Ghogiel Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Corporations can't vote.Made my entire point right here, thanks. If they can't vote, then they shouldn't be getting taxed either because that effectively means they have no real representation. So stop begrudging them the one avenue they actually DO have legally unless you're willing to back up your stance in a consistent manner. Either stop taxing them, or give them proper representation.They are people and yet they can't vote? Oh the hypocrisy. So instead they are allowed to buy politicians. Makes your and other real peoples actual vote have less meaningful power than these non voting 'people'. I shouldn't be getting taxed because I have no real representation Also taxes = lol.http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/12/14/29-companies-that-paid-millions-for-lobbying-and-didnt-pay-taxes/ Edited April 20, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Taxation of businesses goes all the way back to the issuing of Royal Charters, it has been the customary practice of funding the state by paying for the privilege of being able to conduct business. Being that we are based on English Constitutional formats and principles it is a relatively simple carry over of practice. It was a somewhat rhetorical question btw. I was attempting to make a point, which it appears some people are willfully ignoring for whatever reason. Just curious do you propose that corporations do not have the right for legal redress because they are corporations?Nope, I was posing this question to make my point since Ghogiel, myrmaad, and marharth seem to be of the opinion that selectively double dipping with corporations is perfectly fine. Either we allow them all the rights of a legally distinct entity or we don't. Selectively choosing which ones apply to them and which ones don't reeks of certain other practices the US should be less than proud of. Just how many votes should a corporation have.... one..one hundred?...one thousand?...one per employee?The law treats each corporation as a single distinct legal entity, so if you're going to enforce the will of tax law on them, then they should get one vote each. I think perhaps you may have misunderstood what I've been trying to drive home here, but I'm pretty sure the other 3 know precisely why I'm making this point and they just don't want to admit to it. Especially considering the whole thing derives from taxation without representation. Apparently a whole lot of people think it's perfectly ok to take their money in taxes, but think it's just plain slimy when they object and begin sending lobbyists to Congress in order to change tax law. That's all I've been after trying to point out here. I don't think it's a huge leap considering Citizens United even acknowledged corporations have a right to free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 The law treats each corporation as a single distinct legal entity, so if you're going to enforce the will of tax law on them, then they should get one vote each.I think perhaps you may have misunderstood what I've been trying to drive home here, but I'm pretty sure the other 3 know precisely why I'm making this point and they just don't want to admit to it. Especially considering the whole thing derives from taxation without representation.Apparently a whole lot of people think it's perfectly ok to take their money in taxes, but think it's just plain slimy when they object and begin sending lobbyists to Congress in order to change tax law. That's all I've been after trying to point out here. I don't think it's a huge leap considering Citizens United even acknowledged corporations have a right to free speech. OK, then it seems that I missed the devil's advocacy that was part of your interplay with the 'et al'.I'm on board with all your views with the exception of giving the Corps a vote, that one is too much of a stretch for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 When a corporation wants to exercise free speech, then I would be interested to hear it's voice. As soon asks for rights, I'm willing to accept that they deserve them. Now if they want to vote, I don't see what the problem would be, any sentient being should be granted rights. As for willing ignoring the point, taxes lol http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/12/14/29-companies-that-paid-millions-for-lobbying-and-didnt-pay-taxes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Perhaps 3/5 of a vote? /kidding. No, it's not double dipping because the corporation is amassing income aside and apart from the income each of the "representiative individuals" of the corporation is getting. Corporations are not human entities, and they are allowed to exist by the grace of -- what I'll temporarily for this case only -- term a "representative government" - given that government is made up of representative individuals as well. They are allowed to exist for the purpose of protecting individuals. They are not humans, they are human constructs. I'm not certain they should be granted first amendment speech, but they certainly should be allowed to advertise for the purpose selling their goods or services. At that point, I don't think it's suitable for them to compete with the voices of individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 Perhaps 3/5 of a vote? /kidding. The inference to what class of people were 3/5 of a person was not lost on me. Such a droll concept Myr ... Corporate slaves. :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 No, it's not double dipping because the corporation is amassing income aside and apart from the income each of the "representiative individuals" of the corporation is getting.I fail to see how. People working for said corporation are getting paid from the funds generated by them. Taxing the corporate income before taking another bite by taxing the individual income is most certainly a double dip. Not to mention the 3rd bite taken out of someone with lots of money who has the misfortune of doing nothing more than dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 No, it's not double dipping because the corporation is amassing income aside and apart from the income each of the "representiative individuals" of the corporation is getting.I fail to see how. People working for said corporation are getting paid from the funds generated by them. Taxing the corporate income before taking another bite by taxing the individual income is most certainly a double dip. Not to mention the 3rd bite taken out of someone with lots of money who has the misfortune of doing nothing more than dying. Expenses, including payroll.... are subtracting from gross income before taxes are computed....... Corporations are taxed on profit, profit is what's left after ALL expenses (including wages) are paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Perhaps 3/5 of a vote? /kidding. The inference to what class of people were 3/5 of a person was not lost on me. Such a droll concept Myr ... Corporate slaves. :whistling: It wasn't 3/5ths of a vote, it was slaves being counted 3/5 of a person. The thing lost on most people today is that them being counted 3/5 was MUCH better then them being counted as a whole person. If they had been counted as a whole person the south would have had more Representative in the House that could vote to keep those people enslaved. It would have been better if they were not counted at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 It was a joke. Way to go on the long reach it took to misunderstand it though. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now