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

a reply to: Xeven
So, if I start a business and have 5 employees and I make a profit of 50,000 my first year, I would have to give 25,000 to the employees?

Where is the incentive for me to start a business?

Also, if the business falls on hard times and loses money, do the employees have to absorb their portion of the debt?

a reply to: tinner07

Maybe joining a union isn't the best way to say what you are trying to say or at least I think you are trying to say.

Simply stated if you are not happy with your job simply find a new one you think you might be happy in. Life is to short to be unhappy. Take this from some one who left a very good paying union job with great benefits to go work for considerably less money though still good benefits. Money will not make you happy but working somewhere that makes you happy is worth all the money you stand to lose.

Nopea reply to: Wildbob77

The company that I worked for had a year end bonus plan..
I think they used alot of different things to determine how much they gave each person.
Time spent in the company
How much stock a person would blow on the jobs
Would the person go above and beyond for the company
ect.
We all didn't get the same amount and basically were told not to tell anyone else how much we got.
I was always happy with what I got but have to admit that I did feel a tad bit resentful when about six brand new cars pulled into the parking lot after the christmas break (driven by the longest employed employees).

To me any mandates coming from the gov't should be avoided but if they can't they should be designed so that they would not harm any business. I mean what if the business had a small profit at the end of the year.. Would you like you share of half of it if it meant that you would be out of a job the coming year because your share broke the piggy bank?

The Op is suggesting that the government enact a law that would force companies to give half of their profits to the employees. However the reality would be a much different. The moment that comes out, the first thing that most of the public traded companies would do, is that the shareholders would think about such.

Now some may decide to risk it, in an attempt for bigger profit on the money that they gave and the rest would sell, sell, sell, forcing the stock price of a company to plummet down, way down till its value is next to nothing and pull out their money.

Stocks that are sold are done such on the open market, to people for their money with a rate of return, kind of like putting it in a bank, but rather it means that the rate of return is far greater. By taking money away from the stockholders, you then breach the contract between said company and the stockholders, that will decide to keep pumping money in or withdraw it. The last thing any company wants is a nervous stockholder, cause then they do not invest so much and ultimately can choose to take their business elsewhere.

a reply to: Xeven

If this had been law when I set up a business, i wouldn't have bothered. After all the costs had been paid I made between £15,000 to £20,000 profit each year. my wages were the same as my employees were paid for the actual physical work, my profit paid me for the extra 20 hours per week i worked, meeting clients, pricing up jobs, accounting, advertising, marketing etc.

I also had to be available by telephone 18 hours a day, which meant i couldn't sit and have a glass of wine in the evening, in case a client called.

I could give a very long list unexpected costs that would have been paid out off my profit, hours spent organising, putting right peoples mistakes. The days when a couple of employess would be off sick, the work still had to be done and there would be no warning or time to prepare for the extra 8 hours work I had to cover even if I was sick.

My profit was compensation for the stress of having 100% responsibility. Had the profit been £200,000 a year i would suspect my stress levels would have been x10. Trying living that way, I think you would change your mind.

My employees did benefit from the profit they helped to create, only when i felt it was deserved.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
Yes but the stockholders have the power and purse of the Gov't at the moment don't they??
Isn't that what all the fed printing is going for to ensure their investments are safe and the DOW keeps seeing record profits?

Sorry don't care about the stock market and the effect it might have on the stocks.
It seems the gov't cares so I don't have to!

a reply to: dawnstar

You should care about the stock market weather or not you choose to invest in it. To see the importance of the stick markets all you need to do is open a history book.

The most recent recession or depression depending on who you ask caused by a stock market collapse, the great depression caused by a stock market collapse.

The value of the American dollar is based on the profit of our countries businesses in a publicly traded business the value is derived through the stock prices.

Simply stated if company A's stock started at 102 a share today and dropped to 82 a share at close that is a loss of 20 bucks now multiply that by thousands of shares and sometimes hundred of thousands of shares and your looking at millions and billions of dollars of loss in a single day. Now multiply that by X number of companies sharing multi million or billion dollar losses and our gdp drops causing the American dollar to drop and the next thing you know we are a second or third world nation in a matter of days (based on income to debt ratios) that can take years to dig out of.

So we should care about how the stock market performs as it directly relates to how we live in our day to day lives. That is unless you want the value of the American dollar to be equal to that of the peso or lira in which case just keep on pushing for the rape and pillaging of our nation's private companies.

a reply to: dawnstar
You should care about the stock market. When a company is publicly traded, then it is the stock holders who ultimately have a say in how a business is ran. As long as they have stock in a company, they have a vested interest in said company. Should the stock plunge and after 2 or 3 quarters of such, then most investors tend to sell off that stock. Should that happen, then companies tend to do the next thing, close down shops, and thus lay off people. Companies that fail, first people who get paid are the stock holders, they get their money back. Then those that money is owed to.

