Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:48:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
459 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
I find myself understanding your tirade against the corps. That said,
whether the corps make their product ‘in country’ or ‘across the seas’, the
product is still purchased, and, as such, the taxes gleaned from said
product
| |
end up where the product is purchased. I understand that you would like
the corps to pay their ‘fair share’ as well--I agree. But tax money is
still
|
generated, whether the company is in the country or not.
|
Paying one’s “fair share” is only relevant to WHERE one owes it. I think
you are failing to understand precisely why the royal family of England owns
so much property in the U.S. -- because it’s cheaper for them here than in
their own country! Interestingly, their main participation and benefits
derive from England. By owning stuff here, they dodge a tax burden at home.
|
But they don’t ‘dodge a tax burden’ here. If they have land here, then they pay
property tax here. Further, if they own land here, chances are they visit said
land and therefore spend other monies here as well. Whether or not they spend
more or less money than they would if all their properties were in ‘Merry Old
England’, is irrelevant--it all balances out.
| |
Corporations that derive their main benefit as U.S. corporations are
absolutely expected to pay their “fair share” in the U.S. for a multitude of
reasons not the least of which is the benefit of the legal fiction of
incorporation. Natural persons like you or I may do as we will without
necessity of the law in many cases because we are free as PERSONS by right
to contract, at the same time we are also responsible for our debts. By
contrast, a corporation isn’t a person to begin with and only gains that
fictitious status because of laws allowing “corporations.” An obvious
additional benefit is that when the corporation is bust it can just disappear
(i.e. declare bankruptcy) still owing debt even while the participants in the
corporations (shareholders, if you will) depart with their earnings. That’s
why it’s a sweet deal to incorporate and pay yourself a CEO salary from the
corporation -- must make the payroll first!
My overall point is that we shouldn’t be granting the status of “person” to
corporations dodging their tax and wage creation (i.e. jobs) burdens at home
-- they are given innumerable breaks and sometimes even govt. subsidies with
the idea that they will create jobs and return money into the system in wages
and taxes. Once they have broken that fundamental deal -- hey, screw them!
-- Hop-Frog
|
Should gov’t ‘bail out’ corps? Probably not, imho. It interferes with the
market--if the ‘hand of the market’ makes it such that a corp cannot generate
revenue to keep the company afloat, then, like ‘market evolution in action’,
it’s time for the unfit to perish. The workers misplaced will, all things being
equal, find other jobs. Gov’t keeping businesses open just to keep workers
employeed is like me throwing dollar bills into my fireplace to heat my
house--it’s a temporary measure at best and the money is permanently disposed of
for no long term gain--all that it does is, as someone else said, win the votes
of ‘middle America’.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
