppose the increased firepower would provide great incentive for paying our bills on time. One of their unmanned drones could even follow you to the bank perhaps.
If corporations are people, why don't they live by the same laws people do?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Billo_Really For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 09:23 AM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
If corporations are people, why are they so different from us?

The tax code gets confusing also.

If corporations are people, why don't they live by the same laws people do?
If corporations are "persons", why don't they have the right to vote???

This game goes BOTH ways Billo, if you demand that they not to be given the same rights that people have, then you also have to relieve them of the responsibilities - like taxes. If corporations are truly "persons", then they should have the right to vote and if they aren't given that right, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Remember that core concept that was the force behind our rebelling against England - NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. I agree that corps. should not be treated as people, but that means that not only are they releived of certain rights, but also certain responsibilities. Take away taxes on corps. and you eliminate a huge part one of our shared pet peeves - corporate influence in DC. You want only to strip them of their rights, but leave their responsibilities. I do think that there are laws that corps. have to conform to, but those laws are about how corps. impact society, not the gov't.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:27 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,612
Thanks: 10,111
Thanked 15,290 Times in 9,270 Posts
Post Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
If corporations are people, why don't they live by the same laws people do?
I've heard it said before...
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them...


Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
If corporations are "persons", why don't they have the right to vote???
This game goes BOTH ways Billo, if you demand that they not to be given the same rights that people have, then you also have to relieve them of the responsibilities - like taxes
Funny thing is that nobody has really asked for corporations to be able to "vote".
If Shell Oil Company got one, individual vote for paying taxes, I think a lot of people wouldn't care.

It's the undue influence, above and beyond a simple "vote" which is the problem.

Furthermore, with your example of "no taxation without representation", they had NO representation.
As it is, the CEO of the corporation gets to vote. The employees get to vote. The shareholders get to vote.
With your counter example, there was NO representation.
Nowhere near the same thing.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:29 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 890
Thanks: 2,533
Thanked 1,116 Times in 541 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

And while most real people are limited to a $2,500 donation to political campaigns, the rich guy who runs the corporation really has no limit (even if at the federal level they are prohibited from direct donations to candidates).
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 02:41 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
And while most real people are limited to a $2,500 donation to political campaigns, the rich guy who runs the corporation really has no limit (even if at the federal level they are prohibited from direct donations to candidates).
You mean folks like Jeffery Katzenberg, Matthew Barzun, Peter Buttenwieser, Sandy & Stewart Bainum, Paula & Jim Crown, Frank Brosens, Steven Pajcic, Kelly Meyer or Blair and Cheryl Effron???
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 02:47 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I've heard it said before...
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them...



Funny thing is that nobody has really asked for corporations to be able to "vote".
If Shell Oil Company got one, individual vote for paying taxes, I think a lot of people wouldn't care.

It's the undue influence, above and beyond a simple "vote" which is the problem.

Furthermore, with your example of "no taxation without representation", they had NO representation.
As it is, the CEO of the corporation gets to vote. The employees get to vote. The shareholders get to vote.
With your counter example, there was NO representation.
Nowhere near the same thing.
The issue I have is with the silencing of the corporations. If they are givent he responsibility to pay taxes, then get the rights that come that. They should be protected by the 1st Amendment and have thier voice heard. Since they are not allowed to vote, then they should be allowed a voice. I absolutely DEPLORE the level of influence that they have, but that doesn't give me the right to silence them. I'd back 100% a bill requiring complete transparency in all lobbying communication by anyone from Bob Smith sending a letter to his congressman to UAW representatives accompanying a congressman to Tahiti for two weeks and yakking in her ear the whole time. What I cannot support is to demand that corporations pay taxes, but give them NO voice in the assessment of those taxes. The idea that because the employees have a vote, then that equates to the corporation having a voice is laughable at best and insulting to the intelligence of anyone reading it at worst.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 04:18 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,242
Thanks: 700
Thanked 2,630 Times in 1,920 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
If corporations are "persons", why don't they have the right to vote???
Because a piece of paper, cannot work the buttons on the machine, in the voting booth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
This game goes BOTH ways Billo, if you demand that they not to be given the same rights that people have, then you also have to relieve them of the responsibilities - like taxes.
Not really. We have sales taxes. That's not tied to people, it's tied to products. We have property taxes. Patches of earth is not people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
If corporations are truly "persons", then they should have the right to vote and if they aren't given that right, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Remember that core concept that was the force behind our rebelling against England - NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. I agree that corps. should not be treated as people, but that means that not only are they releived of certain rights, but also certain responsibilities. Take away taxes on corps. and you eliminate a huge part one of our shared pet peeves - corporate influence in DC. You want only to strip them of their rights, but leave their responsibilities. I do think that there are laws that corps. have to conform to, but those laws are about how corps. impact society, not the gov't.
Corporations are "represented" by the license we give them to do business in this country. That's the only right they deserve. But it is conditional.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Billo_Really For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 04:23 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 890
Thanks: 2,533
Thanked 1,116 Times in 541 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
The issue I have is with the silencing of the corporations. If they are givent he responsibility to pay taxes, then get the rights that come that. They should be protected by the 1st Amendment and have thier voice heard. Since they are not allowed to vote, then they should be allowed a voice.
The real people who comprise those corporations already have a voice and a vote. Why should the very few people who direct a corporation have an extra voice?

Or if you still think a corporation should have a voice, shouldn't all the real people who comprise it contribute to that voice rather than just a few?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to skrekk For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 08:13 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
The real people who comprise those corporations already have a voice and a vote. Why should the very few people who direct a corporation have an extra voice?

Or if you still think a corporation should have a voice, shouldn't all the real people who comprise it contribute to that voice rather than just a few?
PAY ATTENTION!!!! I never said that they should, I asked the question of how you can tax a corporation and at the same time take away it's voice. One of the core principals this nation was founded was "No taxation without representation." If you're going to tax a corporation then you should not have the right to silence it's voice. Since they can't vote, then you are left with the unfortunate alternative of giving them access to Congress and that means lobbyists.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-11-2012, 08:15 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: The ridiculous notion of corporate personhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billo_Really View Post
Because a piece of paper, cannot work the buttons on the machine, in the voting booth.

Not really. We have sales taxes. That's not tied to people, it's tied to products. We have property taxes. Patches of earth is not people.

Corporations are "represented" by the license we give them to do business in this country. That's the only right they deserve. But it is conditional.
Sales taxes and property taxes are not paid by the products or land, they are paid by the people who buy the products or own the land. That was sad, Billo.... You gotta try a little harder.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
corporate, notion, personhood, ridiculous, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0