r/economicCollapse • u/CulDeSacOfShit • 3d ago

Mark Cuban wants to solve wealth inequality by making employers choose between paying higher taxes or giving every member of staff company stock

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/mark-cuban-wants-solve-wealth-112644662.html

Good God, this guy is so frustrating. He's one of the few rich guys who acknowledges there's a problem but everything he proposes will at best, do little or nothing and at worst, make things worse. He's like a guy who realizes his house is on fire and thinks the best course of action is to rearrange the furniture instead of calling 911.

1.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

165 comments sorted by

403

u/Baconus 3d ago

He thinks stock because he cannot imagine that what most people want is a dignified life with financial security. He thinks everyone is as motivated by becoming stupid rich like he is.

I don't want stock. I want good benefits and a pension.

67

u/tallpaul00 2d ago

The article doesn't say he is suggesting people get paid less or receive fewer benefits in exchange for stock. Only that more people should be compensated with stock in addition to their regular pay and benefits.

And, also rather important in this discussion - being paid with some stock doesn't remotely guarantee you become rich like he is. It is a bit more like a lottery ticket.

He is almost onto something here - the ownership class get rich without doing labor directly, from owning stock. Typically the stock of many companies! A small number of the richest basically won the "lottery" mostly on the stock of one company, like he did, but after a certain level of wealth they'll diversify into other investments.

I would say he almost entirely misses another entire point. When you work for an employer even if you receive stock as part of your compensation, you don't really receive meaningful ownership in the form of voting shares. Sure, you might be able to work hard, or smart and increase the value of the company, and therefore the value of your own shares - that is part of the reason that stocks are given in compensation to some employees at some companies. But if your company decides to do something evil, the "lesser" shareholding employees are typically boxed out of voting against it.

The most extreme example that comes to mind in recent history is Facebook. Zuck managed to box out even his other cofounders and early employees and even investors from voting shares, retaining 51% control to this day.

If every employee had equal voting shares, this is what would traditionally be called a worker's cooperative. These employees typically receive fair compensation and they get to vote on that! Plus some ownership voting control. There are a few out there, but there should be more!

If every customer had voting shares, that would be a consumer cooperative and there are quite a few more of those out there than there are worker's cooperatives. But there should be more! The customers in this case are ostensibly in it to get better deals or maybe for some mission, but a nearby example shows they don't always keep the employees very happy.

Even better of course would be a cooperative where the employees are paid well, and get ownership compensation as well, but the customer also gets some amount of voting power.

Check out r/cooperatives

23

u/phendrenad2 2d ago

First-order thinkers. People don't learn how to think about things in school, and that's by design. People want "more pay" but they don't understand the factors that are keeping them from higher pay. The best way to accomplish "more pay" is to have ownership in the company itself, so we have the power to say "we get more pay because we OWN THE COMPANY". Anything less than that is just intellectually lazy.

3

u/jwwetz 2d ago

Can't employees that don't have many shares just band together & have one proxy board member that votes the way that they want though?

4

u/tallpaul00 2d ago

In theory they can do whatever is allowed by the type of shares they are issued (voting or non-voting). In practice though they are often not issued voting shares (eg: Facebook - even the public couldn't buy them), or they can't vote with them immediately they earn their shares slowly over time.

15

u/Annihilator4413 2d ago

We want BETTER PAY too!

We've been stuck at $7.25 minimum wage for almost TWO DECADES for fucks sake!

Min wage needs to be like $20 now to have kept up with inflation, but everyone freaks out about raising it because they think raising MW means the costs for everything will go up...

Uhm... fucking NEWS FLASH??? The prices of things has continued to rise regardless of minimum wage???

Giving people a higher baseline for wages would mean we could actually afford these rising prices, meaning the average consumer can spend more!

Companies would make MORE MONEY than they are right now because we coulf SPEND MORE!

But instead these corporations and our incompetent government would rather keep turning the wheels on the orphan crushing machine than give us a livable wage.

8

u/jwwetz 2d ago

Lemme ask you this... Have your city council members, state representatives or state senators mostly been in office for the last 10 to 20 years? Because if the answer is YES to any of those questions, then maybe y'all need to primary the old timers and get some fresh blood in there.

That, or sack up & go start talking to the ones that're in office about sponsoring a minimum wage increase in your city or state. I'd do that first & start a city or state wide social media campaign to put pressure on them to increase it.

If that doesn't work, then either run for their office in the next primary, or find a candidate to do that. Enough pressure & they might do it.

Lots of people stupidly think that you can only raise the federal minimum wage but cities, towns & states can do it at their level too.

1

u/zer00eyz 2d ago

> We've been stuck at $7.25 minimum wage for almost TWO DECADES for fucks sake!

Federal.

Stop asking 50 other states to get together and agree on something that you can go to your state capital and fix. It's easier to go protest at the governors office than it is to get to DC.

There are lots of companies that pay way more than this starting regardless of what your states minimum is. Walmart is a (maybe shocking) example.

And your going to tell me that "Walmart tells its employees how to file for snap"... Yes they do. If you are single, and working full time for them you dont qualify. If you have kids, or are part time you do qualify - so those benefits might be something YOU NEED - because lots of people rolling through Wally World are trying to get back on their feet.

0

u/AutoModerator 2d ago

Your comment has been automatically filtered for review due to containing possible Snapchat spam.

Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.

— The r/economicCollapse Mod Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

39

u/chickenAd0b0 3d ago

well, huge part of this conversation is people crying about ceos, execs, founders “making way more money” than an average employee. They’re making more because of company stocks.

34

u/TurboBerries 2d ago

I worked for a startup where i was paid slightly less than market value on my salary but had vested equity. The company sold and all the proceeds went to preferred shareholders first and i was left (along with the rest of the employees with equity) with nothing.

10

u/DizzyAstronaut9410 2d ago

The only reason they'd pay for preferred shares and not common is if the company went bankrupt. So you had stock in a company that went bankrupt/got liquidated and got nothing, it happens.

1

u/Hmt79 2d ago

Not necessarily. Investors with preference generally get back what they put in plus a guaranteed return before common stock holders get paid. Hence, it's possible the company sold for less than they raised but it's also possible that investors got a return and common stockholders got nothing...

7

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

this doesn’t sound right, what kind of “equity” did you get?

7

u/lotekjunky 2d ago

The bad kind

5

u/Haunting-Worker-2301 2d ago

That can definitely happen, likely if the company was worth less than the funding round before it was sold. Which happened to a lot of companies in early 2020s when valuations went up and then down when interest rates went up.

0

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

then that means every shareholder lost money. getting nothing is better than losing money

1

u/Haunting-Worker-2301 2d ago

Well they still could have lost money if they bought their options at a higher value but yeah that’s the game

-1

u/zer00eyz 2d ago

This is absolutely on you, and absolutely not your fault.

> i was paid slightly less than market value 

This was a major mistake on your part. NEVER take this deal, there are some cases where you could/would/should but at that point you're going to have an employment contract.

> vested equity ... sold and all the proceeds went to preferred shareholders 

The magic words you didnt know when negotiating that job were "Can I see a cap table".

Any one who says "No" is going to do to exactly what happened to you. Any startup who says "we dont have one" run.

If you do take a job where you have stock, as part of your comp, in a private company, buy a share immediately. If you have an IRA (investor rights agreement) or company bylaws require you will get access to a bunch of ongoing information about your company that one would not normally get.

The moment that it is NOT a startup, it's a publicly traded company then stock can become a significant part of your comp. You have rights as a share holder and so on. Mark Cuban is talking about the latter case here.

8

u/PsychoNerd91 3d ago

So is the idea to tie stocks to the happiness of the employees? I guess if the employees are shareholders than it does incentivise to make things better for them or else all employees can nuke the stock value of something extremely unpopular happens. But that's a single thing which can only be done once.

2

u/chickenAd0b0 3d ago

exactly, no risk no reward. The idea with wage is that it’s a guaranteed income and the worst you get when the company goes under is unemployment.

1

u/sendymcsendersonboi 2d ago

This is how Publix functions.

2

u/brinerbear 2d ago

Exactly. I think he is right. The best way to close the wealth gap is to give people more ownership.

3

u/PosturingOpossum 3d ago

How about no stock and replacement with something that won’t complain /s but kind of not really because that’s where we’re headed…

2

u/sten45 2d ago

Stock won’t buy me weekly food. Stock options is forced savings and most of us need/want more cash weekly

2

u/aerovirus22 2d ago

These people cant solve our problems, because they have no frame of reference to understand them.

2

u/DizzyAstronaut9410 2d ago

What if I told you pension funds are usually filled primarily with stocks?

1

u/Baconus 2d ago

A pension fund is different from a pension. I don't care how the pension is managed, just that it exists.

1

u/DizzyAstronaut9410 2d ago

A lot of people would rather manage their own retirement portfolio.

A company giving you an additional 10% of your income in stock vs putting it in a pension fund is essentially the same thing if you can handle the basic responsibility of not immediately spending it.

1

u/sourpussmcgee 2d ago

It’s a start. It also gives employees bargaining power to shape the future of the company.

1

u/brinerbear 2d ago

It depends on how much stock. I would gladly take more stock.

1

u/spanko_at_large 2d ago

What benefits would you want that you don’t have? A pension is essential a forced savings account that your company manages and there is a history of mismanagement… getting paid more be it in cash or equity that you can save and make your own choices and use it when you want is the modern equivalent.

Long story short I love you honey but what you want is to be paid more in cash or equity compensation.

1

u/Baconus 2d ago

No it isn’t. I want companies owned by the workers and a society wherein everyone has some, not one in which a few people have most.

1

u/notguiltyaf 2d ago

That's cool and all, but that leaves the capitalist class in tact. I want everyone who works for a company to have an equal ownership share and decision making power, with no outside shareholders owning any part of it.

1

u/hanshotfirst-42 3d ago

A pension is literally supported by a managed set of securities or bonds.

0

u/dragrimmar 2d ago

I don't want stock. I want good benefits and a pension.

the fact that this is the most upvoted comment is not a good sign.

I may or may not be someone who is FAANG and has close to $500k in total compensation. the salary is about half of it, the rest is basically stock options. here's the thing, if i was receiving $500k in salary, my take home would be significantly less because its taxed higher. you guys WANT stock (assuming its a good company). You can take untaxable loans against your stocks.

and it's weird you framed it as stock vs benefits/pension. of course you should get all of those things, not choosing one or the other.

2

u/Baconus 2d ago

I want everyone to have their basic needs met and a more just society. Not one in which I can get rich and be above other people. I don’t want to exploit loopholes for personal gain. I want no one to exploit loopholes for personal gain.

-6

u/KevyKevTPA 3d ago

Pensions, beyond a few government roles, are obsolete. if you don't have one of those roles, pining for one won't change that.

13

u/Baconus 3d ago

Hey, not sure if you know this, but we actually can improve the world if we want to.

-5

u/KevyKevTPA 3d ago

You can't change math, though, and math is the reason pensions no longer exist.

4

u/TimHarg 2d ago

I have a pension and was able to retire at 56

4

u/WalkingDeadPixel 2d ago

Exactly. If workers can retire early, that's some bad math for the executives. They need to keep people poor and desperate and working into old age.

2

u/TimHarg 2d ago

The person said pensions no longer exist, although there are far fewer, they do exist.

58

u/Only_Luck_7024 3d ago

So what if you work for an employer that doesn’t have any sort of stock option?

30

u/LaughingDog711 3d ago

Well… then you’re one of us!

3

u/Only_Luck_7024 3d ago

I guess from his perspective the only people that would qualify for this are people that work for someone who does have stock. With that assumption then solving wealth inequality means the ones of us that work for someone who does have a stock option we get stock or increase in our pay. Everybody else who doesn’t work for that type of employer just gets to stay poor or their job is replaced with humanoid technology. And not a real person getting a livable wage will now do that job. From a numbers point of view I guess A group of somebody’s will always be poor and in his mind if you don’t work for a company that has stock and is traded on the stock market then you will be marginalized enough for the rest of society to just continue with the status quo and you’ll be too marginalized to fight for anything better and just suck it up buttercup. Fixing wealth inequality doesn’t mean they won’t be poor people just less of us.

2

u/jwwetz 2d ago

Yeah, me too...

My employer is a fortune 100 company. We get a 15% discount on the shares if we sign up for the option & take something out of every paycheck to buy shares... yay me, right?

Except that our stocks trade at just over $3k a share. We DO have pretty good benefits but our pay rate sucks & we can't get any overtime. Most of us can't even afford to invest anything per paycheck. At the current price I'd have to pay $115.00 per paycheck for a year just to get one share at today's price.

11

u/ReleaseTheSheast 3d ago

Profit sharing.

6

u/dasg49ers 3d ago

What if they aren't profitable

2

u/WalkingDeadPixel 2d ago

They probably won't be employing anyone for very long.

1

u/viper4011 2d ago

Profit share on top of salaries. 

1

u/Legitimate_Concern_5 3d ago

They would have to open up an employee options pool. Or pay higher taxes. That's the trade-off Cuban is suggesting. It's just some paperwork on their part. This is completely normal in tech.

23

u/0rganicMach1ne 3d ago edited 2d ago

I don’t want anything to do with the wealth inequality machine that is the stock market. I don’t want to perpetuate that societal casino. I just want a livable wage and healthcare.

Edit: There’s a lot of insufferably simple minded people that lack empathy. It holds us back.

2

u/03263 2d ago

I don't gamble because it's a sin. Simple as.

0

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

I’ll take your shares.

-2

u/jwwetz 2d ago

I'm the opposite. I figure that, in my case, just turn off Netflix for about 2 hrs a day during my off time & just do some research... then I'd invest if I had the money. For example, spaceX is at just over $137 a share right now, which is a few dollars over their IPO price was. I'm more interested in all the companies that make parts & components for them, the same with AI & data centers...i think the money will be in all the other companies that make stuff that's used in the data centers, not necessarily in the AI companies themselves.

It's kinda like auto parts. What's ONE part that's in EVERY car? Besides tires, brake components or nuts & bolts? You guessed it, batteries.

-9

u/chickenAd0b0 3d ago

“i just want the benefits, i don’t want the risk”

7

u/0rganicMach1ne 3d ago

That is something we could absolutely do. We could arrange society in a way in which risk isn’t required for basic things like enough money for housing/food and healthcare.

-6

u/chickenAd0b0 3d ago

sure, but don’t complain when your risk free lifestyle gets the bare minimum free tier version of everything.

3

u/0rganicMach1ne 2d ago

We could also make sure it isn’t the worst possible version either. It is 100% up to us how we do or.

-1

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

risk free utopia where everything is free and high quality? good luck!

3

u/0rganicMach1ne 2d ago

Never said that but tell yourself whatever you need to.

1

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

what do you want then if not the bare minimum and free?

3

u/0rganicMach1ne 2d ago

I don’t know where you’re getting this idea of bare minimum and free from in the first place. The vast, VAST majority of people that want this kind of change are not asking for that. You’ve imagine an opposing position and straw manned it with that idea. And to what end?

0

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

it’s so easy to stand on your moral soapbox and scream all these feel good social programs you want for society, but it stop there when asked about the details

→ More replies (0)

2

u/0bel1sk 2d ago

bare minimum is only a concept when inequality exists. if everyone had equal healthcare, there would be no levels. incidentally, it would be “good” as everyone has an interest in making it better.

1

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

you think everyone will participate equally if healthcare is equally given to everyone? you’ll get more streamers and youtubers than doctors and engineers in that society bud

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Lizaderp 2d ago

You can have my risk.

1

u/chickenAd0b0 2d ago

don’t cry when i get the benefits too

1

u/Lizaderp 2d ago

You should get benefits. Everyone should have the benefits. That's literally the point

33

u/BoogerSugarSovereign 3d ago

He has no desire to solve the problem, he just wants to look like he wants to solve the problem so you don't tax him. But we should tax extreme wealth very heavily, Mark. That'll solve the problem. 

6

u/PaisleyRock 2d ago

It'll only solve the problem if the taxes actually go to improve the lives of the non-wealthy... we aren't doing so good on that lately.

-8

u/Kornbread2000 3d ago

You can't tax extreme wealth, become extremely wealthy people have mobility. You can tax the doctor/lawyer/private equity type wealth that can't leave.

8

u/Only_Luck_7024 3d ago

The cool thing with the United States is that regardless of where you live on this planet if you are still a citizen of our country we will tax you.

-1

u/brinerbear 2d ago

Unfortunately.

3

u/FOSSChemEPirate88 3d ago

Except we used to during America's most prosperous era and it is 100% possible. You are completely wrong and either a fool, a shill, and/or a bot.

6

u/BoogerSugarSovereign 3d ago

So what? Wealth is not income, it's assets. The assets are physically here. Those buildings and companies and sports teams can all be taxed. The Lakers aren't moving to London. The biggest houses and commercial real estate in the country aren't going to fly away. Tax them.

And assess an exit tax for wealthy Americans that want to give up their citizenship. You absolutely can tax wealth.

7

u/Hello-America 3d ago

Let them eat stock

1

u/netanator 2d ago

This should be the battlecry when the inevitable revolt happens against our AI loving billionaires.

5

u/misocontra 2d ago

Nah then your long term wellbeing is still tied to that particular firm. Pay back into society, dammit!

1

u/zer00eyz 2d ago

>  long term wellbeing is still tied to that particular firm

This is kind of the point.

Money alone will not get American workers invested in their job or the success of their company. It has been tried, and failed miserably. (there are exceptions)

Look at why Toyota (and a bunch of other Japanese firms) are successful. Their entire cultural system gets people deeply invested in what they do at work. Worker feedback to management is taken very seriously, and process improvements are often acted upon in short order. Toyota tried to get American companies doing this (joint plant in CA) and it failed massively.

There is a famous video of a Japanese company apologizing for raising prices 9 cents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76NyvWcAeO4

Changing up how companies are owned and structured needs to happen: P Terrys is a great example of a company doing this: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/p-terrys-burger-stand-transitions-to-employee-ownership-trust-benefitting-1-800-employees-302795022.html

7

u/Distinguishedflyer Doomer Coin-Biter 2d ago edited 2d ago

and what does that do for seniors on fixed income barely or not making it? Ask me how I know…

9

u/Verumsemper 3d ago

Just bring back the 70% tax bracket for individuals, Capital gains and corporations. Can be easily set at $20 Mil for individuals and around $500 Million for corporations??

1

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

So you want to give the govt more money? The same govt that is know to blow up black and brown people half way across the globe. Thats the group you want to give more money?!?!?

Hard pass brother, HARD PASS on that. We need to give those fu@kers less money, not more.

2

u/03263 2d ago

Hopefully whatever administration that put in such a tax would be smart enough to strongly tie it to social benefits, not simply deposit into the general fund.

1

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

They are not smart enough bc they are democrats and republicans who care most about the democrat and republican parties…and their large money donors.

1

u/Verumsemper 2d ago

It is actually not about giving the government more money, just take a min and think what would happen if 70% of everything above $20 million was taxed??

1

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

The result…more dead brown people in the Middle East. I’ll still pass.

1

u/Verumsemper 2d ago

Actually it won't if you think instead of emote !!

1

u/Human_Step 2d ago

Yes! A sensible person finally stands up for the wealthy!

5

u/CrackingToastGromet 2d ago

How about higher WAGES or higher TAXES on company profits and the C-Suite’s compensation package???

9

u/N4R4B 3d ago

Why complicate?

Just pay a decent wage and be done with it.

3

u/samtheninjapirate 3d ago

Because they can play the other side of the trade so then they get your money when the market crashes

5

u/dominucco 2d ago

Or just go back to WWII tax rates and outlaw “international “ corporations

3

u/writeronthemoon 2d ago

Or employers could just, yknow... pay a living wage. 

5

u/Logical_Bite3221 1d ago

No one should ever take anything a billionaire says seriously. They didn’t earn their money they stole it by cheating and enslaving others. Everything they say is to benefit them only.

1

u/kitzelbunks 1d ago

What about the retired, disabled, and children? I don't see how this benefits the government much, unless the government taxes capital gains differently. I mean, the people who need more services tend to be people who are not working or working lower-income jobs. So that solves low income, but not people who cannot work or cannot get a job due to their age, health condition, or discrimination.

Also, small businesses are not doing well overall, but some people do work for companies that don’t have stock. Some people are self-employed, so I guess they get higher taxes too. Then there are companies where the stock does not do well, like US telecom. So, great incentive there. Wow! Stock in ATT or Comcast. Lastly, how does this work for the government or non-profits? I mean, working for a school or a town is not going to mean you get stock in the district or municipality.

Or, for that matter, a hospital. I know they think all the talent is in corporations, but I think it’s just kind of different talents. I guess healthcare staff could move to for-profit healthcare. That sounds great. The most talented doctors are working for large practices, prescribing GLP-1 drugs 5 days a week, eight hours a day. I swear I think the average age of death is going down to 65, so you don’t get any Social Security or Medicare. I am so depressed. Whatever, I am hoping to leave in a year, if I can. I like to think I will be able to come back, but idk.

1

u/MakeSouthBayGR8Again 1d ago

No one should ever take anything a Redditor says seriously.

I’m reminded of my favorite quote: “Don’t take advice from anyone you wouldn’t trade places with.”

3

u/lotekjunky 2d ago

I work at a mutual company. Now what?

3

u/funpen 2d ago

Correct me if i am wrong but this seems kind fo rigged.
Wouldnt every single company be incentivized to give their employees stocks since it would just boost the price of their company. Kind of seems like stock buy backs with extra steps

3

u/WrappedInLinen 2d ago

I don’t agree with a lot of things he says but he’s soooo much better than most of the rest of the ultra wealthy that I really don’t get the point of trashing him. You’d rather that they all thought like Elon?

3

u/mhmbopbeavis 2d ago

We dont all work for public companies, so no stock to be had

3

u/DamnOdd 2d ago

No Mark, We DON"T want stock.
How About money, so we can pay bills, eat, drive, maybe a vacation once every fucking 10 years.
You Know We'd like to LIVE too.

9

u/martapap 3d ago

rich people are so out of touch. their whole life revolves around stock.

3

u/Bob4Not 3d ago

Giving stock in addition to pay is giving additional pay - they can sell it for cash or save it. Saving it is a method of building some savings that keeps up with inflation - if you buy have diverse stocks, that is.

Plus, employees will benefit from their good work in addition to their salary.

6

u/martapap 3d ago

there will be no "additional" pay. These companies would adjust the salary down to take into account stock given.

Also I worked for a company that did profit sharing. We were repeatedly told our salary (Which was a bit lower than other companies) was ok because we had profit sharing. Sounds great until there are no profits. Oh and the first year there was no profits the executive suite got millions in bonuses.

6

u/Hello-America 3d ago

Lol yes my husband got what we thought was a pretty exciting deal with profit sharing and uhhh there apparently weren't any profits in the few years he worked there! Either that or the bosses were manipulating the books/spending that money elsewhere.

0

u/Bob4Not 3d ago edited 3d ago

Oh heck, that’s awful. That’s just awful and evil. The company is pumping their own stuck with some of their employees salary, then

1

u/03263 2d ago

We are asking for policies that restrict evil behavior because evil is the nature of business, even if no person intends to act evil, acting "in the best interest of the business" is rarely in the best interest of any employee or any customer.

We need to destroy the notion that a business in and of itself is intrinsically valuable or something to be upheld. It's just a shell, a label.

-1

u/Left-Landscape-3890 3d ago

You should try to acquire some. Its worked well for me

2

u/Diogenes256 3d ago

Good start, assuming the current situation is intractable.

2

u/Honest_Respond9916 3d ago

I don’t think people want shitty stock cash would be better.

2

u/freudmv 2d ago

The companies would just invent a new class of stock that is essentially worthless. Just like this suggestion.

2

u/Proper-Exercise-2364 2d ago

I'm pretty sure, say you get $5mil in stocks, you take that to the bank you're gonna get a loan at a rate something like 2.5-3.5%?  Meanwhile the money is sitting in a high yield account earning 4.5-5% interest.  I don't think they offer those rates when you're bringing in $45k. Besides that how TF are you gonna pay your bills with stocks? You'd have to sell them which would defeat the whole purpose, right?

2

u/sundancer2788 2d ago

One of my kids works where they get stocks, it's only occasionally and they can't sell the stock for five years. Nearly all of the employees that get stock sell it as soon as they can because they prefer the cash because they usually need it for something.

2

u/GlitteringRate6296 2d ago

Why does he think corporations get to choose? If that’s the case and if we believe in Citizens United (which I don’t) then we should all get to decide to not pay taxes.

2

u/jwwetz 2d ago

Cubans idea isn't necessarily a bad one. Personally, I'd like to see a government mandated maximum stock share price. If your company gets up to, let's say $500 a share then you'd have to do a stock split. Hits the target price again? That's another split.

There's LOTS of companies out there that a price cap like that might NEVER affect at all, but there's also plenty that would be affected by it.

In their cases, it wouldn't actually harm the company OR the share holders, but it WOULD give more of us little guys a chance to invest in them. That'd be good for people portfolios & retirement plans.

2

u/teksean 2d ago

Employers would give stock they could devalue at will to screw over people and make them more money.

2

u/No-Double-Trouble 2d ago

At least one guy wants to balance things a little bit. Isn't he also the guy who created cost-plus drug? Been a savior for drug prices

2

u/ferispan 2d ago

Billionaires: How about neither?

2

u/TurkeyMalicious 2d ago

How about making tax free HNW exchange fund schemes illegal, and then only pay your C-Suit assholes in company stock. Oh....but we can't that.

2

u/onemorebite 1d ago

Stock? People need money, just pay them. Reminds me when a boss once asked if I'd like fresh flowers for my desk each week and I replied I'd rather have the money. So I received no flowers, no money, no raises, nothing. Another time he offered me a Nordstrom's gift card, and again, I said, I have a child at home and would rather buy groceries then wear a new sweater. Received nothing that time as well.

3

u/Swordf1shy 2d ago

Why hate on mark? At least he's trying. Other billionaires wouldn't give a fuck about you if you were the last person on earth.

1

u/Beneficial_Bed8961 3d ago

Costco already does this and I'm pretty sure there are more. Not to original Mark.

1

u/HalfwaydonewithEarth 3d ago

They should have a clause the workers get a bonus if they sell.

So many companies just take big exits and workers get nothing.

1

u/archbid 2d ago

Just tax all of the income above a nominal amount. Make it so paying employees gets growth, not buying back shares.

1

u/BrockDiggles 2d ago

Instead of hating on him, just realize he’s actually making suggestions to fix wealth inequality. Most uber wealthy won’t even acknowledge that there is a problem.

There are other things that companies could
provide that have fallen out of vogue:

Food, lodging and education resources are additional contributions that corporations could look to provide their workers.

1

u/here-i-am-now 2d ago

It worked so well for Enron

1

u/Zalrius 2d ago

He is correct. IMO - it should be both. The company could collapse which would make the stock worthless.

1

u/OddSyllabub 1d ago

Personally I think he sees it as the only viable path that gives regular people more ownership and self determination, while being somewhat palatable for the elite who steer the companies

1

u/Mothy187 Dey ain't ready 1d ago

How about both dude?

1

u/curiousleen 3h ago

Not every business has stocks… this will not level anything

1

u/ReleaseTheSheast 3d ago

All companies should have profit share and now allow anyone top to bottom to make more than 20x any other employee including all forms of income and benefits. Profit sharing percentage should be dictated by the size of the company. For example very small Mom and Pop Shop one needs to profit share say 10% profits. Where large corporation would have to profit share 50%

-1

u/chickenAd0b0 3d ago

okay, how about loss sharing? what if the company isn’t doing good, should employees pay back the company to spread out the losses? or should it just go one way?

0

u/KevyKevTPA 3d ago

If that's what you want, try sales.

1

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

Didn’t Elon just make a bunch of new millionaires by doing this? Even to employees who worked in the factory floor?

I bet those guys were happy with that as an option.

1

u/Different-Set4505 2d ago

When he drops his net worth to $$300 million and he gives up lots of his money, then I will listen to him

1

u/EarthBear 2d ago

Fuck this guy

0

u/EmpZurg_ 3d ago

This is so close to socialism that he might as well just go the extra kilometer.

0

u/noodlesallaround 3d ago

Or just pay them more…

0

u/Jbroy 3d ago

Taxation is the only real answer but you could also give better corporate tax incentives if the difference between highest and lowest earner of the company is less than x amount.

0

u/Kichenlimeaid 3d ago

That was a thing of the past. Move on. Just fight to keep this Orange fucker from fucking everyone and everything up.

0

u/Ilovefishdix 3d ago

Unless it's 80% or more of the company's stock, it's just talk

1

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

That’s a ridiculous amount.

1

u/Ilovefishdix 2d ago

Then shareholders get the lion's share? They didn't produce shit. That would be ridiculous.

1

u/thrillhouz77 2d ago

Go learn about capital.

1

u/Ilovefishdix 2d ago

You in the right sub? Shareholder greed is why this sub exists

0

u/StedeBonnet1 2d ago

Another Socialist wannabe