[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Ok good, because it's certainly not ridiculous. Frankly, I think the term "corporate personhood" is extremely misleading. All it really means is that a corporation is a separate legal entity apart from the owners. This allows owners to have a limited legal liability to the corporation, meaning that if the business is sued the owners cannot lose more than what they've invested in the company. Other forms of business that are not separate from owners do not have this quality, and the owners have unlimited liability and can loose everything they have in a lawsuit. For example, if the company goes out of business and cannot pay all debts after liquidation, creditors can place claims on the owner's personal property (ie house, car, investments, etc).

Corporations as a separate legal entity also allows the government to tax the income twice. The corporation is taxed, and then the owners are taxed. If the business were not separate from the owners, they could not levy the same tax on the same income twice as they can do presently.

Finally, corporations as a separate legal entity allows the business to continue on past the original owner's death. Other forms of business, sole proprietorship, etc, typically die when the owner dies. Imagine how much it would suck if Wal-Mart died when Sam Walton did, or if Apple died when Steve Jobs died.

And the political implications of all this? You seem to have forgot to mention those.

Also I'm surprised you seem to be for corporate personhood given the double-tax.