Down with evil corporations!!!

[Vort]

[RipplecutBuddha]

Among the recent epic ironies in the news, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church not only announced their plan to picket Steve Job's funeral, it was posted by using an I Phone.

[LeKook]

Among the recent epic ironies in the news, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church not only announced their plan to picket Steve Job's funeral, it was posted by using an I Phone.

Please tell me this is humor, not fact, LOL!!!

[Still_Small_Voice]

I recently heard an ad that the oil companies are not paying their fair share in taxes. When I heard the advertisement I thought to myself raise the taxes on oil companies and they will just pass it on to the consumer.

[Guest mormonmusic]

At the same time, let's not forget Thomas F. Jefferson's statement that without Ethical Morality, capitalism simply does not work.....corporations which create great, loveable products but do so without adhering to ethical morality rock the foundations that allow everyone to flourish. I throw this out lest we get too euphoric about all the good the corporations do for us, much of which we pay for, incidentally.

Edited October 8, 2011 by mormonmusic

[bytor2112]

I recently heard an ad that the oil companies are not paying their fair share in taxes. When I heard the advertisement I thought to myself raise the taxes on oil companies and they will just pass it on to the consumer.

Yep. And if you need proof, check out the taxes and surcharges passed on to consumers by your cell phone carrier.

[Sali]

I recently heard an ad that the oil companies are not paying their fair share in taxes. When I heard the advertisement I thought to myself raise the taxes on oil companies and they will just pass it on to the consumer.

This is just an example of the greed that big corporations run on. Yes of course corporations are needed but I have to defer back to what mormonmusic posted. The quote from Thomas F. Jefferson. Unfortunately, I believe that the majority of large corporations have lost their sense of Ethical Morality.

[Vort]

This is just an example of the greed that big corporations run on. Yes of course corporations are needed but I have to defer back to what mormonmusic posted. The quote from Thomas F. Jefferson. Unfortunately, I believe that the majority of large corporations have lost their sense of Ethical Morality.

Thomas F. Jefferson. I love it. Fitzpatrick? Fogarty? Fenwick?

Corporations don't have a sense of Ethical Morality, because corporations do not exist in the physical or spiritual world. Corporations are a legal construct, nothing more.

But you appear to be missing the point entirely. Corporations exist as a legal construct because they are beneficial to us. Those who protest corporations do so using the very benefits that corporations offer. Demonizing corporations is absurd, and refusing to acknowledge the benefits of corporations while enjoying those same benefits is pathetically ignorant at best, and cynically hypocritical at worst.

If corporations are "taxed" at a higher rate, how do you suppose they pay those "taxes"? Do you think all the board members, vice presidents, and executive officers take a pay cut? Uh, no. They simply raise the prices on their goods and services. In other words, WE, the consumers, pay the so-called "corporate taxes".

[Snow]

Admittedly I am not following the protests very closely but I doubt the protesters are protesting modern technology and products that they themselves appreciate and use. I would hazard a guess that they are protesting the ethics of certain people and companies.

[prisonchaplain]

Admittedly I am not following the protests very closely but I doubt the protesters are protesting modern technology and products that they themselves appreciate and use. I would hazard a guess that they are protesting the ethics of certain people and companies.

Perhaps a good number of them are. However, I would also hazard a guess...that many are just mad at a difficult economy, and give in to the rich vs. poor, executive staff vs. line staff, us vs. them, and yes, Republican vs. Democrat (MSNBC vs. FOX) answers. They are easy, allow for quick venting of frustration, keep ratings high for the cable networks, and solve little.

My personal political solution this year is to not look for a "leader." I want a nuts and bolts person, who can manage, balance, and yes, do some persuading. I won't discuss specifics...but those are the characteristics I seek.

[Backroads]

You can call me naive, but I don't have a tv and really only frequent half a dozen places on the internet... I'm having trouble understanding exactly what is being protested.

[beefche]

You can call me naive, but I don't have a tv and really only frequent half a dozen places on the internet... I'm having trouble understanding exactly what is being protested.

