• 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!

The Duty of Corporations

Should the duty by re-examined?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 42.9%

  • No

    Votes: 16 57.1%
  • Total voters
    28
Jryan said:
The problem is they benefit more than anyone else from social services.
Click to expand...
Jryan said:
You left out the education we provide for their employees.
Click to expand...
Jryan said:
They should have to pay for ALL of it because without the infrastructure that us lower class people build, they would have not one single employee. They are a product of OUR environment, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Jryan, respectfully, these statements are like something out of bizarro world to me. Who is the "they" that you believe is getting something from social services, taking advantage of education, have a need for employees? Corporations are not people - "they" are made up of people. "They" are the employees. "They" are the former students.

Yes, corporations are considered entitities, similar to humans, for tax purposes. But, anyone that gets income from the corporation also has to pay taxes. If I own stock, I pay tax on my dividends. If I make a salary, I pay taxes on my salary. If the corporation reports income, it pays taxes, too. But, the taxes it pays come out of the pockets of everyone else down the line because the corporation isn't real - it's just paper. If "they" pay taxes, "they" can't pay employees as much or they have to charge more for products.

People benefit from social services - not corporations. And, rarely people who are employed by corporations.
People want to be educated - so they can go work for corporations or so they can start corporations.
People build infrastructure, often through corporations, for the benefit of the people.

Ask a corporation if they care if they have any employees - they won't respond. A person who is part of that corporation might, though.
 
Mach said:
And an employee has a greater duty than to simply work minimum hours for maximal pay.

The should, according to the liberals in this thread, take into account the state of the union, the economy, etc., and cut their salaries to ease the burden on employers so that more people can be hired. They should work more hours in each day (without pay) to better utilize the fixed costs of the business like the desks, PC's, etc.

They should also leave for work extra early every day so they can stop on the roadside and plant a ****ing tree.

AND, we should make it a federal law to do all this ****. Good lord people.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this poppycock from? What supposed LIBERALS in this thread have advocated the nonsense you just posted?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Corporations aren't people. They don't have duties. They're not capable of performing duties. They are, at best, tools for creating money for their owners and employees; they're incapable of doing anything else and it is foolish to expect them to.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Supreme Court. See Citizen's United.
 
Krhazy said:
Right now it is understood that corporations have a duty to their shareholders, but not to their employees, consumers, or the remainder of the public (although they of course have a duty to comply with the law, which includes many regulations designed to protect employees/consumers/third parties).

The clearest example of the warped effects of this is probably the famous case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company.

When the shareholders sued, the court ruled in their favor, stating Ford's duty was to profit his shareholders, not the community or his employees.

In light of the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest of America, do you think that this idea needs to be re-examined?
Click to expand...

Haven't read every post, but I see how you presented it as almost a non sequitor. First off, it has nothing to do with any claimed disparity between high and low earners. Economies are not zero sum. Those that create product are not taking from anyone else. Which brings me to the primary flaw with your analysis.

Ford saw an opportunity to sell far more cars than he was producing, and wanted to divert profits to expansion first. His investors wanted some ROI. The courts ruled with the latter. But here you point out how that meant less workers would be employed. Balderdash. The demand was still there, met by other auto companies, and their employees. It the beauty of capitalism, yet you presented it as though it existed in a fascist vacuum or such.
 
disneydude said:
Not according to the Supreme Court. See Citizen's United.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court created people? Wow!

Oh, I think what they said was that as far as the government (also, not a person) is concerned they can be treated, more or less, as a person. Ever try sending a corporation to jail? It doesn't work. Oh, wait, try to go fishing with a corporation - they can't bait a hook.

They can't speak for themselves except through their attorneys.

A corporation caused me grief, so I went to punch it in the nose - unfortunately, I could only urinate on its articles of incorporation.
 
theplaydrive said:
I guess you missed my liberal post where I said corporations don't have a duty to anyone except for who they chose to have a duty to. Similar sentiments have been expressed by other liberals. Maybe you should stick to replying to individual posters rather than making such anti-intellectual generalizations. .
Click to expand...

Yet there are still liberals in the thread that posted they do want to see duties based on their own whims (apparently), be applied to corporations.
So using that same reasoning, applying or own personal myriad of ethics to whoever we choose, why can we not pick workers, and require their duty to be significantly more than they currently do? Why is that any less valid?

