Want to see a corporation deny it's own personhood?

[Union Yes]

Suggest taxing it the same as taxing a person's income and watch corporations deny their personhood.

Just sayin.

[Vincardog]

1. I'm down with that

[Frosty1]

2. By Jove I think you've got it!

[Auggie]

3. +1

[KansDem]

I think you're on to something...

I wonder if there are tax breaks the corporations take that the average Joe can't?

[ljm2002]

6. Yes, there are tax breaks for corporations...

...that are not there for the average Joe or Jane.

For example, corporations get to subtract operating expenses, before calculating income.

So for you and me, that could mean subtracting our mortgage or rent payment, our food and clothing, our gas and automobile maintenance expenses, before determining our income for tax purposes.

So I'd say that counts as unequal protection.

[Sgent]

12. Average Joe or Jane

can deduct all expenses incurred for production of income (generally) if they are operating a business such as a sole proprietorship, etc.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I know that (I'm a sole proprietor), but most people don't know that

They think that corporations are taxed just like they are, so they believe the line about lowering corporate taxes to inspire them to hire more people.

They don't know that hiring people in itself reduces a company's taxes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. Nonetheless, it is unequal protection, because arguably the corporation's

entire reason for existence is to produce income - if they are to be treated equally, then people should also be considered in the same way - after all, we cannot produce income if we are homeless, if we are hungry, if we are ill, and such things as children and vehicles incur a negative cash flow and therefore should be deducted, just as a corporation deducts those overhead items which affect their cash flow. In very real terms, EVERYONE operates himself as a sole-proprietor business - only for the majority of us that business is service, providing our labor to others.

[patrice]

74. I wish we could dig a little deeper into what cognitive assumptions you have to make in order to

differentiate the two and maintain the status quo.

Just brainstorming here:
- Individuals are only individuals.
- Corporations are collectives of individuals, so they are collectives AND individuals, ergo individuals are also collectives, thus negating my first premise.
- As a collective itself, a state has a vested interest in the success of corporations.
- The U.S. Constitution aside, as a collective, a state has a vested interest in only the life of the individual.
- There's also something in that about the different assumptions that go into the production (and definition) of income in order to make it possible for ONLY corporations to write off the wherewithal by means of which to do so, but I'm a little too foggy to see what that is just right now.

Other assumptions, anyone . . . . ?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Well, you can stop wondering.

[zbdent]

4. renounce their ties to foreign nations ...

and force them to hire U.S. citizens, as opposed to having their factories on foreign soil ...

[Union Yes]

14. +1 ... nt

[safeinOhio]

5. Might the 14th Amendment work?

[Union Yes]

9. Yes indeed it will. It authorizes government to levy income tax on a person's incomes.

I know that's an oversimplified answer but it's the truth also.

:fistbump:

[alp227]

50. Erhm...isn't the tax amendment the 16th? n/t

[Union Yes]

60. Yup my mistake. nt

[Union Yes]

88. I was wrong when I replied to you. I confused the 14th with the 16th amendment..

anyway..

You bring up a valid point. Yes I do believe the 14th Amendment would and should apply to this.

Sorry for the late reply.

Thanks for adding that valid point!

:fistbump:

[Mimosa]

7. Perfect logic is a beautiful thing. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

8. that is bloody brilliant!! n/t

[Kingofalldems]

10. Excellent job!

[Sgent]

11. They would love it

assuming they are taxed as sole proprietors, they would avoid double taxation, have lower tax rates, etc. Plus they wouldn't lose their current deductions which are all available for individuals as well.

[wolfgangmo]

20. A few problems with that.

First they are not sole proprietors - they have thousands of stockholds/owner. So they can't be sole proprietorships.

Second, they would lose the limited liability that protects investors assets from lawsuits and losses. If you knew that you could lose your house because you were in a mutual fund (thus an investor/owner of such a company) would you keep your assets in any fund?

So they would NOT reclassify themselves as sole proprietorships. They couldn't.

[Echo In Light]

13. K&R

[Blue_Tires]

15. i'd love to see it proposed...

[Juche]

16. That'd be awesome

That and the death penalty.

Imagine if a company was disbanded the second it committed a capital crime (covering up health risks of their products for example).

[wolfgangmo]

23. Better yet.

How about if the top management, majority investors, and board of directors had to serve the sentance for the corporation?

[xchrom]

17. Recommend

[cascadiance]

18. We should have had only prop 66 in Oregon... And made 66 and income tax apply to corporations!

Would have saved money by having one less proposition, and would have gotten the state more revenue too...

[wolfgangmo]

19. poster bows down in worhip of OP.

YES.

Coud this be the thin edge of the wedge that we can drive like a stake into the hearts of corporations that are sucking the life's blood from our country and communitees?

Bravo. I am forwarding this to everyone I know.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

21. How to eliminate "Money as speech:"

All Americans have an equal right to free speech. Money is speech, therefore wealth must be redistributed. Bam.

[bik0]

22. Actually - the corporate rate is HIGHER than the personal rate

They do get a slew of tax deductions but individuals do too.

Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%


http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

[wolfgangmo]

24. Deducation aside...

They get to deduct their operating expenses from their income. It would be like you or I decucting our vehicle, mortgage, groceries, etc. expenses before we pay taxes and is the main reason that corps pay a pittance compared to their income.

And the rates are a joke if taken in context of history. At no time in our history until recently have we lowered the tax rates on corps/the rich when in a time of war. They get all the gunboats they need to force their business on other countries and they don't have to pay for it.

[bik0]

26. What rate do you want corporations to pay?

[BeFree]

28. heh

Went right over yur head, eh? Or just plain denial?

The deductions for corporations for operating expenses.

The deductions for corporations for operating expenses.

The deductions for corporations for operating expenses.

Comparing the two, as you did, rates you as, well, a newbie, maybe?

[bik0]

69. Are you suggesting there should be no deductions for expenses?

[BeFree]

70. There are few

Individuals can not deduct all expenses.

Actually, what would be fair would be for individuals to deduct all expenses.
Food, gas, shelter.... take all those expenses right off the top and tax whatever is left. I like it.

That is how corporations are taxed.
You think corporations should be treated better than people?

[bik0]

80. Corporations are people when you get down to it.

The people who work there and the shareholders.

Corporations create goods and services which are taxed when sold. Individuals do not. The key word is "create". The question then is do we treat "creativity" different than "work". I believe it would be better to encourage creativity since creativity has a multiplier effect that work does not. That multiplier effect expands jobs and taxes through sales tax and income taxes of those who work for the corporation. Yes - I would treat the corporation different than the individual.

And I don't think it's a good idea for an individual to deduct ALL expenses. There would be virtually no income tax left to be paid. You would probably never put money away for savings since spending it reduces taxes. I don't think we want to go down a road where a billionaire gets a tax deduction when he buys a $5M yacht.

I'm not saying don't tax the corporations - but the tax should be uniform and consistent and without loopholes. Unfortunately congress has passed so many tax breaks in order to manipulate and encourage different sectors of the economy that it's just become a big mess. And a lot of those tax breaks were political favors to create jobs in congressional districts to help the incumbent get re-elected. We need to just dump the tax code altogether and go to a VAT and national sales tax IMO.

[BeFree]

83. Yeah well

What you propose is about where we are.
And people are being taxed to death and billionaires get a tax break when they buy yachts.

The system is not fair, yet you propose we keep it that way.
Why you are anti-people and pro corporation is a mystery.

[bik0]

91. I am pro-people AND pro-corporation...

Does being pro-corporation mean you're anti-people? People are people and corporations are people. I am for both.

I'm against tax breaks for political favors and campaign contributions. I'm against CEO's making 500X more than the lowest paid worker in a corporation. I'm against the buddy system of corporate governance where CEO's populate the BOD with friends and cronies and vote themselves huge salaries and stock options.

Look at the Microsoft corporation...

Bill Gates helped to create more wealth on this planet than anyone in history. Most of the products you buy are planned, designed, manufactured, shipped, stored, tracked, advertised, marketed, sold and delivered using computers running his operating system, productivity software and communications software. He is a flat out genius and the capitalist system has rewarded him well. He has also given more to charity than anyone on this planet. His business methods were not the most ethical but that's another issue. If there wasn't an incentive to make a profit we may be still using an abacus and driving around in horse drawn carts.

Corporations are competing, their sole goal is to provide products and service the masses want and need. If they don't then they go broke. The individual doesn't buy stuff to compete or to make other's lives more enjoyable or comfortable. A person's expenses are solely for their own individual needs or enjoyment. That's the big difference.

[dem mba]

84. let's stop and think for a sec

there are about 150M people in the work force. Now you want all of those people to what, deduct their living expenses and submit that information to the IRS. You really think that wouldn't be ripe for fraud and abuse? Public corporations are audited frequently, individuals are not, or at least, should not be. Everyone I know defrauded the commuter reimbursement program my old job had, and that only provided a modest tax break.

You're proposing a cure far worse than the disease.

[BeFree]

86. Nah

Just saying that there should be equality in the taxing schemes.

I figured folks could see that it was 'devils advocate' rhetoric making the point that the different taxing schemes were in no way equal.

I propose that corps are taxed heavier than people, actually.
People create and produce, corps are just profit skimming constructions.

[dem mba]

90. hey I'm with you

corps are getting away with murder in many respects and the new campaign finance overturn is horrible. But at the same time, the constant "corporations are always evil" mantra on this board is pretty juvenile.

Corps make the computers, T1 cables, telecommunications infrastructure, software and all of the equipment and parts that allow us to get on DU and bitch about why corporations suck so bad. Yea, corporations are "evil", but if we just had small businesses a laptop would cost about $50K because there would be no economies of scale, no cheap manufacturing overseas, no innovation, no nothing. Hell, we might still have computers the size of gymnasiums if it wasn't for inventors DRIVEN TO INNOVATE BY THE POTENTIAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN. At the end of the day, people who hate on corporations are really just hating on human nature.

yea corporations make profits. It's called incentive. You entice investors to finance a company that will produce goods or services in some manner better than their existing competitors. Depending on the sector of the market, this can provide a real and legitimate benefit to consumers.

[BeFree]

92. Sure

Corps do have their place, indeed.

The problem is some corps get away with murder.
And/or paying their fair share.
There are better corps and we should support those and take down the rest.
Those taken down will be replaced with others in due time, so we have nothing to lose by chopping them down with taxes, or whatever.

[dem mba]

95. ha, so in that sense corps are a lot like people

some are good, some are bad. Some get away with murder, while some seem to have a real moral code.

It's the true role of government to regulate these corporations and make sure there is a level playing field. I think a lot of posters here should hate the game, not the player. If the laws are not ensuring real competition, of course corporations will take advantage. Same thing with individuals in the right context.

[Union Yes]

34. Double what they pay now. And I'll make no apology for that view. nt

[LuckyLib]

35. That will just BEGIN to be fair. Corporate welfare has been endemic

for decades, and we have all suffered for it.

[Union Yes]

36. Darn right. I agree 100%! nt

[patrice]

77. +++~

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

75. Um...

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

[Union Yes]

89. Thanks for the link!

bm'd for future reference.

:fistbump:

[Bennyboy]

25. Sounds like a plan.....

One that the corporation/person will be able to see that never comes to fruition...

[Capn Sunshine]

27. and why not?

Part of the resaon we're in this mess today is corporations have shifted their fair share of the tax burden since 1950. Although taxes paid by corporations, measured as a share of the economy, rose modestly during the boom years of the 1990s, they remained sharply lower even in the boom years than in previous decades. According to OMB http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1311">historical data, corporate taxes averaged 2 percent of GDP in the 1990s. That represented only about two-fifths of their share of GDP in the 1950s, half of their share in the 1960s, and three-quarters of their share in the 1970s.

