By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Donors pulling funding from soup kitchen over Paul Ryan photoshoot

noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:

 Of course I ask this fully realizing these are probably the same people that only donate for tax breaks.


Nobody donates for tax breaks.

Break in taxes you get for donating is always less then the amount of money you give away.

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/12/18/charity-and-your-tax-bill/

 

This is due to the fact that we have a graduated tax bracket system.

People talking about "Dropping you into a lower tax bracket" are likely people who have never done their own taxes... since we have a graduated tax bracket.

True story: I once had an employee tell me that she seriously considered asking for a lower salary because she didn't want to go to a higher tax bracket.

killerzX said:

the supreme court and the constitution views corporations as groups of people.

What is the basis for your statement that the Constitution views corporations as groups of people?


In that they are a group of people and aren't excluded from the 1st or 14th ammendments.

It's like asking smeone to prove that the consitution views asians as human beings.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:

 Of course I ask this fully realizing these are probably the same people that only donate for tax breaks.


Nobody donates for tax breaks.

Break in taxes you get for donating is always less then the amount of money you give away.

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/12/18/charity-and-your-tax-bill/

 

This is due to the fact that we have a graduated tax bracket system.

People talking about "Dropping you into a lower tax bracket" are likely people who have never done their own taxes... since we have a graduated tax bracket.

True story: I once had an employee tell me that she seriously considered asking for a lower salary because she didn't want to go to a higher tax bracket.

killerzX said:

the supreme court and the constitution views corporations as groups of people.

What is the basis for your statement that the Constitution views corporations as groups of people?


In that they are a group of people and aren't excluded from the 1st or 14th ammendments.

It's like asking smeone to prove that the consitution views asians as human beings.

 

Problems arise when you start granting personhood to corporations.  The way they are structured, ownership that makes decisions, isn't liable for what the entities they own doing bad things, so there is risks of these entities doing really bad things.   Secondarily, these entities, as they are now, exist independently of anyone in them.  They exist on paper and end up outlasting everyone who is part of them.   For profit corporations also exist for making money as their goal.  Because of this, corporations have properties that do not make them people.  They only have rights because they are granted them by the state, because they exist as state-created entities.  They don't exist in nature, and aren't endowed by God with "certain inalienable rights".

In short, they function differently than a group of people do, who attempt to do things together at a certain point and time.  And on the first amendment, the right to assemble is given to individuals, not groups.  Corporations don't have a right to vote either.

The rights of groups, as far as they go in the Constitution, are merely extensions of rights given to individuals.



Kasz216 said:


In that they are a group of people and aren't excluded from the 1st or 14th ammendments.

It's like asking smeone to prove that the consitution views asians as human beings.

That is poor legal analysis, kasz, especially when dealing with an entity that is, by definition, a legal fiction.



Kasz216 said:
noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:

 Of course I ask this fully realizing these are probably the same people that only donate for tax breaks.


Nobody donates for tax breaks.

Break in taxes you get for donating is always less then the amount of money you give away.

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/12/18/charity-and-your-tax-bill/

 

This is due to the fact that we have a graduated tax bracket system.

People talking about "Dropping you into a lower tax bracket" are likely people who have never done their own taxes... since we have a graduated tax bracket.

True story: I once had an employee tell me that she seriously considered asking for a lower salary because she didn't want to go to a higher tax bracket.

killerzX said:

the supreme court and the constitution views corporations as groups of people.

What is the basis for your statement that the Constitution views corporations as groups of people?


In that they are a group of people and aren't excluded from the 1st or 14th ammendments.

It's like asking smeone to prove that the consitution views asians as human beings.

 

huh, intersting view point. In Poland a corporation is an entity that acts in in the name of the people founding the corporation and possess a legal status allowing it to carry out business. To donate money to a political party you must be an eligible person. Which means that corporations can't use their assets to fund politicians. Even if a billionaire wanted to give all the money he has, he wouldn't be able to because we have another law that allows for a single donation within a year of up to a maximum of $18,000, regardless of social or financial standing.

Supposeably this allows for more diversified and fair elections, but in all honesty when the political scene stays the same for a prolonged time people just stop caring. Same people, same shit I say.



If i lose access to this profile as well....I'm done with this site.....You've been warned!!.....whoever you are...

Happy Wii60 user. Me and my family are a perfect example of where hardcore meets casual and together mutate into something awesome.

yanamaster said:

huh, intersting view point. In Poland a corporation is an entity that acts in in the name of the people founding the corporation and possess a legal status allowing it to carry out business.

