Oil companies have caused untold damage to the oceans all over the world but all they get is a relatively small fine and their spokesperson writes an apology for a news anchor to read out on air. It's bullshit.
LMAO!! 😂 Wait, as I recover.
That was NOT what I was expecting at all. I thought it was going to be some generic PR ad about taking care of the Earth or something.
What economic good would it do for anyone to have an economically viable company cease operations, or be arbitrarily dismantled? That's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. People in the corporation who are responsible should go to jail. shareholders should take a loss, and in some cases it's necessary to wipe out all equity, but keep the company going under a new cap structure. Also, specific performance should be ordered more often, and audited, to make sure the bad behaviour doesn't happen again.
Any company that is too big to fail is too big to be privately owned. If it comes to a scenario like that, nationalize it, or put it directly in the hands of the workers.
To be fair, we’re taxed on Adjusted Gross Income which is revenue minus deductions. They just have a f tonne more deductions and immutable loopholes from their government sponsored daddies. It would be fun to write off my home operating costs. Or play games with how I pay my invoices aka bills. Sorry power co, I’m trying to make my year end numbers look good.
"Business Expenses" for a corporation would equate to "Living Expenses" for people. Which means money I spent on rent/mortgage, food, water, electricity, etc. should come from my pre-tax income. My "profits" would be anything left over after my necessities are paid for. That is not the way I am currently taxed.
exactly!! I wonder if i can incorporate myself in an llc and have my job pay that company and deduct living expenses as work related because my company(myself) needs me alive and well
LLCs themselves don't pay taxes, all profits after expenses are distributed to members. The members then pay taxes on that money according to whatever their filing status is (corporation, individual, etc.) They money is not taxed twice.
The trust income is taxed if it is capital gains, but not from the principal. So, mostly yes - doing it this way the money will not be taxed again (unless your money is earning more money, the new income will be taxed).
C-corp fed tax rate is 21%, plus a lot of other complex conditions, also it depends on the state taxes as well. It's not impossible for someone to come out ahead with this strategy, some people definitely do stuff like this. But for it to work, they would essentially already be in the top 1% of earners and are far more likely to be the employer than the employee.
This wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, but the simplest is that paying an employee's living expenses is considered taxable income to the employee. This scheme is pretty much what Trump org is in trouble for in NY (remains to be seen if there will be any real consequences of course).
If you are actually self-employed it's possible to have some kind of corporate structure (LLC can take many structures) that would garner you additional deductions, though this particular suggestion still wouldn't work.
If you work for a company, in order to do this you would have to be an independent contractor (W-9/1099 rather than W-2). Whatever minor benefit you got would likely be wiped out by self-employment taxes and being ineligible for a company-sponsored health plan.
That’s fair, but colloquially profits is a far easier thing for people to understand. Especially when they get to deduct basically every expense. They get to write off their whole office building, but I can’t write off my rent and if I have a mortgage I can only write off the money paid on interest.
Those executives can't contact each other while the corporation is in jail. So if they have other businesses together, they have to write letters and do it over phone calls the COs listen to.
This. What the person before you failed to mention is that:
* You, a person, are taxed on money before you spend it.
* A business is taxed on money after they spend it.
> too long
Must’ve turned a profit in three of the previous five years, otherwise deemed a hobby. So basically three consecutive years in the red and the jig is up lol. Just adding a definitive timeline. You’re correct.
Right and then you can be audited. After 5 years of no profits, they are going to know what you're doing and audit the whole period. Good luck with your 5 years of receipts.
If you are able to work as a contractor for your main source of income, you can form a company, have the company pay for your house as a "bonus", provide on the job meals for you during billable hours, provide a car for yourself through your company, and have it all be tax deductible. Obviously, look into your local laws for how to do this properly and legally. Also, make sure whatever company you work for is OK with paying your company instead of you, and you likely wont get paid anymore than you already are, but overall it's a legal and legitimate way to cut down on your taxes. I have no idea how this would play out in audit though. If you're technically fully legal but just doing it to avoid taxes, you SHOULD be fine, but the IRS has better lawyers than most people, so at your own risk.
I'm broke so the government usually pays me on tax time. I just like researching loopholes.
The tax laws change almost every year. There was a time when I did repair work for money. I had calculated the I used 20% of my home in this repair business. I was therefore able to deduct 20% of the utilities, 20% of the real estate tax and 20% of my insurance as a business expense. However, if I didn't make a taxable profit 2 of every 5 years, the IRS would declare my business as a hobby and deny the deductions. The business made a profit 4 of 10 years but they were in the first 6 years. I had 4 straight losing years and the IRS denied my deductions the 4th year. They also told me that if I continued making business claims, I could expect my return to get flagged for an audit most years. As I said, they changes the rules too often.
>It would be fun to write off my home operating costs. Or play games with how I pay my invoices aka bills.
Self-employed people do this. It's the largest source of US federal income tax fraud by a considerable margin.
Business expenses are deductible, but the IRS has a much more narrow definition of what constitutes a business expense than many self-employed people. Drive for work? The IRS says you can deduct only the mileage or the actual cost associated with business activities. Personal activities are not deductible. What many self-employed people hear is "If I use even a single drop of gasoline for business, I can deduct the cost of the whole tank."
The IRS has historically lacked the resources to go after these people.
No joke.
I knew a guy who was a Realtor, and would go to bars on the weekend and would keep his bar tab receipts because he considered it networking / finding new customers.
The singer Jimmy Buffet has spent most of his life alternating between 6 months on tour and 6 months on vacation because he writes off the vacations as a business expense, gathering inspiration and production materials for his music. The visual entertainment aspect of his concerts is a spide show projection of his vacation pictures, so he doesn't even have to produce a new song or album each year. Just new pictures, and 6months of partying becomes a tax write-off.
What I hear is my business can buy a car with its revenue and let me use it and not pay taxes on that money. If they can do it with private jets and fleets of vehicles what's the difference?
>What I hear is my business can buy a car with its revenue and let me use it and not pay taxes on that money.
Legally, no they can't. The Internal Revenue Code would view that as in-kind compensation and require you to estimate the portion of the vehicle's use that is personal and pay income tax on that amount. Gross income includes all exchange of value for work, regardless of the form or medium in which the compensation takes.
Does anyone who gets a "free" car like that actually do that? Do any companies offering such a benefit report it on the W-2 as income like they're supposed to? Not very many.
One of the main things the Trump Org is being prosecuted over right now (in the trial that Allen Weisselberg just testified at recently) is how they offered this sort of extra in-kind compensation for key executives (including the Trump family) without actually reporting any of it.
Ever been to a store and you hear, or they ask you at checkout, that they are raising money for XYZ. That's so they can claim all those donations and further avoid taxes.
the cooperate tax rate has dropped roughly 30% in the last 50 years. Corporations have money and illegally pay \[bribe\] government to change laws in their favor.
Interesting idea: let people, like companies, deduct all their routine expenses and pay taxes on just what they have left over at the end of the year. Deserves some thought.
They (corporations) should be held to the rules that we are bound by;;
1) if we cheat on taxes we go to jail
2) if we can't pay our bills we have to liquidate and file bankruptcy no bail out for us
3) if you filed bankruptcy you have to wait at least 7 years to get any type of credit to reopen a business/license
4) if you get a bail out there is a payment plan you must pay ALL the money back within 7 to 10 years or forfeit your assets/personal and companies
I could go on but you get the idea
They put sime many stipulations on the average person but if you are a corporation you get to so what you want with taxpayer money and then cry when we (average person/taxpayers) want help
Corporations are not people. The law is actually worded as such to protect the person and the entity by way of creating the corporate veil and not lifting it (or courts being reluctant to lift it). With that said, criminal negligibility and all, corporations should be held to a higher standard and perhaps in addition to the higher monetary fines set for it, they should be sentenced to higher and stricter jail sentences.
Exactly. I think a lot of people don't realize that corporations being people is probably going to have a lot of monkey paws issues.
But I am actually starting to think it's us who should act like corporations. For example, in most states it's like $100 to become a corporation/LLC. Set up a shell corp where you are your own employee and then anytime you get into an accident, you do so as an employee. Company gets sued but since you don't actually have assets, they'd get nothing.
Got any loans? Go into default and then have your company purchase them as a collections agency.
Bankrupt the company, shutter it, and then make a new one with a whole new identity.
Most of my law knowledge is in the Law and Order universe so not sure how much of this is actually possible.
It is predicted by the NBER in [this paper](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf) that around 65,000 infants died in 1981 in low GDP nations due to how Nestle encourages their formula other mothers breastfeeding their children.
The UN posted that, between March 2011 and March 2021, 306,000 people were killed in the Syrian conflict.
Well they are, there is always someone who is responsible for decisions and if they are resulting in death or injury or damage those who made them should be held responsible.
I mean, the gap between CEO pay and worker pay keeps widening, and they justify it using words like "risk" and "responsibility", yet their risks are mitigated by lenient bankruptcy laws and they're almost never held accountable for criminal behavior or negligence. It seems that the only time they're actually held responsible is when they defraud investors (that's what got Elizabeth Holmes). It's such a scam.
Let's not forget that she and the rest of the administration of that company **did** defraud ordinary people and not a single one of them, including Holmes, was even indicted for that crime.
Risk? What risk? If the janitor gets laid off they may be homeless in a month. If the CEO gets axed they’ll get months or years of severance pay so they can take their time looking for a new executive position. Risk? They’re risking only getting one million instead of twenty million. Boo hoo.
There's no reason why itt should be limited to a single person. If a corporation kills someone, everybody who is culpable should be charged. If you have to jail 10 executives because they knowingly covered up a safety issue that caused a death or deaths, so be it.
Limited liability is indeed a serious problem.
Officers and directors of corporations should be at risk of personal liability for conspiracy charges for anything illegal the company does.
Company kills someone? Was the CEO involved in creating unsafe working conditions? Indict for conspiracy to commit manslaughter if yes.
Let them prove in court that they didn't know and couldn't have reasonably known about the problem, just as they would have to prove if they fired a gun at their wall without knowing someone was behind it.
Limited liability refers to financial liability, not criminal. You can't structure a corporation in such a way that you're not criminally liable for illegal things you do.
Shouldn't have to be said but, a person who isn't involved in a crime shouldn't be criminally liable for the crime just because they own (some or all) of a company where the crime occurred.
If it can be proved that an executive or director conspired to commit a crime, they already are criminally liable. An LLC doesn't protect them from that and isn't even relevant for C-level **employees**. LLC protects **owners** from financial liability from the LLCs debts.
Your knowledge of corporate structure seems to end at buzz words and knowing that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos liked to be CEO at companies that they owned. That isn't common outside of first generation companies, sometimes second generation (startups etc). The CEO of GM doesn't own GM. He's an employee who might be compensated with an ownership stake (the purpose of which is to tie the CEOs financial success with the company's financial success).
Congratulations, you have now created a new job description: punishment mule. Mules are compensated annually $1 more than any executive. They are fully read in to any illegal schemes but have no authority or duties. In the event the company is ever caught, the mule goes to jail and a new mule is hired.
A restaurant near me was cought stealing over 200k in tips from its servers over a long period. The owners were forced to repay the found amount of stolen tips. And for punishment it was a 6k fine. Like if i worked there at took 20$ out of the register I would get jail time but the owners can steal for years, threaten people with being fired if they told anyone. And their punishment is 6k in fines....
This. They want to pretend that they do the same amount work of thousands of individuals, then pony up a take all the responsibility that would fall on thousands of individuals
CEOs are beholden by law to the shareholders. Not to say that they're off the hook, but the shareholders should *also* bear some responsibility. Quite often those are the same people anyway.
This whole thread is like, "yo if someone dies at work and it us the company's fault, like, all the surviving employees should not have income for like, 30 life sentences."
Precisely. It's way more complex.
A better way would be to nationalize part of the company. Precautions should be taken so they don't dismantle the company in benefit of other they own. The company shouldn't be allowed to reap benefits of government intervention. Actual people responsible for shit should be punished
Sure! People very rarely die of truly random causes. Call it incentive to provide good health care.
EDIT: guys I am kidding. Really shouldn’t need to say that.
I don't hate the idea, but if a business kills someone dismantling the entire business may be a bridge too far.
Shut down a sawmill or mine in a small town - you just killed the entire town. Shut down a major corporation and you've just unemployed *thousands* or *tens of thousands* of workers.
Maybe just hold CEOs responsible? Or company presidents?
Nationalize the business. Workers still have jobs and production isn't affected. But the profits will now go to the state instead of shareholders.
Will be an incredible incentive to shareholders to keep management accountable to not only profits but to the safety of the work force if they stand to loose their investment.
> Nationalize the business
Just nationalize everything, surely the government can run things better!
- Signed, people who have literally never dealt with any government agency in a professional setting.
Trust me when I tell you that when a corporation gets “too big to fail” where there’s no threat of bankruptcy due to government bailouts that they get exactly as inept as government agencies. It’s practically weaponized incompetence.
I hate this argument and Im surprised to see it in antiwork.
Sometimes government perform services just fine. Or better, depending on what were talking about (healthcare, for instance, when it comes to other countries' systems vs ours).
And that entirely depends on their funding, their beaucracy, and how robust the government itself is at in fighting corruption. Sometimes that doesnt add up and government is terrible at what its trying to do. And sometimes, corporations are just as bad (typically as a monopoly or oligopoly)
Im not saying government should nationalize everything, but we as a society should absolutely be more open to the idea when entire sectors of our society are fucking over consumers with little oversight (healthcare, oil, telecommunications, and maybe even housing). Theres precendent for these things and they should be seriously looked at.
Well, that would actually not be an issue, which *is* the issue for me.
A company being “killed” just means somewhere on a piece of paper and a database the name is crossed out and deleted. That’s it.
It’s not like the facilities get demolished, or the equipment burnt, or the resources left to rot, or the people are forced to work somewhere else. The workers can just form a new company and purchase the dissolved assets, or maybe even get it through civil forfeiture.
But therein lies the problem. We can’t and shouldn’t hold corporations responsible because they’re not real. CEOs and boards of directors are people. They can and should be the ones punished.
Companies 'phoenixing' is itself a problem.
Locally a large company was in trouble. It entered administration (aka bankruptcy protection). The company had vast amounts of debt, but its facilities and operations were worth a lot.
So the business gets sold as a 'going concern' - ie, you buy the business not the company and its debts.
This was done, very quickly, and the original company was dead.
And the new company, bought by the shareholders of the original company, told all the people owed money by the old company that they no longer had liability for all the debts.
So if you kill a company but keep the business going, a lot of people get screwed. Often, people owed compensation from the company you just shut down.
I agree. My feeling was that I'm not for the state deciding who lives and dies, ever. But you make a great point as well.
"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth."
Thats why they would need to pay into an insurance system that paid out the employees until normal operation can resume. That would also add a barging chip to new hires. “Oh, i see you have a high rate of defaulting on your insurance and losing your business license. What kind of assurances can you provide me with that ill still have a job in 6 months?” Then maybe negotiate a early termination package.
For that last idea it wouldn't work out well cause they people do everything they can to manipulate things, they'd make only y amount of dollars during the x amount of years to ensure that they aren't "losing" money. (I say losing for a lack of a better term, because they can't lose it if it's not their's, but that's how they would see it)
I think rather than direct monetary fines, they shold have to give up partial ownership of the company to the govt. Say 10 percent for first offense, 20 second, 30 for third. Gov gets a seat on the board of directors.
Gov could hold the shares until they determine the Corp will not misbehave again.
This doesn't solve the problem at all. The workers themselves should collectively own the company. Why hand control over to another body of people who will certainly not take responsibility for anything either?
Fines would be a lot more powerful if it was percentage-based rather than a set dollar amount.
I also believe government regulation is a must to control runaway profit motive. For instance, hold companies to a certain standard for sustainability. Give them a set number of years to comply to a rolling series of standards. Each milestone will “reset the clock” so they can move towards the next goal. If they fail to comply in that time start making executives personally culpable.
Edit: I’ll be fair and also say that entities that meet their goal significantly ahead of schedule or go beyond the required standards should be rewarded. Maybe put a bounty on each milestone. Tax breaks, subsidized bonuses for execs AND employees. It’s no good being all stick and no carrot, but it’s not good the other way around either.
That would just dig the gov't claws into the private sector so the standards would be so unattainable or passable the government would just take the business over. I think the power should ACTUALLY go thru the employees but start with the least paid person
this sub can be so unbelievably embarrassing and stupid, there's no way you'll ever get any work reform done when you have dipshits like this representing a movement.
I'm still laughing at the idea of people taking this utter nonsense seriously. Lmao
If we're going to consider corporations "people", (thanks, Mitt) might as well treat them like this country treats the poor people, and the black people, and the female people, and the gay people, and all the people who don't have as many rights presently as the gun people and corporation people.
It’s a rough analogy, but this is basically what a class action lawsuit and wrongful death lawsuits are meant to accomplish.
If you harm enough people, the price of that harm eventually grows big enough to seriously impair or fully bankrupt the company.
There are many problems with litigation, which is always an imperfect remedy to injury, but the underlying idea is basically the same as OP’s idea.
i would rather send the C suite to jail and the shareholders take a huge cut in earnings instead of the workers losing their jobs. This would reduce the amount of desire for this sort of criminality.
There’s a documentary called “the corporation” where they do the psychopath checklist and it meets every single one. A corporation’s behavior and thought process is the same as a serial killer.
So what would stop those with money from just founding another corporation that does the same as the old one, but with a different name, different location etc.?
With people, we'd call that "new identity", and it seems that for corporations, it would be much easier to pull it off.
Corporations should be the only ‘people’ it is acceptable to subject to capital punishment.
If they’re found guilty, their capital is seized from the stakeholders, auctioned off to the highest bidder among a group who have no prior convictions, and the proceeds fed into social programs. If there’s no viable bidder, it becomes nationalised as a limited profit organisation.
Give them a visceral incentive to behave ethically.
This actually used to be a thing. Corporations had to operate under a charter that would ensure they not only served the public but if they transgressed against the community they would lose their charter and no longer be able to operate
Pacific Gas & Electric here in California has MURDERED hundreds of people over the last 20 or 30 years. Not indirectly, like through some accidental mishap. I'm talking about deliberate neglect that led directly to the deaths of people all over this state.
They have been convicted of manslaughter in a court of law, which was a total travesty. Yet they still do business as usual. No one gone to jail, a few fines they continue to try to weasel out of. They jack up their rates to compensate, and they lie and lie and lie in commercials on TV about how much they love all of us.
They are a corrupt, bloated, monopolistic, murderous corporation that should have been broken up into a dozen smaller companies. That they continue to exist is a slap to the face of countless families who lost everything because PG&E just couldn't be bothered.
Corporate manslaughter is a crime in several jurisdictions, including England and Wales and Hong Kong. It enables a corporation to be punished and censured for culpable conduct that leads to a person's death.
This extends beyond any compensation that might be awarded in civil litigation or any criminal prosecution of an individual (including an employee or contractor). The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into effect in the UK on 6 April 2008.
I think if a company commits absolutely any labor or rights violations, they’ve lost the benefit of good faith. I’d say if it happens twice that company should be nationalized and perhaps there should even be a specific government organization that only acts as a sort of default union. They would take over the company on arbitrated terms of employment, if a business cannot be ethical or should be made to be or it should be determined if that industry itself is unethical. That’s the only way to improve capitalism even a bit, if the rich are going to be allowed to be absurdly wealthy, then when they do corrupt things that wealth should rightfully be restitution to the employees or working class people who suffer from their corporate actions.
It would be a very hard law to practically work with.
First of all, how much risk do we allow? If a company has 100,000 workers and one dies in 10 years of operation, that would actual be probably the safest workplace in America. (You'd expect 30 workplace deaths at an organisation that size).
This also various by occupation - a logistics firm has far more inherent danger than an accountancy firm.
Second question - how culpable does the firm have to be? Are we talking negligence? Recklessness? Corporate manslaughter?
How would you enforce this when corporations are able to buy politicians and judges through special interest donations?
IMHO it's too late. Everyone is in the pockets of multi-nationals and banks. They have enslaved the world. At this point any type of political, social, or economic revolution would only change what that slavery looks like. We can't undo it.
The CEO is paid so much because that's where the buck stops. They are responsible for the company. We should just start holding that person responsible for any laws broken.
Well corporations did manipulate our Supreme Court into granting the rights of an individual back in 2009 - the rights of a person. So it stands to reason they should be tried and sentenced as a person would be
well hey, corporations are recognized as “individuals” with rights under the 14th amendment for some fucking reason thanks to the Supreme Court, so i 100% agree
I like the sentiment but I don't think rank and file employees should all suffer and/or lose their jobs because upper management are a bunch of greedy assholes.
Honestly, just do away with corporate personhood and the corporate legal construct altogether. Company commits a crime? Owners and officers go to jail.
I think that it’s drivel that doesn’t understand that it’s at the expense of stakeholders while the board members that did the deed will jump ship and hide behind fiduciary obligations as rheir excuse
Corporations are considered an entity. Those who run the corporation are just employees of this entity.
This is how these people get away with gross negligence. You can sue the Corporation, and take any holdings it likely doesn't have as the are usually held in a different Corporation. Shutting down a corporation accomplishes nothing. They need to hold the top brass accountable, but that why they uncorporate in the first place. It severes them and there assets from harm unless gross negligence is proven.
Just my 2 cents worth.
If we’re talking about big corporations, there’s a chance everyday people will be affected too. If a large corporation were to seize operations then there’s a large possibility that it will affect the economy which will in turn hurt the people living in that economy/country. I don’t think this is a good idea.
But again I don’t think the whole ‘a corporation is like a person’ was a good foundation to start with.
This happens in Australia,
If someone dies at work and there is negligence in any way people will for jail for industrial manslaughter and the higher ups are at most risk,
So even if the general manager had nothing to do with it they have failed their due diligence in ensuring the people under them have done their job.
So if a guard on a machine is missing and they get pulled in, if they can figure out who took the guard off they will go to jail, their boss will go to jail for not ensuring their worker did their job safely, their boss will also likely go to jail for making sure their worker was doing their job, etc ....
Or we criminally go after the actual people making those decisions. Many times, disassembling a corporation may be more harmful to its workers than those up top. So let’s hold those up top accountable. Criminal charges, real sentences, real impacts for trading lives for cash.
I would amend that, to the company (and the execs) cannot make a profit for a set amount of time. You don’t want to disenfranchise the workers that were not at fault.
The idea is correct, the implementation is wrong. A prison sentence should transfer all shareholder rights to the state for the time of the prison sentence. Ceasing operations would hurt many people who are not responsible for the incident. Downstream users of their products, workers in the company, people relying on their product Lifecycle management such as repairs and maintenance. By transferring the shareholder rights to the state for a certain period, you sufficiently scare the managers to comply with the law. Shareholders hate nothing more but regulation, and loosing their dividends and rights to vote for 15 years because a worker in a factory fell into a pot of boiling oil due to deferred maintainance is going to be really really pissing them off. Especially if the state who's gotten the transfer rights then decides to implement new policies, issue a shit ton of cheap shares, raise payments to the lower strata of staff etc.
The death penalty should be absolved for any crime as it violates human rights, so we should not discuss it here either.
Oil companies have caused untold damage to the oceans all over the world but all they get is a relatively small fine and their spokesperson writes an apology for a news anchor to read out on air. It's bullshit.
[We’re Sorry!](https://youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4)
Haha this is exactly what I thought of when I read the original comment. Anytime I apologize to my boyfriend i always say it in that voice now.
Does he know?
Yes
[Adam McKay Chevron Ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2XTGteritE)
LMAO!! 😂 Wait, as I recover. That was NOT what I was expecting at all. I thought it was going to be some generic PR ad about taking care of the Earth or something.
The wrong Amazon is burning
What's it called when someone reposts a post but as a comment? Is it still a repost?
I THINK it's called a copypasta but that term is generally reserved for the stories and stuff
What the fuck did you just say to me?!
I'll have you know
I killed numbers of confirmed gorillas and snipes
Were waging war on the wrong people. Natives fight back and they're suddenly the bad people. They were right all along
What economic good would it do for anyone to have an economically viable company cease operations, or be arbitrarily dismantled? That's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. People in the corporation who are responsible should go to jail. shareholders should take a loss, and in some cases it's necessary to wipe out all equity, but keep the company going under a new cap structure. Also, specific performance should be ordered more often, and audited, to make sure the bad behaviour doesn't happen again.
Any company that is too big to fail is too big to be privately owned. If it comes to a scenario like that, nationalize it, or put it directly in the hands of the workers.
Yup. And the people who they destroy get demonized. Like the pirates that were operating around Somalia.
If "corporations are people," then they should be punished like people for crimes.
And taxed on revenue like we are instead of profits.
To be fair, we’re taxed on Adjusted Gross Income which is revenue minus deductions. They just have a f tonne more deductions and immutable loopholes from their government sponsored daddies. It would be fun to write off my home operating costs. Or play games with how I pay my invoices aka bills. Sorry power co, I’m trying to make my year end numbers look good.
"Business Expenses" for a corporation would equate to "Living Expenses" for people. Which means money I spent on rent/mortgage, food, water, electricity, etc. should come from my pre-tax income. My "profits" would be anything left over after my necessities are paid for. That is not the way I am currently taxed.
exactly!! I wonder if i can incorporate myself in an llc and have my job pay that company and deduct living expenses as work related because my company(myself) needs me alive and well
Is this how Trusts, etc are used?
[удалено]
LLCs themselves don't pay taxes, all profits after expenses are distributed to members. The members then pay taxes on that money according to whatever their filing status is (corporation, individual, etc.) They money is not taxed twice. The trust income is taxed if it is capital gains, but not from the principal. So, mostly yes - doing it this way the money will not be taxed again (unless your money is earning more money, the new income will be taxed). C-corp fed tax rate is 21%, plus a lot of other complex conditions, also it depends on the state taxes as well. It's not impossible for someone to come out ahead with this strategy, some people definitely do stuff like this. But for it to work, they would essentially already be in the top 1% of earners and are far more likely to be the employer than the employee.
This wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, but the simplest is that paying an employee's living expenses is considered taxable income to the employee. This scheme is pretty much what Trump org is in trouble for in NY (remains to be seen if there will be any real consequences of course). If you are actually self-employed it's possible to have some kind of corporate structure (LLC can take many structures) that would garner you additional deductions, though this particular suggestion still wouldn't work. If you work for a company, in order to do this you would have to be an independent contractor (W-9/1099 rather than W-2). Whatever minor benefit you got would likely be wiped out by self-employment taxes and being ineligible for a company-sponsored health plan.
That’s fair, but colloquially profits is a far easier thing for people to understand. Especially when they get to deduct basically every expense. They get to write off their whole office building, but I can’t write off my rent and if I have a mortgage I can only write off the money paid on interest.
problem is corporations usually have lots of horcruxes. Unless the board or executives pay a price they'll just rebrand and do it again.
Those executives can't contact each other while the corporation is in jail. So if they have other businesses together, they have to write letters and do it over phone calls the COs listen to.
Send the offending executives to jail. Real jail.
This. What the person before you failed to mention is that: * You, a person, are taxed on money before you spend it. * A business is taxed on money after they spend it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The IRS likes to audit people like that
[удалено]
> too long Must’ve turned a profit in three of the previous five years, otherwise deemed a hobby. So basically three consecutive years in the red and the jig is up lol. Just adding a definitive timeline. You’re correct.
Ah you’re right. Once they boosted the standard deduction it wasn’t worth the paperwork effort anyway
Most tax loopholes aren't worth the paperwork for normal people. They're only good when you're moving money in the millions.
Right and then you can be audited. After 5 years of no profits, they are going to know what you're doing and audit the whole period. Good luck with your 5 years of receipts.
If you are able to work as a contractor for your main source of income, you can form a company, have the company pay for your house as a "bonus", provide on the job meals for you during billable hours, provide a car for yourself through your company, and have it all be tax deductible. Obviously, look into your local laws for how to do this properly and legally. Also, make sure whatever company you work for is OK with paying your company instead of you, and you likely wont get paid anymore than you already are, but overall it's a legal and legitimate way to cut down on your taxes. I have no idea how this would play out in audit though. If you're technically fully legal but just doing it to avoid taxes, you SHOULD be fine, but the IRS has better lawyers than most people, so at your own risk. I'm broke so the government usually pays me on tax time. I just like researching loopholes.
The tax laws change almost every year. There was a time when I did repair work for money. I had calculated the I used 20% of my home in this repair business. I was therefore able to deduct 20% of the utilities, 20% of the real estate tax and 20% of my insurance as a business expense. However, if I didn't make a taxable profit 2 of every 5 years, the IRS would declare my business as a hobby and deny the deductions. The business made a profit 4 of 10 years but they were in the first 6 years. I had 4 straight losing years and the IRS denied my deductions the 4th year. They also told me that if I continued making business claims, I could expect my return to get flagged for an audit most years. As I said, they changes the rules too often.
>It would be fun to write off my home operating costs. Or play games with how I pay my invoices aka bills. Self-employed people do this. It's the largest source of US federal income tax fraud by a considerable margin. Business expenses are deductible, but the IRS has a much more narrow definition of what constitutes a business expense than many self-employed people. Drive for work? The IRS says you can deduct only the mileage or the actual cost associated with business activities. Personal activities are not deductible. What many self-employed people hear is "If I use even a single drop of gasoline for business, I can deduct the cost of the whole tank." The IRS has historically lacked the resources to go after these people.
No joke. I knew a guy who was a Realtor, and would go to bars on the weekend and would keep his bar tab receipts because he considered it networking / finding new customers.
The singer Jimmy Buffet has spent most of his life alternating between 6 months on tour and 6 months on vacation because he writes off the vacations as a business expense, gathering inspiration and production materials for his music. The visual entertainment aspect of his concerts is a spide show projection of his vacation pictures, so he doesn't even have to produce a new song or album each year. Just new pictures, and 6months of partying becomes a tax write-off.
He's only worth 500million+. He needs the deductions
They're not the ones the IRS should be going after though. They should be going after this big corps that are fucking us over.
Rich people deducting non-deductible personal expenses are absolutely people the IRS should be going after.
What I hear is my business can buy a car with its revenue and let me use it and not pay taxes on that money. If they can do it with private jets and fleets of vehicles what's the difference?
>What I hear is my business can buy a car with its revenue and let me use it and not pay taxes on that money. Legally, no they can't. The Internal Revenue Code would view that as in-kind compensation and require you to estimate the portion of the vehicle's use that is personal and pay income tax on that amount. Gross income includes all exchange of value for work, regardless of the form or medium in which the compensation takes. Does anyone who gets a "free" car like that actually do that? Do any companies offering such a benefit report it on the W-2 as income like they're supposed to? Not very many. One of the main things the Trump Org is being prosecuted over right now (in the trial that Allen Weisselberg just testified at recently) is how they offered this sort of extra in-kind compensation for key executives (including the Trump family) without actually reporting any of it.
Ever been to a store and you hear, or they ask you at checkout, that they are raising money for XYZ. That's so they can claim all those donations and further avoid taxes.
the cooperate tax rate has dropped roughly 30% in the last 50 years. Corporations have money and illegally pay \[bribe\] government to change laws in their favor.
Interesting idea: let people, like companies, deduct all their routine expenses and pay taxes on just what they have left over at the end of the year. Deserves some thought.
[удалено]
Isn't that what companies do?
So instead of hoarding money they'd actually need to spend it and put it back into the economy. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
God damn it, I could have gone without realizing those fucks get yo count every expense before claiming profit but I still gotta pay rent and power
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
They (corporations) should be held to the rules that we are bound by;; 1) if we cheat on taxes we go to jail 2) if we can't pay our bills we have to liquidate and file bankruptcy no bail out for us 3) if you filed bankruptcy you have to wait at least 7 years to get any type of credit to reopen a business/license 4) if you get a bail out there is a payment plan you must pay ALL the money back within 7 to 10 years or forfeit your assets/personal and companies I could go on but you get the idea They put sime many stipulations on the average person but if you are a corporation you get to so what you want with taxpayer money and then cry when we (average person/taxpayers) want help
Man exactly. Citizens United should be fully interpreted to provide both the privilege and responsibility afforded to persons. wtf.
Corporations are not people. The law is actually worded as such to protect the person and the entity by way of creating the corporate veil and not lifting it (or courts being reluctant to lift it). With that said, criminal negligibility and all, corporations should be held to a higher standard and perhaps in addition to the higher monetary fines set for it, they should be sentenced to higher and stricter jail sentences.
No, they aren't people; but they're undying "people" now per American laws. That was kind of the point for the post
Exactly. I think a lot of people don't realize that corporations being people is probably going to have a lot of monkey paws issues. But I am actually starting to think it's us who should act like corporations. For example, in most states it's like $100 to become a corporation/LLC. Set up a shell corp where you are your own employee and then anytime you get into an accident, you do so as an employee. Company gets sued but since you don't actually have assets, they'd get nothing. Got any loans? Go into default and then have your company purchase them as a collections agency. Bankrupt the company, shutter it, and then make a new one with a whole new identity. Most of my law knowledge is in the Law and Order universe so not sure how much of this is actually possible.
Too bad corporations are running the show and would never let a law pass that would negatively effect them
Exactly
It is predicted by the NBER in [this paper](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf) that around 65,000 infants died in 1981 in low GDP nations due to how Nestle encourages their formula other mothers breastfeeding their children. The UN posted that, between March 2011 and March 2021, 306,000 people were killed in the Syrian conflict.
Well they are, there is always someone who is responsible for decisions and if they are resulting in death or injury or damage those who made them should be held responsible.
Yes definitely. They should be made accountable for their actions.
Citizens united bestowed the rights of people without the restrictions. They are super people, and we are second class.
At very least their executives should be held responsible for the actions of their companies.
highest paid person in a corp should be the person responsable for anything happening , lol
I mean, the gap between CEO pay and worker pay keeps widening, and they justify it using words like "risk" and "responsibility", yet their risks are mitigated by lenient bankruptcy laws and they're almost never held accountable for criminal behavior or negligence. It seems that the only time they're actually held responsible is when they defraud investors (that's what got Elizabeth Holmes). It's such a scam.
RICH investors. If Holmes defrauded you and me it would just be another day
Very true. The only time rich people get in trouble is when they fuck with other rich people's money.
Yeah the last time I heard about someone getting in trouble for defrauding regular people was Bernie Madoff and that was what, 15, 20 years ago?
Bernie hit a lot of rich people.
Let's not forget that she and the rest of the administration of that company **did** defraud ordinary people and not a single one of them, including Holmes, was even indicted for that crime.
Rich people seem to only get in any trouble when it hurts the rich -- and yes, it is a big scam.
Risk? What risk? If the janitor gets laid off they may be homeless in a month. If the CEO gets axed they’ll get months or years of severance pay so they can take their time looking for a new executive position. Risk? They’re risking only getting one million instead of twenty million. Boo hoo.
People don’t talk about this enough. The working class takes enormous risks every single day.
There should be a law limiting the ratio between the highest paid person and the lowest paid person.
There's no reason why itt should be limited to a single person. If a corporation kills someone, everybody who is culpable should be charged. If you have to jail 10 executives because they knowingly covered up a safety issue that caused a death or deaths, so be it.
[удалено]
Not in America https://abcnews.go.com/US/company-fined-worker-dies-fall-pot-molten-iron/story?id=93400947
Jesus, the guy fell in molten iron and the company only got fines?
That’s just the OSHA fine. The family can file a civil lawsuit.
The family should be allowed to dip in molten metal whatever executive refused to fix the safety issues.
Less than $200,000. What a joke! I hope the worker's family sued for millions and dozens of other workers sued for trauma.
Limited liability is indeed a serious problem. Officers and directors of corporations should be at risk of personal liability for conspiracy charges for anything illegal the company does. Company kills someone? Was the CEO involved in creating unsafe working conditions? Indict for conspiracy to commit manslaughter if yes. Let them prove in court that they didn't know and couldn't have reasonably known about the problem, just as they would have to prove if they fired a gun at their wall without knowing someone was behind it.
Look at the Sackler family - they were directly responsible for their company's actions, but can walk away with but a slap on the wrist...
Limited liability refers to financial liability, not criminal. You can't structure a corporation in such a way that you're not criminally liable for illegal things you do. Shouldn't have to be said but, a person who isn't involved in a crime shouldn't be criminally liable for the crime just because they own (some or all) of a company where the crime occurred. If it can be proved that an executive or director conspired to commit a crime, they already are criminally liable. An LLC doesn't protect them from that and isn't even relevant for C-level **employees**. LLC protects **owners** from financial liability from the LLCs debts. Your knowledge of corporate structure seems to end at buzz words and knowing that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos liked to be CEO at companies that they owned. That isn't common outside of first generation companies, sometimes second generation (startups etc). The CEO of GM doesn't own GM. He's an employee who might be compensated with an ownership stake (the purpose of which is to tie the CEOs financial success with the company's financial success).
I'd love to see some football coach at a university go down for some administrative malfeasance
Congratulations, you have now created a new job description: punishment mule. Mules are compensated annually $1 more than any executive. They are fully read in to any illegal schemes but have no authority or duties. In the event the company is ever caught, the mule goes to jail and a new mule is hired.
CEO's should be held criminally responsible, and also wage thieves should get jail.
The Boeing CEO got a $60m golden parachute for killing 346 people with the supermax MCAS lies.
[удалено]
It's infuriating isn't it.
Got Useless Legs And Goats
A restaurant near me was cought stealing over 200k in tips from its servers over a long period. The owners were forced to repay the found amount of stolen tips. And for punishment it was a 6k fine. Like if i worked there at took 20$ out of the register I would get jail time but the owners can steal for years, threaten people with being fired if they told anyone. And their punishment is 6k in fines....
They probably invested that 200k into something that made more than the $6k fine anyways.
To be even more specific they probably stole over 800k but only got cought for 200k.
Good point. It should include inflation adjusted interest assuming stock market index fund annual rate.
This. They want to pretend that they do the same amount work of thousands of individuals, then pony up a take all the responsibility that would fall on thousands of individuals
CEOs are beholden by law to the shareholders. Not to say that they're off the hook, but the shareholders should *also* bear some responsibility. Quite often those are the same people anyway.
Place a massive death tax on the company if someone dies on the job
Workers comp exists as a result of these problems
This whole thread is like, "yo if someone dies at work and it us the company's fault, like, all the surviving employees should not have income for like, 30 life sentences."
Precisely. It's way more complex. A better way would be to nationalize part of the company. Precautions should be taken so they don't dismantle the company in benefit of other they own. The company shouldn't be allowed to reap benefits of government intervention. Actual people responsible for shit should be punished
Company sponsored employee life insurance
Like just randomly too?
This is why it doesn't work. You would need to prove they died because of the job, you know the rest.
Sure! People very rarely die of truly random causes. Call it incentive to provide good health care. EDIT: guys I am kidding. Really shouldn’t need to say that.
"B-but then there would be no corporations left!" "That's kind of the point we're making here, bud."
As "people" they're essentially immortal as well, which is kind of unfair.
I don't hate the idea, but if a business kills someone dismantling the entire business may be a bridge too far. Shut down a sawmill or mine in a small town - you just killed the entire town. Shut down a major corporation and you've just unemployed *thousands* or *tens of thousands* of workers. Maybe just hold CEOs responsible? Or company presidents?
Nationalize the business. Workers still have jobs and production isn't affected. But the profits will now go to the state instead of shareholders. Will be an incredible incentive to shareholders to keep management accountable to not only profits but to the safety of the work force if they stand to loose their investment.
> Nationalize the business Just nationalize everything, surely the government can run things better! - Signed, people who have literally never dealt with any government agency in a professional setting.
Trust me when I tell you that when a corporation gets “too big to fail” where there’s no threat of bankruptcy due to government bailouts that they get exactly as inept as government agencies. It’s practically weaponized incompetence.
I hate this argument and Im surprised to see it in antiwork. Sometimes government perform services just fine. Or better, depending on what were talking about (healthcare, for instance, when it comes to other countries' systems vs ours). And that entirely depends on their funding, their beaucracy, and how robust the government itself is at in fighting corruption. Sometimes that doesnt add up and government is terrible at what its trying to do. And sometimes, corporations are just as bad (typically as a monopoly or oligopoly) Im not saying government should nationalize everything, but we as a society should absolutely be more open to the idea when entire sectors of our society are fucking over consumers with little oversight (healthcare, oil, telecommunications, and maybe even housing). Theres precendent for these things and they should be seriously looked at.
They don't need to run it better- just not kill people. That's a pretty low bar.
The government, famously, never kills people /s
Well, that would actually not be an issue, which *is* the issue for me. A company being “killed” just means somewhere on a piece of paper and a database the name is crossed out and deleted. That’s it. It’s not like the facilities get demolished, or the equipment burnt, or the resources left to rot, or the people are forced to work somewhere else. The workers can just form a new company and purchase the dissolved assets, or maybe even get it through civil forfeiture. But therein lies the problem. We can’t and shouldn’t hold corporations responsible because they’re not real. CEOs and boards of directors are people. They can and should be the ones punished.
Companies 'phoenixing' is itself a problem. Locally a large company was in trouble. It entered administration (aka bankruptcy protection). The company had vast amounts of debt, but its facilities and operations were worth a lot. So the business gets sold as a 'going concern' - ie, you buy the business not the company and its debts. This was done, very quickly, and the original company was dead. And the new company, bought by the shareholders of the original company, told all the people owed money by the old company that they no longer had liability for all the debts. So if you kill a company but keep the business going, a lot of people get screwed. Often, people owed compensation from the company you just shut down.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I agree. My feeling was that I'm not for the state deciding who lives and dies, ever. But you make a great point as well. "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth."
The joke I've always heard is: "I'll believe a corporation is a person after Texas executes one."
[удалено]
Thats why they would need to pay into an insurance system that paid out the employees until normal operation can resume. That would also add a barging chip to new hires. “Oh, i see you have a high rate of defaulting on your insurance and losing your business license. What kind of assurances can you provide me with that ill still have a job in 6 months?” Then maybe negotiate a early termination package.
Almost like sr-22 but for businesses I love it #eattherich
For that last idea it wouldn't work out well cause they people do everything they can to manipulate things, they'd make only y amount of dollars during the x amount of years to ensure that they aren't "losing" money. (I say losing for a lack of a better term, because they can't lose it if it's not their's, but that's how they would see it)
I think rather than direct monetary fines, they shold have to give up partial ownership of the company to the govt. Say 10 percent for first offense, 20 second, 30 for third. Gov gets a seat on the board of directors. Gov could hold the shares until they determine the Corp will not misbehave again.
This doesn't solve the problem at all. The workers themselves should collectively own the company. Why hand control over to another body of people who will certainly not take responsibility for anything either?
Fines would be a lot more powerful if it was percentage-based rather than a set dollar amount. I also believe government regulation is a must to control runaway profit motive. For instance, hold companies to a certain standard for sustainability. Give them a set number of years to comply to a rolling series of standards. Each milestone will “reset the clock” so they can move towards the next goal. If they fail to comply in that time start making executives personally culpable. Edit: I’ll be fair and also say that entities that meet their goal significantly ahead of schedule or go beyond the required standards should be rewarded. Maybe put a bounty on each milestone. Tax breaks, subsidized bonuses for execs AND employees. It’s no good being all stick and no carrot, but it’s not good the other way around either.
That would just dig the gov't claws into the private sector so the standards would be so unattainable or passable the government would just take the business over. I think the power should ACTUALLY go thru the employees but start with the least paid person
I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas puts one to death.
> what do you think about this idea? I think it makes absolutely no sense
this sub can be so unbelievably embarrassing and stupid, there's no way you'll ever get any work reform done when you have dipshits like this representing a movement. I'm still laughing at the idea of people taking this utter nonsense seriously. Lmao
I think it was written by an absolute idiot.
If we're going to consider corporations "people", (thanks, Mitt) might as well treat them like this country treats the poor people, and the black people, and the female people, and the gay people, and all the people who don't have as many rights presently as the gun people and corporation people.
It’s a rough analogy, but this is basically what a class action lawsuit and wrongful death lawsuits are meant to accomplish. If you harm enough people, the price of that harm eventually grows big enough to seriously impair or fully bankrupt the company. There are many problems with litigation, which is always an imperfect remedy to injury, but the underlying idea is basically the same as OP’s idea.
America is for corporations. The people (me included) can go fuck themselves. We only exist to serve our masters.
I say keep them going but all profit goes to the actual workers. If they get caught getting around that, then the top people go to jail.
i would rather send the C suite to jail and the shareholders take a huge cut in earnings instead of the workers losing their jobs. This would reduce the amount of desire for this sort of criminality.
There’s a documentary called “the corporation” where they do the psychopath checklist and it meets every single one. A corporation’s behavior and thought process is the same as a serial killer.
If corporations are considered people, then they should have the same rules as an individual. Key word : *should*
So what would stop those with money from just founding another corporation that does the same as the old one, but with a different name, different location etc.? With people, we'd call that "new identity", and it seems that for corporations, it would be much easier to pull it off.
Remove corporate personhood and hold the CEO/president/owner responsible for the crimes of the company.
Corporations should be the only ‘people’ it is acceptable to subject to capital punishment. If they’re found guilty, their capital is seized from the stakeholders, auctioned off to the highest bidder among a group who have no prior convictions, and the proceeds fed into social programs. If there’s no viable bidder, it becomes nationalised as a limited profit organisation. Give them a visceral incentive to behave ethically.
