HC proposes profit sharing

[ivwshane]

And what are the positive responses? "Using some made up numbers, you get more money with this plan!"

Well according to the people who have been apart of profit sharing, they seemed to like it.

I'm just trying to figure out if those who oppose it are also the same people who claim:

Corporate taxes are too high.
The middle class is shrinking and wealth inequality is growing.
The private sector is more trust worthy or better than the public sector.
The American worker needs to work harder.
And lastly, people should find a better employer who doesn't treat them like shit.

Or are none of the people that say those things here posting against profit sharing?

 

[Jeff7]

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

<8% here, on good years, most of which goes into the 401k where it's not really touchable, though I will say that some new measures have at least been added. Still ~10% though. Better than 0% I suppose. :\
I guess it's also balanced out by weekly health insurance paycheck deductions of <$3 for a single person.



Profit sharing was proposed where a relative of mine worked. The owner vehemently opposed it as being a form of communist-type socialism. It didn't happen.

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.

As far as I know, it's like that where I work; the profit sharing and bonus payouts are equal either in amount or percentage of annual pay. Though for all I know, some people do get special hush-hush payouts.

 

[Bock]

The real answer to growing wealth inequality question is "revenue taxes".

Small business, under 50 {employees & contractors} would ofc be exempt.

 

[Jeff7]

The real answer to growing wealth inequality question is "revenue taxes".

Small business, under 50 {employees & contractors} would ofc be exempt.

I'd personally prefer to see something of a staged phase-in on it, not just a binary "You're taxed or you're not."

People already get weird about tax brackets. "Oh my god, I'm $10 over and into the next tax bracket!"
Even for the few people who do understand that it's only that $10 that's taxed at the higher rate, they still will act weird and try to avoid it like it's some horrible burden.

I'm sure you'll still have people though who will then do everything and anything to avoid adding that one extra person that puts them over the threshold.

(My own dream for a nice progressive tax scale is one that's equation-driven, rather than having discrete brackets. But that'll never happen. Math is too hard, even if you're just plugging in numbers on a calculator.)

 

[werepossum]

The real answer to growing wealth inequality question is "revenue taxes".

Small business, under 50 {employees & contractors} would ofc be exempt.

So low-margin businesses should be driven out of existence to get more government revenue, which could then be spent of retraining those who have lost their jobs in low-margin businesses to do jobs in high-margin businesses, which will in turn drive down those businesses' profitability due to increased competition and make them low-margin businesses, which will result in them being driven out of existence to get more government revenue, which could then be spent of retraining those who have lost their jobs in low-margin businesses that used to be high-margin businesses . . .

I suppose there is a certain zen factor to stupidity that is self-sustaining, but personally I'm not seeing the attraction.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, I don't understand wanting to tax revenue instead of profit. I do however agree that the tax rate should be logarithmic as opposed to tiers.