3 ms·

This is the status quo but doesn't address parent's argument. If corporations want the same rights as natural persons in one area of the law, it would be cherry

This is the status quo but doesn't address parent's argument. If corporations want the same rights as natural persons in one area of the law, it would be cherry picking to want to keep a privileged position in another, e.g. tax law. A good argument against parent would need to attack the premise that cherry picking privileges is bad.

pathy 13y ago
Your argument is a fair point, cherry picking privileges is quite ridiculous. That said, it makes absolutely zero sense to compare corporation taxes and personal taxes. The dynamics are just totally different. I can see nothing good in equating personal and corporation taxes. My personal opinion is that both personal and corporate tax legislation is more or less flawed and that the(effective) tax rates probably need to be adjust but that doesn't mean that I want them to have the same legislation.
- D9u 13y ago
  Obviously I am not an economist, so I know zero about corporate finance, but do we really need to complicate the tax issue as our present tax laws have become? (I once handled accounts payable for a local government entity - I quickly transferred to an IT position so that's all I know beyond balancing my own budget) Why won't a more simple approach be workable? I favor a tax based on percentage of gain. If a Mega-Corp makes $30Bn a year, and I only make $30K, we each pay accordingly, at the same percentage rate. Of course there would be a great debate about exactly what that percentage should be, but it should be equitable and not too onerous. Why not hold corporate entities to the same standard as individuals? Isn't the USA supposed to be about equality? (Remember, freedom & equal rights for all?)
cdjk 13y ago
Corporate personhood is the easiest way to allow corporations to enter into contracts and engage in civil litigation. I'd be interested in what opponents of corporate personhood propose as ways around those problems, which I think are goods. Having to renegotiate all contracts with a business if the owner dies doesn't seem very efficient. With regard to tax law, accounting is generally different between corporations and individuals. Specifically, individuals use cash accounting while businesses frequently use accrual accounting. Furthermore, businesses can deduct far more in expenses than an individual. One can argue about that, but I think it makes sense when you realize that corporations are ultimately owned by individuals, but individuals cannot be owned by other individuals or corporations. Individuals are ultimately the "base case" of ownership, so I think the different tax treatment of revenue/profit/income makes sense.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Corporate personhood is the easiest way to allow corporations to enter into contracts and engage in civil litigation. Most opponents of corporate "personhood" aren't really opposed to juridical personhood of corporations and other non-natural persons, they are opposed to the effect given to corporate personhood in certain domains; corporate personhood has never been fully equivalent to natural personhood in the law, and there are quite different ways in which corporations could be treated as juridical persons without directly holding the particular rights that have recently caused a lot of people to get offended about "corporate personhood".

pathy 13y ago

Your argument is a fair point, cherry picking privileges is quite ridiculous. That said, it makes absolutely zero sense to compare corporation taxes and personal taxes. The dynamics are just totally different. I can see nothing good in equating personal and corporation taxes. My personal opinion is that both personal and corporate tax legislation is more or less flawed and that the(effective) tax rates probably need to be adjust but that doesn't mean that I want them to have the same legislation.

D9u 13y ago
Obviously I am not an economist, so I know zero about corporate finance, but do we really need to complicate the tax issue as our present tax laws have become? (I once handled accounts payable for a local government entity - I quickly transferred to an IT position so that's all I know beyond balancing my own budget) Why won't a more simple approach be workable? I favor a tax based on percentage of gain. If a Mega-Corp makes $30Bn a year, and I only make $30K, we each pay accordingly, at the same percentage rate. Of course there would be a great debate about exactly what that percentage should be, but it should be equitable and not too onerous. Why not hold corporate entities to the same standard as individuals? Isn't the USA supposed to be about equality? (Remember, freedom & equal rights for all?)

cdjk 13y ago

Corporate personhood is the easiest way to allow corporations to enter into contracts and engage in civil litigation. I'd be interested in what opponents of corporate personhood propose as ways around those problems, which I think are goods. Having to renegotiate all contracts with a business if the owner dies doesn't seem very efficient. With regard to tax law, accounting is generally different between corporations and individuals. Specifically, individuals use cash accounting while businesses frequently use accrual accounting. Furthermore, businesses can deduct far more in expenses than an individual. One can argue about that, but I think it makes sense when you realize that corporations are ultimately owned by individuals, but individuals cannot be owned by other individuals or corporations. Individuals are ultimately the "base case" of ownership, so I think the different tax treatment of revenue/profit/income makes sense.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Corporate personhood is the easiest way to allow corporations to enter into contracts and engage in civil litigation. Most opponents of corporate "personhood" aren't really opposed to juridical personhood of corporations and other non-natural persons, they are opposed to the effect given to corporate personhood in certain domains; corporate personhood has never been fully equivalent to natural personhood in the law, and there are quite different ways in which corporations could be treated as juridical persons without directly holding the particular rights that have recently caused a lot of people to get offended about "corporate personhood".