Topic: Three Changes - page 2. (Read 4532 times)

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 01:16:34 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.

Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

It's not. And it makes sense to allow corporations to have the same rights as individuals. Your idea would make it so no one would want to run a business.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

It doesn't eliminate any of those things. Who would? The right kind of people -- which is the entire point. duh.Trouble attracting workers? Raise the pay until you attract workers.
OH MY GOD -- that was hard. It would do none of those things.

And only tinfoil loons who know shit about banking think "the real problem" is the Fed's holdings.

jakedeez

sr. member

Activity: 512

Merit: 250

ICO is evil

1) Send all members of congress on a two week long camping trip in groups of even democrats and republicans. Handcuff one dem to one repub. No cellphones.

2) Require all corporations to fully fund outstanding pension liabilities. Require stock sales if needed to make pensions whole. Provide the same requirement of public sector pensions. Then eliminate pensions going forward in favor of tax advantaged private savings account to supplement SS.

3) Put enough money (fuck it - idc if we borrow it from china or print it) into education to insure that we end up ranked number one in every category. As part of this one, I would make it a requirement for graduation from middle school that all children have a proficiency in either speaking a foreign language or coding. Also nutritional education proficiency. Additionally fund a trust to insure that teaching jobs are very well paid and very competitive.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 12:45:19 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:36:38 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 11:54:04 AM

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 12:38:33 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

Oh, I just realized your initial post said to ban them from having constitutional rights, not to ban liability shields entirely.

Ideally, I don't think any human should be allowed to make decisions that affect others but then hide from the law behind a non-person. But, there probably are more far-reaching consequences to completely banning legal liability shields. Certainly there are large economic effects -- investments would be chilled considerably.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:36:38 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.

Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 11:54:04 AM

Quote from: LostDutchman on July 15, 2014, 12:20:43 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

Oh, I just realized your initial post said to ban them from having constitutional rights, not to ban liability shields entirely.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:01:50 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Pardon me but are you on drugs?

lol, want some?

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 15, 2014, 11:54:04 AM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

LostDutchman

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:01:50 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 15, 2014, 12:01:50 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Pardon me but are you on drugs?

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: sana8410 on July 15, 2014, 12:02:01 PM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

LostDutchman

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 15, 2014, 11:55:01 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 15, 2014, 11:52:54 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 15, 2014, 11:55:01 AM

1. No more corporate citizenship
2. No more corporate citizenship
3. No more corporate citizenship

that should solve most problems.

Citizenship?

I believe i meant "corporate personhood." Woops.Meaning corporations should not be afforded the right to donate to political campaigns.
Our legislators are currently bought and sold by corporate interests, on both sides.

Well, corporate personhood means a lot more than that.
For example if your small business goes under, you can file bankruptcy and the business will be dissolved and its assets pooled for debt collectors, but your individual assets will be okay. You will not lose your home or your car or whatever. You just lose your business.
When you attack "corporations," you're attacking small business owners, not the conglomerates that you think you're attacking.

Oh, my, now you've gone and sone it!

You probably made a few heads explode with your use of knowledge, common sense and logic.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 15, 2014, 11:52:54 AM

1. No more corporate citizenship
2. No more corporate citizenship
3. No more corporate citizenship

that should solve most problems.

Citizenship?

I believe i meant "corporate personhood." Woops.Meaning corporations should not be afforded the right to donate to political campaigns.
Our legislators are currently bought and sold by corporate interests, on both sides.

Well, corporate personhood means a lot more than that.
For example if your small business goes under, you can file bankruptcy and the business will be dissolved and its assets pooled for debt collectors, but your individual assets will be okay. You will not lose your home or your car or whatever. You just lose your business.
When you attack "corporations," you're attacking small business owners, not the conglomerates that you think you're attacking.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: cech4204a on July 13, 2014, 08:44:27 AM

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

1) guns banned and siezed from every holder
2) deprivatization of natural water sources
3) immigration policy change (kick out illegal citizens to their motherland).

And I am guessing that you are native of america? You realize that almost everyone in USA were immigrants at some point.

The only change I want is to have laws like before WW1. It was TRUE land of freedom them.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: sana8410 on July 15, 2014, 11:52:54 AM

1. No more corporate citizenship
2. No more corporate citizenship
3. No more corporate citizenship

that should solve most problems.

Citizenship?

I believe i meant "corporate personhood." Woops.Meaning corporations should not be afforded the right to donate to political campaigns.
Our legislators are currently bought and sold by corporate interests, on both sides.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250