And whose burden has increased during this same period? Middle class taxpayers.

[JHB]

47. My main problem with the idea is...

...in how to ensure ALL corporations pay the taxes. Some multinationals are able to structure their pricing of different operations in different parts of the world, and take advantage of tax laws here and in other countries that they've essentially bribed to favor them, to pay little or no taxes, or even get money back despite huge profits. Simply raising the rates can backfire if it puts more burden on smaller companies that can't pull these tricks but leaves the big guys still riding free by simply shuffling their paperwork again.

The whole thing needs to be overhauled to get rid of the leagalized dodges that are a factor in the overall declining share of the corporate tax burden.

[Capn Sunshine]

96. Easy fix

incorporated in another country? Doing business here? Here's your import tax.

[midnight]

29. k&R

Can you imagine the tax on billions of dollars for kraft?

[defendandprotect]

30. Right ... they're lower than individual rates -- but I still want to see birth certificates -- !!

[BrklynLiberal]

31. n idea that is definitely worth exploring.

[me b zola]

32. K&R

[Mithreal]

33. Super persons don't need to pay no stinking taxes.

They are doing god's work. You should be happy and paying them taxes.

[The_Commonist]

37. Some smart lawyer needs to get right on this.

[rambler_american]

38. Can corporations deduct

the cost of buying senators? Presidents? It is clearly one of the costs of doing business. Just askin'.

[Vidar]

39. K&R.

[rambler_american]

40. K&R

:kick:

[barbtries]

41. i had a similar idea

when corporations break the law, put them in "jail" - force them to forego business for the length of the sentence. if they want the rights of a person let them suffer the consequences when they screw up.

[Union Yes]

42. You were and still are 100% correct with your idea.

:fistbump:

[patrice]

43. -OR- Can we non-corporate persons bring suits for Discrimination, since we are taxed more heavily th

an corporations?

[Cleita]

45. I wonder if a good class action attorney could pull it off. It could make things

interesting.

[patrice]

76. In light of some the BS that gets pulled off as "class action", this would be a REAL redemption of

that particular tool.

Please see my post up-thread about assumptions that maintain this discrimination between corporations and individuals.

:hi: . . . gotta go shovel the front steps; there's a bunch of cold white stuff on them!! :-(

[Cleita]

44. Yep, they should have to pay taxes on their gross receipts or income before

net income or expenses come in just like we do on our individual taxes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. Aw, I'd give them a little $5500 deduction like we get

:evilgrin:

[lib_wit_it]

46. I agree with those who recognize this as the most important issue of our nation, as it affects

everything else. It has got to be tackled!

[proReality]

48. K&R n/t

[Billsmile]

49. The Fallacy of Reification

This terminology should be picked up by those in the "corporate personhood" argument.

[RedCloud]

51. And take meal breaks, vacation, see the kids, etc.

[alp227]

52. Selective equal rights

The corporate apologists will be howling if this tax proposal came up, saying that the 16th Amendment doesn't really apply because...corporations are not human! (There are conservatives who do really advocate repealing the 16th.) Taxes are really bad for business, aren't they?

That's why I support the constitutional amendment designating people as people and corporations as corporations.

[Bennyboy]

53. Watch this movie......THE CORPORATION

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118169/the-corporation

[Billsmile]

55. The Corporation

Why should (artificially created) psychopaths be given almost unlimited political power?

[Union Yes]

63. Too funny but I just received it from netflix yesterday on dvd. gonna watch it tonight.

Thanks for the link. I BM'd for future referance and am forwarding that link to all my friends.

Peace.

[go west young man]

54. Sounds good to me. They shouldn't have it both ways.

[Union Yes]

65. They want all the power and control without having to pay their fair share. Screw them. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Love it!

I've spent a lot of time explaining to right-wingers that businesses and humans are taxed differently and that businesses actually have it easier, but it's like talking to a brick wall.

GE pays 35% on all its earnings except $5500. :rofl:

[Union Yes]

59. A $5500 exemption for corporations is an awesome idea.

So hilarious too. I'd love to see them bastards have to deal with a 35% rate with only a $5500 exemption. :rofl:

Thanks for adding.

:fistbump:

[donheld]

61. Grand Idea

[applegrove]

62. Good point.

[earcandle]

66. Great Idea!

Who is in charge of that idea? 

[OneBlueSky]

67. or suggest that corporations have limited lifespans similar to human lifespans . . .

say 100 years, to be a tad generous . . . after a century in business, the corporation must die -- liquidate all of its assets, pay inheritance taxes, go completely out of business . . . proceeds from the liquidation are divided proportionately among the shareholders, and the corporation becomes nothing but a memory . . .

if persons have limited lifespans, and corporations are persons, then doesn't it make sense that corporations should die, just like real persons do? . . .

[secondwind]

68. why didn't we think of this before we argued before SCOTUS? K&R

[Union Yes]

71. Elected Pols and their undying loyalty to corporations..

make them plug their ears and refuse to listen to legal experts, economists, and Pol's voter constituencies.

Point is they know how damaging corporate personhood is to democracy and they do nothing to fix the problem.

They know but do nothing to change the highly corrupt system that is our current democracy.

CP was talked about quite abit here on DU. Many of us DU'ers have made many phonecalls to our Dem 'leaders' expressing our outrage against CP. Fallen largely on unhearing and uncaring ears.

Many have tried to warn elected Pols. They refuse to listen.

Up until recently at least. It seems like many elected Pols are now pulling their heads out of their asses after the Mass election debacle and the USSC decision. Perhaps, Dems will now start listening.

That's my hope anyway.

Hope is all I got left.

Peace
UY

[Christa]

72. K & Highly rec'd nt

[wordpix]

78. great idea! Of course, they will deny they're making any money with their "creative" accounting

[Kalyke]

79. Or how about shutting them down (can't really incarcerate a building)

every time someone dies from a product they produce because it was cheaper not to research the effects of said product?

[Rozlee]

81. OK, time for a little comic relief. Is it straight or gay marriage when corporations merge?

When corporations merge, do they become too fat to have just one seat on an airplane? Seriously, if corporations want to be treated as persons, they need to abide by the same set of rules that people do when they come together from one entity to a family unit. Right now, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws, so they are able to merge and hold us under their thumbs. Banks and other businesses are "too big too fail." In any society, anyone two willing individuals (except gays) can marry. We're not willing. We're being raped. Repeal all anti-trust laws against insurance companies. Break down the banks that are too big to fail. In our human neighborhood, they are disrupting our lives, and need to be punished for doing so.

[DisgustedInMN]

82. Yep. n/t

[samsingh]

85. brilliant

[4dsc]

87. So how do we start this movement??

Anyone have any ideas on how we can this message to the people??

[Yurovsky]

94. Just "agree" that corporations are people...

and ask Americans if a union electrician making $80k a year has to pay 36% income tax, then surely a company making $50 billion a year can kick in at least 40%.

Start from there and move the rate up until you balance the budget. It ain't rocket science, you just gotta message it to the people in a manner that makes sense and shows how unfair things are at present.

You want to be a "person" you gotta pay personal income tax. Period.

[bik0]

98. How can you say they are the same?

Corporations are a group of people - employees and shareholders who are collectively focused on the goal of producing goods or services, in competition with other corporations, that the mass population wants or needs. If the corporation fails to provide value, i.e. a superior product at a competitive price, then the corporation will eventually cease to exist. A corporation's survival is dependent on the public's acceptance of goods and services in terms of sales combined with how well they control their expenses.

An individual isn't in competition. An individual's expenses are solely for their own individual needs and enjoyment. An individual's survival isn't dependent on what value they provide to others.

[whatchamacallit]

93. Love it! (nt)

[B Calm]

97. Good suggestion! It's time for them to start paying their fair share!!