You and a bunch of other people. But apparently they want higher minimum wage, healthcare for all and higher education for all. No explanation on how these should be accomplished other than get the bad men, those rich guys.

[Sali]

Thomas F. Jefferson. I love it. Fitzpatrick? Fogarty? Fenwick?

Corporations don't have a sense of Ethical Morality, because corporations do not exist in the physical or spiritual world. Corporations are a legal construct, nothing more.

But you appear to be missing the point entirely. Corporations exist as a legal construct because they are beneficial to us. Those who protest corporations do so using the very benefits that corporations offer. Demonizing corporations is absurd, and refusing to acknowledge the benefits of corporations while enjoying those same benefits is pathetically ignorant at best, and cynically hypocritical at worst.

If corporations are "taxed" at a higher rate, how do you suppose they pay those "taxes"? Do you think all the board members, vice presidents, and executive officers take a pay cut? Uh, no. They simply raise the prices on their goods and services. In other words, WE, the consumers, pay the so-called "corporate taxes".

Yes I agree, corporations are beneficial to us. Yes they provide jobs, but at the same time can be guilty of exploiting those employees with the 'if you don't work 60/70 hours a week, we'll just find someone else' mentality. I don't by any means demonize corporations, but I don't close my eyes to the greed and exploitation that they are guilty of either.

If corporation's taxes are raised then I'm sure, if they really wanted to, that they could find the extra taxes from within their huge profit margins. But they don't want to and they won't. So who are the corporations really looking out for? It's not you or I. I'm sorry, but I believe corporations are hugely guilty of greed and they get away with it.

[Vort]

If corporation's taxes are raised then I'm sure, if they really wanted to, that they could find the extra taxes from within their huge profit margins.

I am staggered by the naivete you show. Do you seriously believe that:

• Corporate executives will decrease corporate profit (which is profit to each individual investor, all of whom are ultimately human beings) and thus subject themselves to termination -- and rightfully so -- rather than pass the increased cost of business on to the consumer?
• Doing so would be a good solution?

What you are saying, in effect, is: "Corporations make too much money. We should take some of that money away."

That is theft.

If you don't want what the corporations manufacture, don't buy it. If you think Sony makes too darn much money, don't buy Sony camcorders. It's that easy. Duh.

But don't destroy the ability of people to make money through business in a futile attempt to force corporations to be generous.

So who are the corporations really looking out for? It's not you or I.

Sali, there have been corporations founded on the idea that they should make only a minimal profit and should engage themselves in doing good with their profits, rather than returning investment profits to the investors. Why don't we see those corporations?

Oh, yes, that's right. Because THEY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS.

And how much good do they do our society by being out of business?

Oh, yes, that's right. None.

There are special laws and benefits set up for corporations who are not interested in making profits for their investors. Such corporations are called "non-profits". But not every corporation wants to be a non-profit.

Please. At some point, the naivete and foolishness must stop, and people must think, converse, and act like adults. Profiting from your labor is not evil. Agreeing with people on a set wage for a job is not exploitation. The Marxist promises of communal wealth are lies.

I'm sorry, but I believe corporations are hugely guilty of greed and they get away with it.

Then you are wrong. Corporations are not greedy, any more than automobiles or religions are greedy. The individuals who run the corporations may or may not be greedy, but the evidence you marshall against the evil corporations does not indicate greed on the part of those running the corporations. Not to any extent.

[Sali]

Vort, please don't label me as naive, I just see things differently than yourself.:)

I'm not going to quote from quote as I'm not sure how to do that. But do I think that Corporate Executives will decrease corporate profit? Heck no, of course they won't. Do I think they could cut down profits somewhat if they wanted to? Yes I do believe they could and still make a decent profit. (I'm not so naive to think they would though).

I'm not saying they make too much money at all. They are entitled to make what they want. What I am saying that if they were asked to pay taxes, instead of passing it down to the consumer or cut jobs that there is plenty of funds to pay taxes out of profits if they so choose. (Sorry if some CEO might have to only buy one extra house that year ) I totally understand that to get investment in a company the profits have to be appealing to shareholders, I'm just more concerned that the underlying PRINCIPLE here is greed.

'Corporations' are not greedy, I agree with you. But the people who make the corporations up can be.

[Vort]

Vort, please don't label me as naive, I just see things differently than yourself.:)

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, Sali. Based on what you have written, you are either naive or dishonest. I prefer to believe the former.

But do I think that Corporate Executives will decrease corporate profit? Heck no, of course they won't. Do I think they could cut down profits somewhat if they wanted to? Yes I do believe they could and still make a decent profit. (I'm not so naive to think they would though).

I own corporations. My ownership pieces are called "shares", which I bought on the market. I bought those "shares" because I expect them to increase in value. That is, I have a vested interest in seeing the corporation make money. I depend on it for my retirement. I have made a deal with those corporations: I will give them some of my money, and in return they will increase in value.

Now, if the CEOs of those corporations suddenly decide that they are just too profitable and that they need to cut back on profits, where does that leave me? I made a deal with them, and I did so in order to take care of my family. When the corporation suddenly decides it doesn't want to make money any more, THEY ARE STEALING FROM ME! They are breaking the promise they made with me! So if I can, I will do whatever I can to get rid of the CEO and put someone in who makes money for the corporation. (Or else I will bail out on the corporation, sell my shares, which will help decrease the price of the shares and the value of the corporation, driving them further into the hole, while I take my money and go shopping for a corporation that will actually MAKE MONEY.)

You utterly fail to realize that when corporations don't make money, THE SHAREHOLDERS don't make money. And who are the shareholders? I AM. So are you, if you own any stocks or mutual funds.

Or perhaps you do realize that, and you are actively seeking to bankrupt me and millions of other decent, hardworking people who own shares in corporations. That makes you dishonest, a thief. But, as I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying they make too much money at all. They are entitled to make what they want. What I am saying that if they were asked to pay taxes, instead of passing it down to the consumer or cut jobs that there is plenty of funds to pay taxes out of profits if they so choose. (Sorry if some CEO might have to only buy one extra house that year )

Seriously? You actually believe that a corporation could pay another, say, $500 million in taxes out of the CEO's salary?

Again: You are naive or dishonest. Which is it?

I totally understand that to get investment in a company the profits have to be appealing to shareholders, I'm just more concerned that the underlying PRINCIPLE here is greed.

No, Sali. The principle is the "curse of Adam", which says "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." Corporations provide many ways for people to earn their money. Know-nothing do-gooders want to take the corporations' profits and redistribute them so that everyone can be rich without actually having to work. This is thievery, and by the way it won't work. SOMEONE has to be doing the actual work. We can't just keep printing up money and make everyone "rich".

[beefche]

How does a company exploit the workers by requiring a number of work hours (for compensation)?

[beefche]

Can I ask a serious question? It seems that alot of people are angry at businesses or corporations. The allegation is greed--the corporations and the upper management of such corporations make too much money and don't pay enough taxes. Why do we not hear the same anger and accusations against professional sports owners/players or Hollywood producers/actors? I couldn't tell you how many homes or cars the president of IBM has, but all I have to do is turn on the TV and I have an actor celebrity bragging about his multi-million dollar homes or plethora of sports cars they own. Why is the vitriol not leveled in that direction at all?

[skippy740]

My guess... is that they actually 'work' for their money... right?

After all, what does a CEO DO to make a profit? They just tell other people what to do, but they don't do the actual laboring work or directly supervise its production!

You can see the professional actor/athlete work for their money.

To 'cure' this mentality, one should read The E-Myth.

[Tyler90AZ]

Vort, you continue to defy the odds with your amazing debate tactics. It is clear you are flustered much like a child would be when he can't articulate to his mom what he wants. Just take a minute step aside and breathe. There is absolutely nothing you can do the movement is only continuing to gain momentum. If you think you are not part of the 99% because you own a few shares in a company you are fooled.

