Corporations don't care much about people. To fix this problem, why not give people more control over what corporations do care about?
On election day, each voter could write in the names of, say, up to three corporations and whether they think those companies should pay more or less in taxes. This data could then be tabulated and broken down by voting district. Corporations would then have their tax rates adjusted based on this information.
For example, if you live in Bentonville, Arkansas, your vote could affect WalMart's taxes at all levels: from federal income taxes to state income taxes to property taxes on the corporate headquarters building. In contrast, someone who lives in Washington, D.C. (where Walmart has no presence) would only be able to affect WalMart's federal tax rate.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
A “popular vote” to reward or penalize a company you like or dislike already exists. Simply buy/don’t buy their product or service. This is an incredibly effective (as evidenced by WalMarts 10%+ increase in annual sales – if sales were to decrease, they will not open stores).
This is an awfully tainted popular vote. Are people "voting" for WalMart because they actually like the company, or because they like the $20 they save? Imagine if billionaire and frequent Presidential candidate Steve Forbes were allowed to give citizens $20 for voting for him.
Also, I'd like to have a popular vote on Haliburton. The current system doesn't allow such. A company that does not deal directly with ordinary consumers should not be immune to censure from the public.
This seems like a weak and haphazard way of holding neighbors accountable. This is really a band-aid on the problem, as opposed to a mechanism that could fix systematic problems (such as externalization of costs or anti-competitive practises)
One of the strengths of this idea is its flexibility. The same arrangement can reward a drug company for providing AIDS medicine to Africa while at the same time punishing an energy company for manipulation of the market. Maybe it is only a band-aid; certainly, this is not a permanent solution to any major problems. But a stop-gap solution is still valuable. It takes time to change the law. In the meantime, tapping public opinion to punish bad/reward good behavior is far better than simply letting things slide.
Don't forget that corporations are actually made of average people. Hurting the corporation hurts those people. Public opinion is pretty fickle, and I for one would never want to be subject to it in this manner.