And where are the workers, out in the cold, having to rely on the federal government to give them assistance. But it gets better, as many of those same stocks, care to guess where a part of the money comes from? People's pensions and retirement funds that are fed into the market to bring in more money for their retirement. When a business fails, or can not make returns on the stocks and bonds it issues, then they quickly go out of business.

Well I can tell you I wouldn't be working for the government anymore. They just keep making deficits lately ;-p

A labor pool is needed. Got to keep them in debt and in need, keep them on the wheel, on the grind. LOL

a reply to: sdcigarpig

all you say may be true but that is what the plunge protection team is for isn't it??
they'll just keep printing up the money and giving it to their friends who are to then invest it whatever stocks happen to be preferred by the big fishies that day and keep those prices up whatever the true value is or how crappy the business are being run.
Like I said the gov't and feds take care of the stock market so I don't have to be concerned about it.

And quite frankly sooner or later they will have to drop the ball and the whole scam will come crashing down.
Heck we don't even keep most of our money in the bank anymore
why would I trust wall street??

a reply to: dawnstar
Then there is the small business owners, that are out there. These are the people who run non corporation shops and businesses that hire a significant portion of the population. Laws like that may mean that a family business, remains just that a family business, with them not wanting to hire anyone to help them grow. Or a partnership deciding that it can be just the partners and that they do not need the additional staff to assist them. Such legislation is very hampering to the economy.

Sides every time government gets involved in business, it tends to sink that business very quickly, where it ends up being a bigger mess than what it should be. Point in case would be say Amtrak. It is losing money, to the point where it is just about defunct. The government is the last organization that we should look to when it comes to running or determining any sort of business practice.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

from what I've seen I would venture to guess that most of the regulations that are getting passes to protect the people from the big evil corporations are more than likely there to put the small businesses in such bad shape that they are no longer able to compete with the big corps.

This would be a position worth arguing!
The idea that if profit sharing was mandated like the op suggested would somehow put all the employees at risk of liability lawsuits is rather fictitious though and that was my point. The biggest benefit of being a corp is that the owners have no liability whatsoever if the corp is caught doing something it shouldn't be doing! The worse that could happen is that the corp shuts down awhile and comes back with a new name

If companies were forced to share profits the cost of goods and services would increase to make up for the loss of half their profits.

If companies were forced to share profits, would they also be able to share losses?

If companies were forced to share profits, would people also have to share income? Oh, wait...that already happens. Those who work are forced to share with those too lazy to work.

I understand all the capitalist points and they have merit. I also get the stock market and why it is useful to companies. I understand entrepreneurs need incentive in the form of potential great wealth to drive them to create business.

If my idea is not the answer then what would be??

How can we essentially change the law so that workers reap more income rather than the money all flowing to the 1% and executives. It is not my intent to stop the flow of profits from going to the 1% or the owners and even investors. It is my intent to find a way to give workers more of the profit pie and less to the above mentioned entities without putting the difference in the hands of the government first. The middle class needs to grow and needs more income to keep our economy growing. that is just a fact. How can we do this?

If trickle down worked we would not be declining. The 1% already have more than enough cash to create business and jobs with. They just don't do it. They let it sit in investments and banks instead. Which is why the Fed has to keep pumping money into the system.

How to we even the system out so the entire nation can thrive if your working 8 + per day? How?

a reply to: Xeven

Actually, trickle down has not been in effect since some point in time in the 90s. Clinton altered the original trickle down. There is no longer trickle down in effect.

How can there be with manufacturing moving overseas? We no longer have a strong manufacturing base in the US.

Another thing we need to do is make sure any company selling anything in this country pays income tax on the amount sold. Being we are largest consumers they won't be pulling their products from our shelves. It's BS corporations operate here and pay no income tax all the while buying and selling our legislators votes with their massive profits.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: MysterX

"oh..right...i see, you're only interested in as much financial reward as possible...got it. "

Why wouldn't want the maximum return for your money invested? Would you take a huge discount on your home when you're ready to sell it? When your ready to trade in your can and get a new one, do you just give it away for $10.00 or do you get maximum value for the trade in?

"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."

This is what they call pretzel logic.

This. That's the whole point of investing--to maximize return.

a reply to: Xeven

the employers at the present time don't have to worry about paying it's employees a decent wage, the gov't will make up the difference.
they also don't have to worry about charging too much since the gov't will just expand those programs for the poor to i infinity if neccessary to keep things rolling.

they have to somehow bring the minumum wage-income limits to qualify for these programs-actual value of what is given back into line with each other. slowly of course because if you do it too quickly it will cause chaos but well start bringing the minimum wage up a little and the cost of living (by reducing the benefit amounts of those programs) down until it they reach a happy medium.
At least I think that would be a great start!