4 ms·

> Corporate person-hood, and corporate taxes don't really make so much sense. Corporate personhood (as far as I understand) is required by limited liability, w

> Corporate person-hood, and corporate taxes don't really make so much sense. Corporate personhood (as far as I understand) is required by limited liability, which makes a lot of sense to me. Separating a company's debts from the owners' debts (and preventing creditors from going after the owners of a company when it goes bankrupt) is very encouraging for new and small businesses. The debts of the company become separate from the debts of its owners. It encourages people to start businesses and take loans, not having to worry that they'd lose everything if their startup goes under (at least theoretically).

tracker1 13y ago
I mean, corporations should not be able to donate to political lobby groups, and campaigns. If an employee or shareholder wants to put their money in, so be it. Corporations should have very limited power, not treated like a person legally. You can have the protections you speak of without allowing political sway. OMHO one of the biggest arguments for corporate personhood is they are tax paying entities... if you reduce corporations to only allow shared ownership and limited liability, while also limiting the holding of underutilized assets and capital, it would even out. I'm not talking about liability, I'm talking about holdings, taxes and political sway.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  > I mean, corporations should not be able to donate to political lobby groups, and campaigns. While I agree with the idea itself, I don't think you can prevent that realistically. In the end, it's not "corporations" that donate money, but the people in charge of those corporations. If those people (the CEOs, VPs, board members and so on) want to make a donation, they can always do so privately (and most of them certainly have the money to do it).
  - tracker1 13y ago
    Then let them.. and that becomes public record, and a non-living entity isn't directly affecting political sway.

tracker1 13y ago

I mean, corporations should not be able to donate to political lobby groups, and campaigns. If an employee or shareholder wants to put their money in, so be it. Corporations should have very limited power, not treated like a person legally. You can have the protections you speak of without allowing political sway. OMHO one of the biggest arguments for corporate personhood is they are tax paying entities... if you reduce corporations to only allow shared ownership and limited liability, while also limiting the holding of underutilized assets and capital, it would even out. I'm not talking about liability, I'm talking about holdings, taxes and political sway.

ahomescu1 13y ago
> I mean, corporations should not be able to donate to political lobby groups, and campaigns. While I agree with the idea itself, I don't think you can prevent that realistically. In the end, it's not "corporations" that donate money, but the people in charge of those corporations. If those people (the CEOs, VPs, board members and so on) want to make a donation, they can always do so privately (and most of them certainly have the money to do it).
- tracker1 13y ago
  Then let them.. and that becomes public record, and a non-living entity isn't directly affecting political sway.