Would you work for a huge salary?

[AtheismIsReality]

It doesn't become the shareholders money until after it is given to the shareholders.

Good point.

...except the surplus cash the corporation is drawing from falls under "Shareholders' equity" on the balance sheet. So maybe it's not such a good point.

The owners' money is always the owners' money. Management squandering it would not make it any less so. It would just keep it out of the owners' hands.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

I woke up laughing about this thread.

It just goes to show how perverted corporatism has become in America.

People get all high and mighty wagging their finger as they tell us that the money the government takes in is our money. However, a lot of those same people are under the impression that the money a corporation makes is the corporation's money. Corporate managers are just that - MANAGERS. The money they handle belongs to the owners, i.e. the SHAREHOLDERS.

This mindset is rampant. I cannot count the times I have been on a business trip with colleagues where whatever corporate bigwig will take us out to a sumptuous meal to show the clout of his budget. A lot of those sitting around the table will thank our CEO with a little snicker. I point out they should be thanking the shareholders because we're spending their money. It's not so funny anymore when they realize there are other business assholes sitting down to a big meal on their investment dime.

Good Ahura Mazda, corporations have us over a barrel in this country. The bailouts were a great idea. It's going to be the corporations money in the end. Let's just cut out the middle man of commerce and keep giving them money directly.

 

[Dr.Who]

I woke up laughing about this thread.

It just goes to show how perverted corporatism has become in America.

People get all high and mighty wagging their finger as they tell us that the money the government takes in is our money. However, a lot of those same people are under the impression that the money a corporation makes is the corporation's money. Corporate managers are just that - MANAGERS. The money they handle belongs to the owners, i.e. the SHAREHOLDERS.

Actually I have been laughing at some of you. How is it that you have not mastered the meaning of the words "private property"? It is a basic civil right after all. Are you only the champions of some civil rights?

When you go to Wal-mart and buy a product you have entered into a contract in which you give them money for a product, the product becomes yours and the money becomes theirs. for the contract to be valid certain things must happen. 1) no one must defraud the other. 2) they have to give you the product and you have to give them the money. 3) you must have entered in to the contract of your own free will and be allowed to discontinue or break it when you want to.

When the gov takes your money from you, they violate number three every time and they violate numbers 1 and 2 often.

Beyond that it is understood that the gov is the servant of the people and they are merely stewards of our money. I am sure we could provide numerous quotes from P Obama declaring it to be "taxpayers money" and justifying the takover of various industries and the micromanaging of the salaries of private citizens based on the premise that the money belongs to the taxpayers.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is what lets groups of people who otherwise would have little power band together and pool their resources toward a common goal. P. Obama did very well in the elections in part because he raised far more money than McCain and a huge amount of that money was raised in small donations from individuals.

Many lobbying groups represent millions of individuals who are not rich. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is a lobby that would be another example of individuals getting a powerful voice do to the power of many lone dollar bills.

Neither rich people nor LGBT lobbies should be able to buy elections but they should both be able to support the candidate they prefer to the fullest. The problem arises when the politician accepts the notion that they don't just support him because of his views but that he should change his views because they support him.

If everyone was was in the same financial ballpark, then your idea would be valid, but when the top 1% have more money than the bottom 95% there is no chance of equal voice. Gays and transsexuals have been out voted forever since they are outnumbered and out spent by the vast Christian majority. Our country was originally set up with the idea that the powerful majority would not be able to persecute the minorities--but that's long gone and government is for sale to the highest bidder. And YOUR religious group is one of the main causes of this devolution in our country since this is billed as a "Christian" country and you have always had the largest majority.

As I have noted before, Christianity and Capitalism are antithetical and much of our difficulty can be traced to the futile attempt to make both of these ideas work in harmony.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Actually I have been laughing at some of you. How is it that you have not mastered the meaning of the words "private property"? It is a basic civil right after all. Are you only the champions of some civil rights?

When you go to Wal-mart and buy a product you have entered into a contract in which you give them money for a product, the product becomes yours and the money becomes theirs. for the contract to be valid certain things must happen. 1) no one must defraud the other. 2) they have to give you the product and you have to give them the money. 3) you must have entered in to the contract of your own free will and be allowed to discontinue or break it when you want to.

When the gov takes your money from you, they violate number three every time and they violate numbers 1 and 2 often.

Beyond that it is understood that the gov is the servant of the people and they are merely stewards of our money. I am sure we could provide numerous quotes from P Obama declaring it to be "taxpayers money" and justifying the takover of various industries and the micromanaging of the salaries of private citizens based on the premise that the money belongs to the taxpayers.

Putting a bunch of fluff around your invalid point, does not make it any more valid.

Let's keep it simple. Wal-Mart takes in revenue. Now I've highlighted where you implicitly conceded the point to me. Wal-Mart is not a "they". Wal-Mart is an "it." Who is "they" you are referring to? It's the owners of the corporation. The executives of Wal-Mart have no claim of ownership to corporation's cash. Unless, of course they have stock, but then the claim is no greater than any other shareholders'.

When we speak of private property, one of the key things is ownership. Who owns the company the executives or the shareholders? The shareholders. Now the shareholders may not be able to manage the cash as they see fit. Wal-Mart certainly not, but if I created a corporation where I was the sole shareholder, then I could manage the cash as I see fit. The limited liability and delegated management aspects of the corporation are irrelevant in the notion of ownership. If company liquidates, the shareholders are the ones who have claim to any surplus funds.

Would you like to make anymore quips about your alleged superior knowledge of the private property concept?

 

[Dr.Who]

If everyone was was in the same financial ballpark, then your idea would be valid, but when the top 1% have more money than the bottom 95% there is no chance of equal voice. Gays and transsexuals have been out voted forever since they are outnumbered and out spent by the vast Christian majority.

First you are mixing two points; the first point that rich people have a larger voiced than groups and the second that one group has a smaller voice than another group.

To answer you first point try to name on rich person who has a larger role lobbying his congressmen than any mainstream group such as the gay lobby or the ACLU or the unions, etc. The little people when they belong to those groups do indeed have a larger voice than the rich person.

the second point that one group, say the Christians, have a larger voice than another group, say the Transexuals, is just the way it is with math; there are more of them.

Our country was originally set up with the idea that the powerful majority would not be able to persecute the minorities--but that's long gone and government is for sale to the highest bidder. And YOUR religious group is one of the main causes of this devolution in our country since this is billed as a "Christian" country and you have always had the largest majority.

You are correct that the constitution is supposed to protect ideals over popular notions. The ideal that personal property belongs to the one who earned it is presently a minority opinion that should be protected by the constitution and the popular notions that money should be taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor is the notion that should be abandoned.

 

[Dr.Who]

Putting a bunch of fluff around your invalid point, does not make it any more valid.

Let's keep it simple. Wal-Mart takes in revenue. Now I've highlighted where you implicitly conceded the point to me. Wal-Mart is not a "they". Wal-Mart is an "it." Who is "they" you are referring to? It's the owners of the corporation. The executives of Wal-Mart have no claim of ownership to corporation's cash. Unless, of course they have stock, but then the claim is no greater than any other shareholders'.

When we speak of private property, one of the key things is ownership. Who owns the company the executives or the shareholders? The shareholders. Now the shareholders may not be able to manage the cash as they see fit. Wal-Mart certainly not, but if I created a corporation where I was the sole shareholder, then I could manage the cash as I see fit. The limited liability and delegated management aspects of the corporation are irrelevant in the notion of ownership. If company liquidates, the shareholders are the ones who have claim to any surplus funds.

Would you like to make anymore quips about your alleged superior knowledge of the private property concept?

Yea sure.

The money a corp takes in is on the books of the corp and belongs to the corp until it is paid to the shareholders.

From a legal dictionary:

"A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes."

http://www.answers.com/topic/corporation

 

[BreakFree]

If it's something you love doing and someone's willing to pay you a lot of money for doing it, who would'nt jump at the opportunity to make a lot of money?

 

[Dr.Who]

If it's something you love doing and someone's willing to pay you a lot of money for doing it, who would'nt jump at the opportunity to make a lot of money?

Apparently the same person who complains that the other people have more money.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Yea sure.

The money a corp takes in is on the books of the corp and belongs to the corp until it is paid to the shareholders.

From a legal dictionary:

"A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes."

http://www.answers.com/topic/corporation

This is something I enjoy in an argument - an opponent going from arguing about a concept to making a legal defense.

I already cut this rebuttal off at the knees when I dismissed the limited liability aspect, i.e. the whole reason for a separate legal entity.

I don't care what goes on legal documents. What we were discussing is the concept of ownership in terms of private property. My point still stands - in the end the shareholders are the owners and all of the assets are owned by them as they own the company.

As I've stated, when I expense a meal on the company's dime, that is the shareholders dime I am spending. Legal paradigms don't change that.

 

[Dr.Who]

This is something I enjoy in an argument - an opponent going from arguing about a concept to making a legal defense.

I already cut this rebuttal off at the knees when I dismissed the limited liability aspect, i.e. the whole reason for a separate legal entity.

I don't care what goes on legal documents. What we were discussing is the concept of ownership in terms of private property. My point still stands - in the end the shareholders are the owners and all of the assets are owned by them as they own the company.

As I've stated, when I expense a meal on the company's dime, that is the shareholders dime I am spending. Legal paradigms don't change that.

Sadly this has become a rabbit's trail. (because we have stopped talking about who wants to earn a high salary)

Regardless of when the shareholders own the money the point still stands that when a person buys something the money stops being theirs and belongs either to the company or the shareholders. When gov takes a person money they are acting on behalf of the taxpayers as stewards of the money.