Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by woob

With all due respect, you still don't get it either. I've stated previously that I think government needs to change the rules, that much we both realize. However, this does not mean my scorn for business is unfounded. I have every right to rally against business as do the protesters. You can play by the rules AND make socially responsible choices at the same time. Just because you play by the rules doesn't mean you get carte blanch when it comes to being a socially responsible corporation. As I said before, how far do we let maximize profits and shareholder value go? When do we look at the status quo and realize it needs changing, both from a regulations point and from a corporate values point?

I don't think there are any corporations of any significant size, particularly multi-nationals, that do not have specific, established programs and guidelines for giving back to their communities through cash grants, gifts or services or products in-kind and/or the offer of gratis time for volunteering employees.

Most are a lot smarter than smaller businesses - which are also great supporters of their communities in general - and are very visible on their websites in listing their programs, the guidelines and how to apply as well as where they've given support in the past.

The fiduciary duties of a corporate officer or board of director in regards his company and shareholders do not ever supercede the laws of the land.

Cowperson

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

retroactive legislation?

Absolutely not. Rule of law is really one of our strengths over third world countries. Who would work in an industry if you didn't know if you would be breaking potential future laws?

As for Dodd Frank, of course they're trying to be heard on the finer points of legislation. It's how we might actually get laws and regs that are workable as opposed to ones that might actually make economic problems worse.

The problem a lot of Occupiers don't understand is that if you 'abolished' or 'nationalized' the banks the whole society would collapse. That might be totally okay for some of the harder core machine ragers because they feel there's nothing in this society for them anyway. But when you claim you're speaking for the 99%, you also speak for people who want to or already have good jobs. Socialism's all cool until the money runs out, and then you have to have an economic system that fosters economic growth.

[woob]

Interesting piece on #OWS

What will victory look like for Occupy Wall Street?

Also, the woman's last name she talks to is AWESOME: Economopoulos

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

With all due respect, you still don't get it either. I've stated previously that I think government needs to change the rules, that much we both realize. However, this does not mean my scorn for business is unfounded. I have every right to rally against business as do the protesters. You can play by the rules AND make socially responsible choices at the same time. Just because you play by the rules doesn't mean you get carte blanch when it comes to being a socially responsible corporation. As I said before, how far do we let maximize profits and shareholder value go? When do we look at the status quo and realize it needs changing, both from a regulations point and from a corporate values point?

I read that as we can either live in reality, where corporations will operate to enhance value by utilizing every means possible, or we can live in a fantasy land filled with all kinds of wonderful things like clouds made of candy and rivers of chocolate.

Corporations simply aren't going to look out their windows and see a few hundred annoyed people and go 'you know what, let's not maximize profit for our shareholders, let's give away hugs instead'. Not when the shareholders vastly outnumber the protesters. I'm all for enhancing regulation to achieve that result, but I'm not so naive to think that corporations will do it on their own. Once again, that's not their role. That's not what they are.

Edit - As Cowperson notes corporations engage in all sorts of programs in their communities. My comments are largely on tax planning and the like where the goal is strictly financial and doesn't include things like market presence through charity involement etc.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I don't think there are any corporations of any significant size, particularly multi-nationals, that do not have specific, established programs and guidelines for giving back to their communities through cash grants, gifts or services or products in-kind and/or the offer of gratis time for volunteering employees.

Most are a lot smarter than smaller businesses - which are also great supporters of their communities in general - and are very visible on their websites in listing their programs, the guidelines and how to apply as well as where they've given support in the past.

The fiduciary duties of a corporate officer or board of director in regards his company and shareholders do not ever supercede the laws of the land.

Cowperson

Thanks Cowperson. As always, you do make an excellent point.

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

I read that as we can either live in reality, where corporations will operate to enhance value by utilizing every means possible, or we can live in a fantasy land filled with all kinds of wonderful things like clouds made of candy and rivers of chocolate.

Corporations simply aren't going to look out their windows and see a few hundred annoyed people and go 'you know what, let's not maximize profit for our shareholders, let's give away hugs instead'. Not when the shareholders vastly outnumber the protesters. I'm all for enhancing regulation to achieve that result, but I'm not so naive to think that corporations will do it on their own. Once again, that's not their role. That's not what they are.

Edit - As Cowperson notes corporations engage in all sorts of programs in their communities. My comments are largely on tax planning and the like where the goal is strictly financial and doesn't include things like market presence through charity involement etc.

Haha, valo. Way to take it to the extreme. I honestly didn't expect that from you. Do you seriously think a company cannot make sound profit maximization strategies and shareholder value while at the same time ensuring they pay a responsible level of tax to the economies they operate in? Is multiple billion dollar profits quarter over quarter, in some cases rising quarter over quarter, not enough profit and shareholder value that we also need to exploit every possible little loophole we can so that we don't pay a proportionate amount of taxes into the economies we operate in?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

Haha, valo. Way to take it to the extreme. I honestly didn't expect that from you. Do you seriously think a company cannot make sound profit maximization strategies and shareholder value while at the same time ensuring they pay a responsible level of tax to the economies they operate in? Is multible billion dollar profits quarter over quarter, in some cases rising quarter over quarter, not enough profit and shareholder value that we also need to exploit every possible little loophole we can so that we don't pay a proportionate amount of taxes into the economies we operate in?

If the loophole is there you are doing a disservice to your shareholders by not utilizing it. It's as simple as that. The laws have been set accordingly, it's not the role of a corporation to decide that they should pay a bit extra even though they don't have to.

Do you chip in a bit extra on your taxes each year? Send back your refund checks?

[zuluking]

Social responsibility has become a key pillar of corporate goals and objectives. Like anything, they may be achieved or not, but they certainly exist in most / all large corporations. However, the definition is subjective and the goals / objectives are widely variable depending on the industry, the locations, etc. And, in what's becoming increasingly common, a company's social responsibility goals are factored in to investor reports, investment portfolios, etc. (however, investment guys could probably speak to whether that is effective or otherwise.)

I find it strange that no one has invoked Sarbanes-Oxley into the discussion regarding the fact the significant changes / overhauls have been introduced to reduce corporate fraud, scandal and corruption. And these types of change almost always end up in the land of unintended consequences. I can't help but think that CEO / CFO compensation went up considerably due to the accountability attributed to them personally on behalf of massive organizations.

Regardless, changes happen, but due to the enormous number of ramifications to the current system (including the law of unintended consequences), they tend to be slow, methodical, and carefully thought out by large numbers of economists, think tanks, etc. SOX was likely off the scales in respect to magnitude of change at one single time. Nothing will come of this silly complaint session. Fundamental changes, if necessary, will be years in the planning and will attempt to cover every possible base and angle...and will still miss hundreds of loopholes and scenarios. The current system will never be perfect, but wealth redistribution always ends in disaster.

Sidenote: I find it strangely ironic that the Canadian mag Adbusters is attributed with starting OWS and the Canadian org Brookfield could bust it up. Dance, America, dance!

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

If the loophole is there you are doing a disservice to your shareholders by not utilizing it. It's as simple as that. The laws have been set accordingly, it's not the role of a corporation to decide that they should pay a bit extra even though they don't have to.

Do you chip in a bit extra on your taxes each year? Send back your refund checks?

Nope, I don't. But also don't pay a tax expert to find every possible loophole I can to pay as little tax as I can. I realize tax is necessary for a government to operate and for a municipality/province/country to operate and feel that the level of tax I pay is proportionately matched to my income.

[woob]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Social responsibility has become a key pillar of corporate goals and objectives. Like anything, they may be achieved or not, but they certainly exist in most / all large corporations. However, the definition is subjective and the goals / objectives are widely variable depending on the industry, the locations, etc. And, in what's becoming increasingly common, a company's social responsibility goals are factored in to investor reports, investment portfolios, etc. (however, investment guys could probably speak to whether that is effective or otherwise.)

I find it strange that no one has invoked Sarbanes-Oxley into the discussion regarding the fact the significant changes / overhauls have been introduced to reduce corporate fraud, scandal and corruption. And these types of change almost always end up in the land of unintended consequences. I can't help but think that CEO / CFO compensation went up considerably due to the accountability attributed to them personally on behalf of massive organizations.

Regardless, changes happen, but due to the enormous number of ramifications to the current system (including the law of unintended consequences), they tend to be slow, methodical, and carefully thought out by large numbers of economists, think tanks, etc. SOX was likely off the scales in respect to magnitude of change at one single time. Nothing will come of this silly complaint session. Fundamental changes, if necessary, will be years in the planning and will attempt to cover every possible base and angle...and will still miss hundreds of loopholes and scenarios. The current system will never be perfect, but wealth redistribution always ends in disaster.

Sidenote: I find it strangely ironic that the Canadian mag Adbusters is attributed with starting OWS and the Canadian org Brookfield could bust it up. Dance, America, dance!

Ugh, don't remind me of SOX. I remember having to sit through multiple interviews with auditors regarding the IT systems when a company I used to work for went through the whole SOX process. My god was that painful!

Regarding your sidenote:

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by woob

Ugh, don't remind me of SOX. I remember having to sit through multiple interviews with auditors regarding the IT systems when a company I used to work for went through the whole SOX process. My god was that painful!

Its just as painful for us too!


I can't believe this whole occupy thing is still going on with pretty much zero coming out of it besides keeping some hipsters busy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

Nope, I don't. But also don't pay a tax expert to find every possible loophole I can to pay as little tax as I can. I realize tax is necessary for a government to operate and for a municipality/province/country to operate and feel that the level of tax I pay is proportionately matched to my income.

That's great, but you realize you're likely just giving money away right? And you expect companies to do this why? Because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy?

[woob]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its just as painful for us too!

Good to know the pain is felt on both sides!

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's great, but you realize you're likely just giving money away right? And you expect companies to do this why? Because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy?

Haha, if by giving money to the municipality/province/country I reside in which then goes to (hopefully ) programs such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. and I'm out a few hundred bucks a year, I think I'm ok with that.

[Tinordi]

Niall Ferguson says that we should be occupying the baby boomers not wall street:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-protests.html

Rings to my recent interests in economics. The generation transfer of burden willb e huge in the next 20 years.

Never in the history of intergenerational transfers has one generation left such a mountain of IOUs to another as the baby boomers are leaving to their grandchildren.

When you do the math, there is only one logical political home for today’s teens and 20-somethings ... and that is the Tea Party. For who else is promising to slash Medicare and Social Security and keep the tax burden at its historical average?

Let’s just remind ourselves of the report of the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds back in 2007, which projected a rise in the cost of these two programs from 7.3 percent of gross domestic product to 17.5 percent by 2030. The trustees warned that to achieve actuarial balance—in other words, solvency—for these two programs would require (for Social Security) an increase of 16 percent in payroll tax revenues or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent. For Medicare we are talking a 122 percent increase in payroll taxes or a 51 percent cut in spending.

As Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns pointed out in The Coming Generational Storm, by 2030 there will be twice as many retirees as there are today but only 18 percent more workers. Unless there is really radical reform of entitlement programs—especially Medicare—the next generation of American workers will be paying roughly double the taxes their parents and grandparents paid. This is what Kotlikoff and Burns mean by “fiscal child abuse.”

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

Haha, if by giving money to the municipality/province/country I reside in which then goes to (hopefully ) programs such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. and I'm out a few hundred bucks a year, I think I'm ok with that.

Replace hundreds with hundreds of millions and you still feel the same?

Bottom line is you're asking corporations to make a charitable donation to the government in the form of willfully overpaying taxes. That's just not a reasoned stance.

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

Replace hundreds with hundreds of millions and you still feel the same?

If my income is still proportionate, yes. Next question?

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

Replace hundreds with hundreds of millions and you still feel the same?

Bottom line is you're asking corporations to make a charitable donation to the government in the form of willfully overpaying taxes. That's just not a reasoned stance.

Oh, I see you edited your post.

Bottom line, if you're happy with the status quo, then you're correct. But that's what people are protesting. They're saying no more status quo. I'm tacking the responsibility of changing the status quo on both the corporation and the government.

Are we starting circle number 6 or 7 of our debate? I lost count.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Niall Ferguson says that we should be occupying the baby boomers not wall street:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-protests.html

Rings to my recent interests in economics. The generation transfer of burden willb e huge in the next 20 years.

That's just an excuse for lazy hipsters to move back in with their parents.

"No, I don't live in my parents' basement. I'm occupying their home as a protest."

[woob]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Niall Ferguson says that we should be occupying the baby boomers not wall street:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-protests.html

Rings to my recent interests in economics. The generation transfer of burden willb e huge in the next 20 years.

#OccupyGreenAcres?