Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[TwiceHorn 31,511]

Another interesting facet of the above is that the US pays very few poverty-relief benefits in cash, whereas most of the countries listed there do.  So the poverty-level incomes do not tend to be adjusted for in-kind benefits, but need no such adjustment outside the US.

[this 107]

9 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Holy shit at citing the Mises institute. Just full deep throating libertarianism

Well, need I remind you we are in a thread that is celebrating AOC a full blown DSA? 

Besides, tell me where you disagree with the Mises institute. 

[Buzzrock 14,934]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Remarkable how many people are eager to defend the exploitive and small business crushing multi-billion dollar corporations with their overpaid CEOs. 

Almost like there’s some built in auto-defense mechanism.

You're painting with a broad brush, but you know that. Anecdote: a good friend and I did millions of dollars of business per year for five years with her small company selling products and services almost exclusively to a giant telecom. We were one of thousands of small business doing the same.

Small and big are cyclical. Who would have thought an online bookstore would take over the world?

I believe that tax policy and regulation can be much more damaging to Small Business (in the aggregate) than any one corporation is. Certainly certain small business models are eliminated by creative destruction (anyone want to open a record store or video rental shop?), but that's a good thing. Policy and regulations often damage Small Business indiscriminately.

[Buzzrock 14,934]

14 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Holy shit at citing the Mises institute. Just full deep throating libertarianism

Join us, we're all stoned and our candidates never win but we have more fun!

[RDCanecutter 26,455]

Doesn't the Mises Institute pay in gold? I could get used to that.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

7 minutes ago, this said:

By bottom half, I assume you mean the bottom third. Because AGAIN, middle class is doing better. 

Glad we have at least that concession from you. Now, allow me to enlighten you on the American poor vs. European poor. 

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe

• 

530 COMMENTS

10/16/2015Ryan McMaken

In this week's debate, Bernie Sanders claimed that the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty. CBS reports that Sanders said: "We should not be the country that has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country and more wealth and income inequality than any other country,"

As even CBS notes, according to UNICEF, which is probably the source of Sanders's factoid, the US has lower childhood poverty rates than Greece, Spain, Mexico, Latvia, and Israel, all of which are OECD countries or regarded as peer countries. The US rate (32.2 percent) is also more or less equal to the rate in Turkey, Romania, Lithuania, and Iceland. See page 8 of this report.

So, while Sanders probably doesn't even know what he means by "major country" it's clear that the US is not an outlier among OECD-type countries, even by UNICEF's own analysis.

We get much more insight, though, once we have a look at what UNICEF means by "poverty rate." In this case, UNICEF (and many other organizations) measure the poverty rate as a percentage of the national median household income. UNICEF uses 60% of median as the cut off. So, if you're in Portugal, and your household earns under 60% of the median income in Portugal, you are poor. If you are in the US and you earn under 60% of the US median income, then you are also poor.

The problem here, of course, is that median household incomes — and what they can buy — differs greatly between the US and Portugal. In relation to the cost of living, the median income in the US is much higher than the median income in much of Europe. So, even someone who earns under 60% of the median income in the US will, in many cases, have higher income than someone who earns the median income in, say, Portugal.

[RELATED: "If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States"]

Here are all the median incomes (according to the OECD's household income comparison statistic called "median disposable income.") When adjusted for purchasing power parity, the statistic allows us to make incomes comparable across countries that use different currencies and have different costs of living. This takes into account taxes, and social benefits paid to households. So, let's use it to compare (the Y axis is in "international dollars"):

We see immediately that income is higher for US households than most of the other countries. What about that high poverty rate, though? Well, we find that the poverty level in the US is still higher than numerous countries' median income level:

The green bar is the US income at poverty levels. So, this tells us that a person at 60% of median  income in the US still has a larger income than the median household in Chile, Czech Rep., Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and several others. And the poverty income in the US is very close to matching the median income in Italy, Japan, Spain, and the UK.

Keep in mind that we're using median income here, and not GDP per capita, which means this isn't being skewed up by a small number of mega-wealthy households. So while the US may have a rather high poverty rate, we find that being poor in the US is similar to (at least in terms of income) being a median household in many other countries, including the UK and Japan.

So, yes, the US has a higher poverty rate than many other countries, but the standard of living available to a person at poverty levels in the US is higher than it is to a person at poverty levels in places like the UK, Spain, Italy, France, Japan, New Zealand, and others.  Here are all countries at the 60% of the national median:

The relationships between the countries are the same as in the first graph, but the income levels are all lower. But again, here we see that the median incomes for people at poverty levels are higher in the US than in other countries.

Thus, the fact that the US has higher poverty rates says very little about the actual living standards of the poor. The poor have higher incomes in the US in real terms in most cases. The countries that should really give us concern are the countries that have high levels of poverty and low median incomes. In this graph, we see childhood poverty levels (on y axis, according to the UNICEF report) compared with income levels for those below 60% of median (x axis, according to the OECD):

 

The countries in the top left side of graph — Greece, Mexico, Israel, Spain, Italy, Ireland, UK, and Portugal  — are the ones that have the least to offer the poor. These are countries with low median income and even lower incomes for the poor (of course). Those countries with high incomes — such as the US, Switzerland, Norway, and Australia — have much higher incomes. So while there are more poor in the US (relatively speaking) the incomes of those poor are much higher in the US, and even higher than the median income of other countries in many cases. In other words, even if the poverty rate in Greece were zero percent, all those non-poor median Greek households would be poorer than a US household at the poverty line.

Also, given that the OECD's measure here attempts to take into account income from social benefits, we can't just say "well, those European incomes may be lower, but they get more in social benefits." That is not true for these numbers. Social benefits included, Americans have higher incomes at both the median level and at the poverty level, when compared to most other countries.

This further illustrates the problem with speaking about poverty in terms of percentages of the median or as a percentage of total wealth. These comparisons are used to highlight inequality, but the fact is that the US (which has more inequality) offers higher incomes for those at poverty level. Is it better to be equal in Portugal or unequal in the US? One can be "equal" in Portugal, but it will mean a standard of living well below that which can be attained in the US at poverty levels.

Note on the OECD numbers: the median disposable-income numbers are found here at the OECD stats web site.  They are then divided by the PPP conversion factor for private consumption found here. Wikipedia has also already done this calculation and listed the values here.

 It's difficult to find median income numbers that can be compared across different countries, but for a second source, we can consult the Gallup survey data. Gallup has compiled its own data on median incomes based on self-reported household income from all sources. So, theoretically, this would include social benefits payments as well. The numbers here are higher than the OECD numbers because they do not appear to take into account the impact of taxes. So, without taxes factored in, the high-tax Scandinavian countries, for example, look wealthier in this comparison than they do in the OECD comparison. Nevertheless, there are some similarities overall:

 

In this case, the US median income is still higher than most countries in the group, but while the US ranked 4th place in the OECD survey, it ranks 6th place here. (Switzerland, oddly, is not included in the Gallup survey.)

If we reduce the US to 60% of its median level, and leave the rest alone, we find that the US, at poverty level, still comes in above or roughly equal to 15 other countries in the group. So, by this measure too, the poverty level in the US beats the median level in numerous European countries.

Photo source.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Contact Ryan McMakenTwitter

https://mises.org/wire/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-europe

Nice, a bullshit editorial that massages the fuck out of the numbers so it can come to its preconceived biased conclusion.  The actual OECD data already factors in PPP, taxes, and welfare payments.  It also has Japan at just over $31,000.  Yet old Ryan's graph here has Japan at $20,000 after he, I guess, adds additional taxes to the numbers.  He also throws several non-OECD countries in there for good measure.  Hard to believe, but he may very well be more disingenuous than you.

A lot of other great headlines there too like "Tax Evasion Is Not the Crime, Taxation Is"

[GSU&UT 1,798]

12 minutes ago, this said:

Well, need I remind you we are in a thread that is celebrating AOC a full blown DSA? 

Besides, tell me where you disagree with the Mises institute. 

They push pretty far-right culture views, including stuff about race. Known idiot Walter Block is a senior fellow there, someone who said that women and blacks were paid less because they are "less productive."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This has obviously become a troll thread for the “conservatives” to tell us all how anti-regulation and free market they are.  

We derailed way back from what this conversation was about, scrutinizing the Accountable Capitalism Act.

Here’s the Bill in full

A BILL

To establish the obligations of certain large business entities in the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Accountable Capitalism Act”.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) DIRECTOR.—The term “Director” means the Director of the Office.

(2) LARGE ENTITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “large entity” means an entity that—

(i) is organized under the laws of a State as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint stock company, or limited liability company;

(ii) engages in interstate commerce; and

(iii) in a taxable year, according to information provided by the entity to the Internal Revenue Service, has more than $1,000,000,000 in gross receipts.

(B) AGGREGATION RULES.—All entities treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 of such Code, shall be treated as 1 entity for the purposes of subparagraph (A).

(3) OFFICE.—The term “Office” means the Office of United States Corporations established under section 3.

(4) OFFICER.—The term “officer” means, with respect to a United States corporation—

(A) the president of the United States corporation;

(B) the principal operating officer of the United States corporation;

(C) the principal accounting officer of the United States corporation or, if the United States corporation does not have such an accounting officer, the controller of the United States corporation; and

(D) any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function of the United States corporation.

(5) STATE.—The term “State” means—

(A) each of the several States of the United States;

(B) the District of Columbia;

(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

(D) Guam;

(E) the United States Virgin Islands;

(F) American Samoa; and

(G) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(6) UNITED STATES CORPORATION.—The term “United States corporation” means a large entity with respect to which the Office has granted a charter under section 3.

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS.

(a) Establishment.—There is established within the Department of Commerce the Office of United States Corporations.

(b) Director.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION.—There is established the position of Director of the Office, who shall be the head of the Office.

(2) APPOINTMENT; TERM.—

(A) APPOINTMENT.—Except as provided in subparagraph (E), the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals who are citizens of the United States.

(B) TERM.—The Director shall be appointed for a term of 4 years, unless removed before the end of that term by the President.

(C) VACANCY.—A vacancy in the position of Director that occurs before the expiration of the term for which a Director was appointed shall be filled in the manner established under subparagraph (A), and the Director appointed to fill that vacancy shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.

(D) SERVICE AFTER END OF TERM.—An individual may serve as the Director after the expiration of the term for which the individual was appointed until a successor has been appointed.

(E) INITIAL DIRECTOR.—The Secretary of Commerce shall appoint an individual to serve as the Director until an individual is appointed to serve as the Director in accordance with subparagraph (A).

(c) Duties.—The Office shall—

(1) review and grant charter applications for large entities;

(2) monitor whether large entities have obtained a charter in accordance with this Act;

(3) except as provided in paragraph (4)(B), refer any violation of this Act to the appropriate Federal agency for enforcement with respect to that violation; and

(4) when appropriate—

(A) rescind the charters of United States corporations under section 4(b);

(B) revoke the charters of United States corporations under sections 6(c)(2)(B)(ii), 8(c)(2), and 9; and

(C) issue rules to prevent entities from taking action to intentionally avoid qualifying as large entities.

(d) Disclosure Of Taxpayer Identity Information For Use By Office.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6103(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(8) OFFICE OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS.—Upon written request by the Director of the Office of United States Corporations, the Secretary shall disclose taxpayer identity information to officers and employees of the Office of United States Corporations solely for purposes of identifying any taxpayer that satisfies the requirement under section 2(2)(A)(iii) or 4(b) of the Accountable Capitalism Act for the most recent taxable year for which information is available.”.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this subsection shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE ENTITIES TO OBTAIN CHARTERS.

(a) Large Entities.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—An entity that is organized as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint stock company, or limited liability company in a State shall obtain a charter from the Office as follows:

(A) If the entity is a large entity with respect to the most recently completed taxable year of the entity before the date of enactment of this Act, the entity shall obtain the charter not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(B) If the entity is a large entity with respect to any taxable year of the entity that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, the entity shall obtain the charter not later than 1 year after the last day of that taxable year.

(2) FAILURE TO OBTAIN CHARTER.—An entity to which paragraph (1) applies and that fails to obtain a charter from the Office as required under that paragraph shall not be treated as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint-stock company, or limited liability company, as applicable, for the purposes of Federal law during the period beginning on the date on which the entity is required to obtain a charter under that paragraph and ending on the date on which the entity obtains the charter.

(b) Rescissions.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—An entity that has obtained a charter as a United States corporation and, with respect to a subsequent taxable year of the entity, is not a large entity may file a petition with the Office to rescind the charter of the United States corporation.

(2) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Office receives a petition that an entity files under paragraph (1), the Office shall grant the petition if the Office determines that the entity, with respect to the most recently completed taxable year of the entity preceding the date on which the petition was filed, was not a large entity.

SEC. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) GENERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term “general public benefit” means a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole.

(2) SUBSIDIARY.—The term “subsidiary” means, with respect to a person, an entity in which the person owns beneficially or of record not less than 50 percent of the outstanding equity interests of the entity, calculated as if all outstanding rights to acquire equity interests in the entity had been exercised.

(b) Charter Requirements.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The charter of a large entity that is filed with the Office shall state that the entity is a United States corporation.

(2) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—A United States corporation shall have the purpose of creating a general public benefit, which shall be—

(A) identified in the charter of the United States corporation; and

(B) in addition to the purpose of the United States corporation under the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable.

(c) Standard Of Conduct For Directors And Officers.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS.—In discharging the duties of their respective positions, and in considering the best interests of a United States corporation, the board of directors, committees of the board of directors, and individual directors of a United States corporation—

(A) shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the United States corporation in a manner that—

(i) seeks to create a general public benefit; and

(ii) balances the pecuniary interests of the shareholders of the United States corporation with the best interests of persons that are materially affected by the conduct of the United States corporation; and

(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)—

(i) shall consider the effects of any action or inaction on—

(I) the shareholders of the United States corporation;

(II) the employees and workforce of—

(aa) the United States corporation;

(bb) the subsidiaries of the United States corporation; and

(cc) the suppliers of the United States corporation;

(III) the interests of customers and subsidiaries of the United States corporation as beneficiaries of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(IV) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the United States corporation, subsidiaries of the United States corporation, or suppliers of the United States corporation are located;

(V) the local and global environment;

(VI) the short-term and long-term interests of the United States corporation, including—

(aa) benefits that may accrue to the United States corporation from the long-term plans of the United States corporation; and

(bb) the possibility that those interests may be best served by the continued independence of the United States corporation; and

(VII) the ability of the United States corporation to accomplish the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(ii) may consider—

(I) other pertinent factors; or

(II) the interests of any other group that are identified in the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable; and

(iii) shall not be required to give priority to a particular interest or factor described in clause (i) or (ii) over any other interest or factor.

(2) STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS.—Each officer of a United States corporation shall balance and consider the interests and factors described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) in the manner described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if—

(A) the officer has discretion to act with respect to a matter; and

(B) it reasonably appears to the officer that the matter may have a material effect on the creation by the United States corporation of a general public benefit identified in the charter of the United States corporation.

(3) EXONERATION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.—Except as provided in the charter of a United States corporation, neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation may be held personally liable for monetary damages for—

(A) any action or inaction in the course of performing the duties of a director under paragraph (1) or an officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer was not interested with respect to the action or inaction; or

(B) the failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

(4) LIMITATION ON STANDING.—Neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation shall have any duty to a person that is a beneficiary of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation because of the status of the person as such a beneficiary.

(5) BUSINESS JUDGMENTS.—A director or an officer of a United States corporation who makes a business judgment in good faith shall be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of the director under paragraph (1) or the officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer—

(A) is not interested in the subject of the business judgment;

(B) is informed with respect to the subject of the business judgment to an extent that the director reasonably believes to be appropriate under the circumstances; and

(C) rationally believes that the business judgment is in the best interests of the United States corporation.

(d) Right Of Action.—

(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATION.—A United States corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this section for any failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

(2) STANDING.—A proceeding to enforce the requirements of this section may be commenced or maintained only—

(A) directly by the United States corporation to which the proceeding applies; or

(B) derivatively, under the laws of the State in which the United States corporation is organized, by a person, or a group of persons, that own—

(i) beneficially or of record not less than 2 percent of the total number of shares of a class or series outstanding at the time of the act or omission that is the subject of the proceeding; or

(ii) beneficially or of record not less than 5 percent of the outstanding equity interests in an entity of which the United States corporation is a subsidiary at the time of the act or omission that is the subject of the proceeding.

(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.—For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall be construed to be the beneficial owner of shares or equity interests if the shares or equity interests are held in a voting trust or by a nominee on behalf of the person.

(e) Application.—

(1) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING GENERAL CORPORATE LAW.—Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any provision of law that is applicable to a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint stock company, or limited liability company, as applicable, that is not a United States corporation.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.—

(A) STATE LAW.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the law of the State in which a United States corporation is organized shall apply with respect to the United States corporation.

(B) FEDERAL LAW.—If any provision of Federal law is inconsistent with the requirements of this section with respect to a United States corporation, the requirements of this section shall supersede that provision.

(3) ORGANIC RECORDS.—A provision of the articles of incorporation in the State in which a United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable, or in the bylaws of a United States corporation may not limit, be inconsistent with, or supersede a provision of this section.

SEC. 6. BOARD REPRESENTATION.

(a) Rulemaking.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission, in consultation with the National Labor Relations Board, shall issue rules to ensure that director elections at United States corporations are fair and democratic.

(b) United States Corporation Elections.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not less than 2⁄5 of the directors of a United States corporation shall be elected by the employees of the United States corporation using an election process that complies with the requirements of the rules issued under subsection (a).

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date on which the Securities and Exchange Commission issues the rules required under subsection (a).

(c) Enforcement.—

(1) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.—The Securities and Exchange Commission, in consultation with the National Labor Relations Board, shall ensure that the elections described in subsection (b)(1) comply with the requirements of the rules issued by the Commission under subsection (a).

(2) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall coordinate with the Office to ensure that the representation of the boards of directors of United States corporations comply with the requirements under subsection (b).

(B) PENALTIES.—If the representation with respect to the board of directors of a United States corporation fails to comply with the requirements under subsection (b) for a period that is not less than 180 consecutive days—

(i) the Secretary of Labor—

(I) shall assess a civil money penalty against the United States corporation in an amount that is not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000 for each day that such representation is not in compliance with those requirements, including for each day during that 180-day period; and

(II) may collect the penalty described in subclause (I) beginning on the day after the date on which that 180-day period ends; and

(ii) the Office may revoke the charter of the United States corporation.

SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) COVERED PERSON.—The term “covered person” means an officer or a director of a United States corporation.

(2) EQUITY SECURITY.—The term “equity security” has the meaning given the term in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)).

(3) RULE 10B–18 PURCHASE.—The term “Rule 10b–18 purchase” has the meaning given the term in section 240.10b–18(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(4) SUBJECT SECURITY.—The term “subject security” means any—

(A) equity security of a United States corporation; or

(B) security, the value of which is derived from, or that otherwise relates to, an equity security described in subparagraph (A).

(b) Sale Of Subject Securities.—

(1) PROHIBITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (2), no covered person with respect to a United States corporation may—

(A) during the 5-year period that begins on the date on which the covered person first owns or beneficially owns a subject security with respect to that United States corporation (or an affiliate of that United States corporation), sell, transfer, pledge, assign, alienate, or hypothecate, in exchange for value, that subject security, other than—

(i) in connection with the sale of the United States corporation or the affiliate, as applicable; or

(ii) through—

(I) a will; or

(II) the laws of descent or distribution; or

(B) during the 3-year period that begins on the date on which that United States corporation, or an affiliate of that United States corporation, effects a Rule 10b–18 purchase, sell any subject security with respect to that United States corporation.

(2) APPLICATION.—The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any subject security that a covered person owns or beneficially owns on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Enforcement.—The Securities and Exchange Commission may impose on any covered person that violates subsection (b) a civil penalty in an amount that is—

(1) not less than the fair market value of the subject securities of which the covered person disposes in violation of that subsection, as measured on the date on which the covered person makes the disposition; and

(2) not more than the amount that is 3 times the fair market value of the subject securities of which the covered person disposes in violation of that subsection, as measured on the date on which the covered person makes the disposition.

(d) Rule Of Construction.—For the purposes of this section, a subject security is beneficially owned by a covered person if—

(1) the subject security is held in the name of a bank, broker, or nominee for the account of the covered person;

(2) the subject security is held as a joint tenant, tenant in common, or tenant by the entirety or as community property by the covered person; or

(3) the covered person has a pecuniary interest, by reason of any contract, understanding, or relationship, including an immediate family relationship or arrangement, in subject securities held in the name of another person.

SEC. 8. POLITICAL SPENDING.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.—The term “electioneering communication” has the meaning given the term in section 304(f)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)), except that the term “any public communication” shall be substituted for “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” in the matter preceding subclause (I) of subparagraph (A)(i) of such section 304(f)(3).

(2) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.—The term “independent expenditure” means an expenditure, as that term is defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101), by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because, when taken as a whole, the expenditure can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved—

(A) mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate; or

(B) takes a position on character, qualifications, or fitness for office of a candidate.

(3) POLITICAL EXPENDITURE IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE.—The term “political expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office” means an expenditure or series of expenditures totaling more than $10,000 for any single candidate during any single election that—

(A) (i) is an independent expenditure; or

(ii) with respect to a candidate for State or local public office, would be treated as an independent expenditure if the candidate were a candidate for Federal public office;

(B) (i) is an electioneering communication; or

(ii) with respect to a candidate for State or local public office, would be treated as an electioneering communication if the candidate were a candidate for Federal public office; or

(C) are dues or other payments, disbursements, or transfers to any other person that—

(i) are, or could reasonably be anticipated to be, used or transferred to another association or organization for the purposes described in subparagraph (A) or (B); and

(ii) are not investments or payments, disbursements, or transfers made in commercial transactions in the ordinary course of any trade or business.

(b) Shareholder And Director Approval.—A United States corporation may not make a political expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office unless—

(1) not less than 75 percent of the shareholders of the corporation and not less than 75 percent of the directors of the corporation approve of the expenditure; and

(2) the approvals required under paragraph (1) occur—

(A) before the date on which the expenditure is made or obligated; and

(B) after the date on which the shareholders and directors described in that paragraph have been informed regarding the precise nature of the proposed expenditure, including—

(i) the amount of the proposed expenditure; and

(ii) the candidate and election to which the proposed expenditure relates.

(c) Enforcement.—

(1) SHAREHOLDER SUIT.—A shareholder of a United States corporation may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin a United States corporation from making a political expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office that violates the requirements under subsection (b).

