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

[Vast LWC]

Well, here's an idea:

Step 1: Create a top tier income tax rate of 40% for all individuals making $200 Million a year or more.

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Step 3: Create a separate legislation that any Corporation engaging in the political process gives up any corporate tax breaks or loopholes, as they are effectively becoming an individual. You could create a new class of corporation. Call it the "Corporate Individual" or something like that.

This would effectively bar corporations from getting involved in the political process, as their shareholders would never allow it.

And, hell, if we wanted to take this to it's logical conclusion, we could also apply it to media corporations.

And best of all, it would all be perfectly constitutional, and would not require overturning the SCOTUS' decision.

Whadya all think?

 

[MIPS]

Well, here's an idea:

Step 1: Create a top tier income tax rate of 40% for all individuals making $200 Million a year or more.

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Step 3: Create a separate legislation that any Corporation engaging in the political process gives up any corporate tax breaks or loopholes, as they are effectively becoming an individual. You could create a new class of corporation. Call it the "Corporate Individual" or something like that.

This would effectively bar corporations from getting involved in the political process, as their shareholders would never allow it.

And, hell, if we wanted to take this to it's logical conclusion, we could also apply it to media corporations.

And best of all, it would all be perfectly constitutional, and would not require overturning the SCOTUS' decision.

Whadya all think?

You realize that Corporations don't pay taxes, their shareholders (lower returns), customers (higher prices/lower quality) and employees (lower wages) do, right?

 

[Oddball]

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

They don't claim unalienable rights (common law) of individuals, they claim "civil" rights (statutory law) of 14th Amendment "persons".

There's a difference.

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, here's an idea:

Step 1: Create a top tier income tax rate of 40% for all individuals making $200 Million a year or more.

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Step 3: Create a separate legislation that any Corporation engaging in the political process gives up any corporate tax breaks or loopholes, as they are effectively becoming an individual. You could create a new class of corporation. Call it the "Corporate Individual" or something like that.

This would effectively bar corporations from getting involved in the political process, as their shareholders would never allow it.

And, hell, if we wanted to take this to it's logical conclusion, we could also apply it to media corporations.

And best of all, it would all be perfectly constitutional, and would not require overturning the SCOTUS' decision.

Whadya all think?

You realize that Corporations don't pay taxes, their shareholders (lower returns), customers (higher prices/lower quality) and employees (lower wages) do, right?

Corporations do in fact pay taxes. Check it out. But I see where you're going with that.

Be that as it may, that is why this is so effective. If the Corporation doesn't want to pay the taxes, they just have to not get involved in the political process.

If a corporation wants to have the rights of an individual, they must also bear the responsibility of an individual.

 

[Vast LWC]

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

The don't claim unalienable rights (common law) of individuals, they claim "civil" rights (statutory law) of 14th Amendment "persons".

There's a difference.

And if they want to claim those rights, they must also claim the responsibilities that come with them.

 

[xotoxi]

Well, here's an idea:

Step 1: Create a top tier income tax rate of 40% for all individuals making $200 Million a year or more.

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Step 3: Create a separate legislation that any Corporation engaging in the political process gives up any corporate tax breaks or loopholes, as they are effectively becoming an individual. You could create a new class of corporation. Call it the "Corporate Individual" or something like that.

This would effectively bar corporations from getting involved in the political process, as their shareholders would never allow it.

And, hell, if we wanted to take this to it's logical conclusion, we could also apply it to media corporations.

And best of all, it would all be perfectly constitutional, and would not require overturning the SCOTUS' decision.

Whadya all think?

Sounds good.

 

[PoliticolNews]

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

The don't claim unalienable rights (common law) of individuals, they claim "civil" rights (statutory law) of 14th Amendment "persons".

There's a difference.

So the take the icing and leave the cake, you can't have it both ways and cherry pick laws, corporations then must be taxed as an individual like 50 percent or higher.

 

[Oddball]

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

The don't claim unalienable rights (common law) of individuals, they claim "civil" rights (statutory law) of 14th Amendment "persons".

There's a difference.

And if they want to claim those rights, they must also claim the responsibilities that come with them.

The rights and responsibilities are different under the differing jurisdictions.

You're in seriously over your head here.

 

[VaYank5150]

The don't claim unalienable rights (common law) of individuals, they claim "civil" rights (statutory law) of 14th Amendment "persons".

There's a difference.

And if they want to claim those rights, they must also claim the responsibilities that come with them.

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, here's an idea:

Step 1: Create a top tier income tax rate of 40% for all individuals making $200 Million a year or more.

Step 2: Create legislation stating that if any Corporation claims the rights of an individual in order to engage in the political process, then they also are subject to income tax AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Step 3: Create a separate legislation that any Corporation engaging in the political process gives up any corporate tax breaks or loopholes, as they are effectively becoming an individual. You could create a new class of corporation. Call it the "Corporate Individual" or something like that.

This would effectively bar corporations from getting involved in the political process, as their shareholders would never allow it.

And, hell, if we wanted to take this to it's logical conclusion, we could also apply it to media corporations.

And best of all, it would all be perfectly constitutional, and would not require overturning the SCOTUS' decision.

Whadya all think?

That's the stupidest thing you've ever written. And I am including claims that Lieberman is a spy. You don't have a clue about economics. You don't have a clue about law. You don't have a clue about rights.
No wonder you're on the Left.

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[VaYank5150]

Corporations and unions operate under statutory law, which affords them them limited liabilities and other "civil" rights extended to such legal fictions.

So, a corporation is also afforded free speech?

 

[Vast LWC]

And if they want to claim those rights, they must also claim the responsibilities that come with them.

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.

 

[blastoff]

Sounds like the lunatic rantings of a vast left wing conspiracy.

 

[Oddball]

Corporations and unions operate under statutory law, which affords them them limited liabilities and other "civil" rights extended to such legal fictions.

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).

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

 

[VaYank5150]

Corporations and unions operate under statutory law, which affords them them limited liabilities and other "civil" rights extended to such legal fictions.

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.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's the stupidest thing you've ever written. And I am including claims that Lieberman is a spy. You don't have a clue about economics. You don't have a clue about law. You don't have a clue about rights.
No wonder you're on the Left.

Whatever Rabbi.

You're a corporate tool.

And what I'm describing is logical, legal, and right consitutionally.

 

[Truthmatters]

Anyone in the world can own a US corporation.

Do you realise who now has a voice in our government?

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.