For some reason the absurd arguments people lay on the business community, and the wealthy, and high income earners (who may not actually be wealthy) are passed of as having some merit. But when applied equally to other things, suddenly they are absurd and nonsense? Indeed.

That said, even though I disagree with those who say corporations have duties beyond the ones they set for themselves, the conclusions you draw from their comments are ridiculous
Click to expand...
I would hope so, considering it's reduction to absurdity.

You always appear to be quite moderate and reasonable, that cannot be applied to everyone else unfortunately, in DP and most certainly in the wider public.
 
Paschendale said:
Maybe what's less important than the pathetic truths about corporations and their lack of duty to anyone or anything but money... is what duties corporate America should have...
Click to expand...

what duties do all those who have their hands out for money others earned undertake to complete?
 
haymarket said:
Lots of folks suffering hard times are very hard workers and have lots of ambition. The words ENVY and WHINING do not even appear in their lexicon. They do not think about liberalism or the democratic party or anything else that makes up the boogeymen under the bed of the far right wing. They are simply Americans who see a growing disparity of wealth and no place in society for they or their children to live the American Dream.

That should scare the hell out of the right wing. Of course, if you live in denial of that reality, you can whistle past the graveyard.
Click to expand...

why do you spend so much time justifying sloth and handouts. What is killing the American dream is your party

it tells people that the game is rigged against them so they should look to the government rather themselves to advance

it tells people that its unfair that others are rich so the masses hate the rich and blame them for their lack of success rather than encouraging the masses to work harder and to become more skilled and employable

look at all those morons occupying wall street. They are the crop that your party has planted
 
Jryan said:
The problem is they benefit more than anyone else from social services.
Click to expand...
complete and utter unfounded bull excrement
 
Jryan said:
Read the thread before you respond. How was work btw? :) long day I see.
Click to expand...

8 hours at work, then watched my kid run CC then 3 hours at the organization I run as a volunteer CEO
 
Mach said:
Yet there are still liberals in the thread that posted they do want to see duties based on their own whims (apparently), be applied to corporations.
Click to expand...
I know that there are liberals posting such arguments in this thread. I objected to your generalization of liberals.

So using that same reasoning, applying or own personal myriad of ethics to whoever we choose, why can we not pick workers, and require their duty to be significantly more than they currently do? Why is that any less valid?

For some reason the absurd arguments people lay on the business community, and the wealthy, and high income earners (who may not actually be wealthy) are passed of as having some merit. But when applied equally to other things, suddenly they are absurd and nonsense? Indeed.
Click to expand...
A corporation and a worker are two different entities in almost every way imaginable from their size to the amount of impact they have on the country. It's not absurd to apply different sets of logic to each of them. While you can apply the same logic to them (as I have done in the past), it's not unreasonable to argue that they deserve two different sets of logic as they are so incredibly different.

I would hope so, considering it's reduction to absurdity.

You always appear to be quite moderate and reasonable, that cannot be applied to everyone else unfortunately, in DP and most certainly in the wider public.
Click to expand...
Thank you, but I must say that while I disagree with those who say corporations have a duty I can understand their sentiment. I am personally not fond of the concept of "duty" in general as it applies to anything or anyone. However, I do understand the frustration people have with those who do not contribute what they perceive as "enough" to society. Some people get frustrated with corporations who seem to take more than they give and others get frustrated with welfare recipients who also seem to take more than they give. I don't think it's absurd for either group to claim that either is not doing their duty as a member of this society. I think both claims are misguided though.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
The Supreme Court created people? Wow!

Oh, I think what they said was that as far as the government (also, not a person) is concerned they can be treated, more or less, as a person. Ever try sending a corporation to jail? It doesn't work. Oh, wait, try to go fishing with a corporation - they can't bait a hook.

They can't speak for themselves except through their attorneys.

A corporation caused me grief, so I went to punch it in the nose - unfortunately, I could only urinate on its articles of incorporation.
Click to expand...

I agree....it was a silly ruling by the activist wing of the Supreme Court. It is absurd to rule that corporations are people. I lovethe saying..."I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one".
 
disneydude said:
I agree....it was a silly ruling by the activist wing of the Supreme Court. It is absurd to rule that corporations are people. I lovethe saying..."I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one".
Click to expand...

Start your own corporation, hire a few people, don't pay your payroll taxes and then see if the IRS thinks that your corporation is a person. Your corporation will be Disneydude, quicker than you can flick flies off of ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom