If you had the power to do so, what would you do about corporations?

[CajunBlazer]

"Corporations are evil" is a consistent theme of some folks on this board which has been used time and time again to disparage the Democratic nominee because Hillary was paid big money to make speeches at corporate meetings. This despite her record of attempting to reign in corporate excesses when she was a Senator and her pledges to continue to do so when she is elected President.

Large corporations are a fact of life not only in this country, but throughout the world. So let's hear solutions rather than complaints for a change. If you personally had the power to make whatever changes you desire, how would you handle the "corporation problem"?


(And let's not waste time talking about breaking up the big banks - everyone knows about that one.)

[Xipe Totec]

1. Corporations are chartered by the states - granted the right to exist to fulfill a specific mission

Change the rules under which the states grant organizations a right to exist, and you change the nature of corporations.

[bettyellen]

3. But how?

[Xipe Totec]

6. Change the state legislatures

[bettyellen]

9. But for what exact changes in rules? Honest question- I thought most issues were federal....

With not paying enough taxes, too many hb1 visas and skirting environmental rules. I know states also susidize businesses, but had thought most problems were nation wide.

[Xipe Totec]

19. Post #12 answers your question, I think.

But basically, only the state has the right to grant incorporation and can set the rules and conditions to grant such incorporation. This is established by laws written by the legislature who are the representatives of the people. If an organization provides no benefit to the people, the state has no obligation to grant it incorporation. In general, the most direct benefit is revenue through taxation, but it does not have to be the only criteria. There are non-profit corporations who's charter states the benefit to the people is something else.

We the people grant corporations the right to exist. We the people should decide when, how, and for how long.

[CajunBlazer]

29. Okay, let's say XYZ files a request to be incorporated in Delaware

Most large corporations in this country are incorporated in a handful of states. I understand Delaware is frequent choice because of low corporate taxes and other legal advantage.

Now do you think the Delaware legislature and governor are going to pass laws to to make it easy for them to pick and chose which corporations should cease to exist and/or which never get incorporated in the first place even if the majority of the legislature and the governors are Democrats? (Which is the case by the way - In Delaware 12 of the 21 Senators and 24 of the 42 Representatives are Democrats as is Jack Markell, the Governor. Do you think they would disolve a corporation that would just go to another state to incorporate?

Hell no! They set up Delaware's incorporation laws specifically to attract as many corporations as possible because of the benefits they bring to the state. And if they did, do you think that the citizens of Delaware would elect them for another term?

[Xipe Totec]

54. You're right. We're screwn. Might as well dig a hole, jump in, and pull the dirt over us. nt

[Hortensis]

95. It's too technical for easy answers.

But to my mind the most serious problem is getting business out of government, second after that taking the cake cutter away from them and the other wealthiest in our nation. They can be counted on to abuse it because they are human.

Re-institute updated federal controls on corporations, including anti-trust laws. Institute legal responsibility for the people who run them. Make "what's good for the nation good for business" real. Reward business for serving their employees and the nation, kick them in the profits for exploitation.

Completely revamp the corporate tax system. Close loopholes bad for the nation such as "inversions" and many others.

Give special benefits to corporations that employ and sell in the U.S. to offset reduced profits.

Get business money entirely out of government. Lobbying to educate lawmakers fine, giving a plastic pen to a secretary or buying lunch for a congressman illegal.

Do not allow elected representatives to work for corporations in any government-related position for not less than 3 years after leaving office.

Restore surveillance and serious penalties for violating merely the appearance of impropriety for elected and appointed government positions.

Stop privatization of and profiteering from public property and institutions, such as schools, prisons, hospitals.

Require a living wage for all full-time work. Institute laws to help business to transition to a 30-hour work week for 40-hour pay--where increased production and other realities make it appropriate.

Require "TV" media to devote some time each day to public service, including honest, extensive newscasts--and enforce it.

I'm sure I left off many of the most important ones. This isn't a small or simple matter. The answers must create thriving business, thriving work force, thriving retirees, thriving government, thriving everything all at once.

[Johnny2X2X]

12. This

It is part of our history that states could review corporations for whether or not they're were filling a need for the people and existed for the greater good. If they failed to live up to this they could be dissolved.

[Cal33]

22. We also need to take into consideration one serious negative possibility: that

state may already have been bribed and corrupted by the Corporations it
is making this evaluation on.

[CajunBlazer]

30. Oh you think States are desolve corporations

that are just go to a more friendly state to be incorporated again?

[Cal33]

52. I think some people working for state governments could also be corrupted by

corporations - just like those working for any other level of government. It's
reasonable, and perhaps even wise, to anticipate that some of them might be,
so that more precautions in preventing mistakes will be considered.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Make it acceptable to consider the environmental and social impact of corporate decisions.

