Stop Subsidizing Corporate Raiders!

Thatís law for the 1%, not the 99% or even the 66%

sponsored by aGREATER.US • co-sponsors: (1)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Tax Reform
secondary topics:

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
93%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Here’s the playbook. Buy the company at a distressed price, load it up with as much corporate debt as possible then pay out the cash as a special dividend to the new owners (yourself). Go ahead, take inordinate risk with other people's jobs and the local economy. You made a gigantic profit. It’s good to be the 1%. And you still make a gigantic profit even if you fail at turning the company around. Sweet.

We need to close the loopholes in the tax code that almost guarantees a private equity firm can raid a company and make a staggering profit with less risk than the original owner.

It would not be so if there were a cap on the deductibility of corporate debt and if the carried interest loophole were closed.

Then a deal will succeed or fail on its merits.

For more information read the fine article by James Surowieki “Private Inequity” originally published in The New Yorker.

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here