(2) REVOCATION OF CHARTER.—The Office may revoke the charter of a United States corporation that knowingly or repeatedly violates the requirements under subsection (b).

SEC. 9. PETITION FOR REVOCATION OF CHARTER.

(a) Filing Of Revocation Petition.—The attorney general of a State may file a petition with the Office to revoke the charter of a United States corporation that is organized in that State or that does business in that State.

(b) Timing Of Response And Decision.—If a revocation petition is filed under subsection (a) with respect to a United States corporation—

(1) not later than 180 days after the date on which the petition is filed, the United States corporation may file a response that explains why revoking the charter of the United States corporation is not justified in consideration of the factors described in subsection (c)(2); and

(2) the Director shall issue a ruling with respect to the petition not later than 180 days after the earlier of the date that is—

(A) 180 days after the date on which the petition is filed; or

(B) the date on which the corporation files a response under paragraph (1).

(c) Granting Revocation Petition.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, and after consideration of the factors described in paragraph (2), may grant a revocation petition that is filed under subsection (a).

(2) FACTORS.—In determining whether to grant a revocation petition under paragraph (1) with respect to a United States corporation, the Director shall consider whether the United States corporation—

(A) has engaged in repeated, egregious, and illegal misconduct that has caused significant harm to—

(i) the customers, employees, shareholders, or business partners of the United States corporation; or

(ii) the communities in which the United States corporation operates; and

(B) has not undertaken measures to address the causes of the misconduct described in subparagraph (A), such as terminating the employment of any officer or executive of the United States corporation who oversaw that misconduct.

(3) REVIEW OF GRANTING OF PETITION.—A decision by the Director to grant a revocation petition under this subsection—

(A) shall be subject to judicial review under section 706 of title 5, United States Code; and

(B) shall not be subject to the procedure for congressional disapproval under section 802 of title 5, United States Code.

(d) Revocation Of Charter.—If the Director grants a revocation petition under subsection (c) with respect to a United States corporation, the Office shall revoke the charter of that corporation, which shall be effective beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date on which the Director grants the petition.

(e) Rulemaking.—The Director may issue any rules that are necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any application of that provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Act and the application of any such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

 

[RDCanecutter 26,455]

13 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

They push pretty far-right culture views, including stuff about race. Known idiot Walter Block is a senior fellow there, someone who said that women and blacks were paid less because they are "less productive."

Every time I see Mises Institute, somebody wants to sell me gold. And I like gold, it's shiny. But primitive folk art goes up faster in value. Is Mises somehow linked to gold buggery?

[this 107]

24 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Nice, a bullshit editorial that massages the fuck out of the numbers so it can come to its preconceived biased conclusion.  The actual OECD data already factors in PPP, taxes, and welfare payments.  It also has Japan at just over $31,000.  Yet old Ryan's graph here has Japan at $20,000 after he, I guess, adds additional taxes to the numbers.  He also throws several non-OECD countries in there for good measure.  Hard to believe, but he may very well be more disingenuous than you.

A lot of other great headlines there too like "Tax Evasion Is Not the Crime, Taxation Is"

Unlike you however, he provides data and backs it up with a methodology. You on the other hand is all opinion. You went from it sucks for all of us to it sucks for the bottom half(and you're wrong there as well). 

24 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

 It also has Japan at just over $31,000.  Yet old Ryan's graph here has Japan at $20,000 after he, I guess, adds additional taxes to the numbers. 

You want to compare us to Japan? Here you go: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/japan/

We win on almost every measure, especially on income, housing, HEALTH(LOL), environment and safety. 

Speaking of disingenuous maybe start looking inward because your opinions are backed up by more of your opinions. 

[this 107]

40 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

They push pretty far-right culture views, including stuff about race. Known idiot Walter Block is a senior fellow there, someone who said that women and blacks were paid less because they are "less productive."

Fair enough and you and I both disagree with them there. It doesn't mean we discount everything they have to say. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

3 minutes ago, this said:

Unlike you however, he provides data and backs it up with a methodology. You on the other hand is all opinion. You went from it sucks for all of us to it sucks for the bottom half(and you're wrong there as well). 

You want to compare us to Japan? Here you go: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/japan/

We win on almost every measure, especially on income, housing, HEALTH(LOL), environment and safety. 

Speaking of disingenuous maybe start looking inward because your opinions are backed up by more of your opinions. 

No, shitwipe.  I'm not comparing us to only Japan.  What I said is that Ryan faked the numbers.  He didn't provide actual data.  Japan was only one example, but all his numbers are falsified.

And we don't come close to beating Japan on health in spite of being a younger population that should be healthier.  Quit being ridiculous.  Japan is number 1 in life expectancy.  We are 27th.

And in spite of us "feeling safer," we aren't.  How about you look at the actual crime statistics in the US and Japan?  It is true that Japan is one of the few OECD countries that has a worse work-life balance than us, so we have that going for us.

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

No, shitwipe.  I'm not comparing us to only Japan.  What I said is that Ryan faked the numbers.  He didn't provide actual data.  Japan was only one example, but all his numbers are falsified.

And we don't come close to beating Japan on health in spite of being a younger population that should be healthier.  Quit being ridiculous.  Japan is number 1 in life expectancy.  We are 27th.

And in spite of us "feeling safer," we aren't.  How about you look at the actual crime statistics in the US and Japan?  It is true that Japan is one of the few OECD countries that has a worse work-life balance than us, so we have that going for us.

Riiight, we only look at OECD data until it agrees with Fondren. 

These things don't work in a vacuum you dumbfuck. If you initiate a change in one, it impacts the other. Now GTFO with your toddler logic. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, this said:

Riiight, we only look at OECD data until it agrees with Fondren. 

These things don't work in a vacuum you dumbfuck. If you initiate a change in one, it impacts the other. Now GTFO with your toddler logic. 

What the fuck are you talking about?  Ryan used fake data.  You can toss out his entire bullshit article because of that.  As for "feelings" polls, who gives a shit? The violent crime rate is much higher in the US than in Japan.

Its good that we have a higher median household income than other countries.  We will be able to build even better social safety nets than other OECD countries did.

I get it.  You don't give a fuck whether poor people eat, have a roof over their head, or have access to healthcare, so it would be a lot easier if you just manned up and said that.  Yes, if you're actually a high income earner, you are going to take home less so that we can lessen our income inequality.  So you're gonna have to deal with it.

[this 107]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

What the fuck are you talking about?  Ryan used fake data.  You can toss out his entire bullshit article because of that.  As for "feelings" polls, who gives a shit? The violent crime rate is much higher in the US than in Japan.

Its good that we have a higher median household income than other countries.  We will be able to build even better social safety nets than other OECD countries did.

I get it.  You don't give a fuck whether poor people eat, have a roof over their head, or have access to healthcare, so it would be a lot easier if you just manned up and said that.  Yes, if you're actually a high income earner, you are going to take home less so that we can lessen our income inequality.  So you're gonna have to deal with it.

No, you're pushing a false narrative on your feels instead of the data. You know the people you(and I) hate called Trumpkins that just run with whatever their lord and saviour says despite it being factually incorrect. You're the left's version of it. 

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, this said:

No, you're pushing a false narrative on your feels instead of the data. You know the people you(and I) hate called Trumpkins that just run with whatever their lord and saviour says despite it being factually incorrect. You're the left's version of it. 

 

No, again.  Ryan falsified data.  You can admit that and then use actual OECD data while ignoring OECD polls to come to a conclusion.  Yet here you still are, pretending as if that article is sound, Mr. Trump.

[this 107]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

No, again.  Ryan falsified data.  You can admit that and then use actual OECD data while ignoring OECD polls to come to a conclusion.  Yet here you still are, pretending as if that article is sound, Mr. Trump.

Nah, you refuse to see what you don't want to see. Like you did with Japan. 

You're worse than Trump, you're a Trumpkin. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

20 minutes ago, this said:

Nah, you refuse to see what you don't want to see. Like you did with Japan. 

You're worse than Trump, you're a Trumpkin. 

I saw him cut 10k off of Japan's actual data.  I also see that Japan has a much lower crime rate than we have.  You rely entirely on a poll that asked whether people feel safe while walking alone at night in order to say that the USA is safer than Japan. No, the USA just "feels safer" which means nothing.  I also see that people in Japan live longer.  You again rely on a useless poll.  This time self-reported health. 

And laughably, 88% of Americans self-reported that they were healthy.  Right, so you believe that only 12% of Americans are unhealthy?  Again, actual stats say over 30% of Americans are obese.  Nearly 10% have diabetes.  30% have high blood pressure.  Who were they even polling when they asked that question?

No doubt you can always rely on Americans to say they're the best.

Edited August 24, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Buzzrock 14,934]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This has obviously become a troll thread for the “conservatives” to tell us all how anti-regulation and free market they are.  

We derailed way back from what this conversation was about, scrutinizing the Accountable Capitalism Act.

Here’s the Bill in full

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

A BILL

To establish the obligations of certain large business entities in the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Accountable Capitalism Act”.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) DIRECTOR.—The term “Director” means the Director of the Office.

(2) LARGE ENTITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “large entity” means an entity that—

(i) is organized under the laws of a State as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint stock company, or limited liability company;

(ii) engages in interstate commerce; and

(iii) in a taxable year, according to information provided by the entity to the Internal Revenue Service, has more than $1,000,000,000 in gross receipts.

(B) AGGREGATION RULES.—All entities treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 of such Code, shall be treated as 1 entity for the purposes of subparagraph (A).

(3) OFFICE.—The term “Office” means the Office of United States Corporations established under section 3.

(4) OFFICER.—The term “officer” means, with respect to a United States corporation—

(A) the president of the United States corporation;

(B) the principal operating officer of the United States corporation;

(C) the principal accounting officer of the United States corporation or, if the United States corporation does not have such an accounting officer, the controller of the United States corporation; and

(D) any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function of the United States corporation.

(5) STATE.—The term “State” means—

(A) each of the several States of the United States;

(B) the District of Columbia;

(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

(D) Guam;

(E) the United States Virgin Islands;

(F) American Samoa; and

(G) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(6) UNITED STATES CORPORATION.—The term “United States corporation” means a large entity with respect to which the Office has granted a charter under section 3.

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS.

(a) Establishment.—There is established within the Department of Commerce the Office of United States Corporations.

(b) Director.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION.—There is established the position of Director of the Office, who shall be the head of the Office.

(2) APPOINTMENT; TERM.—

(A) APPOINTMENT.—Except as provided in subparagraph (E), the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals who are citizens of the United States.

(B) TERM.—The Director shall be appointed for a term of 4 years, unless removed before the end of that term by the President.

(C) VACANCY.—A vacancy in the position of Director that occurs before the expiration of the term for which a Director was appointed shall be filled in the manner established under subparagraph (A), and the Director appointed to fill that vacancy shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.

(D) SERVICE AFTER END OF TERM.—An individual may serve as the Director after the expiration of the term for which the individual was appointed until a successor has been appointed.

(E) INITIAL DIRECTOR.—The Secretary of Commerce shall appoint an individual to serve as the Director until an individual is appointed to serve as the Director in accordance with subparagraph (A).

(c) Duties.—The Office shall—

(1) review and grant charter applications for large entities;

(2) monitor whether large entities have obtained a charter in accordance with this Act;

(3) except as provided in paragraph (4)(B), refer any violation of this Act to the appropriate Federal agency for enforcement with respect to that violation; and

(4) when appropriate—

(A) rescind the charters of United States corporations under section 4(b);

(B) revoke the charters of United States corporations under sections 6(c)(2)(B)(ii), 8(c)(2), and 9; and

(C) issue rules to prevent entities from taking action to intentionally avoid qualifying as large entities.

(d) Disclosure Of Taxpayer Identity Information For Use By Office.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6103(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(8) OFFICE OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS.—Upon written request by the Director of the Office of United States Corporations, the Secretary shall disclose taxpayer identity information to officers and employees of the Office of United States Corporations solely for purposes of identifying any taxpayer that satisfies the requirement under section 2(2)(A)(iii) or 4(b) of the Accountable Capitalism Act for the most recent taxable year for which information is available.”.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this subsection shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE ENTITIES TO OBTAIN CHARTERS.

(a) Large Entities.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—An entity that is organized as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint stock company, or limited liability company in a State shall obtain a charter from the Office as follows:

(A) If the entity is a large entity with respect to the most recently completed taxable year of the entity before the date of enactment of this Act, the entity shall obtain the charter not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(B) If the entity is a large entity with respect to any taxable year of the entity that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, the entity shall obtain the charter not later than 1 year after the last day of that taxable year.

(2) FAILURE TO OBTAIN CHARTER.—An entity to which paragraph (1) applies and that fails to obtain a charter from the Office as required under that paragraph shall not be treated as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint-stock company, or limited liability company, as applicable, for the purposes of Federal law during the period beginning on the date on which the entity is required to obtain a charter under that paragraph and ending on the date on which the entity obtains the charter.

(b) Rescissions.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—An entity that has obtained a charter as a United States corporation and, with respect to a subsequent taxable year of the entity, is not a large entity may file a petition with the Office to rescind the charter of the United States corporation.

(2) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Office receives a petition that an entity files under paragraph (1), the Office shall grant the petition if the Office determines that the entity, with respect to the most recently completed taxable year of the entity preceding the date on which the petition was filed, was not a large entity.

SEC. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) GENERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term “general public benefit” means a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole.

(2) SUBSIDIARY.—The term “subsidiary” means, with respect to a person, an entity in which the person owns beneficially or of record not less than 50 percent of the outstanding equity interests of the entity, calculated as if all outstanding rights to acquire equity interests in the entity had been exercised.

(b) Charter Requirements.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The charter of a large entity that is filed with the Office shall state that the entity is a United States corporation.

(2) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—A United States corporation shall have the purpose of creating a general public benefit, which shall be—

(A) identified in the charter of the United States corporation; and

(B) in addition to the purpose of the United States corporation under the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable.

(c) Standard Of Conduct For Directors And Officers.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS.—In discharging the duties of their respective positions, and in considering the best interests of a United States corporation, the board of directors, committees of the board of directors, and individual directors of a United States corporation—

(A) shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the United States corporation in a manner that—

(i) seeks to create a general public benefit; and

(ii) balances the pecuniary interests of the shareholders of the United States corporation with the best interests of persons that are materially affected by the conduct of the United States corporation; and

(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)—

(i) shall consider the effects of any action or inaction on—

(I) the shareholders of the United States corporation;

(II) the employees and workforce of—

(aa) the United States corporation;

(bb) the subsidiaries of the United States corporation; and

(cc) the suppliers of the United States corporation;

(III) the interests of customers and subsidiaries of the United States corporation as beneficiaries of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(IV) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the United States corporation, subsidiaries of the United States corporation, or suppliers of the United States corporation are located;

(V) the local and global environment;

(VI) the short-term and long-term interests of the United States corporation, including—

(aa) benefits that may accrue to the United States corporation from the long-term plans of the United States corporation; and

(bb) the possibility that those interests may be best served by the continued independence of the United States corporation; and

(VII) the ability of the United States corporation to accomplish the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(ii) may consider—

(I) other pertinent factors; or

(II) the interests of any other group that are identified in the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable; and

(iii) shall not be required to give priority to a particular interest or factor described in clause (i) or (ii) over any other interest or factor.

(2) STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS.—Each officer of a United States corporation shall balance and consider the interests and factors described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) in the manner described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if—

(A) the officer has discretion to act with respect to a matter; and

(B) it reasonably appears to the officer that the matter may have a material effect on the creation by the United States corporation of a general public benefit identified in the charter of the United States corporation.

(3) EXONERATION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.—Except as provided in the charter of a United States corporation, neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation may be held personally liable for monetary damages for—

(A) any action or inaction in the course of performing the duties of a director under paragraph (1) or an officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer was not interested with respect to the action or inaction; or

(B) the failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

(4) LIMITATION ON STANDING.—Neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation shall have any duty to a person that is a beneficiary of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation because of the status of the person as such a beneficiary.

(5) BUSINESS JUDGMENTS.—A director or an officer of a United States corporation who makes a business judgment in good faith shall be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of the director under paragraph (1) or the officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer—

(A) is not interested in the subject of the business judgment;

(B) is informed with respect to the subject of the business judgment to an extent that the director reasonably believes to be appropriate under the circumstances; and

(C) rationally believes that the business judgment is in the best interests of the United States corporation.

(d) Right Of Action.—

(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATION.—A United States corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this section for any failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

(2) STANDING.—A proceeding to enforce the requirements of this section may be commenced or maintained only—

(A) directly by the United States corporation to which the proceeding applies; or

(B) derivatively, under the laws of the State in which the United States corporation is organized, by a person, or a group of persons, that own—

(i) beneficially or of record not less than 2 percent of the total number of shares of a class or series outstanding at the time of the act or omission that is the subject of the proceeding; or

(ii) beneficially or of record not less than 5 percent of the outstanding equity interests in an entity of which the United States corporation is a subsidiary at the time of the act or omission that is the subject of the proceeding.

(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.—For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall be construed to be the beneficial owner of shares or equity interests if the shares or equity interests are held in a voting trust or by a nominee on behalf of the person.

(e) Application.—

(1) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING GENERAL CORPORATE LAW.—Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any provision of law that is applicable to a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint stock company, or limited liability company, as applicable, that is not a United States corporation.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.—

(A) STATE LAW.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the law of the State in which a United States corporation is organized shall apply with respect to the United States corporation.

(B) FEDERAL LAW.—If any provision of Federal law is inconsistent with the requirements of this section with respect to a United States corporation, the requirements of this section shall supersede that provision.

(3) ORGANIC RECORDS.—A provision of the articles of incorporation in the State in which a United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable, or in the bylaws of a United States corporation may not limit, be inconsistent with, or supersede a provision of this section.

SEC. 6. BOARD REPRESENTATION.

(a) Rulemaking.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission, in consultation with the National Labor Relations Board, shall issue rules to ensure that director elections at United States corporations are fair and democratic.

(b) United States Corporation Elections.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not less than 2⁄5 of the directors of a United States corporation shall be elected by the employees of the United States corporation using an election process that complies with the requirements of the rules issued under subsection (a).

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date on which the Securities and Exchange Commission issues the rules required under subsection (a).

(c) Enforcement.—

(1) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.—The Securities and Exchange Commission, in consultation with the National Labor Relations Board, shall ensure that the elections described in subsection (b)(1) comply with the requirements of the rules issued by the Commission under subsection (a).

(2) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall coordinate with the Office to ensure that the representation of the boards of directors of United States corporations comply with the requirements under subsection (b).

(B) PENALTIES.—If the representation with respect to the board of directors of a United States corporation fails to comply with the requirements under subsection (b) for a period that is not less than 180 consecutive days—

(i) the Secretary of Labor—

(I) shall assess a civil money penalty against the United States corporation in an amount that is not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000 for each day that such representation is not in compliance with those requirements, including for each day during that 180-day period; and

(II) may collect the penalty described in subclause (I) beginning on the day after the date on which that 180-day period ends; and

(ii) the Office may revoke the charter of the United States corporation.

SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) COVERED PERSON.—The term “covered person” means an officer or a director of a United States corporation.

(2) EQUITY SECURITY.—The term “equity security” has the meaning given the term in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)).

(3) RULE 10B–18 PURCHASE.—The term “Rule 10b–18 purchase” has the meaning given the term in section 240.10b–18(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(4) SUBJECT SECURITY.—The term “subject security” means any—

(A) equity security of a United States corporation; or

(B) security, the value of which is derived from, or that otherwise relates to, an equity security described in subparagraph (A).

(b) Sale Of Subject Securities.—

(1) PROHIBITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (2), no covered person with respect to a United States corporation may—

(A) during the 5-year period that begins on the date on which the covered person first owns or beneficially owns a subject security with respect to that United States corporation (or an affiliate of that United States corporation), sell, transfer, pledge, assign, alienate, or hypothecate, in exchange for value, that subject security, other than—

(i) in connection with the sale of the United States corporation or the affiliate, as applicable; or

(ii) through—

(I) a will; or

(II) the laws of descent or distribution; or

(B) during the 3-year period that begins on the date on which that United States corporation, or an affiliate of that United States corporation, effects a Rule 10b–18 purchase, sell any subject security with respect to that United States corporation.

(2) APPLICATION.—The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any subject security that a covered person owns or beneficially owns on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Enforcement.—The Securities and Exchange Commission may impose on any covered person that violates subsection (b) a civil penalty in an amount that is—

(1) not less than the fair market value of the subject securities of which the covered person disposes in violation of that subsection, as measured on the date on which the covered person makes the disposition; and

(2) not more than the amount that is 3 times the fair market value of the subject securities of which the covered person disposes in violation of that subsection, as measured on the date on which the covered person makes the disposition.

(d) Rule Of Construction.—For the purposes of this section, a subject security is beneficially owned by a covered person if—

(1) the subject security is held in the name of a bank, broker, or nominee for the account of the covered person;

(2) the subject security is held as a joint tenant, tenant in common, or tenant by the entirety or as community property by the covered person; or

(3) the covered person has a pecuniary interest, by reason of any contract, understanding, or relationship, including an immediate family relationship or arrangement, in subject securities held in the name of another person.

SEC. 8. POLITICAL SPENDING.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.—The term “electioneering communication” has the meaning given the term in section 304(f)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)), except that the term “any public communication” shall be substituted for “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” in the matter preceding subclause (I) of subparagraph (A)(i) of such section 304(f)(3).

(2) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.—The term “independent expenditure” means an expenditure, as that term is defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101), by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because, when taken as a whole, the expenditure can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved—

(A) mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate; or

(B) takes a position on character, qualifications, or fitness for office of a candidate.

(3) POLITICAL EXPENDITURE IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE.—The term “political expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office” means an expenditure or series of expenditures totaling more than $10,000 for any single candidate during any single election that—

(A) (i) is an independent expenditure; or

(ii) with respect to a candidate for State or local public office, would be treated as an independent expenditure if the candidate were a candidate for Federal public office;

(B) (i) is an electioneering communication; or

(ii) with respect to a candidate for State or local public office, would be treated as an electioneering communication if the candidate were a candidate for Federal public office; or

(C) are dues or other payments, disbursements, or transfers to any other person that—

(i) are, or could reasonably be anticipated to be, used or transferred to another association or organization for the purposes described in subparagraph (A) or (B); and

(ii) are not investments or payments, disbursements, or transfers made in commercial transactions in the ordinary course of any trade or business.

(b) Shareholder And Director Approval.—A United States corporation may not make a political expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office unless—

(1) not less than 75 percent of the shareholders of the corporation and not less than 75 percent of the directors of the corporation approve of the expenditure; and

(2) the approvals required under paragraph (1) occur—

(A) before the date on which the expenditure is made or obligated; and

(B) after the date on which the shareholders and directors described in that paragraph have been informed regarding the precise nature of the proposed expenditure, including—

(i) the amount of the proposed expenditure; and

(ii) the candidate and election to which the proposed expenditure relates.

(c) Enforcement.—

(1) SHAREHOLDER SUIT.—A shareholder of a United States corporation may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin a United States corporation from making a political expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office that violates the requirements under subsection (b).

(2) REVOCATION OF CHARTER.—The Office may revoke the charter of a United States corporation that knowingly or repeatedly violates the requirements under subsection (b).

SEC. 9. PETITION FOR REVOCATION OF CHARTER.

(a) Filing Of Revocation Petition.—The attorney general of a State may file a petition with the Office to revoke the charter of a United States corporation that is organized in that State or that does business in that State.

(b) Timing Of Response And Decision.—If a revocation petition is filed under subsection (a) with respect to a United States corporation—

(1) not later than 180 days after the date on which the petition is filed, the United States corporation may file a response that explains why revoking the charter of the United States corporation is not justified in consideration of the factors described in subsection (c)(2); and

(2) the Director shall issue a ruling with respect to the petition not later than 180 days after the earlier of the date that is—

(A) 180 days after the date on which the petition is filed; or

(B) the date on which the corporation files a response under paragraph (1).

(c) Granting Revocation Petition.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, and after consideration of the factors described in paragraph (2), may grant a revocation petition that is filed under subsection (a).

(2) FACTORS.—In determining whether to grant a revocation petition under paragraph (1) with respect to a United States corporation, the Director shall consider whether the United States corporation—

(A) has engaged in repeated, egregious, and illegal misconduct that has caused significant harm to—

(i) the customers, employees, shareholders, or business partners of the United States corporation; or

(ii) the communities in which the United States corporation operates; and

(B) has not undertaken measures to address the causes of the misconduct described in subparagraph (A), such as terminating the employment of any officer or executive of the United States corporation who oversaw that misconduct.

(3) REVIEW OF GRANTING OF PETITION.—A decision by the Director to grant a revocation petition under this subsection—

(A) shall be subject to judicial review under section 706 of title 5, United States Code; and

(B) shall not be subject to the procedure for congressional disapproval under section 802 of title 5, United States Code.

(d) Revocation Of Charter.—If the Director grants a revocation petition under subsection (c) with respect to a United States corporation, the Office shall revoke the charter of that corporation, which shall be effective beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date on which the Director grants the petition.

(e) Rulemaking.—The Director may issue any rules that are necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any application of that provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Act and the application of any such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

 

 

A CR thread derail? That's so weird.

[Buzzrock 14,934]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Every time I see Mises Institute, somebody wants to sell me gold. And I like gold, it's shiny. But primitive folk art goes up faster in value. Is Mises somehow linked to gold buggery?

That's the Midas Institute

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah okay. Russia has less wealth inequality than the United States.

Explain that one.

I believe it by some metrics. When about 50 people have all the money and hundreds of millions are all making $15k/year, it works out if you choose to present it that way.

As always with Russia, some pigs are more equal than others.

[Biff Tannen 45,694]

How in the fuck is this thread still going?

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How in the fuck is this thread still going?

Mainly the tits I think.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This thread brings out the Fox News crowd and I love it.

[Brisketexan 105,168]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another interesting facet of the above is that the US pays very few poverty-relief benefits in cash, whereas most of the countries listed there do.  So the poverty-level incomes do not tend to be adjusted for in-kind benefits, but need no such adjustment outside the US.

Skimming that piece (and that's about all it was worth, a skim), that was the first thing that jumped out to me  If I make $5k less in income.....but I am provided full healthcare, education, safer streets and quality of life, etc. etc......sign me, and every rational-thinking person, up for that.  Income is but one component of wealth.

Shit, there are people who manage to have zero "income" in a given year, but live the Lifestyles of Rich and Famous life.  And there are people who make a great income....but go bankrupt because they were dumb enough to come down with a curable -- but expensive -- form of cancer.

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Mainly the tits I think.

Okay, correction.  THOSE are the first thing that jumped out at me on this thread.

But the "income, but not other value/benefits" was the SECOND thing that jumped out at me.

[RDCanecutter 26,455]

6 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Mainly the tits I think.

[this 107]

31 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I saw him cut 10k off of Japan's actual data.  I also see that Japan has a much lower crime rate than we have.  You rely entirely on a poll that asked whether people feel safe while walking alone at night in order to say that the USA is safer than Japan. No, the USA just "feels safer" which means nothing.  I also see that people in Japan live longer.  You again rely on a useless poll.  This time self-reported health. 

And laughably, 88% of Americans self-reported that they were healthy.  Right, so you believe that only 12% of Americans are unhealthy?  Again, actual stats say over 30% of Americans are obese.  Nearly 10% have diabetes.  30% have high blood pressure.  Who were they even polling when they asked that question?

No doubt you can always rely on Americans to say they're the best.

LOL. Its 20K because it says, PPP. How many times am I going to have to ask you read shit before you spout shit. 

Next time, more reading, less talking. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

7 minutes ago, this said:

LOL. Its 20K because it says, PPP. How many times am I going to have to ask you read shit before you spout shit. 

Next time, more reading, less talking. 

Once again, the actual published OECD data is ALREADY PPP.  It isn't 20k for Japan.  Its 31,539.

https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm

"This indicator is measured in terms of net in annual growth rates and in terms of gross adjusted in USD per capita at current prices and PPPs"

So why don't you read shit before you spout shit. 

[this 107]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Once again, the actual published OECD data is ALREADY PPP.  It isn't 20k for Japan.  Its 31,539.

https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm

"This indicator is measured in terms of net in annual growth rates and in terms of gross adjusted in USD per capita at current prices and PPPs"

So why don't you read shit before you spout shit. 

First, your link doesn't even take me there. Secondly, here's another source confirming that number.  

Rank Country Median income (US$, PPP)[3] Year 1  Luxembourg 38,516 2013 2  Norway 36,043 2013 3   Switzerland 34,608 2013 4  United States 34,514 2016 5  Australia 31,340 2014 6  Canada 29,521 2013 7  Austria 29,278 2013 8  Iceland 27,919 2013 9  Denmark 27,157 2013 10  Belgium 26,922 2013 11  Netherlands 26,820 2014 12  Sweden 26,627 2013 13  Finland 25,810 2014 14  Germany 25,140 2013 15  France 24,547 2013 16  New Zealand 23,304 2012 17  United Kingdom 22,546 2016 18  Ireland 22,200 2013 19  South Korea 22,176 2014 20  Japan 21,675 2013 21  Italy 20,860 2013 22  Spain 20,600 2015 23  Israel 17,802 2014 24  Slovenia 16,224 2013 25  Czech Republic 15,391 2013 26  Slovakia 14,171 2013 27  Portugal 14,053 2013 28  Romania 13,966 2013 29  Estonia 13,719 2013 30  Poland 13,630 2013

 

Source: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=IDD

Note, its the same one as quoted in the article. 

Read shit dumbass, talk less and post even less than that. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by this

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

10 minutes ago, this said:

First, your link doesn't even take me there. Secondly, here's another source confirming that number.  

Rank Country Median income (US$, PPP)[3] Year 1  Luxembourg 38,516 2013 2  Norway 36,043 2013 3   Switzerland 34,608 2013 4  United States 34,514 2016 5  Australia 31,340 2014 6  Canada 29,521 2013 7  Austria 29,278 2013 8  Iceland 27,919 2013 9  Denmark 27,157 2013 10  Belgium 26,922 2013 11  Netherlands 26,820 2014 12  Sweden 26,627 2013 13  Finland 25,810 2014 14  Germany 25,140 2013 15  France 24,547 2013 16  New Zealand 23,304 2012 17  United Kingdom 22,546 2016 18  Ireland 22,200 2013 19  South Korea 22,176 2014 20  Japan 21,675 2013 21  Italy 20,860 2013 22  Spain 20,600 2015 23  Israel 17,802 2014 24  Slovenia 16,224 2013 25  Czech Republic 15,391 2013 26  Slovakia 14,171 2013 27  Portugal 14,053 2013 28  Romania 13,966 2013 29  Estonia 13,719 2013 30  Poland 13,630 2013

The link I posted takes you directly to the OECD's data.  Your copy and paste job is for median equivalent adult income, and not for "median household incomes compared" as Ryan claims.  So I guess he's an outright liar since he just slaps a factually false title on his graph, and you're a passive liar because you intentionally excluded the title from yours.

Edited August 24, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[this 107]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The link I posted takes you directly to the OECD's data.  Your copy and paste job is for median equivalent adult income, and not for "median household incomes compared" as Ryan claims.  So I guess he's an outright liar since he just slaps a factually false title on his graph, and you're a passive liar because you intentionally excluded the title from yours.

No, your link does not take one to the actual data that points to Japan's 30K PPP data. It takes you to a general OECD data page. 

And you want the equivalent income and PPP to compare apples to apples. Its not Ryan or my fault that you're too dense to understand that. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, this said:

No, your link does not take one to the actual data that points to Japan's 30K PPP data. It takes you to a general OECD data page. 

And you want the equivalent income and PPP to compare apples to apples. Its not Ryan or my fault that you're too dense to understand that. 

If you cant scroll down and work the charts, you're a bigger idiot than I thought. But you already know that the same data set for household income is on the same fucking wiki page right above the adult equivalent table you copied.  Im sure you saw it there. You're certainly a lying piece of shit.  As is Ryan.  How can you sleep at night when you are such a dishonest person?

You cant just slap an inaccurate label on a data set and pretend it's the same.  It's not. The fact that Ryan references it incorrectly for the entirety of the article while comparing it to other data sets makes him either a massive liar or completely incompetent. More likely, he is both.

[this 107]

22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

If you cant scroll down and work the charts, you're a bigger idiot than I thought. But you already know that the same data set for household income is on the same fucking wiki page right above the adult equivalent table you copied.  Im sure you saw it there. You're certainly a lying piece of shit.  As is Ryan.  How can you sleep at night when you are such a dishonest person?

You cant just slap an inaccurate label on a data set and pretend it's the same.  It's not. The fact that Ryan references it incorrectly for the entirety of the article while comparing it to other data sets makes him either a massive liar or completely incompetent. More likely, he is both.

LOL. How do you sleep at night knowing that you are such an idiot? Ignorance? Most likely.

Coming back to it being 20K, do you realize that we are indeed better off? 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, this said:

LOL. How do you sleep at night knowing that you are such an idiot? Ignorance? Most likely.

Coming back to it being 20K, do you realize that we are indeed better off? 

Fuck off, liar.

[this 107]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Fuck off, liar.

I thought so dumbass. You're only lying to yourself with your dumbassery. So fuck off you too liar. 

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

A perspective of the world that I had not, yet, seen.  Intredasting, needs more research for science.  Mouseovers showing subject material of the top 100 videos/images from each country would be a good next step.

[Biff Tannen 45,694]

What I'm getting from that is I need to move Scandinavia up my list of places to travel.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

Just now, this said:

I thought so dumbass. You're only lying to yourself with your dumbassery. So fuck off you too liar. 

Fuck you. 

"Keep in mind that we're using median income here, and not GDP per capita, which means this isn't being skewed up by a small number of mega-wealthy households. So while the US may have a rather high poverty rate, we find that being poor in the US is similar to (at least in terms of income) being a median household in many other countries, including the UK and Japan." - Ryan

Your boy is laughably wrong because he never once uses OECD data for a median household yet he seems to think he is.  He is using individual data.

And it would be great if the federal gov't used UNICEF's 60% poverty line, don't you think?  Be careful what you wish for.  You'd be doubling the welfare rolls.  He's using 60% of an equivalent adult as his poverty line.  The US gov't sets the poverty line at $12,140 for an individual adult.  And for the record, 14% of Americans live in households that make less than the decidedly lower federal poverty line.  Perhaps Ryan should go tell them how lucky they are to have "higher incomes" than a Western European poor person.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[maninblack 7,974]

[bad_teammate 13,219]

+

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

It would be cool if she decided to dress like a normal person under 50 years old like she used to.   Just because she is running for office, it doesn't mean she needs to raid Hillary's closet. 

[bad_teammate 13,219]

30 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It would be cool if she decided to dress like a normal person under 50 years old like she used to.   Just because she is running for office, it doesn't mean she needs to raid Hillary's closet. 

We're going to see you on the news over her, aren't we?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

We're going to see you on the news over her, aren't we?

For what exactly? For voting for her and calling her choice of outfits Hillaryish? 

More likely to see you on the news for stalking her since you're the type of dude who would drive 2000 miles to dig through her garbage. You shouldn't worship politicians. They're just people. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Seems like only one person gives a shit about her wardrobe in here.

[bad_teammate 13,219]

27 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

More likely to see you on the news for stalking her since you're the type of dude who would drive 2000 miles to dig through her garbage.

You talk about her a lot and seem to be nothing but critical of her while also saying you support her. It's creepy.

[bad_teammate 13,219]

"I VOTED FOR YOU!" he howls at the skyline, rolling around in the woman's blood, "WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT OUTFIT!?"

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You talk about her a lot and seem to be nothing but critical of her while also saying you support her. It's creepy.

Of course I talk about her. This is a politics board, and she is set to be my Congressperson. It's my right to be critical of her where deserved and praise her where deserved.

The really weird thing is you, who rushes in to defend her against any critique at all, while worshipping her from 2000 miles away. You are days from gassing up the pinto and buying a box of adult diapers. And the other weird thing is that you're super political, and while youre hyper focused on my district, you haven't said a fucking peep about yours. I will tell you one thing for sure. I wouldn't tell you that you're not allowed to criticize whoever happens to be your chosen candidate there even if I thought they were a great candidate. Not only is it your district, no candidate is ever perfect.  It really is weird is that you're far more invested in a district that isnt yours only because you're caught up in a single individual's cult of personality. 

And I also criticize everyone. This entire post is a direct criticism of you, not AOC. In fact, nearly all our interactions regarding AOC are more critical of you than her.  Mostly because, while you're critical of everyone else, you never criticize her ever, and you get crazy when anyone else does. The issue we have is that you think she is flawless, and you get so bent out of shape when shes criticized, that it's easy to dig in against you. You're like the leave britney alone dude. Nobody can comment on a homely dress!  Funny, how I've commented on Trumps shitty suits many times. Ive also commented on Hillarys chairman Mao outfits.  Where is your valiant defense of their dress?  I think you probably even liked one of those posts. 

From an individual view, she should worry about you because you're a classic stalker. From a national view though, its hero worshippers like you that are the biggest threat to democracy. Once you've decided that your chosen one can never be wrong about anything, you've made yourself into a leftwing version of a Trumpist.  

And really, loverboy, you should be concerned that shes decided to switch to a decidedly conservative establishment dress code. It's a move away from the DSA and toward establishment focus groups. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

53 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"I VOTED FOR YOU!" he howls at the skyline, rolling around in the woman's blood, "WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT OUTFIT!?"

You're a really fucked up dude. Get some help before you do something you cant recover from. Shes never gonna be with you. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by FondrenRoad