4 ms·

How do corporations make tax law? They influence tax law, but they don't have the power to pass laws.

by crusso 11y ago

username223 11y ago
You just answered your own question. For more, do a web search for ALEC.
coldtea 11y ago
Corporations all over the world have local politicians in their pockets. Who "signs" the laws is a technicality. In the US you even see the President after his term be openly welcomed to the Board of some large corporation or another that his regime benefited...
- crusso 11y ago
  Meh, this argument is like those pictures where you see the old lady or the young lady depending upon the part of the image that you focus on. The reality is that some corporations and most all politicians (at least at the federal level) form a blob of power sharing that many people refer to as "cronyism". If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. But referring to corporations as "making tax law" is technically inaccurate and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. Well, you effectively got halfway there in your description. only it goes beyond "cronyism" to direct influence on lawmaking. This is not something debatable and "subjective" like the old/young lady image -- it has been shown time and again in the courts, reporting and historical research. >and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology. And that's bad because? Did anybody prove that capitalism, and especially as practiced now, with said corruption, cronyism etc, is the last and final word of politics and civilization?
    - crusso 11y ago
      to direct influence on lawmaking And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. If we were serious about dealing with this specific problem, we'd join hands in implementing term limits, lobbying regulations, much stronger limitations upon politicians' ability to enter the lobbying community after leaving office, stronger congressional ethics controls regarding prosecution for obvious quid pro quo relationships, etc. If we'd take the bait away, the corporations would wander off on their own. And that's bad because? It's a deception. It puts the blame on something that is only part of the problem. It refuses to even acknowledge the collusive nature of both business and government.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? The government is not some Borg like entity. It's made of people, and each of these people are way less powerful than those other people -- the rich guys with the tons of money to bribe that run businesses. As to whose fault it is, besides the direct perpetrators, underneath it all it's the citizenry's fault for not being more vigilant about it. After all it's their interests those politicians and businesses are stomping on. >Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. Like, it's not like those "using those rules to their advantage" don't know they're doing some wrong AND breaking the law, when they buy politicians. So, we can and we should blame them too.

How do corporations make tax law? They influence tax law, but they don't have the power to pass laws.

by crusso 11y ago

How do corporations make tax law? They influence tax law, but they don't have the power to pass laws.

username223 11y ago

You just answered your own question. For more, do a web search for ALEC.

coldtea 11y ago

Corporations all over the world have local politicians in their pockets. Who "signs" the laws is a technicality. In the US you even see the President after his term be openly welcomed to the Board of some large corporation or another that his regime benefited...

crusso 11y ago
Meh, this argument is like those pictures where you see the old lady or the young lady depending upon the part of the image that you focus on. The reality is that some corporations and most all politicians (at least at the federal level) form a blob of power sharing that many people refer to as "cronyism". If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. But referring to corporations as "making tax law" is technically inaccurate and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. Well, you effectively got halfway there in your description. only it goes beyond "cronyism" to direct influence on lawmaking. This is not something debatable and "subjective" like the old/young lady image -- it has been shown time and again in the courts, reporting and historical research. >and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology. And that's bad because? Did anybody prove that capitalism, and especially as practiced now, with said corruption, cronyism etc, is the last and final word of politics and civilization?
  - crusso 11y ago
    to direct influence on lawmaking And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. If we were serious about dealing with this specific problem, we'd join hands in implementing term limits, lobbying regulations, much stronger limitations upon politicians' ability to enter the lobbying community after leaving office, stronger congressional ethics controls regarding prosecution for obvious quid pro quo relationships, etc. If we'd take the bait away, the corporations would wander off on their own. And that's bad because? It's a deception. It puts the blame on something that is only part of the problem. It refuses to even acknowledge the collusive nature of both business and government.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? The government is not some Borg like entity. It's made of people, and each of these people are way less powerful than those other people -- the rich guys with the tons of money to bribe that run businesses. As to whose fault it is, besides the direct perpetrators, underneath it all it's the citizenry's fault for not being more vigilant about it. After all it's their interests those politicians and businesses are stomping on. >Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. Like, it's not like those "using those rules to their advantage" don't know they're doing some wrong AND breaking the law, when they buy politicians. So, we can and we should blame them too.