If a Corporation claims the rights of an individual, then it must be taxed that way

[Truthmatters]

Foriegners now have a direct imput into our elections.

 

[Oddball]

So, a corporation is also afforded free speech?

Under statutory law, yes....However that "free" speech is an at-will privilege controlled by the mother ship (i.e. the state).

Whatever happened to onoe person-one vote? With this new BS ruling, corporations will have the ability to act as multiple votes and multiple donations for all of their people.

Nothing happened to one-person-one-vote....No legal fiction has a vote, as does an individual.

Another relevant link for you: REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

 

[Vast LWC]

As was asked earlier, you DO realize that legal fictions don't pay taxes, don't you?

BTW..."Corporate" and "individual" are mutually exclusive definitions.

Well then you need to tell the federal government that...

Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate tax in the United States is imposed both by the federal government and by most state governments. The federal income tax on corporations is the more significant tax, in terms of the tax rates, the number of entities affected and the complexity of its rules.

Apparently I know a thing or two about taxes, weird.

 

[Vast LWC]

Nothing happened to one-person-one-vote....No legal fiction has a a vote, as does an individual.

Another relevant link for you: REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

Then your legal fictions are not individuals, and the supreme court was wrong to allow them the rights of individuals under the constitution.

It's either one or the other. Either they're an individual with constitutional rights, or they're not.

Apparently, the Supreme Court seems to be under the impression that they are, thus allowing congress to TAX THEM.

 

[Oddball]

As was asked earlier, you DO realize that legal fictions don't pay taxes, don't you?

BTW..."Corporate" and "individual" are mutually exclusive definitions.

Well then you need to tell the federal government that...

Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate tax in the United States is imposed both by the federal government and by most state governments. The federal income tax on corporations is the more significant tax, in terms of the tax rates, the number of entities affected and the complexity of its rules.

Apparently I know a thing or two about taxes, weird.

Doesn't matter.

The taxes ultimately are paid by either the customers (in terms of higher prices) or the employees (in terms of lower wages), or both....There's no getting around it.

 

[Oddball]

Nothing happened to one-person-one-vote....No legal fiction has a a vote, as does an individual.

Another relevant link for you: REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

Then your legal fictions are not individuals, and the supreme court was wrong to allow them the rights of individuals under the constitution.

It's either one or the other. Either they're an individual with constitutional rights, or they're not.

Apparently, the Supreme Court seems to be under the impression that they are, thus allowing congress to TAX THEM.

No, they're not individuals, they're 14th Amendment "persons".

And there's a difference between constitutional rights and "civil" rights.

Keep a-swingin'.

 

[VaYank5150]

As was asked earlier, you DO realize that legal fictions don't pay taxes, don't you?

BTW..."Corporate" and "individual" are mutually exclusive definitions.

Well then you need to tell the federal government that...

Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate tax in the United States is imposed both by the federal government and by most state governments. The federal income tax on corporations is the more significant tax, in terms of the tax rates, the number of entities affected and the complexity of its rules.

Apparently I know a thing or two about taxes, weird.

Doesn't matter.

The taxes ultimately are paid by either the customers (in terms of higher prices) or the employees (in terms of lower wages), or both....There's no getting around it.

Nice deflection, Dude. You seem to be doing that more and more as of late. What up wit dat?

 

[The Rabbi]

So....how will those differing jurisdictions affect the corporations' and unions' abilities to spend their money on buying our politicians?

Corporations and unions operate under statutory law, which affords them them limited liabilities and other "civil" rights extended to such legal fictions. The same applies to trusts, gubmint corporations, and other various and sundry legal fictions.

And Congress certainly has the right to tax as they wish.

The fact that corporations are demanding the rights of individuals just makes it nice and tidy constitutionally.

It's not even a punative tax, it's applying the same tax laws to "Corporate Individuals" as it would apply to actual individuals.

There's no way to effectively argue against it. With rights of a citizen come the responsibilities of a citizen.

No, they do not have the right to tax as they wish. Technically they have no rights at all. They have powers.
No corporation has demanded the rights of individuals. But the Supreme Court going back to Taft has given them some rights under the 14th Amendment and other parts of the Constitution. As corporations are only collections of individuals it makes no sense to restrict their rights to free speech.
Congress could levy a corporate tax rate equal to a top rate on an individual. But they won't because the U.S. would have no corporations left in our borders.
Again, Republicans admire success, Democrats envy is and want to punish it.

 

[Oddball]

Nice deflection, Dude. You seem to be doing that more and more as of late. What up wit dat?

'Scuse me?....What was unclear to you?

 

[Truthmatters]

ANYONE can own stock.

You have given anyone who owns enough of a corp to get a say in our democracy.

Hell the Bin Laden family now can legally effect our elections

 

[Vast LWC]

No, they do not have the right to tax as they wish. Technically they have no rights at all. They have powers.

Semantics, you say potato, I say potatoe.

