dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to MyDogHsFleas

Re: SCOTUS can't get anything right lately

Regardless of what that says corporations are not people. They are simply an organization of people. People who probably couldn't even get a clear consensus on what they even want policy wise if a poll was taken of all those with a stake in that organization.

They get all the benefits of a person with none of the accountability that goes along with being one. Oh how great it is to be an elitist!

2 Problems I have with them being declared as a person and able to contribute to the government of the US.

1.) They are made up of share holders who already have every right and the equal opportunity to contribute on their own in their own voice if they so choose. A vast majority of Americans have no idea who they are even invested in, so they have no idea someone is even speaking for them and what it is they are saying on their behalf.

2.) Those shareholders, in almost every single case, are made up of foreign individuals that should have absolutely no say in how our government is ran. However, under the cloak of a "corporation" they get to contribute and influence US government policy that directly effects the citizens of the United States.



footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

said by Skippy25:

They get all the benefits of a person with none of the accountability that goes along with being one.

They get taxed heavily. Swear off taking any corporate tax money and then you can claim the moral high ground and lock them out of politics. But if you're going to tax them, they must be allowed a say.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

So personhood is dependent on paying taxes?

So those in poverty that pay no taxes, don't get to have say?

So if I visit another state or county that I am not a "resident" of, I should not have to pay taxes as I don't get to participate in their voting, right?


WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to footballdude

Really ? Like say General Electric that paid no taxes in 2010 on 14 billion worth of profits but got a 3 billion tax refund ?

»abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-···13224558

Oh, wait, the shareholders are taxed, then. Nope, they use all kinds of loopholes to avoid that.

Bull.



footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

So personhood is dependent on paying taxes?

Other way around. Remember the rallying cry for the American revolution? No taxation without representation. If you want to exclude corporations from government, then quit taking their money.


footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
reply to WernerSchutz

said by WernerSchutz:

Really ? Like say General Electric that paid no taxes in 2010 on 14 billion worth of profits but got a 3 billion tax refund ?

GE is one of the worst examples of politics and pandering. They exploited a number of tax breaks to avoid paying taxes that were created by politicians looking to get their donations. Stop taxing corporations, kick them out of government, and none of those loopholes would have been made into law.

It's funny how many people rant and rave about how evil corporations are and how they should shut up, but they just can't visualize a country that doesn't suck up corporate tax money.
--
Dresden - I work in Accounts Payable.
Random Bad Guy - In what capacity?
Dresden - I make sure everyone gets what's coming to them.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

Regardless of what that says corporations are not people. They are simply an organization of people.

Um, OK.

Sorry for intruding on your constructed reality with actual reality.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

Regardless of what that says corporations are not people. They are simply an organization of people. People who probably couldn't even get a clear consensus on what they even want policy wise if a poll was taken of all those with a stake in that organization.

Not in the eyes of the law which what really counts. Sorry.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to footballdude

Do you realize how far off we as a country are from our "rallying cry"? But we won't get off on that tangent.

The corporation is owned by the stockholders. The net profits belong to the stockholders, so ultimately it is the stockholders that are paying the taxes and thus they have their full representation as required and can execute their voice by voting and contributing individually at their discretion.


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

said by Skippy25:

The corporation is owned by the stockholders. The net profits belong to the stockholders, so ultimately it is the stockholders that are paying the taxes and thus they have their full representation as required and can execute their voice by voting and contributing individually at their discretion.

Yeah, no. The stockholders are people in their own right (whether they are natural persons or corporations) and have their own First Amendment rights. The stockholders exercise control over the corporation by voting their stock. It is the corporation's management that exercises their First Amendment right as a legal person. If the stockholders don't like what they do, they can vote management out. This is 101 legal/business course level stuff.

Look, you can argue about the decision, that's fine. But don't just make stuff up about how corporations have no standing as legal persons.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Spin it how you want clown. The only legal standing they have is one of the absolute most horrible rulings the SC has ever made. You make my entire point for me in your posting.

The individuals that make up the corporation, whether it be management or stock holders are the ones with the 1st amendment right and have every right to execute it. So now, you want those individuals (corporate management) to not only have the right to execute it themselves with the limits imposed on them as true people, but then you want them to be able to execute them a second time without all the silly little restrictions put on them as if they were actual people. At the same time doing so for most likely thousands of others who you know as well as I do have very little choice in voting out any officer in a corporation. That group is still a small elitist group with stock that actually gives them voting rights.

While we are at it, why dont we give them full voting rights and not impose the "vote once" rule on them? Are they not "people" enough for that? How about Social Security, medicare when they hit 62 1/2, or welfare if they arent making money? Oh that's right... the entire intent of this is to only give them people rights in that it serves their greed and ability to manipulate policy. They aren't people enough to get all the other entitlements. How convenient huh?

Lets take this even one step further. How about the next time a corporation is convicted of criminal activity that the entire management team and all stock holders go to jail for it? They are "the people" of this corporation person entity are they not and thus should be held accountable just as any single person would? I would even be willing to give you a concession and say all Executive team members and all voting stock holders instead of EVERY single one person. If they want to be a people, then lets make them a people and stop dancing.



Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1

I believe you are arguing over the wrong case. THIS ruling has absolutely nothing to do with free speech issues for Corporations. It was simply whether or not a Federal law allowing mandatory arbitration trumped state laws prohibiting it, which boils down to whether or not Federal law trumps state, and the Constitution says it does. The court did it's job.


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

said by Camelot One:

I believe you are arguing over the wrong case. THIS ruling has absolutely nothing to do with free speech issues for Corporations.

Yes you're absolutely correct. Skippy tossed in the issue of corporations having First Amendment rights of speech, so I was just trying to educate him.

SKIPPY: first thanks for the name calling, guess you're getting desperate. Look, dude, I give up. How many times can I say, please educate yourself before going off. You are imagining a legal framework for corporations that you might wish to be, but is nothing like the way it is. I've tried to calmly give you the facts (not opinions). One more time: there is a definition of a "legal person" that includes corporations. This is established law and is fundamental to how corporations are treated in the legal system. Look it up, learn, deal with reality. Here's a Wikipedia link which comes up first when you do a simple Google search on "corporation legal person". I quote from the linked article:

quote:
The concept of a legal person is now central to Western law in both common law and civil law countries, but it is also found in virtually every legal system. Corporations are by definition legal persons. (In the United States) because of the First Amendment, Congress can't make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper.

MyDog out.