• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporations Aren't People

Lutherf said:
If you don't like the political position of a given corporation then feel free to disassociate yourself from them. It's no different than the Democrat party speaking on behalf of Democrats or your congressman speaking on behalf of his constituency.
Click to expand...
Better yet. The Democratic and Republican constituency groups -- DNC, DCCC, NRSC -- that make up the Democratic and Republican Parties are corporations.

You can look them up on Hoovers.

EG,

DNC
NRSC
 
radcen said:
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?
Click to expand...
The owner(s) pay the income taxes not the business and those are human beings.
 
Lutherf said:
If you don't like the political position of a given corporation then feel free to disassociate yourself from them. It's no different than the Democrat party speaking on behalf of Democrats or your congressman speaking on behalf of his constituency.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with my OP. Disassociating would not solve the problem now or in the future.
 
Bob N said:
The owner(s) pay the income taxes not the business and those are human beings.
Click to expand...

No, the corporations pay the income taxes; the owners and employees are taxed separately.

So, are they properly "people" when they're taxed, but not so for anything else? Sure seems like it.
 
Fisher said:
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....
Click to expand...
As long as they all agreed on the issue or candidate and the matter stayed within the collective and did not affect or try to alter the decision process of others outside the collective than yes. But I would recognize them as being a collective than as one human being.
 
ocean515 said:
So you believe Trusts, Foundations, and Associations should not have a 1st Amendment right to support an agenda, or push for a political result?
Click to expand...
As long as it stayed inside the collective and didn't try to alter other people's beliefs by stating that they're talking for them -- and they all agreed 100%. Still I look at them as a collective.
 
Bob N said:
The owner(s) pay the income taxes not the business and those are human beings.
Click to expand...
Technically, no. You'd have had to have a business or law degree to have been taught this.

If the business is incorporated, the corporation person is responsible for the income tax. The owner(s) have no liabilities. The owners(s) pay no income tax. The corporate person does.

HOWEVER, if the corporation becomes insolvent, THEN the corporation "dies" and the owner(s) assume the income tax and other financial liabilities to the degree of their investment. That's to say, the stock holders ("owners") lose all of their invested money, because it goes towards paying back the dead corporation's debt.

If the business is NOT incorporated, let's say it's a sole proprietorship or a partnership, no corporate person exist. The business and its owners are the same entity. The owner(s) pay the income taxes on their own individual income taxes. And if the company become insolvent, the IRS or the bank can go after the owner in his entirty. The owner(s) lose not only their invested money, but their houses and retirement savings too.
 
radcen said:
Business owners and their accountants all over the country will be surprised to hear this.
Click to expand...
Oops! Maybe I left out stockholders and what they receive once everything is paid.
 
Bob N said:
As long as they all agreed on the issue or candidate and the matter stayed within the collective and did not affect or try to alter the decision process of others outside the collective than yes. But I would recognize them as being a collective than as one human being.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous standard. If you get more than 3 people in a room odds are they aren't all going to agree on what to have for lunch much less any political agenda.
 
Bob N said:
As long as they all agreed on the issue or candidate and the matter stayed within the collective and did not affect or try to alter the decision process of others outside the collective than yes. But I would recognize them as being a collective than as one human being.
Click to expand...

:lamo So when a union endorses a candidate, they are not trying to influence the decision process for non-members :wow::2rofll:
 
Bob N said:
As long as it stayed inside the collective and didn't try to alter other people's beliefs by stating that they're talking for them -- and they all agreed 100%. Still I look at them as a collective.
Click to expand...

So you would support restrictions on groups like American Progress, or Open Society Institute, as well as the Tides Foundation, or Annenberg Foundation. No political posturing, no political agenda support allowed.
 
brothern said:
If the business is incorporated, the corporation person is responsible for the income tax. The owner(s) have no liabilities. The owners(s) pay no income tax. The corporate person does.

HOWEVER, if the corporation becomes insolvent, THEN the corporation "dies" and the owner(s) assume the income tax and other financial liabilities to the degree of their investment. That's to say, the stock holders ("owners") lose all of their invested money, because it goes towards paying back the dead corporation's debt.

If the business is NOT incorporated, let's say it's a sole proprietorship or a partnership, no corporate person exist. The business and its owners are the same entity. The owner(s) pay the income taxes on their own individual income taxes. And if the company become insolvent, the IRS or the bank can go after the owner in his entirty. The owner(s) lose not only their invested money, but their houses and retirement savings too.
Click to expand...
Wow! I'm legally a person. And if owners are people -- which I presume them to be -- than why can't I too slide out of not paying taxes? Does not one person have the same rights as others? :roll:
 
There are some issues with treating or expecting corporations to behave like people.
Question: You recently said that someone's referring to big banks as 'sociopathic' was perhaps 'over the top'. But have you seen the excellent 2004 Canadian documentary, The Corporation? If not, you should.

Doesn't it make a convincing case that corporate "persons" are precisely that -- they exhibit the key features of sociopaths? ("No soul to save, no body to incarcerate"; "Like a shark is a killing machine, a corporation is an externalizing machine", indifferent to criminal law, beyond the control of nation-states, etc.) If this is true, are we doomed?