As things stand now, if a decision makes a profit for the corporation, it's good. If it doesn't, then it's bad.

The primary rai·son d'ê·tre of corporations is to make a profit above all else.

[bettyellen]

4. So - pay fair taxes and tougher environmental rules? God we need a better congress.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Another one: federalize corporate law

Delaware is a haven for corporations because of the leniency of taxes paid (or not). Why aren't laws the same for every state, which would make it convenient for corporations to incorporate and operate within their borders?

[hollowdweller]

5. I'd repeal the Taft Hartley act and I'd make union membership mandatory.

[MineralMan]

7. Which corporations? That's always my question.

Most businesses of any substantial size, and many very small ones are incorporated. I have no opinions that apply to them all. That wouldn't make any sense.

[bemildred]

8. Make the owners/managers liable for what the corporation does.

Dispense with the fiction that a Corporation is an entity separate from it's owners/managers.

[metroins]

14. This

And I own a corporation.

[bemildred]

15. That was always what it was about. "Limited Liability Corporations".

And thank you, you are the kind of owner I can support.

[yallerdawg]

28. That's "Limited Liability Company."

Which is sought by the owner to keep personal assets separate from company liability.

From wiki:

Corporation

A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

[bemildred]

40. You are correct.

I suppose that was habit or brain lock or something. The distinction is not so finely made these days. Company as in "company of men", or "free companies", which were generally mercenaries or brigands.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company

[hobbit709]

11. Any corporation that engages in political activity should have their charter revoked.

[CajunBlazer]

31. Who is going to revoak their charter

A State like Delaware which is considered corporation friendly. Yep and as soon as they do, losing benefits to their state, and then the company is just going to incorporate in a more friendly state.

[Todays_Illusion]

13. The problem is that there are now only a few near monopolistic players in all the

vital sectors of the economy. Food, energy, finance, manufacturing. To much power in the hands of too few players.


In particular we are not going to see change with out a drastic change in who is controlling news and all information. The corporations who own the news and internet access and content creators are too few in number to be allowed the amount of control they have.

[ms liberty]

17. Very good point. n/t

[CajunBlazer]

32. Wrong! There are no unregulated monopolies in this country...

...on an ongoing basis. There are strict laws in this country against unregulated monopolies. The Justice department has always aggressively gone after any corporation which has sought to create a monopoly over good or services. (See AT&T)

Regulated monopolies are allowed to exist for the greater good and are regulated by public board like public service commissions. Even they are growing fewer in number.

By the way, when more than one company exerts too much influence over a segment of the economy - they are not monopolies, together they are called an oligopoly. Those are not allowed to exist normally either, but when they do, they too must abide by rules which encourage competition.

[Todays_Illusion]

94. I did not mention unregulated monopolies you did, and called me wrong for something you said. Bye!

[uponit7771]

16. 1. Increase amount of funds they feed into a federal unemployment account so when they decided to

... get rid of their employment base people are protected for a year instead of 6 months (something like Germany) hiring would be slower but so would firing.

2. Reduce ability to displace with imported labor by making the displacement litmus income based. The reason why displacement can be done right now is the displacement laws are super lax or not even enforced at all, the companies bring in more than 4 people to do what people in the US are doing they have to have the income checked vs just outright lying about it like they do now.

3. Make them have displacement insurance, make the corporations pay if they offshore jobs not the tax payer for retraining AND relocation... two of the biggest reasons why people are left out in the cold because of offshoring.

4. Take away the incentives for feeding the top by placing the stock options as part of overall compensation. Make them add the proposed stock value as part of the overall compensation so if the CVD level gets them they're not seen as compensation that is paid at individual federal rates. CVDs would flee in mass to private corps and that goes to my 5th...

5. Move the current crop of index listed stocks to dividends instead of rising equity prices by taxing dividend INCOME at 10% for the next 20 - 30 years (not forever). Who cares if the Ceo, vice presidents or Director levels flee to private corps for higher share of corporate equity, they'd flee right back when the dividend stocks start giving more income. They'd have to depend on their stocks indicator of health being the dividends it pays out to the stock owners vs ever increasing stock prices which isn't sustainable right now. Amazon's PE indicates that it's not worth its overall stock outlay... an income sharing stock (dividend) would indicate more health of the whole company.
They lower they dividend then just move to another stock that hasn't in that sector and it would stop the need to ever increase the price of equities ... there are a lot of funds based off this concept right now.

Just my 2 cents

[Sheepshank]

18. I don't thinks corporations are evil per se.

But two things I would change regarding laws that govern and define how corporations operate:

1. I would remove any and all references to treating corporations like a person and remove their ability to get involved financial in politics.

2. Full Names and contact information on all officers and Directors. Too many states allow ther corporation heads and officers to remain invisible. Accountability starts with clarity and visibility.

[Travis_0004]

102. A 10-k will list all the directors, as well as anybody with 5% ownership.

It may not list a telephone, but its not like they would take calls from the phone they listed anyway.

[baldguy]

20. Stop the pretense that corporations are people.

And the state should suffer their existence only to the extent that they can benefit the public at large.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Expect them to obey the law.

[PowerToThePeople]

23. All corporations must be owned by the employees.

All employees must have ownership and voting rights in the Corporation to which they are employed. As the employees are what grow the Corporation, the employees collect the benefits of that growth.

[CajunBlazer]

35. Ohhhh, now there is a truely socialist idea

So are the employees alone going to fund the corporations when they need additional capital to continue to operate or grow? Is debt the only way corporations would be able to get additional capital? Yea, that would work.

And just how are you going to bring that about. Would the government buy all of the stock of corporations and give that stock to the employees?

We perhaps instead we could just nationalize corporations - that would solve all of the problems.

inserted for those who have not studied Finance, Economics or History.

[PowerToThePeople]

37. Yes. Thank you.

Socialism is the answer.

[CajunBlazer]

39. Did you read my post?

Have you studied Finance, Economics and History or just Trotsky and Lenin?

[PowerToThePeople]

44. Nice try at an insult.

The long term plan would be to lock out the current capitalist's capital from the system. basically starve them out of existence. The only owners would be owner/employees. There would be no capital that stood on it's own accord.

Do not ask for a post explaining how this would be accomplished, as there would be a great many things involved.

No one who does not work in a company should have any rights or ownership of that company. Capitalism is nothing more than legalized slavery and indentured servitude of those who actually contribute to the world.

[CajunBlazer]

63. I wasn't trying to insult you

I was merely making the point that if you had studied Finance and Economics you would know that what you are proposing could not be accomplished except by nationalizing companies and that is not just socialism, that moves into communism. I'm not throwing stones here - look up the definitions of the two economic systems.

Also you should know that your posts indicates that you belong to a group of people that occupy a tiny sliver of the electorate. Very few Americans identify as Socialists. Only 35% of Americans view socialism in a positive light. At the same time, 60% are positive about capitalism; 85% about free enterprise. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx

Obviously, you are barking up the wrong tree with your suggestion.

[PowerToThePeople]

67. Your crystal ball fails you.

You do not know my history and curriculum vitae.

[CajunBlazer]

71. You're right of course - all I know about you is what I can deduce from your posts

Based on your posts you appear to be a socialist who has not studied economics or finance and who wasn't very much interested in history in school.

Deducing information about someone from posts is very tricky so please correct me if I came away with the wrong impressions.

[PowerToThePeople]

73. Yes, all we can know is what we deduce from reading posts

I would say what I have deduced from yours, but.....

post removed.

[Chan790]

101. Neither are you though...

because if you were, you'd know that prior to the Spanish Civil War there were a great many employee-owned collectives, that they were in no way socialistic and that Franco broke them up for myriad reasons...but essentially because they allowed specialized workers (in the capacity of a guild or cartel) to control and reap the fruits of their labors in an almost monopolistic manner...fruits he believed should belong to the wealthy mercantile class of capitalists which had financed his efforts to overthrow the aristocracy.

[CajunBlazer]

61. We are not going to get rid of the free market system in this country....

Even socialist countries in Europe operate by and large free market system for most good and services. The governments in those countries are deeply involved in only involved in a few industries, for instance health care.

The are positives and negatives involved in any economic system. The secret is enjoying the advantages - the US and other countries employing free market economies have the world's highest standards of living for all of their people - while minimizing the negative effects with government regulations. Which by the way is what most counties do, including the US. The age old question is not whether capitalism has to be controlled with regulation - but how much regulation is enough and how much is too much.

[okasha]

58. That works just fine for smaller businesses

organized on the Co-op or collectives model, but it would keep businesses small and local. Not a bad thing, in my opinion.

[CajunBlazer]

64. Everyone bitches about what large corporations have done to small local businesses

But many of those same people shop at Sam's their groceries because the company has better prices. Economies of scale at work.

[Travis_0004]

103. Im pretty sure that plan would bankrupt every pension plan overnight.

Most pension plans own a lot of stock. What happens when you take that away and bankrupt the pension plan?

And so long diversity in your portfolio.

The people at enron who only bought company stock were screwed. The people who owned stock in other companies made out ok. As a personal rule, I dont want more that 5% of my companies stock in my portfolio.

[AgadorSparticus]

24. Here's my list of things:

1. Put them in a corporate tax bracket where they have to actually pay more %wise than the middle class.
2. Make it illegal for them to donate/lobby in any way to any candidate, PAC's, government agency, etc.
3. If they are going to sponsor a convention, they have to sponsor both conventions EQUALLY.
4. Certain industries be monitored by a regulating agency. (I know we have that now but it is clear that oftentimes, they buy what they want to get away with)

I think what i really would like to see is the abolishment of the lobbying system. It should be illegal.

[Rex]

25. Nothing, I would do something about the people in charge.

The people in charge are the folks ruining it for the rest of us. They need to be held completely responsible for their company and all the ills or benefits it gives to society.

[benld74]

26. Taxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtax

And NO getting away from it by ANY manner

[MH1]

27. I would make top executives criminally accountable

for deaths and injuries from their products and/or activities, also for environmental damage.

I would start taxing "externalities" such as water and air pollution; anything that reduces the availability or health of a public resource to the public.

Yes all this may sound fanciful but you did say, "if you had the power to do so".

[zappaman]

33. I would get rid of them, the banks, and stop printing money!

We need to go back to the barter system and share everything.

[CajunBlazer]

41. You realize that you need to use the Sarcasm emoji

or some of these people will think your serious.

[Adrahil]

53. Good luck with that.

Sarcasm?

[zappaman]

89. I will trade you some prime weed for some fresh eggs.

Let's do this!

[AgingAmerican]

34. Well, that's a no brainer. Heavily regulate them

Duh!

[CajunBlazer]

42. How would you regulate them?

[Nye Bevan]

84. Which specific regulation that does not currently exist is most urgently needed,

in your opinion?

[HumanityExperiment]

36. corporations aren't people for one...

corps have no ethics inherent in their DNA, they have no moral code embedded in their 'DNA"...

what 'power' would make this so?

answer that and you have your answer...

[Vinca]

38. A CEO's salary should be no more than 20 times the average worker's.

A corporation should not get to deduct the cost of dismantling U.S. plants when jobs are being shipped overseas. It should not be legal for American corporations to evade taxes by hiding income overseas. If an American corporation closes shop here in order to exploit the low wage workers in a foreign country, goods that result should be taxed when imported back into the U.S. It has to be more expensive to make things abroad than to make them here.

[ismnotwasm]

43. Make them not people

See how it goes.

[thesquanderer]

45. If we could start from scratch, I'd say there should be no stock market.

If you want to invest in a company and become a part owner, fine. Private companies do that all the time. By going public and selling into a legalized gambling market, companies become all about the stock price rather than the product.

[CajunBlazer]

59. LOL!!!!

Have you ever studied Finance and Economics?

[thesquanderer]

60. I'd settle for a 50% tax on any stock held for less than a year. ;-)

As always... don't invest more than you can afford to lose!

[CajunBlazer]

62. Do you invest in stock or mutual funds?

[thesquanderer]

66. Why do you ask?

I have traded much more in the past than I do now.

But the point isn't whether I did or didn't, or how well I did. Conceptually, I think short term trading is not genuinely productive to society.

Kinda like the mortgage deduction. I fully empathize with those who say it's a bad idea. I might even agree. But I darn well take it. My own behavior does not necessarily indicate whether or not I think something is good for society.

[PowerToThePeople]

74. Exactly

We all operate under the systems we are placed in. That does not mean that we condone such systems.

[Nye Bevan]

75. It's already close to that in many states.

Gains on stocks held for under a year are considered short-term and are taxed as ordinary income, so a top rate of 39.6%, and then there's state income tax on top of that.

[thesquanderer]

81. Okay, so lets make it 50% off the top, then whatever your regular tax is on the balance.

Very few people pay the top rate of 39.6% + state. But sure, we can make it higher if need be...

We can quibble about the numbers, it's the concept...

[CajunBlazer]

105. Do you realize the 55% of the American people are stockholders

And it is their money you are screwing with. And do you realize that shareholders pay personal income taxes or at least capital gains taxes on top of the taxes that corporations pay on profits which are passed to the shareholders. Do your realize that our corporate taxes are already among the highest on earth.

Yep. the majority of the American people are going to vote for your proposal.

[thesquanderer]

106. How many of the 55% are frequent traders who don't hold stocks long? And how many will lose money?

A large tax on short term holds probably wouldn't affect the average American. But also, when some people gain in the market, often other people lose.

The stock market is sold to us as something that helps the average guy, but the average guy is not the major beneficiary.

Think of why the republicans are so hot on privatizing social security... They try to sell it on a philosophy of getting government out of people's lives, but what the financial sector really wants is to get the money out of your pockets and into theirs.

In short, I might counter your argument by saying that 55% of Americans are unwittingly part of a scheme to help the rich get richer.

[Nye Bevan]

86. Limited liability stock is one of the greatest financial innovations ever conceived (nt)

[thesquanderer]

92. Do you think the stock market more tends to *spread* the wealth, or more *concentrate* the wealth?

Or neither?

I think that, for the average guy, it is kind of a lottery. The people who really make the money are the people in the financial industry itself, like the brokers and money managers who make money whether the stock goes up or down, and who don't actually contribute anything of value themselves.

[FixTheProblem]

46. Disband them by force, arrest the CEOs, take their money and divide it among the poorest Americans

You did say "if" I had the power to...

[Adrahil]

55. Then what? NT

[mythology]

47. Presuming I had a magic wand

Here are some of things I would do:

limit executive compensation to a smaller percentage of employee pay than it currently is.

I would eliminate golden parachutes.

I would end corporate personhood.

As others have said, I would make executives responsible for their company's actions.

I'm not entirely sure how I would do this, but I would try to find a way to make corporations look longer term than the next quarterly report. Perhaps mandate a real delay in selling stock (say 6 months or a year but that seems unwieldy). Perhaps mandate giving a CEO a minimum of a three or four year term.

I would restructure the tax code to effectively raise taxes on corporations, do away with much of the existing corporate subsidies, and reduce incentives to offshore profits. No fancy accounting to make all your profits appear in Ireland or some other place with lax corporate tax law.

Finally I would offer tax breaks to corporations who bring on executives who are women and/or minorities.

[Sancho]

50. Limit their size unless they are public and profit sharing and support collective bargaining.

If the corporation is unionized, and productivity goes back to the employees...then they are not evil.

Just like governments, there need to be checks and balances.

[MyNameGoesHere]

51. Put them into state owned stewardship until they met

my regulatory requirements.

[tapermaker]

56. I hope this isnt considered too extreme

I would pass strong anti corruption laws that states anyone found to be corrupt within a corp. as well as their bosses are all charged with a capitol offense and upon conviction are required to do 25yrs in prison.

[CajunBlazer]

65. You do realize that capital offenses carry the death penalty, right?

[tapermaker]

70. opps

I didn't know that .I thought it was the top felony charge.

[CajunBlazer]

72. Well it is, but by definition a capital crime is one pushable by the death sentence

[Nye Bevan]

80. So if someone cheats on their travel expenses, 25 years in prison for that person and their boss?

If not, you need to be more specific.

[tapermaker]

85. extreme? ,maybe

I just figure you have to make it so that people change their behavior ,Like I bet many don't use the internet for their porn because the laws are so steep for child porn down loads.If you treated fraud the same way it would change the culture very fast.

[DonCoquixote]

57. for starters

I would make it illegal for executives to give themselves Bonuses in a year where their company lost money, ala the way many bankers did. Bonuses should be just that, something that is given out when people do well enough to have extra. I would also make it illegal for executives to get pay raises in a year where the company loses money.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Corporate excutives by defintion do not give themselves bonuses

Bonuses are voted for by the Board of Directors which also have the power to fire executives including the Chief Executive Officer or CEO.

I think that it would be a good idea to learn how corporations work before suggesting how to fix them.

[DonCoquixote]

69. well then

It seems that this has not stopped corporations from doing exactly the sort of behavior described...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/news/companies/bonuses_tarp/
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/04/17/11-ceos-get-richer-as-investors-get-poorer/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/27/rbs-bonuses-loss-pay-market-rate
https://hbr.org/2010/10/dont-give-cash-performance-bon
http://time.com/3342841/bonus-bad-news/

I think it would be a good idea to learn how the economy works before hiding behind a false fact that means absolutely nothing to the economy. It shows that one is preferring to stay within their field of false facts rather then care about the actual world which makes the money.

[CajunBlazer]

77. I have an MBA and I was inducted into the National Economic Honor Society

I also have taken several fiance course and I am a bit of a history buff so I am not deficient in those areas.

And I am not "hiding behind a false fact that means absolutely nothing to the economy". I accuracy pointed a fallacy in your statement which indicates that you have little comprehension of how corporations work since the concept of a corporate board of directors is basic and fundamental to the operation of corporations.

By the way, I agree with the premise that many corporate executives are over paid and obviously some are sometimes not held financially responsible for the performances of their corporations. However, the you should also know that the Board of Directors of a corporation is totally responsible to the share holders of the cooperation (something else you may not be aware of) and are charged with insuring that the corporation is run proper financial manner. If they don't comply with their duties they can be, and often are sued by share holders. Also in all corporate charters there are provisions which spell out how the corporate board members can be be replaced between elections by the share holders if they feel that the board is being wasteful with their money.

Because these checks are always present in any corporation, it very unlikely that laws limiting executive compensation would ever be passed by by state or federal authorities. We may not like the huge salaries that major league football, baseball and basketball players make, but corporate executives salaries and bonuses are also subject only to the laws of supply and demand.

[DonCoquixote]

96. you "accuarcy"

As someone whose rl hand damage makes him typo, I normally would not mock that, but combined with arrogance, it warrants a bit of focus, since you tout your MBA as if that enables you to deny the reality I accurately documented with my links. You can say "well, this is not supposed to happen because of checks and balances inherent in the system." Well, cops are not supposed to shoot unarmed black kids, because there are checks and balances so hard that even honest policemen drown in them, yet it happens, live on videotape. Doctors are not supposed to engage in Medicare fraud or Malpractice, yet it happens,why, because, if there is power to be gained and profit to be made, the system will eb abused, which is why yes, a law has to be made to prevent undesirable consequences from happening.

Now let's examine this quote:
"By the way, I agree with the premise that many corporate executives are over paid and obviously some are sometimes not held financially responsible for the performances of their corporations."

Good, you learned that much. Question is, what prevents that? Granted, you could appeal to common sense, but common sense is rather uncommon. Your defense is:

" However, the you should also know that the Board of Directors of a corporation is totally responsible to the share holders of the cooperation (something else you may not be aware of) and are charged with insuring that the corporation is run proper financial manner. If they don't comply with their duties they can be, and often are sued by share holders."

Well, here is a minor problem, and a work around, and i sincerely wish to hear how you would plug this hole. Stock prices can easily be inflated by firing workers. Here are some more blue links:

http://www.epi.org/blog/et-tu-mickey-mouse-disney-pads-record-profits-by-replacing-u-s-workers-with-cheaper-h-1b-guestworkers/

http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/layoffs-stocks/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tis-the-season-for-companies-to-lay-off-workers-and-buy-back-shares-2015-10-23

Now, if the stockholders are the ones that stand in the way of executives running amok, there is an obvious flaw, in that it is easy for them to do a very cheap little trick to keep the prices up. As the last link tells, the executives do not even need to use the windfall to actually FIX problems, but what do they do, they try to make a quick, cheap profit.

You can talk all day about how things SHOULD work. If I wanted to start a religion, I can go ahead and say that lighting incense will make you rich, but if I was never held accountable to whether it actually WORKED, I would be just another charlatan. The problem is, for all the academics and figures and all that stuff MBA's do, a lot of it turns out to be no more reliable than witchcraft, and a lot less regulated than any Las Vegas Casino. I have no problem with profit, all problems with trickery.

And yes, that includes a bunch of people who try to silence criticism by implying that anyone who does not agree with you has no business offering input, input you solicited by virtue of this op. Some people make their living flattering the Emperors new Clothes, but not only do some of us see the King is naked, they realize that there will come a long cold winter where we are all naked and shivering in the snow because people were all too ready and willing to defend the charlatans that made off with our future.

[CajunBlazer]

104. You haven't yet gotten to the heart of the problem

Though you have nibbled around the edges. There are checks on corporate executive raises and bonuses. The executives work for the Board of Directors and it is the BoD that hands out raises and bonuses. For all practical purposes the directors work for the share holders and they can be sued, "fired" or not reelected to the board by the share holders. But understand this, except to the extent that it is included in their culture, corporate executives and the BoD's work for the share holders, not the general public and that is where their loyalty lies.

And who are the share holders - they are most of the American public. Today 55% of Americans own stock or mutual funds. Before the crash in 2008 it was 62% and eventually it will probable approach that percentage again.

Anyone can read articles and cite corporate abuses, but we need understand what is going on in corporate America and focus on the the main problem is causing the abuses you cite in your later posts. That main problem is that many American stockholders have grown enamored with instant profits instead being focused on the long term value of the corporations. So Executives' raises and bonuses are based on "what have you done for me lately". Most of the abuses you cite from unnecessary layoffs to overseas outsourcing, to replacing American workers with guest workers from other countries are designed to produce short term profits, because that is what earns the executives executives raises and bonuses and that's most of the share holders want. All too often these tactics are counter productive to the long term financial health of a corporation.

