Double click here to add text.

CORPORATIONS SHOULD HELP COMMUNITIES THE PROFIT FROM

     Regarding the use of corporate aid to fund the restructuring of our social system, each individual member of our system must recognize this fact. It is, though each of us is an individual, we are still members or parts of all the earthly systems of our existence. It could be the system of Nature, of the family, of a church, of a business, of patrons of a park, of people walking a street, of patrons to a Laundromat, etc. Regardless of the type of system in question, when we have actions that are relevant to that system, we become a part of that system. As a result, that system has a stake in us and we in turn have a stake in that system. That system needs us around for it to function optimally, and we need that system around for us to function optimally. Each working member of our society is a functioning part of this nation’s economic system. Applying the aforementioned rationale to our economic system, it has a stake in the consuming public and likewise, the consuming public has a stake in the economic system. 

     This is obviously nothing new. There is an entire field of thought related to this termed “social economics.” There is also a blossoming concept in business that is having a profound impact on how business decisions are made. This concept is called “Stakeholderism or Stakeholder Capitalism.” In simplest terms, stakeholders are employees, customers, and communities. They are the individuals and groups that have a stake in the activities and actions undertaken by a corporation in addition to stockholders and corporate leaders. The concept of Stakeholder Capitalism is based upon the conclusion that corporate decisions should take into account the impact business decisions will have on those that are most affected by the activities and actions of that corporation. Stakeholder Capitalism is a real consideration. It is an accepted business principle in places like Germany, Japan, and Britain. In the early 1990’s, such States as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana even incorporated Stakeholder Rights into some of their business-related statutes. What we must recognize here in America is that the systems that sustain our lives need to evolve just as individuals must evolve. Stakeholder Capitalism is a limited acknowledgement that large businesses understand that they must start aiding our existence rather than only taking from it. We stakeholders have power, and each of us must now exercise it in unison with others of our national collective to effect changes aimed directly at benefiting “we the people.”

     The paying consumers of an economic system are the economic system. From this perspective, it is not hard to understand how those doing the spending can desire an economic direction that is in their best interests. Producers and consumers alike have a common goal. It is not simply to make and spend money. It is to live comfortable lives. By utilizing resources to provide minimal, basic standards of living comfort to all American individuals, we will not substantially reduce the levels of comfort experienced by those in the positions controlling our resources. In fact, the level of comfort for everyone will increase. This is because at the very foundation of most of the crime and chaos within our society is the gap that exists between those that have what they need and desire and those that have not. If we set aside for a moment the perspectives we have derived from the influences of selfishness and greed, we will see that it is in the best interest of producers, marketers, and consumers to distribute the enrichments derived from our planet more equitably. There should be no poor, and there should be no super-rich. “Super-rich” is having wealth beyond ones need to consume it, and this translates into the hoarding of resources. It is becoming clear to many that we must start taking into consideration the welfare of all Americans before we are too distinctly separated into a group that “has”, and a group that “has not.”

     Here in America, the entity in control of our economic welfare is the Federal Reserve. One of the Reserves responsibilities is to set policy that affects interest rates and economic growth. The name of this entity would lead one to believe that it is controlled and/or run by our Federal government. If this were true, one could easily conclude that the decision-making process would be reflective of the best interests of the citizens our government serves. However, the Federal Reserve is not an institution of the government. It is a private corporation owned by stockholders. People buy stock to make money and corporations are interested in profit. Neither group is interested in simply breaking even. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the entity that controls our economy is not wholly interested in the welfare of the people who use its money. Rather, it is concerned with profit margin and longevity. As the destiny of our economic system is in the hands of a private corporation, we must recognize the reality that the decisions made by this body are reflective of the decisions made by any other business organization. Those decisions are based upon the continued existence of the business, not the continued existence of general public.

     Our economic system works, this is true. However, the expenses and revenues derived from this system working now need to be more evenly distributed as the resources of our planet lessen and become more costly to retrieve. Like our government system, our economic system remains structured and continues to function within the same parameters as at its inception. Circumstances have evolved and the systems that govern those circumstances must evolve as well. To this degree, corporations must take a more active role in supporting our social infrastructure. Many of them are already willing to do so and they are making efforts to do this. However, these decisions are being made by businesspersons, not saviors. As with any investment, they want to receive a beneficial return on the dollars they invest in us. The beneficial returns are encompassed within our becoming a safer, more productive society. This is accomplished by us all having more positive actions, by us moving in more positive ways. These beneficial returns are derived from the increased productivity that will ultimately result from there being less chaos, less criminal activity, less property destruction (not destroying and defacing what they build for us), more schooling, more work, and more cleanliness. To sum it up, our society will have more civility.

     Why should corporations help the communities from which they profit? Well, according to information gotten from the Internal Revenue Service, during the fiscal year of 1999, our government’s income was broken up into four major categories. Our government received the majority of its income, a whopping 82%, from taxes imposed on individual taxpayers. This figure is broken up into two categories. Personal income taxes comprised 48%, while the remaining 34% came from Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and other retirement taxes. Corporate income taxes comprised a meager 10% of our Governments income. The remaining 8% came from Excise, Customs, Estate, Gift, and other miscellaneous taxes. During the fiscal year of 2012, there were five major categories of income for our government. The government received the majority of its income from taxes imposed on individual taxpayers. This figure is 63%, which is broken up into three categories. Personal income taxes comprised 32% of our governments income, 24% came from Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and other retirement taxes, and 7% came from Excise, Customs, Estate, Gift, and other miscellaneous taxes. Corporate income taxes comprised a meager 7% of our government’s income. The remaining 30% came from borrowing to cover the deficit. While individuals are burdened with paying the expenses of our social system, corporations are reaping excessive revenues. These revenues are exemplified by CEO salaries, which are in the millions of dollars (and so are their contract buyout and retirement packages).  

     It is true that changes must be made in the area of government expenditure related to Aid to Individuals and families with Dependent Children. One of the biggest changes has to occur within the minds of both those receiving this aid and the minds of those paying for it. Those receiving the aid must embrace the truth that the responsibility for their comfort rest solely upon their own efforts. All must recognize that there is no stigma attached to doing any kind of work, as long as that working person has a comfortable life and the dignity they need to satisfy their own self-esteem. Each of these individuals must understand that if they choose to do nothing positive to aid in their own support, then they can expect to have no comforts. This is a naturally created reality relative to the nature of all living things.  

     The fact that members of a socialized species naturally support each other’s efforts to survive must remain incorporated into our social system’s application. With regard to those that are unskilled, those people have to know that as long as they are willing to make a continual effort toward betterment, their basic necessities will be met whether by their own accomplishment or through outside aid. Those paying for the aid must let go of the notion that there is a large percentage of the populous beyond a point where they can contribute and/or benefit from any sort of social reform. It must be remembered that jobs within the service industries and in other lesser skilled, laborious occupations will always need to be performed. American citizens that have, as well as those that have not must work as a unit. All this positive effort, together with a more efficient use of the resources we are capable of producing as a nation, would surely provide for our entire nation a more perfect future. We can restructure our social system such that the overwhelming percentage of our nation’s lost generation can make positive contributions to help generate more perfect living conditions. In doing this, we all can create for ourselves a comfortable, stable standard of living while reaping the positive benefits of everyone’s positive actions.

     It is also true that changes must be made in the area of government expenditure related to business subsidies and tax breaks. The tax laws of our nation have created a corporate welfare system. An example of this would be the granting of tax breaks as a means of creating jobs. Tax breaks are given to businesses as a way of creating jobs, without any stipulations. The assertion is that a company will reinvest those dollars in their business. This is risky speculation. These businesses are not being forced to expand or hire. Therefore, if these decision-makers choose to look at this money as profit, this is their prerogative. These “tax breaks” then become income for business, and this places the taxpayer in a worse scenario because not only has there been no improvement in the employment situation, but the individual taxpayer will eventually be held responsible for the revenue lost from those tax breaks.  

     Another example of the corporate welfare system in action is in the area of non-profit companies. I am not talking about charitable organizations. I am talking about entities like the PGA Tour Inc., the National Football League, and the National Hockey League, and this is just naming sports organizations. It was reported in October of 1995 that the PGA Tour Inc. grosses $180 million a year from sponsoring professional golf tours for Men. In the article, it reported that in the two years prior, the PGA had paid $4.2 million dollars to its retired commissioner. The ability to make such lofty retirement payments was attributed in part to the fact that the PGA Tour is a nonprofit corporation. This means it does not have to pay Federal tax on its tour operations. I did a recent check online and the recent gross income for the PGA Tour Inc. was $165.6 million. I also read where a general analysis of IRS data finds the PGA Tour’s nonprofit business model has allowed it to avoid paying up to $200 million in federal taxes over the past 20 years.

     The Sports Business Journal recently reported that “Without inside access to the NFL’s books, it’s tough to know exactly how to create a pie chart for the league’s $9.5 billion of revenue in 2012. We do know from the 2011 season that of the year’s nearly $9.4 billion in revenue, $5.5 billion (58.5 percent) came from national money like media, sponsorship and NFL Ventures. That is public because the Green Bay Packers, as the only public NFL team, annually disclose some financial reports.” This publication also reported that “In 2011-12, the NHL’s last full season prior to (the 2013) lockout-shortened campaign, revenue totaled $3.2 billion.” Quoting a report published online by ThinkProgress.org, “The National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) classify themselves as non-profit organizations to exempt themselves from federal income taxes on earnings. Smaller sports leagues, such as the National Lacrosse League, are also using the tax status. Taxpayers may be losing at least $91 million subsidizing these tax loopholes for professional sports leagues that generate billions of dollars annually in profits. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize sports organizations already benefiting widely from willing fans and turning a profit, while claiming to be non-profit organizations.”

     Many of today’s nonprofit organizations, like professional sports leagues, do not resemble charities in anyway. How much money is earned by one of these teams if it can pay one of its employees (a player) $16 million a year, along with all the other lofty salaries? There are thousands of American corporations that are exempt from paying taxes because they are classified as “non-profit.” However, they are making money or profit, and using these funds in ways that are contrary to the definition of “non-profit.” The “Heads” of these organizations are also earning salaries in the millions of dollars.

     I have read much literature related to defining and explaining the system of taxation in America. It is so cumbersome and confusing that I would not dare endeavor to address the specifics of how this system is applied. There are nearly 500 different tax forms, and nearly 300 pages of documentation to explain how to use these different forms. One thing is evident however. For our system of taxation to be fair, it must be aimed at supporting individuals and their families. Within our system of taxation the poor pay a greater percentage of taxes than the rich do. This all points to the need to reevaluate and restructure the way our social system is financed.  

     A corporation’s aid to a community does not have to be a huge investment. A better effort can be made to distribute some of the money that they have already earmarked for communities as a matter of public relations. The compensation some workers receive could be restructured so that their basic needs are assuredly met. Take the issue of minimum wage for example. Ideally, the minimum wage should be based upon the average income necessary for one individual to survival independent of another. However, the cost of such would be very high indeed. That cost is perhaps more than could be paid for without undue hardship on the businesses within our economic system. Nevertheless, establishing the foundation for this minimum standard of living could be accomplished by one or more corporations paying a “tax” that would go directly to the production of “credit” the housing for working individuals (building these facilities also creates jobs and tax revenues as a byproduct). Within this housing complex, individuals could live free of charge as a general benefit for being registered as working for someone who pays this tax. These would obviously be modest accommodations, like efficiency or one-bedroom abodes, and the residents would need to agree to maintain the quality of the facility. Some of the money could even go to a fund that would go to supermarkets to pay for credits an individual could cash in, sort of like food stamps, but paid for by corporations. In this way, the minimum wage could be calculated in accordance with what would be deemed the difference between the practical costs of independence, minus the cost of subsidized living.  

     Another possibility would involve a partnership between corporations and our government. Instead of providing independent monetary assistance to families in need of assistance, perhaps “assistance dormitories’ could be built (creating construction jobs and tax revenues) where people on assistance could live. In addition to housing and food, these facilities could provide in-house daycare (more jobs) to aid parents while they attend mandatory in-house job training programs.  

     Another approach could be a corporate sponsored program aimed at neighborhood cleanup. A manned storefront of some sort (more jobs and tax revenue) could be setup so that any person could walk in off the street and sign up for a day (working on a day-to-day basis) to work under supervision cleaning up a community. This could easily be expanded into community work centers where the homeless can go to sign up for work on a day-to-day basis, doing work like painting, cleaning abandon lots, or street sweeping.

Corporations could band together to rescue our nation from scholastic decay by adopting a school or a school district. In doing this, the corporation would agree to become a supporting resource for that individual school or district. They would become a source that can be drawn from to supplement the process of upgrading the public school system. Because of the resources associated with computers, corporations could monitor individual student progress and achievement in hopes of identifying a student with abilities and interests that would make them desirable prospects for future employment. They could then adopt that student. They could fund that student’s educational experience in return for a termed commitment of employment.  

     There are many ways for there to be increased corporate involvement in the giving of aid to support our social infrastructure yet to be explored. The only way to get corporations and our government to consider such measures would be each individual citizen’s active participation in the administration of our system. We do this by voting and letting our representatives know what it is we want. As an example, it was in the late 1970s that the American people revolted against high taxes and voiced their collective concern. Those actions forced local and State governments to cut tax rates dramatically. In turn, those on Capitol Hill had to respond to the voice of the people. The result was that in 1981, politicians enacted the largest tax cut in American history. The citizens of this nation have the power to effect positive changes. We must collectively exercise that power.

copyrighted 2002

Double click here to add text.