Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation.

Exactly! Once new money goes into a firm, you must never be allowed to buy or sell your investment in the secondary market!!!!

Why? Because Commies feel speculation is a bad word. We must protect people from speculation!

No speculation in communism, eh?

How's that Trabant?

Exactly! Once new money goes into a firm, you must never be allowed to buy or sell your investment in the secondary market!!!!

Why? Because Commies feel speculation is a bad word. We must protect people from speculation!

No speculation in communism, eh?

How's that Trabant?

Better than Bernie?

Bernie Madoff - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation.

Exactly! Once new money goes into a firm, you must never be allowed to buy or sell your investment in the secondary market!!!!

Why? Because Commies feel speculation is a bad word. We must protect people from speculation!

No speculation in communism, eh?

How's that Trabant?

Exactly! Once new money goes into a firm, you must never be allowed to buy or sell your investment in the secondary market!!!!

Why? Because Commies feel speculation is a bad word. We must protect people from speculation!

No speculation in communism, eh?

How's that Trabant?

Better than Bernie?

Bernie Madoff - Wikipedia

Madoff is to blame for your Trabant?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

Which laws mandates the allowable ratio between CEO compensation and corporate taxes paid?

Post it.

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

Maybe he can go into Republican politics?

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

This CEO takes 8 weeks of vacation and rarely works weekends - CNN

"After growing that first business into the leading junk removal service, now known as 1-800-GOT-JUNK?, he founded and franchised three other home-service businesses: You Move Me, WOW 1-Day Painting and Shack Shine.

"Combined, the four brands employ more than 5,000 people, including 500 who work at Scudamore's O2E Brands, the parent company. He expects total revenue to top $400 million this year."

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence that allows "rugged individualist" to grow their businesses without worrying about paying off local gangs?

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence

Aren't his taxes intended to fund the "monopoly of violence"?

Aren't his taxes intended to fund the "monopoly of violence"?

Government creates the money he uses to pay his taxes, remember?

 

[georgephillip]

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

Aren't his taxes intended to pay for the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

It's not like the government is paying for these things with their own money, eh?

Aren't his taxes intended to pay for the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

It's not like the government is paying for these things with their own money, eh?

No government?
No money.

Money and the Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

Maybe he can go into Republican politics?

Worked for the Clintons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

This CEO takes 8 weeks of vacation and rarely works weekends - CNN

"After growing that first business into the leading junk removal service, now known as 1-800-GOT-JUNK?, he founded and franchised three other home-service businesses: You Move Me, WOW 1-Day Painting and Shack Shine.

"Combined, the four brands employ more than 5,000 people, including 500 who work at Scudamore's O2E Brands, the parent company. He expects total revenue to top $400 million this year."

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence that allows "rugged individualist" to grow their businesses without worrying about paying off local gangs?

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence

Aren't his taxes intended to fund the "monopoly of violence"?

Aren't his taxes intended to fund the "monopoly of violence"?

Government creates the money he uses to pay his taxes, remember?

So?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

Aren't his taxes intended to pay for the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

It's not like the government is paying for these things with their own money, eh?

Aren't his taxes intended to pay for the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

It's not like the government is paying for these things with their own money, eh?

No government?
No money.

Money and the Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

No government?
No money.

There was money before governments, there will be money without governments.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There was money before governments, there will be money without governments.

and precious few people left to care.

 

[georgephillip]

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share but provide executives with exorbitant bonuses? Do non-voting shares influence such perfidy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share but provide executives with exorbitant bonuses? Do non-voting shares influence such perfidy?

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[georgephillip]

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

 

[daveman]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Is it possible for you to express a coherent thought?

 

[daveman]

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

So what is the point?

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

What's the caseload of your (alleged) acquaintance?

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At yearend 2015, over 6.7 million individuals1) were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails.2)

"The U.S. is a world leader in its rate of incarceration, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation.3)

"Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, and for African Americans in particular.

"African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, and they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences.

"African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely.4)

"As of 2001, one of every three black boys born in that year could expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as could one of every six Latinos—compared to one of every seventeen white boys.5)

"Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent."

In a country founded by white supremacists, why would any thinking adult doubt the existence of racial discrimination in its criminal justice system?

I'm sorry but "why would any thinking adult doubt".... is not proof. That's assumption.

Further, statistics that show one person of any group, is less or more likely to be incarcerated proves nothing.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

In order to prove you prior claim, you need to prove that people who are not committing serious crimes that have been sent to prison on a vast scale.

Isolated cases of false convictions that are over turned, do not prove a system injustice. And nor do random statistics.

Prove the claim you made before. Nothing in this post did.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

Which factors are driving Blue people to commit more crime, racial or economic?

Shadow Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"One contributing factor to the disparity in arrest rates is that racial minorities commit certain crimes at higher rates.

"Specifically, data suggests that black Americans—particularly males—tend to commit violent and property crimes at higher rates than other racial groups.9)

"Other studies, however, demonstrate that higher crime rates are better explained by socioeconomic factors than race: extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods experience higher rates of crime regardless of racial composition."

And you can thank Democrat policies for that.

 

[daveman]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

ALL HAIL GOVERNMENT

 

[daveman]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

How much could you make if you weren't a parasite?

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Is it possible for you to express a coherent thought?

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Perhap$ the corporation$' lobbyist$ are writing the law$?
Has that thought crossed your "mind"?

 

[daveman]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Hypothetical.....

You are in a company with declining market share. You need to focus research and design on a new product to save the company.

The law requires you pay out profits to employees.

Result, you don't have the resources to fund the R&D, and the company falls into obscurity and closes.

I'm all for profit sharing.... But the above, is the reason I'm against a 'one size fits all' solution. You don't know what a company is going through. You can look at a profit number in the moment, but you don't know if that profit is based on existing products that are going obsolete, or not.

I'll give you a perfect example. I worked for a company that focused on industrial printers. While the company was pulling down multiple millions a year in profit.... what you did not know looking at the profit numbers, was the company was losing ground year over years. The companies biggest selling product, was a printer designed in the 1980s, and quickly becoming obsolete.

The company was desperately trying to use those profits to create a new product, to generate new income.

If you had put in place a profit sharing requirement, that could have been devastating to the company.

Profit sharing is based on net profits, not gross profits.

Profit sharing has been working for a very long time...but it's only offered to a select few.

Like I said, I'm all for profit sharing.

I understand the difference between net profit, and gross profit. R&D budgets come out of net profits.

Money that is paid out in profit sharing, can't be used to fund R&D. It can't be used to open a new facility, or buy new equipment, or be used to grow the business, marketing, or purchase out a competitor that will grow the companies market.

Again... I am most certainly not against profit sharing. I am not. I am all for it.

I am just saying, you don't know what a business might be going through. Just looking at a profit statement, may not tell you whether or not a company is struggling. It might be pulling down a million dollars off of legacy products, while facing a very uncertain future.

That's why I'm against a one-size-fits-all solution. It's pretty easy for people on the outside, to claim they can just give out their millions in profit sharing. Then when the company closes because it never had the resources to make a new product, now everyone is unemployed. Well done.

So apparently you're all for profit sharing for the select few highly compensated employees, but not for the people who actually do the work.

Perhaps severe reductions in executive compensation would cover the mandatory profit sharing plus R&D.

Holy crap, but you guys sure do think you're entitled to what you haven't earned.

 

[daveman]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.