Skip to main content

View Diary: Corporations are NOT People (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  nuketeacher - corporations aren't people (0+ / 0-)

    and the Supreme Court agrees with both of us although not Mitt Romney.  

    We could have a corporate tax on revenues, but it would be at a rate that is a fraction of the rate on net income. Taxing profits makes sense to me and it is how every country in the G20 taxes corporations. Some countries also have a national sales tax structured as a Value Added Tax (VAT) in addition to a corporate income tax. As I noted in my initial comment if you are self employed you too can deduct all of your "overhead" just like the Fortune 500 so it seems to me that how corporations are taxed, as well as individual businesses, is fair. For corporations, or the self-employed, it would be bad public policy to tax them if they were not profitable, put them further in the red, and hasten the day when they would go out of business. Robust and profitable businesses, large and small, provide employment to tens of millions in the US.

    I do think the US corporate tax code needs major revisions, but one of those revisions should not be a revenue based "income" tax.  

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:27:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, you can't deduct ALL of your overhead (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You can only deduct the expenses associated with your BUSINESS.

      You can't deduct YOUR home, or YOUR food, or YOUR clothing, utilities, transportation.

      Only what the BUSINESS uses. Not what you PERSONALLY use.

      Don't try it. The IRS really frowns on that.

      •  I am very familiar with what the self employed (0+ / 0-)

        can deduct. I was just trying to help people understand that both the self employed and the big corporation can both deduct from revenues ordinary and necessary business expenses and costs before reaching a taxable income number.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:27:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Supreme Court may agree with you but not me (0+ / 0-)

      This isn't a trite argument over semantics as to the definition of "person." We are talking about constitutionally generated rights.  The Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation has the right, under the Constitution, to free speech, thus overturning laws properly enacted by the legislative and executive branches to restrict the speech of corporations.

      Without extending the definition of "people" to a corporation, how else could the right of free speech be granted to a corporation?

      Ted Cruz: The second coming of Christ, but not quite as good as Reagan (yet).

      by nuketeacher on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:34:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  nuketeacher - free speech isn't granted (0+ / 0-)

        Free speech isn't limited by the speaker. The limits on free speech are on Congress and its ability to restrict speech. As you recall the First Amendment states "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW ..............." The First Amendment makes no distinction that the restriction on Congress only relates to "human persons". In fact by mentioning by name the "press" it implicitly includes business organizations.

        As some Supreme Court Justices have stated "What part of MAKE NO LAW don't you understand?"

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:50:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (23)
  • Elections (23)
  • Environment (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Culture (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site