earnings / profits , the problem is the definitions get abused.
I mean 50% of what is brought in after the liabilities of building , energy , property taxes , materials , and other production costs are covered.
get reinvested in the employees under vice president.
you can take that other 50% and split it 25% to top employees and 25% at building updates and expansion.
everyone walks away from that well paid , business thrives
it's not going to happen because taking care of employees and building them as your biggest resource isn't valued
you can call me a socialist or whatever
I hate government getting into regulating business but it also won't take care of it's employees if it isn't required to in some way.
share holders should get value from the safety of the companies standing and growth when they sell their shares.
they are there to earn profit by lending money as stock and getting paid back in interest when the stocks are sold or repurchased by the company.
How much do you expect a company to grow if now 75% (50% was bad enough!!!!) of its profits are being handed out to employees in addition to the wages the employees agreed to work for? You realize that things like R&D, as well as the literal building of new facilities capable of keeping up with the ever changing technology require HUGE capital expenditures, right? Where do you think the money for that comes from??? It comes from the profits you're wishing to hand out to employees who did nothing to earn them......
So the company........ which you own no part of.... but are gracious enough to allow 25% of the revenue to be reinvested into...... may be able to scrape by on that but they surely will not be able to innovate or expand.
You do realize that investing in the market comes with RISKS right, and that those who invest in companies expect to earn a return that makes it a risk worth taking?
In your scenario, an investor would have to be stupid to invest in a company that's only returns will be based on the tiny amount the company will be able to grow due to strangling labor costs.... anyone with even the most basic knowledge of economics would know it would be much more prudent to instead put their money in no-risk (or almost no risk) options such high yield savings accounts or government securities.
But really, your arguments have just gotten so far out in left field now that I'm finding it hard to even debate this with you.