I will direct everything to these threads:

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/42574-occupy-movement.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/42562-wall-steet-riots-history-fed-reserve.html

Thank You,

Your friendly neighborhood protestor

[Vort]

Vort, you continue to defy the odds with your amazing debate tactics. It is clear you are flustered much like a child would be when he can't articulate to his mom what he wants.

Then why have you refused to respond to what I've said? If my debate tactics are nothing more than childish rants, surely you can give reasoned responses rather than just patronizing name-calling and avoidance of factual information.

Just take a minute step aside and breathe. There is absolutely nothing you can do the movement is only continuing to gain momentum. If you think you are not part of the 99% because you own a few shares in a company you are fooled.

Seriously, Tyler. You are an adult now. Please talk like a grown-up. Answer the questions put to you.

[beefche]

I, too, would like to see Vort's questions answered, Tyler. I think he has some valid points and I'd like to see your counter to those points.

[Vort]

Don't hold your breath, beefche. Tyler is A True Believer®. He can't respond to others' questions, but he doesn't mind because he already knows he's right. Reasoned discourse is irrelevant.

[Tyler90AZ]

Which questions have I not answered?

[Sali]

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, Sali. Based on what you have written, you are either naive or dishonest. I prefer to believe the former.

I own corporations. My ownership pieces are called "shares", which I bought on the market. I bought those "shares" because I expect them to increase in value. That is, I have a vested interest in seeing the corporation make money. I depend on it for my retirement. I have made a deal with those corporations: I will give them some of my money, and in return they will increase in value.

Now, if the CEOs of those corporations suddenly decide that they are just too profitable and that they need to cut back on profits, where does that leave me? I made a deal with them, and I did so in order to take care of my family. When the corporation suddenly decides it doesn't want to make money any more, THEY ARE STEALING FROM ME! They are breaking the promise they made with me! So if I can, I will do whatever I can to get rid of the CEO and put someone in who makes money for the corporation. (Or else I will bail out on the corporation, sell my shares, which will help decrease the price of the shares and the value of the corporation, driving them further into the hole, while I take my money and go shopping for a corporation that will actually MAKE MONEY.)

You utterly fail to realize that when corporations don't make money, THE SHAREHOLDERS don't make money. And who are the shareholders? I AM. So are you, if you own any stocks or mutual funds.

Or perhaps you do realize that, and you are actively seeking to bankrupt me and millions of other decent, hardworking people who own shares in corporations. That makes you dishonest, a thief. But, as I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Seriously? You actually believe that a corporation could pay another, say, $500 million in taxes out of the CEO's salary?

Again: You are naive or dishonest. Which is it?

No, Sali. The principle is the "curse of Adam", which says "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." Corporations provide many ways for people to earn their money. Know-nothing do-gooders want to take the corporations' profits and redistribute them so that everyone can be rich without actually having to work. This is thievery, and by the way it won't work. SOMEONE has to be doing the actual work. We can't just keep printing up money and make everyone "rich".

Of course corporations provide many ways for people to earn their money, never disputed that point, but I don't agree that they should have the right to exploit workers in the meantime. Maybe it's not corporations that should be looked at, maybe it should be the labor laws that are out there.

I am actually a shareholder too Vort. If you think I don't understand your point of view then you are mistaken. I have told you that I agree with what you are saying but I also see it from a different point of view where I feel that corporations (sorry people in corporations) are rife with greed and exploitation. I believe we live in a world where unfortunately people are too focused on money making at the expense of others. People have become selfish and greedy and it doesn't sit right with me. If that makes me dishonest or naive then so be it!

I am neither dishonest, a thief or naive, and I really resent those personal attacks on me. I will respectively withdraw from this 'conversation' as I don't like being patronised or personally attacked.

Beefche, in answer to your exploitation question, yes I do think it is exploitation when someone is not paid to be 'on call' but expected to go into work at a moment's notice on a day they do not regularly work, and drop everything else in their life at the risk of losing their job.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Sali