Should the U.S. put a lien on BP's quarterly dividends?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JackFlash, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    BP is about to pay out 10.5 billion $ in dividends this quarter to investors, you know, those people who made it possible for them to exist and drill this well that is now killing an entire ocean. Should the U.S. put a lien on this money, and future dividends, to ensure payment for damages?

    BP's CEO personally says the corporation will pay for all of the damages, but, he also said that they were prepared for this disaster. Even as the oil still gushes into the gulf, they are already making it difficult for claims to be filed and out of work fishermen to get work cleaning up the mess.

    .
     
  2. deleted

    deleted Visitor

    ahahah,. the american public will pay most of it.. what you talking bout willis?
     
  3. Nyxx

    Nyxx HELLO STALKER

    Messages:
    1,995
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yes they should, but you know it will not happen.
     
  4. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    No, that I don't support, many normal also have stock in BP.
     
  5. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    If the shareholders then decide to file a class action suit, their debt will be paid first as it is on already earned dividends. Also considering investors generally have little input and that they also depend on that income on a personal level, perhaps there is little difference in them not being paid as opposed to fishermen.

    To attach assets is a matter of due process and it would take probably at least a decade to be decided in law. As of now they have not refused to pay for the clean up, so to even consider legal action seems preemptive and counter productive. Perhaps an amicable agreement would far better serve the coffers of the American Government instead.
     
  6. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Soooo.... Stock investments should be guaranteed to produce dividends?

    The stock holders are the actual owners of the corporation. Are you saying that the owners of BP should not be held liable for the corporation's actions? How much protection from liability are you willing to extend to the owners of major corporations?

    .
     
  7. autumnbreeze

    autumnbreeze Member

    Messages:
    403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I support it. Normals having stock or no, when you buy stock you are gambling on the company who's stock you buy. Companies -must- be held financially responsible for their environmental impact or they will never change. If stock holders are held financially responsible for the misdeeds of the companies they hold stock in, then people will no longer be willing to give investment money to irresponsible corporations. The system we have now is a 'no-fault' situation, and it's entirely untenable.

    If you take part in the corrupt usury of the stock market, there should be risks. Period. Usury was considered a sin for a reason. It is utilizing your money to make money off another person's labor. Regardless of if you are a rich fat cat living solely off your money or a 'normal' person, you are still earning money off another's labor. And in this case, earning money off of irresponsible business practices.
     
  8. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Well yes, they should be guaranteed to produce dividends if stock investors were promised. As Heat said, it's a bit early to be at this point, and the end result could be worse than trying to reach an amicable agreement between BP and the government. Any lawsuit taken by shareholders as Heat said would just result in immediate payment but would start a probably decades long legal battle over the money.

    *edit*
    Aside from this, as it was said, stockholders as a whole generally have absolutely no say in how a company is run. They just invest in a business they think is going to improve its financial status in the future. As it is now BP's stock has plummeted over 30%, it doesn't make sense to punish the stockholder. If BP doesn't decide to pay up and goes to court for years and years, they'll already be punished as BP's stock falls more.
     
  9. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Stock holders are not responsible for the running of companies, only offering up their cash as investment. A responsible company in the stock market is one who makes a profit so said stock price goes up. Punishing stock holders makes no sense. There was nothing irresponsible here financially, or legally. Don't punish stockholders for the laziness and lack of oversight from your congressmen to pass regulation.
     
  10. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    The money earned as a rate of return was earned when BP was held in high esteem. It was declared as earning before the spill. It is not legally attached to the debt that is owed especially not for this clean up.

    It will have a bearing stockholders earnings in the future, be it that they sell at a loss or ride this out to the tune of lower earnings in the future.

    Without those who support the stock market, all international money markets would fold. It is idealistic to assume that any of the worlds economies can survive without stockholders.

    Stockholders do not rule companies.

    While BP may hold responsibility here, they are not the only ones. To date they have stated that they will make restitution for this spill. Is that not the point.



     
  11. autumnbreeze

    autumnbreeze Member

    Messages:
    403
    Likes Received:
    0
    No matter how the system is set, companies will always look for loopholes. Companies are practically buying votes as is. Of course, for the same reason that there were no regulations, this is all moot. It won't happen. But IMHO if investors were punished for owning a share of a company that acted irresponsibly, they would start to be more conscious of who they give their money to.

    In our current system a company has no duty but to make money. In such a system corruption and cheating is inevitable. If we hold corporations and their owners more accountable for the impact of their actions, they will be forced to make better choices.

    I have no pity for stockholders who lose money. Stock market gambling is a corrupt business from the start.
     
  12. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not uncommon for the plaintiff in a law suit to "freeze" the assets of the defendant to ensure payment if the court rules in his favor.

    Also, if I loan my car to a friend and he T-bones a Rolls, I am responsible as the owner of the car. Why should responsibility be determined differently for the owner of a corporation?

    I beg to differ, most "normal" people don't own a lot of stock. If they did, they would be wealthy people.

    .
     
  13. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    It is not common to ask any court to freeze assets of a company who has taken responsibility and is taking step to attempt to rectify a situation. One of the first rules of law is mediation. Seems as if that has already been done. They have taken ownership for the clean up.

    It is amazing how only BP holds ownership in this mess according to so many of the masses. What is your own governments responsibility in this mess.

    You are correct in that normal people do not hold massive amounts of stock. Those people own penny share and they balance their own personal portfolios so that they can live a life or maybe even retire. Without all of the penny holders in the world we would have no money markets. Those dividends were declared on earnings before the spill. That is actually a really simple concept in that if your employer owes you a salary from November they still owe you that money. They will be satisfied first in any legal maneuver.

    They have to date agreed to clean this up and foot the bill. If that in any way makes the powers that be feel that a costly legal procedure that will take a considerable amount of time to even mount. let alone show cause is warranted at a further cost to the American taxpayer, then have at it. It is after all only your taxes.




     
  14. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    BP owns the well. The U.S. government has no responsibility beyond making sure BP cleans up their mess and makes the victims whole. The government has no equipment or expertise with which to deal with this problem. Missiles and bombs will not work on this one.


    as is the money they are using to pay for cleanup.


    True, but I may never see all of it.


    It's a matter of credibility. And they are already making claims difficult to submit. As soon as this is over and business is on the rebound, they will be sending lawyers instead of compensation.

    I didn't say "take" those quarterly dividends, just put a lien on them to ensure payment of their debts. I think we should also put a lien on all of their properties in the U.S.

    Uncommon or not, killing an ocean is not common either.

    .
     
  15. jagerhans

    jagerhans Far out, man. Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    2,247
    your government holds the major share responsibility in this, period. governments are there to (guess?) rule. the US govt does that, only not in the interest of the people, but to protect the corporations. governments must set the safety standards and enforce them. neither the BP nor US administrations bothered to wonder before time what was going to happen if an incident like this happened, proof of this being that when it happened for real no one really knew how to cope with that at that depth and had to devise some very retarded ideas like steel domes.

    someone had to think about that and if BP didn't, the government had to because governments do that all the time. many solutions were possible, if applied in time. extra valves, explosive charges ready in place to disrupt the well in case of spills, whatever but not a big question mark. once again Murphy's law applied. It could happen and it happened. It happened quickly because no one made shit to prevent this. to quote Obama, many asses deserving kicks sit on armchairs in federal buildings and in the WH, not just at BP.
     
  16. WanderingturnupII

    WanderingturnupII Grouchy Old Fart

    Messages:
    2,076
    Likes Received:
    7
    The stockholders are the ones who own the company, but they are not the ones who sign off on specific, individual, safety versus profit issues, or the ones who set policy, or the ones who can hire and fire those people. Those are the ones the government needs to go after
     
  17. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    How is stock market gambling a corrupt business from the start? It's probably in fact the most honest and transparent form of investment. The sole purpose of stocks is to make a return on money, not make a moral point. It's the government's role to regulate companies to make sure the free market doesn't become ridiculously free. But then again, there are numerous for-profit companies who have made their niche and attract their investment and also sales from the fact they are more environmentally, morally, ect conscious companies.

    And yes, a for-profit companies sole duty is to make profit, nobody invests in a company that's not going to make a return on investment, that just isn't how reality works. There are numerous non profit organizations out there too, who do in fact get special tax breaks, funding, ease of restrictions, ect to honor the fact they are non profit and in general can't work with the same kind of budget that for profit companies do. Point is though, investors are not moral crusaders, they're economists at best, normal people in general, and people who's sole job in life is to make other people money at worst. Many people often don't even have a clue of what company they're buying stock in as they leave those decisions to other people.

    A companies/stock holders moral obligation comes in at times like say when you cause a gigantic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and your share price drops by 30% in the course of 3 weeks.
     
  18. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's ask Martha Stewart. She has some "inside information" on that topic, and she's willing to share it.

    .
     
  19. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Most people on the stock market are far, far removed from the financial and corporate institutions where they could have any ability to gain insider information.
     
  20. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    BP does own the well. BP has said it will clean the well up.

    The American government has no right to place a lien on those dividends when part of the problem is their own fault.

    That does not allow the American Government off the hook for their part in the mess. That is arrogance.

    The Federal Minerals Management Service gave permission for BP to drill in the Gulf. Without the required permits and ignoring strong warning from within that department about the impact that it would have on the Gulf. According to former scientist, Biologist and Engineers whose professional concerns were dismissed warned that exactly this could happen with drilling.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who are responsible for the protection of endangered species and marine mammals, while citing that these off shore drilling's could in fact be dangerous since 2009 has also approved a further three lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans all without permits required by federal laws.

    Ken Salazar, Department of Interior, regulates offshore oil drilling.
    In late 2009 the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration warned that it was underestimating the frequency of offshore oil spills and was dangerously understating the threat and impact of a major spill. He will be supposedly answering for some of this in the coming weeks. Lots of luck sorting through the political layers on this one.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency also dropped the ball on this as they were not prepared and did not respond in a timely fashion. How long did it take your own watch dog to start any effort to control the spill. They still are doing a poor job.

    The United States is still by far one of the biggest importers of oil. It is the almighty god in that anything will be done to get the oil that is needed to keep the machine going. So forget environment and safety or lives. Oil is more important.

    BP is doing their share at the moment, perhaps if all of your own government agencies had of been more conscious of the environment in the first place this may have not had to also be the disaster that it became.

    In their own arrogance they have ignored not only their own scientific community they have also ignored all environmental groups who have all foretold of this disaster being imminent.

    As far as killing an ocean, the blame is also at the feet of your own government.

     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice