Force Buisness at end of each year to give employees half the anual profits that would normally go t

This is better than a wealth tax. As a tax the government gets and controls the money. This is bad. We all know it. Instead each company should take its profits that would go to investors and executives as bonus and cut it in half and send it as bonus to all employee's of that company that actually did the work and earned it. Investors and executives still make some free cash but those actually earning the profits get a better deal.

This will stimulate the middle class and reduce the theft currently going on where the 1% absorb the majority of the money flowing through the economy. When you give money to poor and middle class it gets spent on products that then increase demand that then cause companies the need to grow. When Rich people get money it just sits in banks and stocks and property doing nothing for anyone. You cant have an economy where all the money just ends up at the top stagnant.

It is my proposition that actual employee's are more invested in a company than someone just throwing their millions into stocks like a slot machine waiting for the payout. Truth is most companies don't need investors any longer. Many large companies make more than enough to maintain themselves without external investors but not without employee's.

There it has been said.

What you are describing is forced employees to be shareholders and part ownership, well, that also has a downside if they start being shareholders of a specific % ownership, well, they also have to accept the corporate responsibility of bad employees and bad decisions and possible corporate fraud cases and possible corporate negligence, make them also have to pay for corporate liability insurances and also health and safety costs, and claims, well, sure you want to be a big shareholder?

Start your own business, see how it goes for you


Not all businesses are run by a fat cat sipping tea and whiskey every day whilst signing forms and everybody doing work, it takes a LOT of time and effort and headache to start and run a business, and more to be successful. Whilst employees go home at the end of their day, the owner often has to keep working longer. You need an eyeopener.

Companies will just eliminate bonuses to avoid the tax.

The corporations have written all the laws. There's a million ways around them if you've got the money.

What you are proposing seems to be another form of "trickle down". I think we know that poor old dog is no longer even pretending to hunt. Sorry. But I do like the idea that you are trying to think of another plan. We surely need another plan.

a reply to: jajaja

Or more companies could follow the business model of this one:

Alvarado Street Bakery




Wiki Article

Alvarado is organized as a worker cooperative and each employee receives one share in the cooperative. The shares grant each employees an equal vote on business matters, including employee benefits, salaries and the reinvestment of profits.[2] As of 2009, more than half of the employees had been with the company for over 15 years and the average worker earned between $65,000 and $70,000 a year.[2]

I remember seeing something about this company a while ago. Great idea and it would be nice if more companies worked this way.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: jajaja

Or more companies could follow the business model of this one:

Alvarado Street Bakery




Wiki Article

Alvarado is organized as a worker cooperative and each employee receives one share in the cooperative. The shares grant each employees an equal vote on business matters, including employee benefits, salaries and the reinvestment of profits.[2] As of 2009, more than half of the employees had been with the company for over 15 years and the average worker earned between $65,000 and $70,000 a year.[2]

I remember seeing something about this company a while ago. Great idea and it would be nice if more companies worked this way.

Yes, they're Shareholders, and if they end up with a large amount of shares, that can make them liable just as directors and owners, well, they are owners in a shared way.

It is still possible to treat employees very well, without giving them shares.

What you describe is not a new idea, it has been around for eons.

a reply to: Xeven
Not a bad idea...
Many companies have already implemented a means of getting around this, though...by replacing employees with contractors &/or outsourcing...
They would probably just get/go around such a "law" by contracting everything out.

a reply to: Xeven

Good idea.

But i would say that for it to be applicable, a corporation or business would have to reach a certain threshold profit margin to be included in the scheme.

Not sure what an appropriate figure would be...maybe profits in the millions though, not small businesses where the owners are barely scraping by.

a reply to: WanDash

Contracting out has to be the worst thing that has ever happened to the public sector..ever.

Hospitals, councils, all use contractors..and the standards went through the floor.