Paul Solman: I HAVE seen "The Corporation," which I found -- how do I put this? -- a bit "over the top." That said, there are fascinating issues with regard to the legal birth of a business as a "person" with equal rights protection under the Fourteenth Amendment: It may have been something of a mistake. You can read more online by Googling the key case: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886). As to "sociopath," well, here's the Dictionary.com definition: "a person...whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Is that true of all corporations, do you think?
Click to expand...
Is It Fair to Describe Corporations as Sociopaths? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS

This is a really interesting and thought provoking documentary surrounding this issue of corporation's person-hood legal status.

Is a corporation a person? Obviously No.
Is it easier to cast a corporation as a person for the sake of legal obligations and actions? Yes.

If you don't do this, you'd have to re-write nearly duplicate statues specific for the non-person status of corporations. That's just way too much overhead. Better to apply the simplification, even though it's at odds with reality in some instances.
 
Bob N said:
The owner(s) pay the income taxes not the business and those are human beings.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right.

A C corporation pays taxes at the corporate level while subchapter S corporations pay taxes at the shareholder level. If a corporation offers shares of stock to be traded publicly then it must be a C corp.
 
ocean515 said:
So you would support restrictions on groups like American Progress, or Open Society Institute, as well as the Tides Foundation, or Annenberg Foundation. No political posturing, no political agenda support allowed.
Click to expand...
As long as any collective is not trying to say something that is trying to put words in my moth than they're fine.
 
Lutherf said:
That's a ridiculous standard. If you get more than 3 people in a room odds are they aren't all going to agree on what to have for lunch much less any political agenda.
Click to expand...
Exactly Luther. Chances are even two people are not going to agree with each other, so why should one person automatically speak for the other? And even if they all agreed, I would still consider it a collective decision and not a decision of one.
 
Bob N said:
As long as any collective is not trying to say something that is trying to put words in my moth than they're fine.
Click to expand...

So one dissenting voice is all that it takes? I think that would effectively silence all, don't you?.
 
Bob N said:
Wow! I'm legally a person. And if owners are people -- which I presume them to be -- than why can't I too slide out of not paying taxes? Does not one person have the same rights as others? :roll:
Click to expand...



Taxsituations.jpg

First scenario is you right now. You pay tax on your salary.

Second scenario is the corporation and its owner. Both the corporate person and its owner(s) pay taxes. The corporation's after-tax income is your salary. You owning the corporation makes it so that the income is taxed twice.

Third scenario is what you are thinking, where you're not paying taxes on your income coming from your corporation. That's illegal and would end you up in prison.


EDIT: In before all the "WHAT!?!?" Yes, I know I took liberities with that explanation. I'm not going to try to detail the exact differences between owners' withdrawals, wages, dividends, etc. and how they're all taxed similarly and different from each other. That'd take flipping days.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
So one dissenting voice is all that it takes? I think that would effectively silence all, don't you?.
Click to expand...
It depends on the rules of a specific collective; one dissenting vote does not ruin a presidential election.

I just do not like some people (or one person for that matter.) coming out and saying what Bob believes would be the best choice for a presidential candidate and no one takes the time to see if that statement is true. :roll:
 
Bob N said:
It depends on the rules of a specific collective; one dissenting vote does not ruin a presidential election.

I just do not like some people (or one person for that matter.) coming out and saying what Bob believes would be the best choice for a presidential candidate and no one takes the time to see if that statement is true. :roll:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, such a thing has been going on long before Citizens United.
 
Bob N said:
Exactly Luther. Chances are even two people are not going to agree with each other, so why should one person automatically speak for the other? And even if they all agreed, I would still consider it a collective decision and not a decision of one.
Click to expand...

The difference is that if you organize a group for a given purpose and appoint a spokesman for that group then it's assumed that all members of that group are a party to whatever message the group presents. Individual members of the group are free to disagree or disassociate themselves but they have still agreed to appoint the spokesman.
 
All businesses, clubs, groups, organizations, charities and churches all have different rights and obligations than individuals under the law. Which I think is appropriate for their existence, though corporations have too much control over regulations and legislation thru lobbying and campaign contributions.

Mega-Intl-Corporations have become a cover like the gov for their operators to do many misdeeds. They say they're fair and in the name of progress we can't live without them, when in truth they've become a cancer and leech. Anything too big to fail has too much power in our society.

All that they do could be done better by a handful of smaller companies competing for our business.
 
Henrin said:
Are the people that run the corporation people? Do they not have the right to use their property in the way they see fit, to associate with who they desire, and provide services in the way they see fit? Oh right, for some reason they are lesser beings. Funny how that works. I find liberals are entirely missing the point. In order to protect the rights of people businesses can not be the slaves of the population as a whole.
Click to expand...

The whole point of corporations is to protect people associated with a corporation from being held responsible for their actions. I oppose the corporate structure, to make those individuals equal with the rest of us, not privileged as they currently are.
 
Bob N said:
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Since when does a corporation speak for anyone collectively? Just because someone is employed by a corporation and the corporation decides to contribute - to whomever or to whatever - does not mean such a contribution is in any way on your behalf.

Consider too that roughly 87% of all corporations in this nation employ less than 20 employees - which means they're small businesses, most likely owned by one person. If the owner of a business decides to contribute some of his / her business' money to whomever or whatever, for whatever reason, that's their business - not yours.

So the premise that "corporations speak for its employees" is pure bunk. They don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom