Arent they often paid in stock?
Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back.
lemonhead2@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
honestly just cap executive pay. nothing they can do then
jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
krashmo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Define pay such that it includes stocks, bonuses, rebates, real estate, food, clothing, transportation, or any other item that can be exchanged, borrowed against, or otherwise converted to cash money. When they find a loophole just close it.
The problem with this isn’t the concept. It’s getting politicians to implement it.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
It’s a pretty good loophole though. A stocks value is considered an unrealized gain when you receive it but don’t sell it. My company gives me stock, but I don’t sell it. If I had to pay taxes on that, I’d be fucked. Maybe they could create some kind of untaxed minimum based on some index. And possibly even brackets.
But of course there’s a reason they like it this way.
krashmo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Stocks are not a necessary piece of compensation for anyone. Besides, if you can borrow money from a bank using stocks as collateral then it is effectively a liquid asset that you absolutely should pay tax on. The simplest solution to that problem is simply to disallow stocks from being used as collateral.
Every loophole can be closed if we decide we want to. The ones that are still open were intentionally left open to benefit the rich.
Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I think if they handled it in such a way that you borrow against it in any fashion, what you borrow is taxed. Kind of stupid it isn’t that way already, but here we are.
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Except where I live you do actually have to pay taxes on stock you receive as a bonus, if you don’t have the cash on hand, you just liquidate part of the stocks.
ChristerMLB@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Yep, this is one of the reasons we need a tax on wealth. If you’re wealthy enough you can also just borrow against your stocks at very low interest rates.
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Surely the us president will get right on it drafting an executive order!
OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
In fact, let’s just screw the whole thing and seize the means of production…
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Bang up idea, when have you ever seen the government run something correctly/efficiently?
krashmo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There’s tons of examples if you actually care to look. Trash pickup is an easy example. I’ve lived in places where it was managed by the city and places where it was run by private companies. The city always showed up on time and never raised prices without justification.
Guess what the private companies did on a regular basis? And if you want to talk about efficiency let’s consider whether or not it would be better to have four different companies running four sets of trucks on four overlapping routes through the city as opposed to one entity handling the whole thing. The only thing efficient about the private companies running things is the way the money is siphoned off to some rich asshole instead of being managed by accountable local officials.
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If its so efficient why do trash companies exist? I live in a city that has municipal pickup and all my friends that own apartments/restaurants all have private business dumpsters because the city sucks at doing a simple job…
The government needs to stay in its lane and out of business.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
The police and most three letter agencies, when you understand their purpose is to protect the wealthy.
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Works for me.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Who said shit about the government?
We should seize the means of production. Us.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
in other words, steal. i’m actually fine with that if it’s for the greater good. the question is: would it work? do you have any idea how to run a company on that scale? there’s a whole lot of companies that have business connections all around the world. what happens to those? can you handle these connections? what if other companies think that you’re not trustworthy anymore and refuse to do business with you? how do you handle these cases?
also what about money? just that the company is now held by workers does not somehow suddenly make it have much more money. especially grocery stores maybe have 3% profit margins, that means, even if no CEO siphons off wealth, the company’s ability to spend money increases by maybe 3%, so wages could go up 3%. just to inform you, about what’s realistic here. it’s not as if you’re suddenly having a 3x wage increase.
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Good luck with that bub.
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
The difference is that the government has no shareholders or incentive to turn a profit, unlike companies. However it can sell luxury goods at a high price, to subside other goods like food or housing from the markup.
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
No share holder, we are all share holder in the US government if you pay taxes, are you daft?
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
train networks, schools, healthcare, heck even social housing, here in central europe
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
A lot more frequently than I see private industry run something correctly/efficiently.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
It’s not the government who would control the means of production, it’s the workers. In theory they might use a vanguard party to seize it non-violently and then redistribute it, so in that case it may pass through the government’s hands. But that’s not the only way to seize the means of production. When properly done though, it would end up in the hands of the workers, every laborer owning their own tools and equipment so they can work for themselves instead of some faceless corporation.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
USPS?
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
“seize the means of production” as if that’s an easy/good thing to do. then what, the employees own the company? well, not every company turns a profit. what if the company has a bad year? will the employees go hungry? who says that it will turn a profit next year?
Saurok@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Then the employees decide what to do themselves those situations. If it fails it fails, but they would be laid off or not be making money even if they didn’t own the company because their boss wouldn’t be able to pay them.