partial_accumen

They are literally the only ones that do that. Owners do nothing, they only extract profits.

I had a long post typed out responding point by point (with sources cited!) to your post. I nearly got to the end and realized my detailed and topical points were wasted here when I considered what you posted with the line above.

I don’t believe we will be able to have meaningful exchange of ideas if you’re holding the above belief. I don’t have the energy or faith I would be able to change your mind on your belief which would be an absolute requirement for your consideration of any proposals I have made. Thank you for your time discussing this up to now. Have a great day!

In that vein, I’m curious why Canada is still adhering to any aspects of the USMCA that benefit the USA and not Canada. Intellectual Property restrictions was one of the main sacrifices that Canada made. If the benefits of tariff free trade isn’t being respected, why is Canada still enforcing the IP restrictions? It seems like a good place for Canada to make up lost revenue from US imposed tariff.

This has nothing to do with who is liable for what.

Thats my point. The proposal here is not taking any responsibility for liability. It is proposing to give away the benefits of ownership to workers (of companies that many not have the capacity for it to be given away), without those workers also having any kind of responsibility to keep the company going.

I think you may be assuming for this discussion that all businesses are in a mature stage and profitable. That isn’t the case for probably most businesses. Many are still in startup mode where there isn’t a profit to be seen for years. Others are are either past profitability or never achieved it and are on the decline. So with further liquidity pulled out as compensation to employees, it can kill the business before it grows up or give it an early death from lack of liquidity to make it through lean times.

Not even now the capitalist owners are individually and directly liable for losses.

…and…

The corporation just declares bankruptcy.

That is incorrect.

You may not be aware, but lots and LOTS of losses usually occur to a company before bankruptcy occurs. Any capital put into the business is lost even with an LLC. The LLC simply means that the losses are contained to only the assets of the company.

Also I’m interested in solving wealth inequality. I’d prefer the 1940’s style income tax with the insanely high brackets at the extreme high end (90% tax was it?)

I have some followup questions your ideas.

1. Workers are getting an ownership stake. Are workers also liable when the company loses money? Today this only falls on the owner. If there is a negative cashflow situation, the owner has to inject more of their own money into the operation or the business will close. Many times this money comes from cash earned during fat times to be able to keep the company afloat during the lean times. If workers are taking a portion (above and beyond payroll of course) of the profits during fat years, will they also be liable for fronting cash to keep the business going in a lean year?

2. I support the end of lobbying. No notes.

3. Are you talking about loans from governmental organizations like the city/state/fed intending to spur development or are you talking loans issued by banks? I assume bank loans, correct me if I’m wrong. If that’s the case we’d be setting laws on how one private organization can lend to another. My understanding of regulations on loans to date have only enabled loans to classes wrongfully historically excluded (such a loans denied to minorities under Redlining rules). I’m not finance expert, but can’t think if any laws that disable a banks ability to lend. Sure there are rules around maintaining bank liquidity and nonusurious interest rates, but those are just qualifications instead of ourtight bans of loans. This would be a new precedent wouldn’t it?

4. "There is nothing stopping him from withdrawing 100,000 in contributions a year, and distributions are tax free with literally no oversight. " Wouldn’t that $100k be counted as income and the owner to pay income tax on that? Are you making an example of a way that corporate taxes are not being paid?