• 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!

People vs. Corporations

Which group should have control of government?

  • Total voters
    40
Dans La Lune

Dans La Lune

Zionism is Antisemitism
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
9,382
Reaction score
5,873
Location
Oceania, 1984
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Which group should have control of government?
 
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS believes corporations are what the founders had in mind when they penned the Constitution.

The sad part is that neither major party really wants to outlaw corporate money from political campaigns.
 
In my experience corporations are controlled by people.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Which group should have control of government?
Click to expand...

Do you mean people without corporate ownership interests versus those people with corporate ownership interests?
 
Other. Corporations, like people (who legally form them), are taxed. One of the factors, which helped to advance (transform or create?) this nation from a group of colonies into a group of states, was the objection to the concept of taxation without representation. So long as one is taxed it would seem to be illegal to tell them to STFU politically even if they are somehow not deemed to be part of "the people" for 1A (or other Constitutional rights) protection purposes.

If one wants corporations out of politics then step one should be to stop taxing them. Once that is accomplished (likely never) then we should decide if any non-profit (i.e. non-taxable) groups like unions, PACS, special interest (NRA, NAACP or La Raza) or business/trade associations should be able to run political "issue" ads and/or support candidates.

IMHO, if an entity can be sued or taxed then it should be able to offer its (members') opinion on matters of law (politics).
 
I was thinking the same thing in terms of freedom of association.

Gaius46 said:
Last time I checked corporations are made of people.
Click to expand...
 
Corporations are a major source of living wage paying jobs. So I couldn't vote in this poll because like others have said Corporations are people and like wise People make up corporations.
 
The right to vote should remain exclusively with people (i.e. an individual).

Since the government taxes and passes legislation that affects corporations, they should currently have a monetary say.

I would prefer a system where corporations paid not a penny in tax, and then were subsequently not allowed to contribute to or advertise on behalf of political candidates.
 
Nuber said:
The right to vote should remain exclusively with people (i.e. an individual).

Since the government taxes and passes legislation that affects corporations, they should currently have a monetary say.

I would prefer a system where corporations paid not a penny in tax, and then were subsequently not allowed to contribute to or advertise on behalf of political candidates.
Click to expand...

I would think Warren and her supporters plan to tax corporations to fund her health care plan would disagree with you...:lamo
 
Did I miss something?

Can IBM go to the polls and vote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gaius46 said:
What does that mean in English?
Click to expand...

It's a reference to the last line in Soylent Green, which parallel's Romney's line during the 2012 elections.

Soylent Green = People

Corporations = People.

 
Wings said:
Did I miss something?

Can IBM go to the polls and vote?
Click to expand...

No, but the money generated from IBM can be used to leverage politicians into manipulating policy for their benefit over that of the American people.
 
Dans La Lune said:
It's a reference to the last line in Soylent Green, which parallel's Romney's line during the 2012 elections.

Soylent Green = People

Corporations = People.

Click to expand...


What are corporations if not assemblages of people? Like it or not a company like GM has hundreds of thousands of employees and millions of shareholders. Those people’s interests matter.
 
Gaius46 said:
What are corporations if not assemblages of people? Like it or not a company like GM has hundreds of thousands of employees and millions of shareholders. Those people’s interests matter.
Click to expand...

Except that the interest even of corporations rests heavily on the very top of the corporation, and not necessarily with the workers. Your statement almost implies that the interests of the employees is equal to that of the CEOs. It's flatly not. The interests of the shareholders and CEOs is often diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the employees. It's about squeezing money out of the employees, their wages, their benefits, their rights.

Why do you think GM workers have been striking?
 
antiquity said:
I would think Warren and her supporters plan to tax corporations to fund her health care plan would disagree with you...:lamo
Click to expand...

You would be correct. Any and all taxes that are levied against a business are simply paid by the consumers who use the goods and services that the business provides.

Why bother with a middle man to fund your voter buy off? That's right; because currently the corporation can't vote against the tax, they can only lobby against it. Something that they don't really need to do because they will just raise their prices anyway and make similar profits. Meanwhile, the majority of voters can support it because the vast majority of Americans don't understand that taxing a corporation is simply raising the cost of the goods or services that corporation provides. Lots of voters think that they are just reducing profits of the company - they are really just showing their ignorance of business principles.

I want to end this stupid cycle and simply restrict voting and taxing to the people - exclusively. Reduce the power of the democrats and republicans in Washington DC so that I can live my life in peace without people nearly 3000 miles away from me screwing up my life.

What a concept.
 
In order for that question to be relevant wouldnt the government have to be worth a **** in the first place? Both parties are corrupt, congress as a body is inept. We are so far removed from what we are supposed to be its scary. And you can blame corporations all you like but its the same idiot partisans that vote for the same idiot politicians to go back every 2 and 6 years that are the problem...not the corporations. I dont lik it...its not a good thing...but truth be told, the corporations are the only thing in this country that keep us functioning.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Except that the interest even of corporations rests heavily on the very top of the corporation, and not necessarily with the workers. Your statement almost implies that the interests of the employees is equal to that of the CEOs. It's flatly not. The interests of the shareholders and CEOs is often diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the employees. It's about squeezing money out of the employees, their wages, their benefits, their rights.

Why do you think GM workers have been striking?
Click to expand...

Take workers off the table for now. There are probably 20x more owners of GM than employees. Do they not get a voice in government and government policies that might affect their ownership stake in GM?

Any rules you put in place to limit campaign contributions or speech by organizations would also necessary affects unions. Is that something you want to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom