|
Post by Jack Frost on Aug 30, 2012 13:23:07 GMT -5
Opinions:
Should corporations be treated as people? In other words, should they have the same Constitutional rights as humans? Keep in mind that their sole legal purpose is to produce a profit, not to better their communities, or serve their countries, or anything else whatsoever. Also keep in mind that when a corporation violates the law, the corporation can only be fined (a corporation can not be incarcerated).
|
|
|
Post by elephant on Aug 30, 2012 18:11:54 GMT -5
Good question - and to expand upon that - if a corporation is required to pay taxes, shouldn't it be allowed to vote?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Aug 31, 2012 14:13:21 GMT -5
They are actually treated better than humans right now in America. I don't think an inanimate piece of paper (all that a corporation is) should have the same rights (and especially not MORE rights) than an American citizen. That's just my strong opinion... 1) They commit felonies, but can only be fined. 2) They can legally donate more money to political candidates (unlimited) than regular citizens. 3) They are like parasites, once they use up the non-renewable resources of one community, they just pack up and move on to the next (no loyalty to place or creed). 4) They tend to corrupt political systems that we (humans) have to live under, all in the name of profit (which remember, is their sole purpose).
And 5) (To answer your question) Because of tax loopholes, multibillion dollar corporations do NOT pay taxes. For example, GE did not pay U.S. corporate taxes last year, although they made huge profits. So therefore, in my opinion, no, soul-less creatures on a piece of paper should not have the right to vote (although they do not need a vote, because they simply BUY the candidates!).
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Sept 7, 2012 21:34:31 GMT -5
On a surprising note, Elizabeth Warren is taking heat from the Republicans for a speech in which she said corporations are not people. I had started this thread before I knew of her speech (actually I think I started it before the speech was made). Fox News was all over it, because Romney had said that he believed corporations ARE PEOPLE. Well, I completely disagree. Fox had a former McDonald's executive on there saying that corps are people too, although he admits they are also only a legal entity. I'm not sure how they could be both at once?
|
|
|
Post by elephant on Sept 8, 2012 19:38:07 GMT -5
Jack - was trying to remember back to my undergraduate days to explain this better - but Wikipeia probably does a better job than I. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhoodCorporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. However, as interpreted by the the US Supreme Court, the doctrine provides corporations the right to secretly and with some limits - fund political campaigns.
Since at least Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." [2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.Corporations as persons in the United StatesAs a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.[3][4]
The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.
Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since that right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "ppellants [suggested] that the use of the word "taxpayer" several times in the regulations requires that the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[6]
Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a US Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood. [7] The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment. [8]
|
|
|
Post by elephant on Sept 8, 2012 19:44:37 GMT -5
and, I personally believe that corporations should not be taxed on income - it is silly and truly causes all sort of problems in our economic system. Profits are double taxed (by the corporation & the owners or stockholders) and the corporation does NOT have a vote - so it is taxation without representation.
If corporations were not taxed, they would do business as efficiently as possible for their profit without having to worry about tax consequences. Loopholes would not be an issue. Companies (& their owners) should be rewarded (make a profit) for doing a good job and fulfilling a market need - not for having the best tax advisors.
All my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Sept 8, 2012 19:54:44 GMT -5
I simply can't bring myself to believe that a soulless legal entity should be treated better by law and have more rights than a citizen - regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
|
|
|
Post by elephant on Sept 9, 2012 14:50:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you a corporation is treated "better". In most instances it is treated the same or worse. Is certainly a "second class" citizen (if you want to be concerned about the "person vs nonperson" question.
No, a corporation cannot go to jail, but it's officers can (and do) and it can be fined - heavily. OSHA is where (in my profession) I encounter this the most and the fines do relate not over to the severity of the issue, but also the number of employees affected and the size of the company.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Sept 10, 2012 12:50:12 GMT -5
If a corporation violates law, it can not go to jail. If it dumps illegal wastes for example, it may face fines (which in many cases are less than the profit made from the dumping!). A citizen committing the same crime will face prison time. Executives can only face prison time if proven in court that they themselves committed an illegal act. But I am speaking of a corporation acting, corporately. Executives are liable if they commit lawbreaking while acting on behalf of the corporation, but are not liable for the corporation's actions. They can write off expenses, but an average citizen for the most part can not (with a very few exceptions - such as first time home-buyers credit). For example, a corporation can write off it's fuel costs. Sure wish I could do that! The top 10 most profitable U.S. corporations last year, paid less than 9% Federal tax rate. That's less than most PEOPLE I know! That's most definitely less than most of the small business owners I know. Exxon Mobil paid 2 percent. That's less than ME! And you say they are treated worse than me? ? Exxon also spends more on lobbying than almost any other company in the world. They are treated better in the courts. For example, if Monsanto's patented GMO corn from another farm pollutes my corn on my land, common sense would tell you that it would not be MY fault, that their corn has trespassed. But, in fact, the courts held the VICTIMIZED FARMERS responsible when Monsanto sued them for patent infringement! Big corps can not only afford the top counsel in the world (nothing necessarily wrong with that), but they can buy the judges (which is in essence what happened in this case, the judge who ruled as such later resigned the bench in order to take a job with - gasp - Monsanto! The big corps get bailed out by the taxpayers. If I get into the red, where the hell is MY bailout? And citizens are treated better? No, if you ask me, CITIZENS are treated as second-class citizens, whereas CORPORATIONS OWN the government! Don't misunderstand my position. I am not for outlawing corporations as a legal entity, or any such thing. I am however, personally opposed to giant corporatism and globalism. And I am against corporations having special privileges or rights greater than those enjoyed by the average citizen of the United States, or South Carolina. I am also, for the most part, vehemently against unneeded regulation of any sort, against people or businesses. What I am FOR, is local-ism, and small proprietorships. (By, the way, for complete disclosure, let me say that my personal business is indeed incorporated (for tax benefits, and legal ramifications), and that I also own stock in publicly traded corporations, including two Fortune 500 companies. This stock was purchased for me, with dividends reinvesting, when I was a young child. I have never touched it - and actually, I can't touch it until my 30th birthday.)
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Oct 1, 2012 16:40:32 GMT -5
"A corporation, essentially, is a pile of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance. Unlike a person, a corporation does not age. It does not arrive, as most persons finally do, at a realization of the shortness and smallness of human lives; it does not come to see the future as the lifetime of the children and grandchildren of anybody in particular." ~ Wendell Berry
|
|