What if we got rid of stocks?
-
At least some of that is tax rates. A few tweaks to unrealized income and losses, capital gains and losses, treatment of dividends, and we can step back from the brink of “financial engineering” and get back to using the profit motive for actual engineering. Basically repeal most of the tax changes since Reagan
Whisper of a dream
-
Oh so now you need a group of people to decide they want to start a business and take out a loan? So right there we've now eliminated small businesses run by a sole trader, yay? So now you need a bunch of people to all put their livelihoods on the line, and as soon as they hire more employees their share of the co-op is diluted while their loan portion is not. Again - yay?
So if one of the original starters quits or is fired from their job, what happens? What happens to their part of the loan? Do they get a payout when they leave? If not, again, why would they ever take the risk?
For the communist question
So there are no communist countries that exist where everyone is equally wealthy and there is no poor underclass and no super rich upper class rulers? That's what it sounds like to me. Hmmm, I wonder why communism has failed literally every time it has been attempted? But I'm sure this time communism would work, right? The others just didn't do it right, right?
Could you explain what financial risk is still there if you make an LLC? My understanding was the whole point of an LLC was to guard someone’s personal assets from risk if the company goes under.
You can't just make an LLC, take out a huge business loan, and then wipe your hands of it if the business the LLC runs goes bankrupt lol.
I don't think your understanding how this works, the loan is on the co-op as an entity, not the individuals. A single person or group of people can form a co-op, just like how they form an LLC. That co-op can then take out a loan just like a company can take out a loan. That loan is the co-ops liability, not any of the members. If any or all of the original members leave that loan will still be on the co-op, the original members will not be responsible.
I think you have a misunderstanding of limited liability in general, per wikipedia:
Limited liability is a legal status in which a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a corporation, company, or joint venture. ... A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any—except under special and rare circumstances that permit "piercing the corporate veil."
So yes you can just make an LLC , take out a huge business loan then leave and wipe your hands of it. The bank knows this and that's why when they give out loans they evaluate whether the company can pay it back, not an individual. The loan will also probably come with stipulations ensuring some sort of corporate governance so you personally can't just drain the company account and walk off with the money. Doing that would be embezzlement.
As for the communist question, were soviet style communist countries perfectly equal, no, but the situation your describing of a poor underclass and super rich upper class rulers is way more reflective of capitalist countries then communist ones. Yes there were high ranking beuracrats at the top but they weren't living in the lap of luxury, the highest ranking soviet officials lived in the house on the embankment where the largest sized unit was 3,200 square feet and the average unit was 2,000 square feet. Compare that to a millionaires mansion in the u.s. Communist societies were far more equal then capitalist societies and the idea that there's some gang of rich exploiters at the top hoarding all the resources is your projection.
-
Our beef supply would vanish overnight
WHERE DID THE COWS GO
-
You just reinvented a Co-Op.
However, at what level does this get enacted?
Does little Tommy's summer lawn cutting "business" with his 3 neighbors as customers need an elected board in order to operate?
If I run a business and need a secretary to take care of some mundane things while I do the actual money making part of the business, doors that secretary suddenly get 50% vote over all decisions?
So to answer your questions
- Depends on how they have their business registered. I once worked at a company that had 7 people total working there, but because it was legally a corporation it had a "board", which was just the 3 guys who owned the company.
- Not necessarily, going back to my previous answer, but there is no legal requirement to sell your stocks when you hire someone. And if you decide to sell stocks you can do a private sale of any amount of the company that you want.
Just because a company is a registered corporation doesn't mean their stocks are sold publicly. But because they are a registered corporation, they have to have a board.
-
aLl ThE rIsK
The owners are risking their fuck-around money. The workers are risking their shelter.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You think everyone that starts a business are rich already?
The people taking the risk by starting the company are the ones risking everything, not the employees that they hire lol
-
Holy crap your effing president is running pump and dump schemes and a lot of politicians made wins on stocks that they Coincidentally sold or bought with the right timing.
Do I need to explain that?
That is blatant misuse of power and conflict of interest.
That's corruption, and it's totally something else, but nevertheless there might be others who had no idea, but had the stock at the right moment, and sold as it was high. So, even in cases where the powerful play, the small ones, if lucky, could massively win.
On the other hand, you had the worlds wealthiest man, being second hand to the most powerful man on the planet, and he lost billions. So... I wouldn't call those that much significant. I bet there are tons of smaller examples where CEO's manipulate the stock of their own company that fly under the radar. But overall, in general, especially if you invest into ETFs (groups of stocks) you will barely notice anything and life goes on as usual. And the usual is 6-8% win per year on average.
-
Ive often seen individuals on the left talking about how billionares shouldnt exist etc., but when probed on how that could be accomplished the answer is usually just taxes or guillotines. I dont think either is great.
What if instead, corporations were made to be unable to be sold or owned. Initially theyre made to default to popular election for their board, and after that they can set up a charter or adopt a standard one, ratified by majority vote of their employees.
Bank collapse would probably follow, how could that be remedied? Maybe match the banks invalidated stocks with bonds?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The "make every company a cooperative" concept has been proposed before. For certain companies it could make sense, but it gets a little tricky when it's anything that needs significant funds to get off the ground.
Corporations were invented for a reason: it creates a mechanism whereby investors can put money in up front in exchange for a share of possible profits once the venture gets going. For example, that makes it possible to build a billion dollar nuclear reactor with 100 staff people who couldn't each pay 10 million dollars.
The mechanism that creates billionaires is only sort of related. Elon Musk, for example, built up his wealth through tangential involvement with a series of really successful companies.
-
Well, if you want to tax billionares out of existance u need a wealth tax, aka unrealized gains.
taxing unrealized gains is just going to force individuals to sell their business to liquidate the cash to pay their taxes. Institutional traders will buy them up, so youre universally taking control out of the hands of people and giving it to banks and hedgefunds, which will just end up owning eachother.
I dont think any billionares exist that made their money in some other way than selling stocks in a business they acquired at a lower value, aside from inheritance or divorce.
Maybe you do implement a wealth tax anyway though, but you do it after abolishing stocks, just to catch the loopholes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]In theory, the banks and funds in question should themselves be owned by ordinary people. As it stands, ordinary-ish people own most things anyway; even as grotesquely rich as billionares are, there's only ~2000 of them known.
I do kind of wonder if you could have a group of companies that buy back all the shares external entities own in them. I can't say if it's ever happened, though.
-
Ive often seen individuals on the left talking about how billionares shouldnt exist etc., but when probed on how that could be accomplished the answer is usually just taxes or guillotines. I dont think either is great.
What if instead, corporations were made to be unable to be sold or owned. Initially theyre made to default to popular election for their board, and after that they can set up a charter or adopt a standard one, ratified by majority vote of their employees.
Bank collapse would probably follow, how could that be remedied? Maybe match the banks invalidated stocks with bonds?
I would be happy of your stocks got a new basis every year. The delta between the old basis an the new basis is ordinary income and you owe taxes based on that income.
-
Well, if you want to tax billionares out of existance u need a wealth tax, aka unrealized gains.
taxing unrealized gains is just going to force individuals to sell their business to liquidate the cash to pay their taxes. Institutional traders will buy them up, so youre universally taking control out of the hands of people and giving it to banks and hedgefunds, which will just end up owning eachother.
I dont think any billionares exist that made their money in some other way than selling stocks in a business they acquired at a lower value, aside from inheritance or divorce.
Maybe you do implement a wealth tax anyway though, but you do it after abolishing stocks, just to catch the loopholes.
You're overthining. There aren't enough billionaires for abstracts like this. Just create specific teams fir evaluating each individual billionaire's due.
-
That's corruption, and it's totally something else, but nevertheless there might be others who had no idea, but had the stock at the right moment, and sold as it was high. So, even in cases where the powerful play, the small ones, if lucky, could massively win.
On the other hand, you had the worlds wealthiest man, being second hand to the most powerful man on the planet, and he lost billions. So... I wouldn't call those that much significant. I bet there are tons of smaller examples where CEO's manipulate the stock of their own company that fly under the radar. But overall, in general, especially if you invest into ETFs (groups of stocks) you will barely notice anything and life goes on as usual. And the usual is 6-8% win per year on average.
That's fine, let's just disagree.
My point besides the corruption would be a massively rigged system.
Yes, you can have wins. But that does not make it better or even - and that was the point before - people who don't use it incapable to do so.They might also want to stay clear from it, wisely.
-
So to answer your questions
- Depends on how they have their business registered. I once worked at a company that had 7 people total working there, but because it was legally a corporation it had a "board", which was just the 3 guys who owned the company.
- Not necessarily, going back to my previous answer, but there is no legal requirement to sell your stocks when you hire someone. And if you decide to sell stocks you can do a private sale of any amount of the company that you want.
Just because a company is a registered corporation doesn't mean their stocks are sold publicly. But because they are a registered corporation, they have to have a board.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The op did not mention only companies that would be publicly sold. It said ALL OWNERSHIP of companies would be banned. So yeah, people can currently register their companies in whatever way they wish, but the op removes all the options that make the most sense for small companies. And I bet your example was just a partnership, and they wanted to feel fancy by calling it a board.
-
The op did not mention only companies that would be publicly sold. It said ALL OWNERSHIP of companies would be banned. So yeah, people can currently register their companies in whatever way they wish, but the op removes all the options that make the most sense for small companies. And I bet your example was just a partnership, and they wanted to feel fancy by calling it a board.
Oh, I didn't see the no ownership thing. Yeah that's dumb haha
-
That's fine, let's just disagree.
My point besides the corruption would be a massively rigged system.
Yes, you can have wins. But that does not make it better or even - and that was the point before - people who don't use it incapable to do so.They might also want to stay clear from it, wisely.
Could be, but in the end, no risk no reward. People who do risk, are the ones who get rewarded.
-
You think everyone that starts a business are rich already?
The people taking the risk by starting the company are the ones risking everything, not the employees that they hire lol
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"Rich" is a relative term. But nobody starts a business when their basic needs aren't already met, because they literally wouldn't be able to. That inherently makes them richer than the job seekers.
-
"Rich" is a relative term. But nobody starts a business when their basic needs aren't already met, because they literally wouldn't be able to. That inherently makes them richer than the job seekers.
People start businesses all the time when their “basic needs aren’t met” because they need to earn money to be able to meet their basic needs.
-
I don't think your understanding how this works, the loan is on the co-op as an entity, not the individuals. A single person or group of people can form a co-op, just like how they form an LLC. That co-op can then take out a loan just like a company can take out a loan. That loan is the co-ops liability, not any of the members. If any or all of the original members leave that loan will still be on the co-op, the original members will not be responsible.
I think you have a misunderstanding of limited liability in general, per wikipedia:
Limited liability is a legal status in which a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a corporation, company, or joint venture. ... A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any—except under special and rare circumstances that permit "piercing the corporate veil."
So yes you can just make an LLC , take out a huge business loan then leave and wipe your hands of it. The bank knows this and that's why when they give out loans they evaluate whether the company can pay it back, not an individual. The loan will also probably come with stipulations ensuring some sort of corporate governance so you personally can't just drain the company account and walk off with the money. Doing that would be embezzlement.
As for the communist question, were soviet style communist countries perfectly equal, no, but the situation your describing of a poor underclass and super rich upper class rulers is way more reflective of capitalist countries then communist ones. Yes there were high ranking beuracrats at the top but they weren't living in the lap of luxury, the highest ranking soviet officials lived in the house on the embankment where the largest sized unit was 3,200 square feet and the average unit was 2,000 square feet. Compare that to a millionaires mansion in the u.s. Communist societies were far more equal then capitalist societies and the idea that there's some gang of rich exploiters at the top hoarding all the resources is your projection.
These communist countries must be thriving then, right? Which ones are they again?
-
Billionaires are definitely a problem. Corrupt public servants are also a problem. We can admit there is more than one problem.
I don't think outlawing the existence of stocks fixes things though.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Billionaires aren’t a problem though. Corrupt politicians being bought by billionaires is a corrupt politician problem, not a billionaire problem.
What problems do billionaires cause by themselves, not via influencing people who shouldn’t be influenced?
-
Billionaires aren’t a problem though. Corrupt politicians being bought by billionaires is a corrupt politician problem, not a billionaire problem.
What problems do billionaires cause by themselves, not via influencing people who shouldn’t be influenced?
The obscene concentration of wealth is bad for the stability of the country. The existence of billionaires is a policy failure. And there's no world where they exist without them being able to influence politicians, rules against it or not. You can't just exclude one of the biggest drawbacks of their existence from criticism
-
The obscene concentration of wealth is bad for the stability of the country. The existence of billionaires is a policy failure. And there's no world where they exist without them being able to influence politicians, rules against it or not. You can't just exclude one of the biggest drawbacks of their existence from criticism
So you agree the problem is really politician corruption, not billionaires.
