HC proposes profit sharing

[ivwshane]

I've heard this idea used in some businesses and it seems to have worked. By the sound of it, it doesn't seem mandatory but she proposes a "carrot" for businesses to participate in the for of a tax credit.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/16/profit-sharing/

Pros and cons?

 

[brianmanahan]

i used to work for a company that did profit sharing instead of bonuses. got a few %20-%30 of salary payouts.

 

[ivwshane]

i used to work for a company that did profit sharing instead of bonuses. got a few %20-%30 of salary payouts.

And what's your take? You liked it? Or would a standard raise been preferred? Were you paid well to begin with or did the bonus feel like you were getting crumbs instead of decent pay?

 

[cubby1223]

Interesting. Take a sum that otherwise would be danced around avoiding taxes, pay out 15% to place it in the hands of people who have to pay back 25%.

I do enjoy some gems on the website:

"Evidence shows that profit-sharing arrangements are linked with higher pay."
...
"...workers with profit sharing or employee stock ownership are higher paid and have more benefits than other workers."

Profit sharing is offered to employees that a company feels are valuable to their operation. Of course this group makes more money than easily replaceable workers. And it's not because of the profit sharing program. Cause and effect are the other way around.

The overall cost of the tax credit is expected to be roughly 20 billion over the ten-year budget window and will be fully paid for through the closure of tax loopholes that she will identify as part of the comprehensive agenda...

We're covering the costs of a new tax break by increasing taxes. Wait... strike that... we must insist on calling this "closing loopholes" to keep the voting masses on our side.

And if there are tax loopholes which you feel should be eliminated, why not just eliminate them and be done with it? Why must these two items be specifically linked together? Close loopholes to pay for healthcare. Close loopholes to fund education. Close loopholes to add more money to the federal balance sheet. I mean, if you don't get your profit-sharing tax plan passed, are you not going to eliminate these "loopholes" you feel shouldn't be there (and which you haven't even identified yet)?



I mean, seriously, is the reason why some corporations don't extend profit-sharing to the masses is because they haven't yet had the opportunity for Hillary to explain the concepts to them?

 

[brianmanahan]

And what's your take? You liked it? Or would a standard raise been preferred? Were you paid well to begin with or did the bonus feel like you were getting crumbs instead of decent pay?

overall the base pay was decent, but i later found out they were paying about %10 less than comparable companies.

in a good year you'd make up for it and get more than at other places, but in a bad year you'd end up with less than at another company. and we had a string of several bad years, which caused a noticeable lack of employee discouragement. a lot of the people were used to splurging on a new car or large home improvement every year.

in the end i decided i would rather just have a higher base salary, so i quit that company and went elsewhere.

 

[brianmanahan]

Profit sharing is offered to employees that a company feels are valuable to their operation. Of course this group makes more money than easily replaceable workers. And it's not because of the profit sharing program. Cause and effect are the other way around.

not always - where i worked it was offered to every employee at a mostly equal rate, from hourly employees to department managers. but the c-levels had the rate multiplied by like 1.5.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm sorry but this just seems like a quickly thrown together response to Jeb Bush's recent comments for votes. You don't have to work any harder to build a better life for yourself, just vote me into office and I'll get you an extra 10% income!

 

[cubby1223]

not always - where i worked it was offered to every employee at a mostly equal rate, from hourly employees to department managers. but the c-levels had the rate multiplied by like 1.5.

Of course there will always be variations.

But in general, owners do not see value in the easily-replaceable workers. And businesses are continually making internal improvements to the work requirements of the lowest employees specifically to make these workers easier and easier to replace.

Business owners are not going to look at Hillary's ideas and say "Now that someone has finally explained this to us, we're all-aboard giving this profit-sharing plan a go!"


And it's not just owners of multi-billion dollar international conglomerates. I know a lot of small business owners who view their employees as leeches on the business. I don't see this plan of Hillary's changing much of anything other than angering up voters who want higher incomes, against "the other side who's message is 'You have to work more hours.'"

 

[nickqt]

Interesting. Take a sum that otherwise would be danced around avoiding taxes, pay out 15% to place it in the hands of people who have to pay back 25%.

I do enjoy some gems on the website:



Profit sharing is offered to employees that a company feels are valuable to their operation. Of course this group makes more money than easily replaceable workers. And it's not because of the profit sharing program. Cause and effect are the other way around.



We're covering the costs of a new tax break by increasing taxes. Wait... strike that... we must insist on calling this "closing loopholes" to keep the voting masses on our side.

And if there are tax loopholes which you feel should be eliminated, why not just eliminate them and be done with it? Why must these two items be specifically linked together? Close loopholes to pay for healthcare. Close loopholes to fund education. Close loopholes to add more money to the federal balance sheet. I mean, if you don't get your profit-sharing tax plan passed, are you not going to eliminate these "loopholes" you feel shouldn't be there (and which you haven't even identified yet)?



I mean, seriously, is the reason why some corporations don't extend profit-sharing to the masses is because they haven't yet had the opportunity for Hillary to explain the concepts to them?

One political party is willing to negotiate.

One political party would walk away from 10:1 spending decreases : tax increases because they've signed a pledge to some random guy they seem to think is more important than their constituents.

I mean, seriously, indeed.

 

[Corn]

Pay an employee $5000 to save $750 in taxes. Yeah, business will trip over themselves to participate. Liberal math is fun.

 

[nickqt]

Pay an employee $5000 to save $750 in taxes. Yeah, business will trip over themselves to participate. Liberal math is fun.

Almost as fun as conservative functional illiteracy!

 

[cubby1223]

The more I try to give this "plan" a fair shot, the more it just aggravates me at how mundanely stupid it all is.

The whole argument breaks down to "Profit-sharing plans have worked for some profit-driven businesses in some profit-driven industries, therefore profit-sharing it is the best profit setup for all businesses in all other industries that make profits. Oh, and vote for me."

Profit? Profit!

For a webpage with just 4 bullet-point items, to use the word "Profit" a staggering 45 times, this is quite a remarkable feat! Profit!

The best endorsements they could muster up is from university professors

"Hillary Clinton gets it. The central economic challenge of our time is raising incomes for American families. Profit sharing is one new idea to help steer our economy in that direction, and Hillary's proposal would lead to more dollars in the pockets of workers across the country. When companies share profits, not only do workers benefit but the companies themselves see higher productivity and make a stronger contribution to our economy. It's a win-win, and I'm glad Hillary is making this issue a priority."

*barf*

What does this endorsement actually say when you get down to the nitty-gritty dollars and cents and the execution of a business? It's painfully obvious that guy has spent nearly all his life in academia and politics, not in the actual business world. Get back to me when Warren Buffet or the Walton family not only endorses this plan, but begins actual execution on it. Let me know when Tim Cook decides profit-sharing is the best way to operate the Foxconn factory.




This is a topic not even worth arguing with this forum, given the nature of those here who are in love with the argument far more than they are interested with the subject matter. If you choose to vote for Hillary, or if you choose to vote Democrat the next election because of this proposed plan, you are voting for a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that will never become reality.

If you want to vote for dreams that will never materialize, then go ahead and vote Democrat.

Oh, and by the way, the guy quoted above? He was an adviser in both Al Gore's and John Kerry's presidential campaigns. This guy lost to dubya twice. Enjoy!

 

[ivwshane]

The more I try to give this "plan" a fair shot, the more it just aggravates me at how mundanely stupid it all is.

The whole argument breaks down to "Profit-sharing plans have worked for these business in these industry, therefore profit-sharing it is the best setup for all businesses in all other industries. Oh, and vote for me."

Profit? Profit!

For a webpage with just 4 bullet-point items, to use the word "Profit" a staggering 45 times, this is quite a remarkable feat! Profit!

The best endorsements they could muster up is from university professors


*barf*

What does this endorsement actually say when you get down to the nitty-gritty dollars and cents and the execution of a business? It's painfully obvious that guy has spent nearly all his life in academia and politics, not in the actual business world. Get back to me when Warren Buffet or the Walton family not only endorses this plan, but begins actual execution on it.




This is a topic not even worth arguing with this forum, given the stubborn nature of those here who are in love with the argument far more than they are interested with the subject matter. If you choose to vote for Hillary, or if you choose to vote Democrat the next election because of this proposed plan, you are voting for a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that will never become reality.

If you want to vote for dreams that will never materialize, then go ahead and vote Democrat.

Oh, and by the way, the guy quoted above? He was an adviser in both Al Gore's and John Kerry's presidential campaigns. This guy lost to dubya twice. Enjoy!

Do you ever get tired of arguing against things no one ever said?

As far as the rest of your rant, you do realize this is hillary Clinton's website, did you expect something unbiased and non flattering on it? If you did, you might want to stay away from politics, it appears to be causing you unnecessary stress😉

 

[smackababy]

I don't get this. Hillary is proposing adding new law to encourage (at some paltry rate) for companies to engage in profit sharing with employees if they want to? So, what group of already profit sharing board members is going to share that with their employees for some tiny tax credit?

And even then, how often are employees who aren't in the know going to hear "oh, sorry, we had a bad quarter and the profit sharing for this year is down!" I heard that on bonuses that are tied in with company health "Oh, we had a an amazing Q1,2, and 3, but Q4 the numbers were down, so your company driven portion of the bonus gets a .5 multiplier this year!"

 

[ivwshane]

I don't get this. Hillary is proposing adding new law to encourage (at some paltry rate) for companies to engage in profit sharing with employees if they want to? So, what group of already profit sharing board members is going to share that with their employees for some tiny tax credit?

And even then, how often are employees who aren't in the know going to hear "oh, sorry, we had a bad quarter and the profit sharing for this year is down!" I heard that on bonuses that are tied in with company health "Oh, we had a an amazing Q1,2, and 3, but Q4 the numbers were down, so your company driven portion of the bonus gets a .5 multiplier this year!"

Yeah, I guess companies could commit tax fraud, are they likely to do that? I doubt it. What's your point exactly?

 

[smackababy]

Yeah, I guess companies could commit tax fraud, are they likely to do that? I doubt it. What's your point exactly?

By tax fraud to you mean "profits" for the American based, US tax paying portion of the company is going to simply shift the IP they are leasing from the Irish counterpart so their profits go down even further?

 

[ivwshane]

By tax fraud to you mean "profits" for the American based, US tax paying portion of the company is going to simply shift the IP they are leasing from the Irish counterpart so their profits go down even further?

No I mean companies not giving their employees bonuses as a part of profit sharing and yet still receiving the tax credit based on the fact that they are participating in a profit sharing program.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I don't get it. I'm no accountant, but in the example wouldn't the company just cut the worker's salary by $5k, then give $5k in "profit sharing" instead. Thereby giving themselves an extra $750 in tax credit they would otherwise not have had?

 

[PokerGuy]

It's the usual kind of drivel you'd expect from people who have never actually run companies in the real world.

This is "vote for me, I'll get more money in your pocket!". Typical politician drivel in an election season.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Problem is these can be manipulated very easily. Anyone who has worked on commission knows exactly what I mean. Everything is going great you're excited to get a maximum bonus then all of a sudden some future write off is taken that cuts your bonus substantially. Profit reporting can be gamed far, far too much. My fear is that bonuses would potentially reduce salaries because you could earn X dollars more but you didn't.
I haven't read Hillary's proposal but I believe we should work to employ more people that will fix the salary gaps plus set up a sensible minimum wage that is inflation adjusted so we don't need to bicker over it every 10 years.

 

[glenn1]

The need they're trying to serve is real but I don't know if this is how you go about it. For the companies already doing profit sharing, this is just giving them another gratuitous government handout. For many companies not doing profit sharing, they couldn't afford it before and this plan is unlikely to change their fiscals enough to implement a plan. Which leaves the undefined middle, those who might be able to afford PS and this plan would incent them to actually implement one. I'm guessing that number isn't that large, but who knows.

 

[cabri]

No I mean companies not giving their employees bonuses as a part of profit sharing and yet still receiving the tax credit based on the fact that they are participating in a profit sharing program.

Unless the credit is directly related to the amount of profit sharing, it would not be fraud.

I had worked for a company that had profit bonuses for the employees.
The second time that the bonuses came around; it was; well we have so little that only the top performers will get it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Unless the credit is directly related to the amount of profit sharing, it would not be fraud.

I had worked for a company that had profit bonuses for the employees.
The second time that the bonuses came around; it was; well we have so little that only the top performers will get it.

Exactly profit and expense numbers can be changed or gamed so easily.

 

[glenn1]

Unless the credit is directly related to the amount of profit sharing, it would not be fraud.

I had worked for a company that had profit bonuses for the employees.
The second time that the bonuses came around; it was; well we have so little that only the top performers will get it.

The plan would be subjected to Top Heavy rules then.

 

[smackababy]

No I mean companies not giving their employees bonuses as a part of profit sharing and yet still receiving the tax credit based on the fact that they are participating in a profit sharing program.

Not giving employees bonuses and giving them paltry amounts of bonuses are completely different. Unless there is some idiotic "employees must get x amount or y percentage of their total compensation to qualify" garbage, which no company will do (hint, it will turn a bad quarter into a terrible one) they won't be breaking any laws.


And even then, the very idea that employees simply benefiting more from the company doing well makes them work harder (and get more money) is obviously put forth by someone that has never run an actual business. Let's say your company sells cables. How well you do is very dependent on the price of copper as well as how much wire you sell.