We, the American people as share holders have created this situation. It is the share holders who are fixated on short term gains instead of of long term value. We, the American public, as consumers, are also responsible for other corporate tactics which are unfriendly to American workers. All other things being equal, we buy consumer items which are the least expensive. That's why for instance socks which were which made in large quantities in Alabama are now made in other countries and why almost all Alabama sock factories are shut down and their former workers are out of jobs. Mechanization also produces products cheaper so American workers again lose their jobs. Again, because American consumers insist on paying the lesser prices for the same products.

It is another case of we have met the source of the problem and it is us.

But let's get back to your original suggestions: "I would make it illegal for executives to give themselves Bonuses in a year where their company lost money" And you also said. "I would also make it illegal for executives to get pay raises in a year where the company loses money."

Whether a corporation makes money or not is not, and should not be the only measure of whether corporate executives should get raises and bonuses. For example, an executive may get a raise and/or a bonus because, even though the corporation didn't make money that year, the CEO lead the company successfully through a serious crisis. Or perhaps the company didn't make money in a particular year because any would be profits were reinvested in order to make bigger profits in following years. Many startup corporations, like Tesla, reinvest every dollar they make into growing, but that doesn't mean that the executives aren't providing excellent value. In addition, better compensation may be offered to an excellent executive, regardless of the current condition of the company, to persuade him/her not to move to another company.

However, the bottom line is that their are check and balances which are in place BoD's and or the shareholders can use to exert better control over executive compensation. Whether they are used or not is up the the individual BoD's and shareholders.

Given that there are existing checks and balances are in place, and because the determination of proper executive compensation is very complex and can depend on any number of factors, there is no way in hell that state or federal lawmakers are ever going to go down that rat hole.

So you see, it is important to understand a difficult situation before you stubbornly claim that you have the right answer.

[DonCoquixote]

108. OK, you have nibbled

so here is a bit more to gnaw on:

You said:

"Given that there are existing checks and balances are in place, and because the determination of proper executive compensation is very complex and can depend on any number of factors, there is no way in hell that state or federal lawmakers are ever going to go down that rat hole."

Er. and a Doctor's diagnosis is not very complex? An Engineer's? Sorry, your argument does not hold water considering the government does indeed go down the "Rat hole" with Medicine, Law, and other professions ever day. Complex you say?, as complex as determining whether a doctor was negligent enough to kill a patient?, or a company was careless enough to allow a town's water supply to become toxic?

You said:
"That main problem is that many American stockholders have grown enamored with instant profits instead being focused on the long term value of the corporations. So Executives' raises and bonuses are based on "what have you done for me lately". "

Well, since you are shuffling blame onto the stockholder,and implying we are the stockholders, let's see who these people actually are. Ma and Pa Kettle with their 401k, who cane barely get on line with their broker? No, most of the stock is held by the already wealthy, who are already used to abusing systems to their advantage.

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/07/who-owns-the-u-s-stock-market/
http://www.theglobalist.com/u-s-stock-ownership-owns-benefits/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/09/investing/stock-market-investing-us-families/

Now, you can say "woo hoo, many americans own some stock at least" , and who do you think the corps listen to, a hedge fund manager, or ma and pa kettle who own a 401k?

You chide that one must understand a difficult situation, perhaps one must realize that one is too close to the situation to understand it, the way it is impossible to read a book better by pressing your face onto the paper.

[Katashi_itto]

107. They misspelled finance too

[Nye Bevan]

82. So if a corporation is losing $100 million per year, hires a new CEO to fix things,

and that CEO reduces the loss to $1 million per year, it would be illegal to pay that person a bonus?

[DonCoquixote]

97. Yes...

because 1 million loss is still enough to bankrupt a business. Now, if you want to offer that heavy hitter a long term contract to keep him or her on the team, that is different, but a BONUS is a short term reward that encourages short term thinking, which is exactly why we are losing influence.

[randome]

76. Limit CEO compensation and tax them at a fixed percentage. No loopholes.

No bizarre deductions. Unfortunately, it's Congress that typically worships corporations and grants them deductions they never even asked for.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[CajunBlazer]

78. See my post above

[randome]

88. I get what you're saying : a board of directors is kind of modeled after our own government.

Still, limiting compensation would send a strong social signal that there are other things besides salaries at stake.

And corporate theory as opposed to corporate practice are often two very different things. I think we assign too much value to supply and demand. The world is overpopulated. There are too many CEOs and too many consumers. So it's possible for anyone to carve out a profitable niche even when demand is light.

I'm not sure the old rules apply any longer.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nye Bevan]

79. Abolish corporate income tax in exchange for taxing dividends and capital gains as ordinary income.

Currently dividends are taxed at an especially low rate because the profits have already been taxed at the corporate level. With a zero rate of corporate tax that would no longer be necessary. Also this would put an end to inversions as well as the stashing of profits offshore. Such profits could then be repatriated here and any portion paid as dividends would be taxed as ordinary income while the remainder could be reinvested in the business.

This is unlikely to happen as it would hurt the 1% (corporate taxes are much easier to evade than personal income taxes). Also, big accounting and big law, who currently run a huge operation in structuring around and avoiding corporate tax, would strongly lobby against such a proposal.

[PowerToThePeople]

87. Wow

You said something I agree with.



That and a more progressive personal income tax would be great changes to the current system.

[pansypoo53219]

90. cut CEO pay & tie it to wages + performance. NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES FOR FAILING!

[choie]

91. Force them to pay their full share of taxes...

Force them to keep jobs in the U.S
Stiff criminal penalties for breaking the law- harming environment, hurting people, including prison time for their CEO and other leadership, board of directors
Take away their "right" to donate to campaigns or elected officials
Keep them OUT of our regulating bodies

[rickford66]

93. Limited life expectancy and

eligibility for the death penalty.

[DataDrivenFP]

98. The problem is not 'corporations', but 'too large:' loss of competition and excessive influence

That is, when corporations get too big, they escape competition (because there's too few to actually compete), take advantage of consumers, and have enough money to unduly influence government.

The textbook example was John D Rockefeller's Standard Oil company. In the days before antitrust, Rockefeller would come into a market and sell kerosene or other products at the same price for a 55 gal drum as the other company was charging for a 50 gallon drum...until the other company went broke or withdrew from the market, at which point he doubled the price. He did the same if another company tried to enter one of 'his' markets. He also bought out railroads that were exclusive deliverers to a region, and massively overcharged or refused to accept other companies' products. Those were the days of the 'Robber Barons.' Companies still do this, when they can.

The ideal situation, which the idea of markets is based on, requires "many buyers and MANY SELLERS." When you have monopoly or oligopoly (only one or few sellers) or monopsony/oligopsony (only one or few buyers,) market forces are no longer reliable, and we have a 'broken market,' with price and profit distortions. We've seen this in health care. Most areas are dominated by one or two insurers, and in response, hospitals and other medical 'providers' merge so you have an oligopoly facing an oligopsony, and higher prices for the rest of us.

The obvious goal for consumers is for markets to always have "many buyers and many sellers."
The Sherman Antitrust act created a cumbersome and slow legal mechanism to oppose monopoly. Fast forward to today. Exxon-Mobile has 1/7 the gross receipts of the entire US Government. It becomes the tail wagging the dog. Two companies dominate computer operating systems. The Antitrust act isn't working very well, because there's a market/business reason for companies to get bigger-they compete better, and they can control their markets. We need a better mechanism.

So the solution to 'the Corporation Problem' is to create a market-like mechanism that creates a disadvantage for companies getting massive, to overcome the existing advantages of getting bigger. I have one proposal below.

One possible solution would be to replace the corporate income (profits) tax with a graduated corporate gross receipts tax. Corporate accounting has a lot of leeway to fiddle with 'profits,' but there's not too much leeway or uncertainty about gross receipts. So having a tax on gross receipts that would tax something the size of Exxon-Mobile, CitiBank or Walmart at 30%, but a company 1/20th their size at 20%, would create an instant reason to break up gigantic corporations into 20 (still huge!) corporations that would compete with each other. They could still combine to lobby, but that's a different problem. They would no longer be "Too Big to Fail". If a company that big wasn't making profits, then they're doing something wrong...and the obvious solution is to break up into many smaller companies, and let the market find a solution.

Like many other policies opposing excessive inequality, it's good for consumers AND the companies themselves. It's not that corporations, or wealth, are bad- it's that too much concentration strangles the economy.

[Chan790]

99. A list. (Working, not final.)

Revoke corporate personhood. They have only the rights of the shareholders which the shareholders wish to assert and be legally-liable for in a court of law.

Implement some form of a corporate death-penalty. Exactly what it sounds like...a legal mechanism for courts to kill a corporation for extreme misdeeds and totally wipe-out the valuation to shareholders. Make the stock worthless, immediately and irreversibly de-list it, and any extract-able assets/value belongs to the victims. Doing so would encourage shareholders to morally-police the conduct of the corporation in order to protect their investment.

[Starry Messenger]

100. Higher taxes and a series of reforms to repatriate offshored funds

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/us-corporations-14-trillion-hidden-tax-havens-oxfam

Use this money for public programs.

I'd start there. I like the other suggestions in the thread.