Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[MobBoss]

Actually a corporation can commit manslaughter through its employees and the executives can be held criminally acountable.

The point of which indicates that someone responsible merely be held accountable. Again, corporations dont kill people...negligent people kill people.

 

[JollyRoger]

The point of which indicates that someone responsible merely be held accountable. Again, corporations dont kill people...negligent people kill people.

Would you agree that a drugee is more likely to be negligent than a non-drugee? Isn't in the government's interest to have a CEO pee in a cup before doling out corporate welfae to the company for which he is responsible? After all, the corporation doesn't make the decisions on how to spend the government money, the officers of the company decide how to spend the money.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

You've got to understand that a longtime government bureaucrat may not have the best understanding of how the private sector works.

I'm waiting to be ignored.

 

[MobBoss]

Would you agree that a drugee is more likely to be negligent than a non-drugee? Isn't in the government's interest to have a CEO pee in a cup before doling out corporate welfae to the company for which he is responsible? After all, the corporation doesn't make the decisions on how to spend the government money, the officers of the company decide how to spend the money.

No, it is not in the governments best interests at all. Again, CEOs are not being paid by the government.

I'm waiting to be ignored.

As well you should be....the whole line of 'CEOs are gov welfare queens' is pure crap.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

As well you should be....the whole line of 'CEOs are gov welfare queens' is pure crap.

That wasn't what I was talking about. But an eloquent response nonetheless.

Here's what I said:

Are they truly separate legal entities in the US? In the UK there is some overlap. A CEO can be punished for the crimes which have been committed by the corporation for example. (Tax evasion, manslaughter)

If they are conjoined in that sense isn't Jolly Roger’s proposition reasonable?

All I was asking was whether in the US corporations and their CEO's are entirely separate in the legal sense? It's a chance to show off your legal knowledge rather than just replying with

 

[MobBoss]

That wasn't what I was talking about. But an eloquent response nonetheless.

Here's what I said:


All I was asking was whether in the US corporations and their CEO's are entirely separate in the legal sense? It's a chance to show off your legal knowledge rather than just replying with

CEOs can be punished for actions by the corporation if they are viewed as the person responsible for the actions of the corporation. Its mainly a difference in criminal and civil law. CEOs may have some civil protections (i.e. financial liability protections) due to the corporations status, but not protections against criminal prosecution. You can see that precisely in how many CEOs and CFOs have been arrested and convicted for fraudulent business practicies in the last two years here in the USA.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, it is not in the governments best interests at all. Again, CEOs are not being paid by the government.

The CEO's comapny's are getting a government benfit. Who makes the decision on how that benefit is used? Not the corporation (by your manslaughter logic). Since it is the CEO, directors, and other top executives that make the decisions on how to use the benefit, the government should make sure those players are not having their judgment impaired by drugs while in contriol of such large government benefits.

 

[MobBoss]

The CEO's comapny's are getting a government benfit.

Correct, but not the CEOs themselves. At least we have established that.

Who makes the decision on how that benefit is used? Not the corporation (by your manslaughter logic).

You make it sound like a cash payment to the corp. It isnt. A tax subsidy means that the Corp gets to keep more of its own cash to do with as it will as opposed to paying it to the government.

Its not the governments money at all. Its a tax break to the corp. Thus the CEOs decide how the assets/profits of the Corp they run is used and are responsible to the shareholders.

Since it is the CEO, directors, and other top executives that make the decisions on how to use the benefit, the government should make sure those players are not having their judgment impaired by drugs while in contriol of such large government benefits.

Again, you are incorrect in relating a tax subsidy from the Gov as a cash payoff. It isnt.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

CEOs can be punished for actions by the corporation if they are viewed as the person responsible for the actions of the corporation. Its mainly a difference in criminal and civil law. CEOs may have some civil protections (i.e. financial liability protections) due to the corporations status, but not protections against criminal prosecution. You can see that precisely in how many CEOs and CFOs have been arrested and convicted for fraudulent business practicies in the last two years here in the USA.

Fair enough. It's a similar state of play to the UK then. CEO's can be prosecuted for 'corporate crimes' provided the appropriate mens rea can be proven. Very difficult in large companies but the new legislation hopes to make that easier for the Prosecution Services after some large train disasters.

Now if we accept that CEO's are responsible for the crimes comitted by corporations. Is it not reasonable, as Jolly Roger has said, for the CEO's of corporations receiving Government Aid to be drug tested. As you've said, and I tend to agree, welfare should be cut from those who receive the same and fail drug tests. It's only fair since most people would lose their job if they tested positive for some drugs.

 

[JollyRoger]

Correct, but not the CEOs themselves. At least we have established that.



You make it sound like a cash payment to the corp. It isnt. A tax subsidy means that the Corp gets to keep more of its own cash to do with as it will as opposed to paying it to the government.

Its not the governments money at all. Its a tax break to the corp. Thus the CEOs decide how the assets/profits of the Corp they run is used and are responsible to the shareholders.



Again, you are incorrect in relating a tax subsidy from the Gov as a cash payoff. It isnt.

Where did I say cash payout? It is less cash in the hands if the government, and thanks to the subsidy, more assets in control of the coproration. If the government is giving up potential revenue so that a corporation can have more assets, the government has an interest in making sure that the people making decisions in regards to this asset shift windfall are responsible stewards - after all, you wouldn't want the benefits from the subsidy wasted on a company run by drugees. Making the biggest decision makers of the entity pee in a cup is not a very big burden. If the CEO doesn't want to pee in the cup, then the subsidy can be taken away and any tax break not allowed.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

@JollyRoger

Not many people think that all things belong to the government. If the government reduces taxes, it is not giving you money but taking less of it away.

 

[JollyRoger]

@JollyRoger

Not many people think that all things belong to the government. If the government reduces taxes, it is not giving you money but taking less of it away.

The tax laws set a base rate of taxes. A tax break reduces the number off that base rate. If you want the break, pee in the cup. If you don't want it, keep doing drugs and paythe base rate.

 

[ShannonCT]

Corporations receive tax breaks from various levels of government because said governments believe that those tax breaks will cause the corporation to provide some social benefit above and beyond what they would provide if it were taxed at the standard rate in that jurisdiction. If you make those tax breaks conditional on the lifestyle of the executives, they will not request them from that jurisdiction, and the government wouldn't be able to create the social benefit.

Governments give breaks to corporations so that the corporations can better serve the interests of the community and the government. It is an equal exchange of goods. Governments give the poor welfare so that they don't die. The poor ask the government to rescue them. The government gives and the welfare recipient receives. It's an unequal transaction, for which the government should demand certain behavioral standards from the recipient.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The tax laws set a base rate of taxes. A tax break reduces the number off that base rate. If you want the break, pee in the cup. If you don't want it, keep doing drugs and paythe base rate.

It's like lefties and righties are speaking different languages.

One View:
If the government reduces taxes, it is not giving you money but taking less of it away. If the government gives out welfare, it is giving you money that formerly belonged to someone else.

Other View:
If the government reduces taxes, it is giving you money. If the government gives out welfare, you are getting what you are entitled to.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose?

1. Welfare recepients and CEO's who's company's receive government subsidies have to be drug tested in order to receive the benefit.

2. Neither has to be drug tested to receive the benefit.

I'm interested to know who would let welfare mom's off the hook to keep CEO's off the hook. Aren't most CEO's drug free anyway? If they are not, they are breaking the law. I think I can understand where some of you are coming from on welfare moms. I just don't see why you are at the same time so soft & coddling towards CEO's that should know better than to be an enemy combatant in the war on drugs.

 

[HannibalBarka]

No, this is a horrible idea, and arbitrarily takes away a great deal of what it means to be human.
And in addition, it incorrectly assumes that government assistanc equates to poverty, or that those who do not receive government assistance are in fact better mothers and fathers.
For shame.
(Note: This has NOTHING to do with economics, but warped conservatism...)

He says it all. Give this man a cookie. The idea is just disgusting to me. Welfare is not charity. A civlized country is one where human are treated as human. Why not suppress welfare all together?

 

[skadistic]

He says it all. Give this man a cookie. The idea is just disgusting to me. Welfare is not charity. A civlized country is one where human are treated as human. Why not suppress welfare all together?

They won't let us.

Welfare is charity that I'm forced to pay for.

 

[JollyRoger]

They won't let us.

Welfare is charity that I'm forced to pay for.

No you are not. You could choose to engage in a tax free lifestyle.

 

[ShannonCT]

I'm interested to know who would let welfare mom's off the hook to keep CEO's off the hook. Aren't most CEO's drug free anyway? If they are not, they are breaking the law. I think I can understand where some of you are coming from on welfare moms. I just don't see why you are at the same time so soft & coddling towards CEO's that should know better than to be an enemy combatant in the war on drugs.

If you want to propose random or compulsory drug testing for all citizens, fine. As you say, people are breaking the law if they are using illegal drugs (by definition). But CEOs whose companies get tex breaks shouldn't face a different standard of drug testing than ordinary working people, when those companies are being paid by the government to provide some extra benefit to society. Those companies don't owe the government anything.

He says it all. Give this man a cookie. The idea is just disgusting to me. Welfare is not charity. A civlized country is one where human are treated as human. Why not suppress welfare all together?

I must have missed the part of history or anthropology or biology class where being human meant having ones livelihood guaranteed by the state. I believe this is quite unusual in the span of human history, that a person would be paid by the state to have children. It's not unheard of, but its certainly not the norm. If you want to embrace the concept that the state should be the guarantor of a citizen's welfare - that it should give a citizen the right to food, housing, health, education, etc - then why embrace it so incompletely?

If we have data that says that people who take illegal drugs while on welfare are more likely to face homelessness, or incarceration, or death, why not try to prevent them from using drugs? If we have data that shows that people who have children while on welfare have a harder time becomming self-sufficient again, or that the children born to parents on welfare face a markedly increased risk of incarceration, future dependency, poor educational attainment, mental and physical problems, and early death, why not enforce temporary measures to prevent those births?

Giving people cash, food vouchers, free health care, and free housing, and then allowing them to continue behavior that perpetuates their dependency is thoughtless compassion. I understand that some people have a vested interest in keeping people dependent, but there is nothing human or humane about it.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you want to propose random or compulsory drug testing for all citizens, fine. As you say, people are breaking the law if they are using illegal drugs (by definition). But CEOs whose companies get tex breaks shouldn't face a different standard of drug testing than ordinary working people, when those companies are being paid by the government to provide some extra benefit to society. Those companies don't owe the government anything.

Ordinary working people are subject to drug screening when they work on certain government projects on behalf of their company. But really, why is it a burden for a CEO to take a drug screeen?