ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
And when does that make them right?
The Green Lobby has gotten way more handouts and wields far more lobbying power, but Libbos never bitch about that. Why?
Do you know how many people we could buy insurance for with the half-a-billion dollars we lost on Solyndra?
What exactly does"libbos" and the "green lobby" have to do with anything I've said besides being a big red herring? I think partisan bickering is pointless. Just another distraction from the real issue of corporate power no matter which side supports it. Saying both sides support it, just proves all the more power these lobby groups wield in Washington.
Great job of proving my point. You complain of partisan bickering, yet your criticism of corporarions is purely agenda driven.
Well, here in the United States, when they have made their final ruling known. That's how it works.
That's not entirely accurate. There are lots of deductions a corporation can take that an individual can't.
The problem with this is that it assumes that their isn't an equal and opposite force on the other-side. What this does is enable corporations to lobby in the same way that the pro-democrat unions do.
They are "people" for the purposes of income taxation, but not for purposes of representation or rights. Perhaps you can show us the constitutional basis for that idea.
Let me guess, it is okay for a union to speak for all their members as a collective in endorsing a Progressive candidate? But, but....
Yeah, I know how the system works being that I am an American. You didn't answer my question though. I asked when does that make the right? Their final ruling doesn't make their ruling right... it just makes it their ruling. Plessy v Ferguson was a ruling that was NOT right. There are others... Am I more clear now?
In the thousands of effective "loopholes" out here, the percentage that corporations can take and individuals cannot is actually a small number.
They exist, but not in the numbers that many want to think.
I believe they are taxed because incorporation provides substantial benefits that shouldn't come for free.
Originally, corporate "personhood" was a "convenience", allowing them to enter into contracts, etc.
They cannot be arrested, incarcerated, executed. Nor would they want to be. The individuals who make up the corporation are not individually liable for the actions of the corporation.
Corporations can't vote, but want to participate in the political process.
Corporations can't be arrested, but want input into making laws that result in arrest.
Make corporations actual "people", give them one vote. Send them to "prison" if they **** up, making them forfeit all profits/bonuses for the duration of the "sentence". Make them subject to the same taxation as individuals. Same deductions. Same bankruptcy rules
THEN see how much corporations want to be "persons".
Are you talking about loopholes, or deductions?
Difference being that unions represent the collective will of all their members.
Corporations represent the will of the board of directors and stockholders.
The difference is clear.
All or some.
I think you're being willfully obtuse with this question.
You don't think corporations are people, or shouldn't be considered as people. Ok. Got it.
Non-humans cannot vote. I think we can agree on that.
We as a society believe in "no taxation without representation".
Hence, if you are consistent and not a hypocrite, you also advocate that corporations shouldn't pay income taxes since they are not people and cannot vote. Correct?
(Never mind any side or semi-related issues that you might use to distract from the inconvenience of this question. Stick to this scenario.)
I imagine there are union members who would like their sweet deal eliminated so support those who would eliminate unions and send their jobs overseas.
As well as people who work for corporations that fight to prevent unionization and send their jobs overseas.
The former CAN organize his brothers to vote to eliminate their union by supporting anti-union candidates.
The latter can't say **** to the corporation about shipping his job overseas.
See the difference?
Fair distinction. I actually did mean deductions.
It doesn't matter what you think is right or not, or how clear your point. I don't think the ruling on Obamacare was right. However, the Constitution makes it right. I think the Citizens United ruling was right. Now what?
It sounds like an awful lot of angry debate is in our future, like it or not!
Greetings, ocean. :2wave:
American colonists had a distrust and disdain for the British crown's corporate charter which allowed monopolistic control of markets which hurt local enterprise. They showed their contempt by dumping tea into Boston Harbor. Later a whole revolutionary war broke out and a Constitution was put into place shortly after the war that separated powers. Of course, they didn't foresee corporations seizing power through personhood ironically through the Constitution. Now we sit here with the abuse of state power by corporations legally. Those colonist and founding father's must be rolling in their graves.
American colonists had a distrust and disdain for the British crown's corporate charter which allowed monopolistic control of markets which hurt local enterprise. They showed their contempt by dumping tea into Boston Harbor. Later a whole revolutionary war broke out and a Constitution was put into place shortly after the war that separated powers. Of course, they didn't foresee corporations seizing power through personhood ironically through the Constitution. Now we sit here with the abuse of state power by corporations legally. Those colonist and founding father's must be rolling in their graves.
The Colonists rebelled against a large, oppressive government.
the solution of the left for large allegedly oppressive corporations is bigger more oppressive government
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?