• 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

I know, but I'm having a bit of fun while waiting for my granddaughter to arrive with her parents... :mrgreen:

See, this is why I don't ever go into the Economics forum. It'd be nice if there were some prerequisites or competency tests to post there. Otherwise, you get people just throwing out ridiculous opinion and absurd levels of rhetoric.
 
See, this is why I don't ever go into the Economics forum. It'd be nice if there were some prerequisites or competency tests to post there. Otherwise, you get people just throwing out ridiculous opinion and absurd levels of rhetoric.

My congressperson has an economics degree form the same school from which I graduated, but he failed to update his thinking in the years after graduation...
 
See, this is why I don't ever go into the Economics forum. It'd be nice if there were some prerequisites or competency tests to post there. Otherwise, you get people just throwing out ridiculous opinion and absurd levels of rhetoric.

Says the corporate shrill.
 
Those examples are not that of dodging any more than the individual that takes advantage of the tax code as written...

Hey, I've said several times in this thread that these corporations can do this because of lobbying efforts.
 
Hey, I've said several times in this thread that these corporations can do this because of lobbying efforts.

Why should we tax corporations to begin with if we want them to employ people so that they might pay income taxes?
 
BS. Feel free to prove he is correct. I'll wait. I've backed up all my points.

I've not noticed a point you have made, but I have noticed your reliance on using the points others have attempted to make with your links...
 

None of those years used are current, but let's still have some fun.

Bank of America
Had $17.2 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Reported it would owe $4.3 billion in U.S. taxes if profits are brought home.

Key word - offshore. As mentioned later in the sentence, taxes are paid when money repatriates.

Citigroup
Had $42.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Reported it would owe $11.5 billion in U.S. taxes if profits are brought home.

See above.

ExxonMobil
Paid just a 15% federal income tax rate from 2010-2012, less than half the official 35% corporate tax rate – a tax subsidy of $6.2 billion. Had $43 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.

Energy companies always get subsidies. That's why you pay 3 bucks a gallon and not 8. I wouldn't complain too much. Also, they repatriated quite a bit of overseas treasury money, which is why their current effective tax rate is 39% (as I alluded to above - no honest women in their 40s).

I'm not going to highlight every last damn one, but they're on that list because of contracts and subsidies. Government contracts are used to offset taxable corporate income, rather than just counting it toward actual corporate revenue. Kind of a bunk trick, but oh well. Your problem is with Uncle Sam, not corporations. It also works about the same way with subsidies, as they just go toward tax abatement as opposed to gross revenue. It's an accounting trick.

What's also not mentioned is that many of these are parent companies with subsidiaries that pay taxes, but are offset by divisions that show loss, thereby being offset through upstream taxation.

Keep going. I'm enjoying this.
 
I've not noticed a point you have made, but I have noticed your reliance on using the points others have attempted to make with your links...

Then go back and re-read the post. They are links to back up every point I made.
 
Then go back and re-read the post. They are links to back up every point I made.

My post related to any point YOU have made and can backup through your own arguements, not one with which you find comfortable to link...
 
If you tell corporations that they'll start being taxed like individuals, you'll see every CEO of every major corporation strain his fat, old body doing somersaults in his suit.
 
None of those years used are current, but let's still have some fun.



Key word - offshore. As mentioned later in the sentence, taxes are paid when money repatriates.



See above.



Energy companies always get subsidies. That's why you pay 3 bucks a gallon and not 8. I wouldn't complain too much. Also, they repatriated quite a bit of overseas treasury money, which is why their current effective tax rate is 39% (as I alluded to above - no honest women in their 40s).

I'm not going to highlight every last damn one, but they're on that list because of contracts and subsidies. Government contracts are used to offset taxable corporate income, rather than just counting it toward actual corporate revenue. Kind of a bunk trick, but oh well. Your problem is with Uncle Sam, not corporations. It also works about the same way with subsidies, as they just go toward tax abatement as opposed to gross revenue. It's an accounting trick.

What's also not mentioned is that many of these are parent companies with subsidiaries that pay taxes, but are offset by divisions that show loss, thereby being offset through upstream taxation.

Keep going. I'm enjoying this.

Why would my problem be with Uncle Sam? Is it because he works on their behalf? Yes, true. Their lobbying power gives them plenty of sway. I've never claimed otherwise. Actually, that is my entire point. They get their cake and eat it too.
 
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.

Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.

Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:

Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?

Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.

There is no draft. However to your point I am going to assume that every person on the board, and every shareholder over 18 is registered for selective service and would be eligible to be drafted under the same rules as everyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom