It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forced trickle down?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I agree with conservatives that we dont need to give the Government any more money. What if there was a law requiring companines and corporations to distribute a minimum % of PROFITS to employees on top of normal wages rather then giving it to the Gov? After employees get paid properly whats left could then be distributed to stock holders. This way working people get paid rather than just some random investor 100001 that does nothing to really help make the profits to begin with? Still have capitalism just force companies to pay the work force thus stimualting purchasing power of workers. Which would then drive up demand on products thus creating more need to manufacture more products. To much money just sitting idle in elitest bank accounts.

I think it all boils down to one thing. We must rig the system to reward work more than investing. The way it has worked investors have won all the money and now the working class can no longer aford to keep the economomy stimulated. There just not enough wealthy people to buy enough goods to keep the economy stimulated. Their money sits in investments and banks while workers money gets spent and drives manufacturing.

I am not against wealthy people at all. Just think the system itself is out of wack and has aloud to much wealth to accumulate to too few people.

Government can't and wont be able to use money to make it work but neither will corporations and elitest. We need to get money into the hands of workers.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Xeven because: Clairify position



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


But we try that, 'minimum wage'......and it takes an act of God to raise it, and when it is raised.....The companies scream bloody hell saying that they just can't afford it......Remember the last fight to raise the min wage, wow.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Good idea though, i have said it a number of times that the companies should actually pay their employees what they are worth.....Pro Sports sure get paid, cough cough, what they are worth....why should any other industry be any different?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Sounds like the Distributist principle of A differential tax



One proposal that has often been made is to use the tax code to encourage small property. That is, to apply a highly progressive or differential tax to large concentrations of property, so that large corporations, with numerous outlets or branches, would be taxed at a much higher rate than small and locally-owned businesses. This would tend to break up such concentrations of property and likewise prevent future centralization. There is nothing wrong in using the tax power of the government to achieve this end, since the purpose of the government is the common good, not the welfare of the rich or of corporations. Private property rights are not absolute, but can and must be made to serve social justice. This is neither Marxism nor any form of socialism, but is firmly sanctioned in our historical tradition, for example, in the teachings of the Catholic Church and in early nineteenth century state regulation of corporations, before the U.S. Supreme Court invented the fiction that corporations deserve the rights of personhood.

Distributist Review
edit on 10/26/11 by FortAnthem because:




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pointr97
 


Minimum wage is an operating cost. what I am talking about is paying employees dividends on profits made before paying investors. If company does not make profit then employee would get his usual wage.Right now investors rather than workers run away with what ever profits a company makes.

I think there should still be some room for investor profits but first workersget rewarded before some rich guy sitting out on his yatch that bought a stock 3 months ago and nothing more.

I just think "work' should brng the highest reward in income and not investing since most investing comes from 1% and most companies outgrow the need for investment capital fairly quickly.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Just for the record here, "random investor" has made a financial contribution to the corporation by investing in them. They take full risk in the investment in most cases (though there are secured investment, which I am not talking about here.) If the company goes belly up or has massive losses, that investor's investment is lost and the investor is left holding devalued stock. The entire reason for the investment is to see a return on it, either via higher stock prices at the selling table or through a dividend. Cut into the dividend and investors will go directly to foreign investments.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join