My understanding is that it is largely the same in the United States, in that the corporation is a single, legally-distinct entity from its owner(s). To the best of my knowledge, it has always been treated as such. However, through what I believe is a mixture of oversight, tradition, and at-the-time pragmatism, the corporation in America is legally treated under the law as a (single, distinct, and separate) person, albeit not a natural person.

Note that I said "treated under the law." Not "held as under the Constitution."

Since it is a person, legally speaking, the Supreme Court has held that it is afforded some of the protections of the Consitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment.

I concede that I am not an expert on this matter, and may be wrong, which is why I requested clarification rather than challenged the statement. However, I am more confident than not that the above is true and correct.



Around the Network
noname2200 said:
yanamaster said:

huh, intersting view point. In Poland a corporation is an entity that acts in in the name of the people founding the corporation and possess a legal status allowing it to carry out business.

My understanding is that it is largely the same in the United States, in that the corporation is a single, legally-distinct entity from its owner(s). To the best of my knowledge, it has always been treated as such. However, through what I believe is a mixture of oversight, tradition, and at-the-time pragmatism, the corporation in America is legally treated under the law as a (single, distinct, and separate) person, albeit not a natural person.

Note that I said "treated under the law." Not "held as under the Constitution."

Since it is a person, legally speaking, the Supreme Court has held that it is afforded some of the protections of the Consitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment.

I concede that I am not an expert on this matter, and may be wrong, which is why I requested clarification rather than challenged the statement. However, I am more confident than not that the above is true and correct.


well we are talking about the specifics of two different countries after all. the Polish constitution is not the same as the american one since the two countries developed differently over time. For instance the american constitution  gives citizens the  right to possess a fire arm while the Polish constitution makes no mention on the matter and so the topic is handled through common law.

Poland never thought on the matter, like the US did, about the existance of corporations and this topic is handled by commerce law and not by the constitution, at least as far a I remember. 



If i lose access to this profile as well....I'm done with this site.....You've been warned!!.....whoever you are...

Happy Wii60 user. Me and my family are a perfect example of where hardcore meets casual and together mutate into something awesome.

noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:


In that they are a group of people and aren't excluded from the 1st or 14th ammendments.

It's like asking smeone to prove that the consitution views asians as human beings.

That is poor legal analysis, kasz, especially when dealing with an entity that is, by definition, a legal fiction.

The surpreme court would seem to disagree...

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction.  Not that coprorations are groups of people.



noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:

 Of course I ask this fully realizing these are probably the same people that only donate for tax breaks.


Nobody donates for tax breaks.

Break in taxes you get for donating is always less then the amount of money you give away.

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/12/18/charity-and-your-tax-bill/

 

This is due to the fact that we have a graduated tax bracket system.

People talking about "Dropping you into a lower tax bracket" are likely people who have never done their own taxes... since we have a graduated tax bracket.

True story: I once had an employee tell me that she seriously considered asking for a lower salary because she didn't want to go to a higher tax bracket.

killerzX said:

the supreme court and the constitution views corporations as groups of people.

What is the basis for your statement that the Constitution views corporations as groups of people?

We have Flex dollars with our insurance that we can put so much money on.  It's really useful because whatever money we put on those flex cards isn't taxable income.



noname2200 said:
yanamaster said:

huh, intersting view point. In Poland a corporation is an entity that acts in in the name of the people founding the corporation and possess a legal status allowing it to carry out business.

My understanding is that it is largely the same in the United States, in that the corporation is a single, legally-distinct entity from its owner(s). To the best of my knowledge, it has always been treated as such. However, through what I believe is a mixture of oversight, tradition, and at-the-time pragmatism, the corporation in America is legally treated under the law as a (single, distinct, and separate) person, albeit not a natural person.

Note that I said "treated under the law." Not "held as under the Constitution."

Since it is a person, legally speaking, the Supreme Court has held that it is afforded some of the protections of the Consitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment.

I concede that I am not an expert on this matter, and may be wrong, which is why I requested clarification rather than challenged the statement. However, I am more confident than not that the above is true and correct.

That's very much not the case.  Which is why i keep saying coporate personhood does no apply.

"The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_Opinion

 

in otherwords.  It's because Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not mutually exclusive rights.



Kasz216 said:

That's very much not the case.  Which is why i keep saying coporate personhood does no apply.

"The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_Opinion

I see. Interesting. I pray that the Wikipedia author is simply misunderstanding what was actually said. Otherwise, I'm beginning to better understand what the fuss was all about, then. It's rather like letting some folks have their cake and eat it too.

I gotta look into this, because that just flat out can't be right.