It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
With the legal requirements for contracts and the like, it is impossible for a group of people to carry out financial activities as a group to support their opinion unless they can form one financial entity to work with advertisers and other companies as a single point of contact.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes.
Not necessarily, and their income tax has nothing to do with the earnings of the corporation, unless they receive a divided or the price of their shares rises and they sell it, in which case they pay Capital Gains taxes, not income taxes on the gain.
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes. And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.
So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes. And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.
So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.
U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words "person" and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals
Amendment 14 to the United States Constitution: Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Originally posted by WhiteAlice
... corporation will be taxed (less deductions, loopholes, black holes--GE, I'm looking at you--and the like) ... they usually have an effective tax rate (what they actually pay) of between 6-9%. Or in GE's case--0%.
Originally posted by METACOMET
This is problem, reaction, solution. People's will is deliberately being steered down an increasingly narrowing road so that they might agree to their own destruction. Don't fall for it.
Originally posted by Kokatsi
Who authorized them to speak over the head of employees? Are there modern day princes or barons?
Originally posted by METACOMET
U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words "person" and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals
So how does that grant corporate person-hood and first amendment rights?
Originally posted by ipsedixit
There are real problems with the corporation as an entity in the world. To my mind the most dangerous attribute of corporations is their potential for immortality.
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Look at it this way.
You have a group of 500 like minded people.
Your group wants to buy advertising space on specified billboards around the city.
You can not take out an advertising contract with specified billboard company, and have all 500 people sign the contract.
With the corresponding 500 checks that would accompany it.
It’s not logical, it’s not workable, and it’s a legal nightmare.
What you do is form an entity that signifies your 500 members. That allows you to form a bank account for your collective that all 500 members can funnel money into. And when the group decides to buy advertising space, the group can sign as one(the collective) and send one check from the bank account that the collective created to pay for the activities the collective wanted to perform as a group. That allows the group to speak as one (the collective).
With the legal requirements for contracts and the like, it is impossible for a group of people to carry out financial activities as a group to support their opinion unless they can form one financial entity to work with advertisers and other companies as a single point of contact.
edit on 11-2-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
People retain their rights, even when working as a group.
Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
People retain their rights, even when working as a group.
Not necessarily, and neither should they, IMO. Corporation represent the interests of their shareholders but therew are other ligitimate stakeholders, whose interest should not be nullified (environment, consumers, employees, etc).
Even shareholders are not represented perfectly (are hundreds of millions in bonuses increasing shareholder wealth?). What can a prospective shareholder do if he disagrees with the process in which Board of Directors make decisions (and all Boards work on the same principle)?
You are correct, I don't have to buy shares of any company. With all companies offering unsafe work places, I don't have to work anywhere. And with the environment destroyed by pollution I don't have to live anywhere, right? And I may consume goods that one day may kill me (say, lead poisining). Then what quality of life can the money buy me?
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Environment? What?
Consumers? They don’t have to buy the product. Freedom of the marketplace.
Employees? They don’t have to work there. We don’t have forced work details.
Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
According to your argument, local and federal governments are also "groups of people". Then they should be able to make any regulation they may choose to impose. You just defeated your own argument.
via organized and recognized groups.