And i say this as someone who has worked most of my working life AS a contractor in the telecommunications and IT sector...so i would know.

originally posted by: jajaja
What you are describing is forced employees to be shareholders and part ownership, well, that also has a downside if they start being shareholders of a specific % ownership, well, they also have to accept the corporate responsibility of bad employees and bad decisions and possible corporate fraud cases and possible corporate negligence, make them also have to pay for corporate liability insurances and also health and safety costs, and claims, well, sure you want to be a big shareholder?

Start your own business, see how it goes for you

Not all businesses are run by a fat cat sipping tea and whiskey every day whilst signing forms and everybody doing work, it takes a LOT of time and effort and headache to start and run a business, and more to be successful. Whilst employees go home at the end of their day, the owner often has to keep working longer. You need an eyeopener.

Ah your obviously talking about small business and yes they would need to be handled a bit differently. For one the owner could establish a fair salary for himself for his extra hours and for rewarding his intelligence and fortitude in being a business owner and still rake much of the profits. I am mostly talking about the well established large traded companies.

I do not like it when people stuff all employers into one category by saying "businesses" need to be forced to do this or that. There are major differences between large and small businesses, and the problem isn't with the smaller variety but those that are larger.

Why is this? Well, in my opinion it is because the relationship between the owners and employees in a small business is still mostly personal. Everyone knows the other's name. They see them in town, go to the same sports events, drive the same roads. They are people not objects to each other. Most employees are well treated in small business, and the smart small-businessman listens to what they have to say. Your plan would not work in this case, mostly because all available income is already spoken for. Oh, and if a business has 500 employees it is no longer a "small business". Lets bring that number down to around 100.

Large businesses on the other hand listen only to the investors. Employees are objects. The board of directors not only does not feel any kinship with the employees, it feels no obligation towards them either. Employees are just numbers in a spreadsheet, expenses on a report given the same weight of concern as garbage disposal and toilet paper. Expenses to be controlled and manipulated. Your plan COULD work here, as most profit is seen as something to be hidden or disguised so it will not be taken by someone else before it can be used to leverage a promotion or raise.

Our problem in the current economic climate is not one with "business" as a whole. Our problem is with large corporations. We need to bring large business back to the reality that people are more important that numbers. We also need to make board members and senior managers PERSONALLY responsible for the actions or inactions of the company. They need have personal responsibility for what the corporation does or does not do. If a corporation pollutes a water, the board goes to jail. If delivery trucks are not maintained and cause accidents the senior managers need to go to prison. The only way to make corporations act responsibly is to demand responsibility.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: WanDash

Contracting out has to be the worst thing that has ever happened to the public sector..ever.

Hospitals, councils, all use contractors..and the standards went through the floor.

And i say this as someone who has worked most of my working life AS a contractor in the telecommunications and IT sector...so i would know.

I agree contacting out is BAD but if it is going to be around they too should be included in the profit sharing as any employee.

originally posted by: Montana
I do not like it when people stuff all employers into one category by saying "businesses" need to be forced to do this or that. There are major differences between large and small businesses, and the problem isn't with the smaller variety but those that are larger.

Why is this? Well, in my opinion it is because the relationship between the owners and employees in a small business is still mostly personal. Everyone knows the other's name. They see them in town, go to the same sports events, drive the same roads. They are people not objects to each other. Most employees are well treated in small business, and the smart small-businessman listens to what they have to say. Your plan would not work in this case, mostly because all available income is already spoken for. Oh, and if a business has 500 employees it is no longer a "small business". Lets bring that number down to around 100.

Large businesses on the other hand listen only to the investors. Employees are objects. The board of directors not only does not feel any kinship with the employees, it feels no obligation towards them either. Employees are just numbers in a spreadsheet, expenses on a report given the same weight of concern as garbage disposal and toilet paper. Expenses to be controlled and manipulated. Your plan COULD work here, as most profit is seen as something to be hidden or disguised so it will not be taken by someone else before it can be used to leverage a promotion or raise.

Our problem in the current economic climate is not one with "business" as a whole. Our problem is with large corporations. We need to bring large business back to the reality that people are more important that numbers. We also need to make board members and senior managers PERSONALLY responsible for the actions or inactions of the company. They need have personal responsibility for what the corporation does or does not do. If a corporation pollutes a water, the board goes to jail. If delivery trucks are not maintained and cause accidents the senior managers need to go to prison. The only way to make corporations act responsibly is to demand responsibility.

Yes small business would need to be handled different of course. Your right about the Board being out of touch. They often make corporate policy based on "Numbers or some Business Theory" that becomes a company policy that will never get redacted because no one is ever going to change something that will cost the company profits even if it is bad for the employee's. Bad policy then becomes a "thing" that no one is responsible for. Its just the rules in that book.

No one will change the book not even a new CEO or board of directors if it will cost investors money, no matter how bad the policy is it is just the company policy. The guys who invented the policy have moved on but it is the policy we are stuck with forever.

That's why sharing annual profits with employee's not "shares" just plain ole cash instead of giving it all to investors or executives is the way to go. Policy cant change the profits at the end of year. In fact doing this might inspire employees to find ways to make more profit which would benefit all. Since it would be more income for employee even Fed would get more due to income taxes on the employee being higher. Everyone wins except the investors and executives would get a bit less for free.

a reply to: Xeven

The corporate business model itself is not the problem. The real problem is that our system is designed to appease the highest bidders which ussually are corporations and other special interest groups.

Forget the corporations and focus on the system and how it take s 500 million dollars to run for office. Focus on how lobbyist draft our regulations our elected officials robosign them. Focus on how the corporate MSM controls our running politicians image , and how corporate controlled RNC and DNC decides what pool of candidate we can vote from. Focus on how both corporate controlled MSM and The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) get to decide what topics should be discussed and what candidates should be allowed to talk.

if corporations weren't able to draft our laws they would have to compete with themselves and small start ups and corporate greed would not be allowed to flourish as it does with our Oligopoly industries.

So the issue is not corporation themselves but rather or gov't and how its dependent on the highgest bidder and how it requires corporate advertising and endorsements.

You know what is a better idea than forcing someone (anyone) to do something against their will? Giving them incentives to do it. Why can't the government just offer a tax break to companies that insource their jobs and reinvest into their company, with the highest tax breaks going to investment towards employee compensation? This way, everyone wins. The employees get higher wages and the company doesn't have all its profits stolen by the government.

a reply to: Xeven

A question.

If this would stimulate the economy, and businesses thrive on a good economy, then why haven't they done this before, of their own volition?

So you want to take away half the return on the money I invest in a company...so why would I bother investing in the company then?

a reply to: Xeven

And if the next year comes and the company loses money what then? Do they pony up money to cover the losses or only get money when the company is winning?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
So you want to take away half the return on the money I invest in a company...so why would I bother investing in the company then?

For half the return on the investment of course..or because you like the company, respect the corporation and its business practices, think what they are doing is good for society / will be good for society...oh..right...i see, you're only interested in as much financial reward as possible...got it.

You could always just invest half of what you would have invested...half the return on half the investment would be equal to the full investment then wouldn't it.

Sorted the world out and it's not even 20:00 Hrs....yippeee!

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
So you want to take away half the return on the money I invest in a company...so why would I bother investing in the company then?

For half the return on the investment of course..or because you like the company, respect the corporation and its business practices, think what they are doing is good for society / will be good for society...oh..right...i see, you're only interested in as much financial reward as possible...got it.

You could always just invest half of what you would have invested...half the return on half the investment would be equal to the full investment then wouldn't it.

Sorted the world out and it's not even 20:00 Hrs....yippeee!

So you have never invested in a company have you?

Lemme explain.
I give a company 10k dollars today. This time next year I get an 8% return..yay! I just got $800 dollars. Only $9200 more and I break even! Whoo!
So no, I don't like you wanting half of my return. Cuz then I only got 4%. I might as well stick it under a mattress.