The Senate Closes an Unethical Tax Loophole

When a defendant corporation is hit with punitive damages in a jury verdict, that means that in addition to causing the plaintiff’s injuries or damages, the corporation also was guilty of wrongdoing. Punitive damages are large amounts of money that the losing defendant must pay over and above compensatory damages, in order to make it too expensive for the company to keep doing what caused the original problem. This is one of the virtues of the civil justice system. Thanks to punitive damages, a lawsuit by a single injured party can result in a sufficiently painful financial penalty that the corporation has a significant incentive to reform.

So why do the tax laws allow companies to use punitive damages as tax deductions, since it 1) lowers tax revenues and 2) makes the damages less expensive, less painful, and less of an incentive to correct unsafe, dangerous or dishonest practices? Continue reading

Ethics Heroes Odd Couple: Sen. Jim Bunning and the Washingon Post

“The point Mr. Bunning was trying to make was a reasonable one: At some point, Congress has to stop borrowing and spending, even for worthy purposes.”

This wasn’t Rush Limbaugh talking, or some Fox News talking head. This was the Washington Post, in an editorial, validating the Kentucky senator’s lonely stand in which he single-handedly placed a five-day “hold” on a $10 billion bill to pay for extended unemployment benefits and other popular programs.

Bunning’s symbolic protest was vilified by the Democrats and disowned by most Republicans. As the Post editorial pointed out, it was “spectacularly bad politics,” giving the Democrats a perfect foil to symbolize the heartlessness of “the Party of No.” Courage and principle are often, and perhaps, sadly, always bad politics. Continue reading