5 ms·

By law, corporations are people. Why should they be taxed differently than human people? Why not just form a corporation that is in the sole business of makin

By law, corporations are people. Why should they be taxed differently than human people? Why not just form a corporation that is in the sole business of making your life better, earn all income through and charge everything through the corporation, and never pay a penny in tax yourself?

harryh 9y ago
> By law, corporations are people. This is a commonly held belief, but it is not true. > Why not just form a corporation... Your idea won't work because a company buying something for an employee (or owner) is considered a taxable benefit to that person just like paying them a salary.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  >> By law, corporations are people. >This is a commonly held belief, but it is not true. "Are corporations people? The U.S. Supreme Court says they are, at least for some purposes. And in the past four years, the high court has dramatically expanded corporate rights. It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans. These are personal rights accorded to corporations. To many, the concept of corporations as people seems odd, to say the least. But it is not new." http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-b...
  - harryh 9y ago
    "has some of the rights of people" != "are people" My pet dog does some things that people do. He eats, he walks, he poops. That doesn't mean he's a person.
    - mdorazio 9y ago
      You seem to be conflating "person" with "human". The two are entirely separate. And this is where being pedantic is important. For legal purposes on important points like entering contracts, free speech, freedom of religion, being sued, etc. corporations are people. The case law is very clear on this. Can your dog be sued? No. So when we talk about legally bound responsibilities like paying taxes, suddenly making a distinction between corporations and humans with respect to personhood seems really strange.
      - harryh 9y ago
        We already make distinctions between "legally bound responsibilities like paying taxes." There is an entire separate tax code for corporate taxes vs taxes on individuals. This is because they are not the same legally. They might have similarities in some respects, but they are not the same.
        mdorazio 9y ago
        Please provide examples here of how they are different. There are entire separate tax codes for you filing individually vs. jointly. That does not mean that if you get married you're not a person anymore. Same with corporations - just because the specifics of the tax code differ for filing does not mean they are not legally people. Also note that you yourself are already changing language here. You said "separate tax code for corporate taxes vs taxes on individuals". Both are legally people. If we want to make a distinction, we have to use other terms, like "individual".
        harryh 9y ago
        > There are entire separate tax codes for you filing individually vs. jointly. This is not true. The tax brackets are different but essentially everything else is the same. The same things are counted as income. You have the same deductions. You use the same forms. Some other ways that corporations are different from people (just off the top of my head): - A corporation can't get a driver's license. - A corporation can't get federal loans to go to college - A corporation isn't expected to register for the draft at a certain age (does that make a corporation a woman? Hah!). - A corporation cannot "take the 5th" and refuse to testify against itself. - A corporation cannot be sentenced to a prison term as punishment - Corporate free speech rights are more limited than individuals I think you might be confused by the idea of "corporate personhood." This idea doesn't mean that a corporation is a person, it means that corporations have some (but not all!) aspects of being a person.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Citing an NPR article for a legal point is like citing NPR for a programming point. Just, no. Corporations and humans both implement the ILegalPerson interface. So for some purposes where you need a legal person, they are interchangeable. But they are not in general people.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Would you suggest I cite Supreme Court decisions directly then in the future? I'm happy to cite whatever documentation you treat as canonical when we have these sorts of discussions. While it's true corporations are not "people", legal interpretation in the United States has shown that they have been given many rights of personhood.
- mdorazio 9y ago
  Yes, it is true. The only question is extent, not of being - take a look through some of the case law summaries on wikipedia [1]. And you only addressed the expenditure portion of the hypothetical, not the income portion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

harryh 9y ago

> By law, corporations are people. This is a commonly held belief, but it is not true. > Why not just form a corporation... Your idea won't work because a company buying something for an employee (or owner) is considered a taxable benefit to that person just like paying them a salary.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
>> By law, corporations are people. >This is a commonly held belief, but it is not true. "Are corporations people? The U.S. Supreme Court says they are, at least for some purposes. And in the past four years, the high court has dramatically expanded corporate rights. It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans. These are personal rights accorded to corporations. To many, the concept of corporations as people seems odd, to say the least. But it is not new." http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-b...
- harryh 9y ago
  "has some of the rights of people" != "are people" My pet dog does some things that people do. He eats, he walks, he poops. That doesn't mean he's a person.
  - mdorazio 9y ago
    You seem to be conflating "person" with "human". The two are entirely separate. And this is where being pedantic is important. For legal purposes on important points like entering contracts, free speech, freedom of religion, being sued, etc. corporations are people. The case law is very clear on this. Can your dog be sued? No. So when we talk about legally bound responsibilities like paying taxes, suddenly making a distinction between corporations and humans with respect to personhood seems really strange.
    - harryh 9y ago
      We already make distinctions between "legally bound responsibilities like paying taxes." There is an entire separate tax code for corporate taxes vs taxes on individuals. This is because they are not the same legally. They might have similarities in some respects, but they are not the same.
      - mdorazio 9y ago
        Please provide examples here of how they are different. There are entire separate tax codes for you filing individually vs. jointly. That does not mean that if you get married you're not a person anymore. Same with corporations - just because the specifics of the tax code differ for filing does not mean they are not legally people. Also note that you yourself are already changing language here. You said "separate tax code for corporate taxes vs taxes on individuals". Both are legally people. If we want to make a distinction, we have to use other terms, like "individual".
        harryh 9y ago
        > There are entire separate tax codes for you filing individually vs. jointly. This is not true. The tax brackets are different but essentially everything else is the same. The same things are counted as income. You have the same deductions. You use the same forms. Some other ways that corporations are different from people (just off the top of my head): - A corporation can't get a driver's license. - A corporation can't get federal loans to go to college - A corporation isn't expected to register for the draft at a certain age (does that make a corporation a woman? Hah!). - A corporation cannot "take the 5th" and refuse to testify against itself. - A corporation cannot be sentenced to a prison term as punishment - Corporate free speech rights are more limited than individuals I think you might be confused by the idea of "corporate personhood." This idea doesn't mean that a corporation is a person, it means that corporations have some (but not all!) aspects of being a person.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Citing an NPR article for a legal point is like citing NPR for a programming point. Just, no. Corporations and humans both implement the ILegalPerson interface. So for some purposes where you need a legal person, they are interchangeable. But they are not in general people.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Would you suggest I cite Supreme Court decisions directly then in the future? I'm happy to cite whatever documentation you treat as canonical when we have these sorts of discussions. While it's true corporations are not "people", legal interpretation in the United States has shown that they have been given many rights of personhood.
mdorazio 9y ago
Yes, it is true. The only question is extent, not of being - take a look through some of the case law summaries on wikipedia [1]. And you only addressed the expenditure portion of the hypothetical, not the income portion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood