3 ms·
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 cor
by 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".