Slashdot Mirror

What company pays negative tax rates? Do you have a link for that (that isn't mother jones or IWW or some other nonsense)?

If this isn't good enough for you, you can try the original at Forbes.

All told, 82 companies paid zero or negative taxes in at least one of the last three years and 28, including Boeing (nyse:BA), paid negative taxes for the entire period.

If you fix senior management's compensation and do not tie it to the financial performance of the company in some way, what type of management do you think you'll get? A style that is focused on increasing shareholder value?

It's tied to performance because a five-year fixed contract gives time to show real, healthy, long-term growth and does not give CEOs an incentive to cause wild, short-term stock price swings which coincide with options awards and exercise times. Good long-term performance leads to a renewed contract. The current compensation model is actually a freak caused by the federal government trying help us all by tinkering with corporate tax rules, and it isn't working. Think it through.

Finding somebody who wants to be a senior VP isn't difficult, finding somebody who is good at is, that's why the salaries for those positions are so inflated.

I'm really talking about CxO positions where the insane compensation (and looting) happens. The reason why those salaries are so inflated is because the directors of most major companies are CEOs of other companies. It's called a good old boys network, and it has nothing to do with being good at the job.

There are alot of texts out there with studies on what can save money for the company. This is how to grab thier attention. They like to see the all-mighty dollar.

For this topic I recommend This study, as well as this one they seemed to help my former boss understand. And for planning time I recommend Code Complete so you can show them that not "coding" right away actually is a good thing.

Hmm. Anyone else willing to bet that Cheney will run for president in 2008 and 2012 ?

Oh, and BTW, don't forget that this time, you won't be voting. A handful of old farts at the Supreme Court will pick up the Electoral College for you. It's not as if you had a constitutional right to vote anyway.

I agree with you though on the point that getting organized and fighting from within the country is important. Go America -- for freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from oppression !

What if there were a real town hall debate (not the phony event staged last week where the audience members are mere props and the moderator chooses the questions) and citizens could ask questions about issues like these http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_exclusion_issues.html

The legal system works fine... the problem is more with comfortable career politicians in corporate pockets giving them more and more priviledges while eroding our rights. If that isn't criminal, I don't know what is.

Check out This if you want to know more.

I found this article clarifying the Perot story http://www.commondreams.org/views/100100-103.htm

The same writer has an excellent current analysis that present a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique of the CPD and, more importantly, introduces a real plan for change: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html . Some interesting background links follow the article.

The same writer has an very good new article (that link is from 2000) that presents a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique than Rice's: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html

1-800-839-5276

copy-pasted wrong 800 number, I feel like such a dork!

Well, if it is XBOX, then lets /. them instead.

1-800-839-5276

copy-pasted wrong 800 number, I feel like such a dork!

The non-partisan Citizens' Debate Commission has no commitments from either major party candidate. It is questionable whether any third-party candidate would meet the CDC participation criteria this year (last year, both Buchanan and Nader would have qualified).

The issue go beyond who participates, however. Under the two-party debate commission, the events are more like alternating sound bites than real debates, and the questions are carefully selected to accentuate differences between the Rs and Ds, while critical issues that they prefer not to bring up simply are squelched. See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citiz ens_debate_commission_proposal.html for convincing evidence of this (ReclaimDemocracy.org was the instigator of the Citizens' Debate Commission and I volunteered briefly when they began organizing). Much more interesting background on this controversy is available there: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_resources.html and at: http:opendebates.org

The non-partisan Citizens' Debate Commission has no commitments from either major party candidate. It is questionable whether any third-party candidate would meet the CDC participation criteria this year (last year, both Buchanan and Nader would have qualified).

The issue go beyond who participates, however. Under the two-party debate commission, the events are more like alternating sound bites than real debates, and the questions are carefully selected to accentuate differences between the Rs and Ds, while critical issues that they prefer not to bring up simply are squelched. See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citiz ens_debate_commission_proposal.html for convincing evidence of this (ReclaimDemocracy.org was the instigator of the Citizens' Debate Commission and I volunteered briefly when they began organizing). Much more interesting background on this controversy is available there: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_resources.html and at: http:opendebates.org

If a corporation wishes to pollute, they can do so. But they must pay for the costs associated with their pollution; health and environmental degradation, and cleanup costs. If they did that, it would be more profitable to control their pollution.

If a corporation will not expand into a market, they should be offered money to do so. This will make it profitable for them to build the infrastructure that the communities need.

Unfortunately, our current laws allow too much corporate influence in government, and must be changed before this approach is more of a threat to the people and instead of to corporations.

Step #1: REMOVE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

Corporations do NOT have the same protections under the law as "we the people" in the context of free speech. They are restrained under many other laws, including the fact that what company officials say is _commercial speech_ and not protected under the First Amendment. Just like Nike cannot lie to sell products, SCO will not be able to use the First Amendment to cover their ass.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but several resources linked above detail how this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights.

Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)

"Corporate Personhood"

Corporations ARE people. I won't blame you for not knowing this, since it happened way before you were born (SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 1886.) A clerk's misleading notes on this Supreme Court ruling were later used to support the notion of "corporate personhood."

You can read more about it here.

We do have one problem though, the 14th Amendment, which says that any person born or naturalized in the US is a citizen. Of course that happens to include corporations as has been sucessfully argued many times in the past. as can be seen here (It's a .pdf sorry). So when Microsoft does something Gates and Ballmer can't be taken to jail. There are many that want the 14th Amendment to be amended, however it has not proved effective. Something interesting though is that the 14th Amendment is also what gives us the right to sue the corporation in the first place.

Here's a great web site to check out if this issue strikes a chord with you. We all thought Big Brother would arise from the government... I think we were looking in the wrong place.

Case I recall, which was settled out of court, so it didn't go anywhere potentially biased site

This appears to be the only applying case law I could find: Consolidated Edison

ReclaimDemocracy.org

The FBI doesn't bother with warrants anymore. They just write themselves national security letters. On top of that the criteria for getting warrants has fallen dramatically.

A quick Google search turns up the history. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from both sides of the issue of Corporate Personhood.

The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.

Schools are offered free televisions in exchange for compelling students to watch a brief current-events program larded with commercials, a project known as Channel One. (The advertisers seem to be getting their money's worth: researchers have found that Channel One viewers, as contrasted with a comparison group of students, not only thought more highly of products advertised on the program but were more likely to agree with statements such as "money is everything," "a nice car is more important than school," "designer labels make a difference," and "I want what I see advertised.")(5)

Even more disturbing than having public schools sanction and expose children to advertisements(6) is the fact that corporate propaganda is sometimes passed off as part of the curriculum. Math problems plug a particular brand of sneakers or candy; chemical companies distribute slick curriculum packages to ensure that environmental science will be taught with their slant.(7) A few years ago, someone sent me a large, colorful brochure aimed at educators that touts several free lessons helpfully supplied by Procter & Gamble. One kit helps fifth graders learn about personal hygiene by way of Old Spice after-shave and Secret deodorant, while another promises a seventh-grade lesson on the "ten steps to self-esteem," complete with teacher's guide, video, and samples of Clearasil.

If you look for a citation of this fact, you will see that its not true. This misunderstanging stems from a (too common) misreading of one case. Corporations are not persons, they are conspiracies of individuals hiding from responsibility from their actions. Lots of details here. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

corporate personhood

The correct way to solve this is to de-classify corporations as individuals, and create a new category for "corporate speech". This may very well require a consitutional ammendment. There are clear distinctions between the things an individual says and the things a corporation says and the law needs to reflect that.

"Corporate speech" laws could easily cover telemarketing as well. The same issue is closely tied to issues of campaign finance as well. Corporations simply should not have equal rights with citizens because they do not have equal responsibilities or abilities.

The solution to telemarketing is to remove first ammendment protection for corporations.

• References:
• Nike's corporate speech: overwhelming the voice of citizens
• Nike settlement leaves corporate speech unresolved
• ACLU & Nike vs. Reason
• A proposal for a consitutional ammendment

-- Bob

A quick Google search turns up the history. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from both sides of the issue of Corporate Personhood.

The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.

More like.. .change it so companies are actually paying taxes, rather than get rebates, loop-holes, etc...

Most corporations have a ghost office in Delaware or the Bahamas to avoid paying state and/or federal taxes anyway. Check this out.

If corporations actually paid the taxes that should be levied against them, nobody would care about VoIP... but of course, a few more people would be unemployed.

do some research before you throw insults around.

wikipedia

Reclaim Democracy

The supreme court decision

Fortunately or unfortunately, (and I believe fortunately) the US allows all people (over the age of 18), even those who aren't paying attention, to vote.

Think of a farmer applying bug killers to his crops. "Well gee, an ounce is about... well, about a 'glug', and if one glug is good for killing 'em, two or three must do the job right damn well!"

In the original proposal, the restriction to "professional" for this law would have opened up commentary and communication quite well. If you look at the BBC's news site the level of commentary and discussion on the articles is actually very good.

But opening up this requirement to EVERY site that puts an opinion online is pretty moronic, since the person who has money behind their opinion can have the PR staff zipping through hostile weblogs for an hour every afternoon cut-n-pasting the opposition into oblivion, while the smaller voices will have enough trouble just preserving the intended tone of their own sites.

Add this to the free speech case where Nike is suing for the right to lie in its marketing efforts, and the FUD wars coming up in Europe could make the MS vs. Linux diatribes look like sweet kisses from your first love.

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. ...

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. ...

Interesting Nike link from Ma Jones, but it appears they are just appealing an earlier ruling from CA supremes? I found good info here.

Cheers,
-- RLJ

I wish there was such a thing. I can only hope more municipalities will follow the lead of Porter Townhip.

Since the problem seems mainly to be corporations being giving the same right to copyright protection as individuals, I thought a little rant on corporate personhood would be appropriate.

Many folks don't know two facts regarding corporate personhood:

1) The American revolution was in large part a revolution against the Govt. supported practices of large (British) corporations. In post-Revolutionary America, corporations were far more limited and were established primarily to serve the public good, as one can see from the various state laws regarding corps, the interests of stockholders was supposed to be secondary to the commonweal.

2) Corporate personhood was established in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) without debate by the USSC, either by accident in an extraordinary example of judicial activism (sources differ) that has in many ways set (non-incorporated) individuals back to the position wrt to Corps. that our forefathers rebelled against.

Refs & More info

Now it's pretty obvious that the framers never intended corporations to be given the rights of personhood, and thus the ability to extend their copyright far beyond the lifetime of the author.

But so long as the little slip the 1886 court that let corporations demand the full protection granted 'all persons born or naturalized' by the 14th Amendment remains unchallenged, the domination of mere mortals by immortal corporations is likely only to get more and more extreme.

Many folks don't know two facts regarding corporate personhood:

1) the American revolution was in large part a revolution against the govt. supported practices of large (British) corporations. In post-Revolutionary America, corporations were far more limited and were established primarily to serve the public good, the interests of stockholders was supposed to be secondary to the commonweal.

2) Corporate personhood was established in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) without debate by the USSC, either by accident in an extraordinary example of judicial activism (sources differ) that has in many ways set (non-incorporated) individuals back to the position wrt to Corps. that our forefathers rebelled against.

Refs & More info

Ah, the variety on the Internet! There's a site just for you. (Thanks, Google.) More here. And even more here.

Many do consider corporate personhood a blunder, though to be picky the law technically sees them as quasi-persons with some, not all, of the rights of citizens, and those that they do have are often reduced in scope and strength.

I don't know of any stirring defenses of corporate personhood. However, when the 1st A. says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is talks of the speech, not the person. The right might be argued to belong to society as well as the individual, and is the right not to have government filter what we are allowed to hear. Also, though corporation are not real persons, neither are they independent automatons. They are collections of human beings who act through the corporation form; just as the corporation has the right to sue and be sued, and in a number of other ways act as a proxy for its constituents, it should "speak."

I don't have any great love of corporations, but can see some evil in the government manipulating what they can say, perhaps doing so out of selfish self-interest. Oh wait, I'm anthropomorphizing again.... :) Surely we do not need to apply the same rules to Nike's denying it uses sweatshops as we do to regulating precisely what "low fat" on packaging must mean -- yet that is what California would do.

It's thought provoking reading nonetheless. Check it out...

Express their views, yes. But not lie. They should not be allowed to make false claims such as "the GPL prevents commercialisation of research".

I don't accept that corporations have the "freedom" to lie about the GPL (or anything else). Corporations are not human beings and should not have human rights. In fact a recent decision by the California Supreme Court - where Nike tried to argue that they had a Free Speech right to lie about sweatshops in advertisements, and the court disagreed - affirms this view. This case may now go all the way to the Supreme Court. Which is interesting, because even the Chief Justice of the S.C. - not a rock-throwing anarchist by any means - has expressed the same kind of view in a dissenting opinion in a previous case.

Thank you very much for caring enough to post, and to show some emotion in the issue.

That said, I am NOT the author of the original article in question. I merely summed it up for those who do not feel like reading the original, which is lengthy.

Also, If you check out the H1B Hall of Shame at Zazona.com, you can see the documentation for the numbers.

I think it is fair to say that a million jobs would go far to solving that jobless situation in America.

The basic philosophical problem is as follows: When there isn't enough to go around, who do you choos first?

This is the nasty social issue. Should I volunteer my friends and family to starve so you can live high on the hog? no? or merely even live? Ah, a nasty question. Sorry to say, I am a selfish sort. My friends and family come first.

It becomes like all of the other flame wars, like emacs vs vi, etc. - except now lives and livelyhoods are on the line.

Feel free to call this racist. It is merely a survival point. Yours as well as mine. If we can not find a better solution, then someone winds up having to lose.

And it is driven by the economics of the companies using the workers against each other, using them like pawns in their economics games. It is no fun being a broken pawn.

My ultimate point is that the companies, instead of investing in well paid workers because this will build the overall market, are destroying the overall markert for the sake of short term gain. This is in the long run suicidal, not just for the companies, but for the well being of the country that most people in the world want to immigrate to.

if the major business is flipping burgers, we got a problem.

I actually think that a major factor to the problem is the corporate culture, but that is a diatribe for another time. but you may want to check out this link:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountabili ty/porter_township_ordinance.html

Don't laugh. It wouldn't be the first time an auto company did this kind of cost-benefit analysis. Remember the Ford Pinto?

for those of you who dont know walmart..

Walmar Watch
Reclaim Democracy
..a bunch more links...

I dont shop @ Walmart. You shouldnt either.

...they were prominent (along with commercial stations) in getting the FCC to back down on its plans for community radio. Their behavior is more similar to Sun's licensing of Java than the FSF's licensing of GNU; they want non-commercial radio to be available, but they want it to be NPR.

> In my opinion, National Public Radio (whose mission is to aid the
> growth and development of noncommercial radio) should definitely be

That indeed is the actual wording of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. But NPR, both in the late seventies and late nineties, worked vigorously against just that.

That said, they're pretty liberal on most other issues, and that would fit pretty well with the anticorporate overtones of free software.