Forum Post: Corporations are not people. They don't deserve the Bill of Rights
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 27, 2011, 11:51 a.m. EST by jjdevo
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I agree that their needs to be a well articulated message about what we want to change. Here are my4 main issues (my 2 cents) to contribute to the discussion:
- Corporations are not people and do not deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights. A law, maybe a Constitutional Amendment, needs to restrict and spell out rights and obligations of corporations and their directors. A person or persons need to be able to be held accountable for the actions of these corporations. Campaign finance reform should severely limit corporate donors and lobbyist access and influence of politicians.
- Banking regulation to protect middle class Americans. Reign-in bank fees for simple accounts and transactions. (Right now BOA charges a fee to cash a check written by one of its customers if you are not also a customer.) Punish banks who used fraud in approving, underwriting, and packaging mortgages. Force all illegal loans to be submitted to court for re-modification.
- Taxes should be fair. End corporate tax evasion. End exemptions from income tax to hedge fund managers and investors. There should be no difference in taxes on income if it is made through investing or working.
- Save Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare by raising the maximum contribution. Right now only the poor and middle class pay these taxes on their entire income. The very wealthy pay relatively little toward Social Security but these programs provide national social stability and help keep the elderly and ill from poverty and homelessness.
The simplest argument to kill this concept is actually to advocate it.
"If corporations are people, then they must pay income tax in EXACTLY the same way people do."
No corporation is going to want to pay personal income tax. The rates are far too high. It's a nightmare scenario that will instantly bankrupt them all.
Obviously because corporations are NOT people, they are taxed differently. But if they want to obtain the status of a person, then they must agree to all of the down sides of being a person.
These seem like reasonable demands to me. Though I ask:
Perhaps the sentence, "There should be no difference in taxes on income if it is made through investing or working." is ambiguous?
I am not sure how to interpret this:
1) Investment profit (i.e. capital gains) should be added directly to overall income, and then be taxed accordingly?
2) Income tax and capital gains tax (for example) should still be separate, but taxed at the same rate?
Thanks for taking the time to make suggestions.
You know what. Persons are not humans. Let them explain to you the difference, they won't. It's a way to legally circumvent many things by applying person-hood or citizenship to humans, and by giving things(corporations) rights humans deem solely theirs.
It's insane for them to claim things to have rights. It's scary that so few object. They are really doing whatever they want.
It's a long series, but well worth it. Basically you can both be a People and a Person, and you don't have to fall into their definition of a Person if YOU define it.
I agree, eventually we define the meaning ourselves, the problem starts when they start defining it for us and we allow it.
Yes, they are. Fuck it, man, do the same. Don't hold back.