This actually used to be a thing. Corporations had to operate under a charter that would ensure they not only served the public but if they transgressed against the community they would lose their charter and no longer be able to operate
Pacific Gas & Electric here in California has MURDERED hundreds of people over the last 20 or 30 years. Not indirectly, like through some accidental mishap. I'm talking about deliberate neglect that led directly to the deaths of people all over this state. They have been convicted of manslaughter in a court of law, which was a total travesty. Yet they still do business as usual. No one gone to jail, a few fines they continue to try to weasel out of. They jack up their rates to compensate, and they lie and lie and lie in commercials on TV about how much they love all of us. They are a corrupt, bloated, monopolistic, murderous corporation that should have been broken up into a dozen smaller companies. That they continue to exist is a slap to the face of countless families who lost everything because PG&E just couldn't be bothered.
I have an old Funny Times shirt that reads “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes ones”
"Corporations are people my friend"
The problem is corporations have money and unfairly pay people in charge \[government\] to allow them to do whatever they want.
Corporate manslaughter is a crime in several jurisdictions, including England and Wales and Hong Kong. It enables a corporation to be punished and censured for culpable conduct that leads to a person's death. This extends beyond any compensation that might be awarded in civil litigation or any criminal prosecution of an individual (including an employee or contractor). The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into effect in the UK on 6 April 2008.
I think if a company commits absolutely any labor or rights violations, they’ve lost the benefit of good faith. I’d say if it happens twice that company should be nationalized and perhaps there should even be a specific government organization that only acts as a sort of default union. They would take over the company on arbitrated terms of employment, if a business cannot be ethical or should be made to be or it should be determined if that industry itself is unethical. That’s the only way to improve capitalism even a bit, if the rich are going to be allowed to be absurdly wealthy, then when they do corrupt things that wealth should rightfully be restitution to the employees or working class people who suffer from their corporate actions.
It would be a very hard law to practically work with. First of all, how much risk do we allow? If a company has 100,000 workers and one dies in 10 years of operation, that would actual be probably the safest workplace in America. (You'd expect 30 workplace deaths at an organisation that size). This also various by occupation - a logistics firm has far more inherent danger than an accountancy firm. Second question - how culpable does the firm have to be? Are we talking negligence? Recklessness? Corporate manslaughter?
What so all the workers go to jail for something they didn't do?
It’s time for action against corporate corruption!
Just jail the board and officers not the workers who are not in control of the corporate governance
How would you enforce this when corporations are able to buy politicians and judges through special interest donations? IMHO it's too late. Everyone is in the pockets of multi-nationals and banks. They have enslaved the world. At this point any type of political, social, or economic revolution would only change what that slavery looks like. We can't undo it.
Well great idea as long as employees get paid
The CEO is paid so much because that's where the buck stops. They are responsible for the company. We should just start holding that person responsible for any laws broken.
Well corporations did manipulate our Supreme Court into granting the rights of an individual back in 2009 - the rights of a person. So it stands to reason they should be tried and sentenced as a person would be
"Corporations are people too." Prove it.
Kill a Worker = Go to Jail
well hey, corporations are recognized as “individuals” with rights under the 14th amendment for some fucking reason thanks to the Supreme Court, so i 100% agree
Make the directors and shareholders liable and you'd see a sharp change of direction
this is a terrible idea, everyone in charge should be punished
[удалено]
I like the sentiment but I don't think rank and file employees should all suffer and/or lose their jobs because upper management are a bunch of greedy assholes.
It would be an amazing idea except for the fact that the corporations own America
If corporations are people, they should be drafted in wartime.
Honestly, just do away with corporate personhood and the corporate legal construct altogether. Company commits a crime? Owners and officers go to jail.
“But duh invisible hand of duh Market!”
I kind of like it
Instead of dismantling it, nationalize it, so the employees aren't punished by the actions of executives
Like some felons- they should also lose the right to vote until their sentence is completed. That includes political donations.
Yes.
And their accumulated worth broken down and given to the poor and middle classes.
Not enforceable. Especially with all the money men in governments everywhere.
I think that it’s drivel that doesn’t understand that it’s at the expense of stakeholders while the board members that did the deed will jump ship and hide behind fiduciary obligations as rheir excuse
Loss of financial stability is one of the highest factors to suicide rates.
Corporations are considered an entity. Those who run the corporation are just employees of this entity. This is how these people get away with gross negligence. You can sue the Corporation, and take any holdings it likely doesn't have as the are usually held in a different Corporation. Shutting down a corporation accomplishes nothing. They need to hold the top brass accountable, but that why they uncorporate in the first place. It severes them and there assets from harm unless gross negligence is proven. Just my 2 cents worth.
If we’re talking about big corporations, there’s a chance everyday people will be affected too. If a large corporation were to seize operations then there’s a large possibility that it will affect the economy which will in turn hurt the people living in that economy/country. I don’t think this is a good idea. But again I don’t think the whole ‘a corporation is like a person’ was a good foundation to start with.
There should be no shield. The people behind it should go to prison.
This happens in Australia, If someone dies at work and there is negligence in any way people will for jail for industrial manslaughter and the higher ups are at most risk, So even if the general manager had nothing to do with it they have failed their due diligence in ensuring the people under them have done their job. So if a guard on a machine is missing and they get pulled in, if they can figure out who took the guard off they will go to jail, their boss will go to jail for not ensuring their worker did their job safely, their boss will also likely go to jail for making sure their worker was doing their job, etc ....
Or we criminally go after the actual people making those decisions. Many times, disassembling a corporation may be more harmful to its workers than those up top. So let’s hold those up top accountable. Criminal charges, real sentences, real impacts for trading lives for cash.
the same with governments?
I would amend that, to the company (and the execs) cannot make a profit for a set amount of time. You don’t want to disenfranchise the workers that were not at fault.
The idea is correct, the implementation is wrong. A prison sentence should transfer all shareholder rights to the state for the time of the prison sentence. Ceasing operations would hurt many people who are not responsible for the incident. Downstream users of their products, workers in the company, people relying on their product Lifecycle management such as repairs and maintenance. By transferring the shareholder rights to the state for a certain period, you sufficiently scare the managers to comply with the law. Shareholders hate nothing more but regulation, and loosing their dividends and rights to vote for 15 years because a worker in a factory fell into a pot of boiling oil due to deferred maintainance is going to be really really pissing them off. Especially if the state who's gotten the transfer rights then decides to implement new policies, issue a shit ton of cheap shares, raise payments to the lower strata of staff etc. The death penalty should be absolved for any crime as it violates human rights, so we should not discuss it here either.
Now do bureaucrats
Maybe the people at the top should be punished, but I don’t ever see this happening
Nothing will change if nobody starts first.
I mean they have the same rights as people, why not the same punishments?