No corporation has demanded the rights of individuals. But the Supreme Court going back to Taft has given them some rights under the 14th Amendment and other parts of the Constitution. As corporations are only collections of individuals it makes no sense to restrict their rights to free speech.

Incorrect, they went back to the court ruling that declared them to be legal individuals, and therefore gave them the right to free speech.

Congress could levy a corporate tax rate equal to a top rate on an individual. But they won't because the U.S. would have no corporations left in our borders.
Again, Republicans admire success, Democrats envy is and want to punish it.

Why would that be? All the corporations would have to do is refrain from engaging in the political process, and they would not be subject to said tax.

I'm not saying we should punish corporations, I'm saying that they need to pay for the right to engage in the political process.

 

[Vast LWC]

Nice deflection, Dude. You seem to be doing that more and more as of late. What up wit dat?

'Scuse me?....What was unclear to you?

You were unclear to me.

It's a deflection because corporations would not be required to pay the tax UNLESS THEY GOT INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

No harm, no foul.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they do not have the right to tax as they wish. Technically they have no rights at all. They have powers.

Semantics, you say potato, I say potatoe.

No corporation has demanded the rights of individuals. But the Supreme Court going back to Taft has given them some rights under the 14th Amendment and other parts of the Constitution. As corporations are only collections of individuals it makes no sense to restrict their rights to free speech.

Incorrect, they went back to the court ruling that declared them to be legal individuals, and therefore gave them the right to free speech.

Congress could levy a corporate tax rate equal to a top rate on an individual. But they won't because the U.S. would have no corporations left in our borders.
Again, Republicans admire success, Democrats envy is and want to punish it.

Why would that be? All the corporations would have to do is refrain from engaging in the political process, and they would not be subject to said tax.

I'm not saying we should punish corporations, I'm saying that they need to pay for the right to engage in the political process.

So you want to put a tax on exercising a right?

And btw "potato" is correct, "potatoe" is incorrect. Just like my view is correct and yours incorrect.

 

[Vast LWC]

So you want to put a tax on exercising a right?

Nope, the tax already exists. I'm saying that if they are able to exercise the same rights as everyone else, then they need to be taxed JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

It's a really straightforward concept. I'm sure pretty much everybody and their mother will get it.

It will be awfully hard to spin by the corporations.

 

[Vast LWC]

So you want to put a tax on exercising a right?

And btw "potato" is correct, "potatoe" is incorrect. Just like my view is correct and yours incorrect.

"Potatoe" was a Dan Quayle reference, I was trying to be funny, since I don't know offhand what the ascii code for a "long" A and a "short" A are.

 

[Oddball]

Nice deflection, Dude. You seem to be doing that more and more as of late. What up wit dat?

'Scuse me?....What was unclear to you?

You were unclear to me.

It's a deflection because corporations would not be required to pay the tax UNLESS THEY GOT INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

No harm, no foul.

Oh, so it's OK to tax, regulate, sue and use businesses as general political punching bags, but not OK for them to spend money to get their side of the story out.

Thanks for clearing that up, Uncle Joseph.

 

[uscitizen]

The rights and responsibilities are different under the differing jurisdictions.

You're in seriously over your head here.

So....how will those differing jurisdictions affect the corporations' and unions' abilities to spend their money on buying our politicians?

Indeed. Hell, the same rule could be applied to Unions. Their union dues would become taxable as individuals.

What's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander.

Sure why not.
Flat tax all income for all individuals and persons exactly the same.
No deductions.

If a corporation can claim expenses then I could too. My auto to get to work, gasoline, etc so I can do my job.

Or just flat tax ALL income the same.

 

[Oddball]

Why tax incomes at all?

Seems to me that the whole mess is just a political tool to reward friends and punish enemies.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, so it's OK to tax, regulate, sue and use businesses as general political punching bags, but not OK for them to get their side of the story out.

Thnks for clearing that up, Uncle Joseph.

If businesses are being afforded the rights of individuals, then they have the right to sue the government for unfair regulation and to sue them for slander, just like everyone else.

And therefore should pay taxes JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I'm not suggesting any special treatment here. I am suggesting we give businesses EXACTLY what the Supreme Court decided for them.

If they want to avoid being taxed just like everyone else, then they will have their rights curtailed.

After all, if an average person doesn't pay their taxes, they have their rights taken away by being put in jail.

 

[Conspiracist]

So you want to put a tax on exercising a right?

Nope, the tax already exists. I'm saying that if they are able to exercise the same rights as everyone else, then they need to be taxed JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

It's a really straightforward concept. I'm sure pretty much everybody and their mother will get it.

It will be awfully hard to spin by the corporations.

To be honest it took me some time to figure what you were talking about here. Not sure if it was your fault or mine but whatever. Chimed in with TM I see how important this actually is. Hiding under corporate umbrellas, foreign interests are able to participate in the political system. If they wish to do this they need to taxed higher?

My preference would be to stop the hiding but hell, I hate overtaxing but it would help keep them outta the political arena so I am game for now