3 ms·
The corporation is a creation of the state. The state has obligations to humans, not to corporations. If the lives of humans to whom the state is obligated woul
by jessaustin 6y ago
The corporation is a creation of the state. The state has obligations to humans, not to corporations. If the lives of humans to whom the state is obligated would be improved by any number of onerous requirements imposed on corporations, the state certainly should impose those onerous requirements.
Of course, the idea that states are created for the benefit of humans is bullshit, but it's nice to dream of something better...
- lotsofpulp 6y ago> If the lives of humans to whom the state is obligated would be improved by any number of onerous requirements imposed on corporations, the state certainly should impose those onerous requirements. I agree with this. Which is why I wrote the state can choose to increase taxes. I have yet to be shown how requiring a company to pay dividends accomplishes the goal of improving the lives of humans.
- jessaustin 6y agoDividends are taxable, and they're often paid to entities that are unable to structure "profits" as carefully as the largest corporations can. So, in this discussion in which everyone (even Jeff B!) seems to agree that more taxes should be collected, dividend requirements would be a way to do that. Of course, that's too tame. We'd be better off eliminating the most common forms of incorporation, or severely curtailing them e.g. maximum revenue limits. All the things that corporations can do, individuals, partnerships, mutual-benefit firms, etc. can also do, except often more carefully.