How we can fix the economy and help both the rich and the poor at once

TSLexi said:
Once again, hurting the successful rich people doesn't help the poor. Don't penalize people for being successful. You don't want to limit profits. Companies with more money can spend more on benefits.

Protectionism is bad for everyone. If a company can get it's products made cheaper in China than in America, the consumer wins because they pay less for equivalent quality. What you're saying is that you want everyone to pay higher prices for things. There is not a fixed amount of work available, the amount and type of work change as the economy changes.

Please read my original post again. I am arguing for the replacement of all taxes with a land and IP value tax, the elimination of minimum wage, and mandatory employer-funded pension funds and health insurance.
More...


i doubt it would "hurt the rich". how many ceos have more money than they can spend?

thats why you need to put caps in place. the only reason consumers get hurt is because companies want to maintain a certain % of growth, which for some is not necessary. The reason why they want growth, is to make up for the raises that they give their employees, who in turn only want raises to keep up with the economy. its a cycle.

Think about it, the rich can do with 1/2 million less. Youre not limiting their growth per se, but more so tying their wealth to a certain multiple of quality jobs that they produce. For example, why should a ceo make 1 billion dollars, while most of their employees are failing to even make it above the poverty line? look at the multiples 50 years ago. CEO's used to make 10x more (theres a stat out there, not sure where, i think its in the documentary inequality) and now ceos are worth 100x more. how is that fair?

you arent penalizing, youre aligning their goals with helping people who arent there yet. Im not saying we all need to be millionaires, but is it possible to have(at least in the north america) a living wage of 35k a year? Im prettty sure we can. for instance, if you say make $10 per person hired because they generate x revenue, then your income growth would be aligned with employment growth.

Hiw many ferraris do you need? how many mansions do you need to be happy?
 
You do realize most executive compensation isn't cash, it's stock and stock options.

No, the reason companies want growth is because if a company doesn't grow it's deemed to not be operating efficiently. They are responsible to their shareholders, not their employees. Employees are free to buy shares. In Germany, employee representatives are on the board.

We shouldn't try to make work for people. That misallocates resources and is very inefficient. A company is not the federal government, it cannot create revenue to pay it's costs.

We should tax only land and IP value, allowing us to eliminate the IRS and most of customs, and we also need to cut the salaries of politicians, who are completely useless to society except by encouraging rent-seeking behavior. Then we can give that extra money to every citizen.
 
Im not disagreeing with what youre suggesting, i just disagree with your belief that companies dont have responsibility to their employees. they do. without the employees you have no company. we need to get away from this "zero sum game" ideology. Companies wouldnt need shareholders if they were operating efficiently to begin with, so thats another part of the problem. Companies sell shares to acquire cash for growth, so essentially they are going in debt. This is a whole other can of worms btw.

So if a company is not deemed operating efficiently, then what? their shares tank. this shouldnt affect the bottom line if they were Actually operating efficiently.

this infinite growth is not sustainable, and with the growing differences between rich and poor, we are beginning to see why.

we need to move to a closed loop system where our outputs = our inputs and where there is balance for the rewards we reap.
 
TSLexi said:
Also, you must have been a very poor entrepreneur if your factory didn't make enough revenue to cover the land value tax.
More...
well, your tax plan doesn't encourage me to improve my building. Try again. How about a square foot property tax. I pay the same on a vacant lot or a factory, so why not build? Use it or lose it.
 
crayon851 said:
Im not disagreeing with what youre suggesting, i just disagree with your belief that companies dont have responsibility to their employees. they do. without the employees you have no company. we need to get away from this "zero sum game" ideology. Companies wouldnt need shareholders if they were operating efficiently to begin with, so thats another part of the problem. Companies sell shares to acquire cash for growth, so essentially they are going in debt. This is a whole other can of worms btw.

So if a company is not deemed operating efficiently, then what? their shares tank. this shouldnt affect the bottom line if they were Actually operating efficiently.

this infinite growth is not sustainable, and with the growing differences between rich and poor, we are beginning to see why.

we need to move to a closed loop system where our outputs = our inputs and where there is balance for the rewards we reap.
More...

Companies prefer to issue shares rather than bonds because shares are equity and don't require a company to pay interest. Equity is cheaper than debt.

Issuing shares is how companies get money to fund their operations.

I know of plenty of companies who treat their employees well because they add value to the company. I also know of plenty of companies without employees because they don't need them.

Companies have a responsibility to their employees, but they take a backseat to shareholders and creditors. Why? Because they invested and loaned capital to the company so the company can operate. Without investment, their is no job market. You do realize employees can easily buy shares, right?
 
TSLexi said:
Companies prefer to issue shares rather than bonds because shares are equity and don't require a company to pay interest. Equity is cheaper than debt.

Issuing shares is how companies get money to fund their operations.

I know of plenty of companies who treat their employees well because they add value to the company. I also know of plenty of companies without employees because they don't need them.

Companies have a responsibility to their employees, but they take a backseat to shareholders and creditors. Why? Because they invested and loaned capital to the company so the company can operate. Without investment, their is no job market. You do realize employees can easily buy shares, right?
More...
youre telling me things i already know, i just dont agree with them and there are better ways. selling shares to be used to make more money is not necessary if the company is already doing well and growing. If a company cant operate from its own profits/revenues, then it really shouldnt be in business. it goes against the fundamentals of whats taught in how to operate a business.

wouldnt it sound a bit off if your business had to constantly take out loans to pay for its operations?
 
Also, inputs equalling outputs is the textbook definition of a zero-sum game. No wealth or value is being created, things are just being shuffled around.

Selling shares doesn't mean you are going into debt, because you have no requirement to pay the money back.
 
crayon851 said:
youre telling me things i already know, i just dont agree with them and there are better ways. selling shares to be used to make more money is not necessary if the company is already doing well and growing. If a company cant operate from its own profits/revenues, then it really shouldnt be in business. it goes against the fundamentals of whats taught in how to operate a business.

wouldnt it sound a bit off if your business had to constantly take out loans to pay for its operations?
More...
Selling shares is not issuing debt!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top