Three Changes

[LostDutchman]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Pardon me but are you on drugs?

[noviapriani]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

[umair127]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

[Rigon]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Pardon me but are you on drugs?

lol, want some?

[umair127]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

Oh, I just realized your initial post said to ban them from having constitutional rights, not to ban liability shields entirely.

[Rigon]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.


Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

[noviapriani]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

Well, it's a matter of logistics. If the corporation is not autonomous insofar as it does not shield individuals from liability, then individual owners become liable for the taxes. This, by definition, renders corporate income tax a contradiction of terms. In other words, the income of the corporation would constitute income for the individuals who own the corporation. Ergo, they pay individual income tax on the gains, not a corporate income tax. Even if you call it "corporate income tax," it's still, conceptually, an individual income tax unless you're holding the corporation uniquely liable for its taxes as distinguished and separate from the liabilities of the individual owners.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

Oh, I just realized your initial post said to ban them from having constitutional rights, not to ban liability shields entirely.

Ideally, I don't think any human should be allowed to make decisions that affect others but then hide from the law behind a non-person. But, there probably are more far-reaching consequences to completely banning legal liability shields. Certainly there are large economic effects -- investments would be chilled considerably.

[noviapriani]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

[jakedeez]

1) Send all members of congress on a two week long camping trip in groups of even democrats and republicans.  Handcuff one dem to one repub.  No cellphones.

2) Require all corporations to fully fund outstanding pension liabilities.  Require stock sales if needed to make pensions whole.  Provide the same requirement of public sector pensions.  Then eliminate pensions going forward in favor of tax advantaged private savings account to supplement SS.

3) Put enough money (fuck it - idc if we borrow it from china or print it) into education to insure that we end up ranked number one in every category.  As part of this one, I would make it a requirement for graduation from middle school that all children have a proficiency in either speaking a foreign language or coding.  Also nutritional education proficiency.  Additionally fund a trust to insure that teaching jobs are very well paid and very competitive.

[sana8410]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

It doesn't eliminate any of those things. Who would? The right kind of people -- which is the entire point. duh.Trouble attracting workers? Raise the pay until you attract workers.
OH MY GOD -- that was hard. It would do none of those things.

And only tinfoil loons who know shit about banking think "the real problem" is the Fed's holdings.

[sana8410]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.


Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

It's not. And it makes sense to allow corporations to have the same rights as individuals. Your idea would make it so no one would want to run a business.

[Rigon]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights.

It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble.
Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion.

Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.


Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

It's not. And it makes sense to allow corporations to have the same rights as individuals. Your idea would make it so no one would want to run a business.

It makes absolutely no sense for them to have Constitutional rights. You do realize the vast majority of businesses are not    corporations....................................

[umair127]

and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights

Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.

Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

It doesn't eliminate any of those things. Who would? The right kind of people -- which is the entire point. duh.Trouble attracting workers? Raise the pay until you attract workers.
OH MY GOD -- that was hard. It would do none of those things.

And only tinfoil loons who know shit about banking think "the real problem" is the Fed's holdings.

First, please explain how contract rights, due process, etc. would not be eliminated by a constitutional amendment "to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional [sic] rights."

Second, what you are arguing for is similar to a non-compete. Look at some of the economic research on the cost of non-compete clauses--I think you will find that they result in massive wage premiums of 100 to 400%.

Third, increasing capital requirements for private banks will have (and is already having) a major negative unintended consequence: further bank consolidation and concentration of capital. And, the larger capital requirements, makes it harder for new entrants, further entrenching existing interests.

[sana8410]

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS


As stated before:

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

[umair127]

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS


As stated before:

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

[sana8410]

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS


As stated before:

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So what?

[umair127]

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS


As stated before:

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So what?

So you would vastly increase the cost of bureaucracy and you likely would still get lesser qualified candidates even with the higher salary because workers desire lateral mobility.
What do you do for a living?

[sana8410]

.... such abilities would not be eliminated because corporations would retain those powers through EXACTLY THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXIST.

For example:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...10&DocType=ARS


As stated before:

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So what?

So you would vastly increase the cost of bureaucracy and you likely would still get lesser qualified candidates even with the higher salary because workers desire lateral mobility.
What do you do for a living?

I like how you attempt to wedge in some idiotic claim that candidates would be "lesser qualified", when even you yourself have posted that the only change required is to raise wages.
The ONLY necessary difference would be an increase in wages for regulators. And the costs today of regulators being offered incentives from companies they regulate isn't exactly a boon to the taxpayer as it is, especailly when it comes to the revolving door with Wall Street banks.

[umair127]

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

[sana8410]

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights.

I'm not conflating anything.
I destroyed your silly suggestion that corporations would suddenly lose the ability to enter into contracts.

That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

Except that Federal law recognizes protections for corporations.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1


Your histrionics aside, corporations aren't losing a single thing that they need to function properly.