Jeremy Corbyn unveils plan to transfer 10% of business ownership to workers

[Ealyssa]

you are still taking company assets and redistributing it..

No you aren't. You don't understand what stackholding means. You take nothing from the company.

I'm done, you just can't grasp really basic concept.

[Machismo]

No you aren't. You don't understand what stackholding means. You take nothing from the company...

I'm done, you just can't grasp really basic concept.

You are shifting ownership of that company to others who have not paid for it, that's what it is. Now, if a company wants to do it voluntarily, great. Many large companies have employee stock purchase programs. If you want to force it, you are pushing socialism at gunpoint.

[rogueMatthias]

I mean its a good thing right? the people that actually break their backs for the company on a day to day basis for it to run would actually be rewarded some what rather than just taking home minimum wage.

Should be higher to be fair, fucking CEOS just randomly deciding they can get a 7 figure bonus year on year. Sometimes Jezza talks a lot of complete bullshit but at least his heart is in the correct place for the working class and the young.

Corbyn isn't a champion of the poor and downtrodden; He's in the unions pockets as much as May and co are in the banks pockets.

This law is not to help those poor off or to reduce the gap between the poorest and richest. The "Free money for everyone!" is must a smokescreen and bashing corporations and the super rich is just his usual populism. It's a trap!

The £500 cap is key here. I'm not going to argue it wouldn't be a large amount of money to many of the poorest families in the UK but, as soon as you're in a full time job paying a living wage (Which you have to be in order to qualify for this) then £500 is barely the evivalent of a 2-3% bonus. At the very least, £500 a year isn't even a scratch on attempting to sort wealth inequality. It's not meant to be.

The VAST majority of the 10% collected from large corporations would go the government. It is also to make unions 10% stake holders in all large UK corporations.

This is a stealth dividend tax, designed to force greater control from unions on to the entirety of UK industry.

[JohnBrown1917]

Living in communism has nothing to do with recognizing communist ideologies and slogans... got you honey, thanks for educating me

Because this has fuck all to do with communism, that is why.
Stop being so dense.

- - - Updated - - -

Communism would be 100% ownership of means of production to belong to the workers (among other things)
This is 10% communism

And yes EVERYONE will like the idea to take other people's money, not really news

Stop using words you don't know the meaning off, like communism.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't.

But let's play. Since it exists, link us the german law containing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codete...ion_in_Germany

- - - Updated - - -

He’s one of those champaign communists, wants all the good stuff but doesn’t accept the history that comes with it.

Is it that time off the day again where every leftist ideology gets referred to as communism?

Also calls nordic countries socialist countries.

lol stop making up bullshit.

[Wiyld]

It makes complete sense really. With companies continuing to socialize costs and prioritize profit this was inevitable. Rich folks need to get with the program and cooperate, either share a little now or lose it all later.

[Ryme]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codete...ion_in_Germany

Exactly, this is nothing like that, the only similarity between the two is an idea of the worker getting a say. Corbyn's policy gives the worker no say in anything, no stake, no control over their shares and they've the gall to cap this to £500 and keep the rest.

[Deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codete...ion_in_Germany.

...

That is nothing like Corbyn's plan. It doesn't affect ownership and has no direct financial consequences whatsoever. All it generally does is create a bunch of highly paid board seats for union apparatchiks. In the coal and steel industries, it did create some influence for unions, but as of today affects little more than 1000 workers nationwide.

(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz...nden_Industrie)

[Ealyssa]

You are shifting ownership of that company to others

Yes, that's what it is. But that's not what you said.

You said "is that really any different than placing a tariff on that company's goods?". Which it's clearly not. Shifting ownership doesn't impact the company, it only impacts the owners of the company.

It even may a a direct positive effect as every single worker would have a direct interest in their company results, making them more involved in the overall success or failure of said company.

Glad you finally came to the conclusion that what you said was complete bullshit.
And you don't know that they "don't pay for it". I really doubt those stocks would just be added gift. They would more likely be a part of their wages. Pretty much a new sort of stock bonus plan, but legally standardized to every single company (pretty much like a lot of allready mandatory obligations employers have). And that would have nothing to do with "socialism at gunpoint" (WTF really), no matter how much all you alt-right shitlords want it to be.

[d00mGuArD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codete...ion_in_Germany

co-determination means they can participate in decisions. they have a vote. not co-ownership
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

even in your own link, in no place it mentions anything about owning a % of the company

[Mafic]

Communism would be 100% ownership of means of production to belong to the workers (among other things)
This is 10% communism

And yes EVERYONE will like the idea to take other people's money, not really news

I do find it shocking to be honest because it limits your mobility in the workforce.

- - - Updated - - -

If the workers at a corporation united, pooled their money and bought 10% of the corporation on their own, they wouldn't have the cap and the profits over cap wouldn't go to the state.

Is it possible? Maybe this makes more sense but is it doable?

[Machismo]

Yes, that's what it is. But that's not what you said.

You said "is that really any different than placing a tariff on that company's goods?". Which it's clearly not. Shifting ownership doesn't impact the company, it only impacts the owners of the company.

It even may a a direct positive effect as every single worker would have a direct interest in their company results, making them more involved in the overall success or failure of said company.

Glad you finally came to the conclusion that what you said was complete bullshit.
And you don't know that they "don't pay for it". I really doubt those stocks would just be added gift. They would more likely be a part of their wages. Pretty much a new sort of stock bonus plan, but legally standardized to every single company (pretty much like a lot of allready mandatory obligations employers have). And that would have nothing to do with "socialism at gunpoint" (WTF really), no matter how much all you alt-right shitlords want it to be.

It's not any different, it's still taking away value from the original owners. Enjoy your forced socialism.

So, what room of your house do I get to have? I'll take the bathroom, if that's fine with you.

[dpark1023]

If the Business is the red for the year do the employees have to pay 10% of the loss? Do the employees have to pay for 10% of the interest on any loans? Do the employees take a hit for capital depreciation?

[Masark]

If the Business is the red for the year do the employees have to pay 10% of the loss? Do the employees have to pay for 10% of the interest on any loans? Do the employees take a hit for capital depreciation?

No, no, and no. Ordinary shareholders don't have to pay those, so why exactly should the employees?

[Deleted]

No, no, and no. Ordinary shareholders don't have to pay those, so why exactly should the employees?

Ordinary shareholders do pay those in the form of a fall in the price of the shares, how could you not know this?

Let's say you were a shareholder of Blockbuster Video, don't you think you are taking on the business risk of Blockbuster Video?

What do you think happened to all those shareholders? The government compensated them for their misfortune?

[Kraenen]

Communism would be 100% ownership of means of production to belong to the workers (among other things)
This is 10% communism

And yes EVERYONE will like the idea to take other people's money, not really news

In defense of whatever half-brained idea Corbyn has come up with, at least his doesn't entail forced agricultural and military work! (yet)

- - - Updated - - -

this policy exists in germany currently, as of 25th september 2018, it's practically a carbon copy.

this policy is liked by all voters, both typically LAB voters and even a majority of CON voters like the policy.

but continue to decry the policy as 'communist' because you'd rather believe in the fantasy of trickle down economics.

Well, it's not that far-fetched given communism concerns giving the means of production to the workers...

[Ealyssa]

Ordinary shareholders do pay those in the form of a fall in the price of the shares, how could you not know this?

WTF ? A fall in quotation is not a participation in the companies loss... It's just a result of its valuation by the market.

They sure are, usually (you can have a fall while benefit goes up or the revert), but saying that shareholders are paying the loss of the companies because the value of their stock diminish is retarded as fuck.

[Halicia]

In defense of whatever half-brained idea Corbyn has come up with, at least his doesn't entail forced agricultural and military work! (yet)

I batted a similar idea around (a few years back) as a means to eliminate taxes without leading to rampant inflation.

I enjoyed the possibilities, but couldn't imagine it doing much more than complicating things unless it existed in a bubble.

[Scottyjscizzle]

Sure is sad how americans (I'm an american) have been brainwashed into thinking trickle down works, that a system where 90% of the wealth is in the top 1% (or whatever the exact number is) is ok.

It is truly sad that people read this news story, and immediately rush to defend the companys.

Its a big part of why I have so little faith in our country moving forward economically in a way that serves the majority.

Governments were SUPPOSED to be about serving the good of the majority, not the largely crooked 1% who are mostly rich because of their family they were born in, not paying their workers living wages, straight up breaking laws, and just good old fashioned luck.

Of course trickle down works, just have to stroke the shaft some more.

[Bling]

I've always thought a law that caps corporate salaries at 20 times the lowest paid employee would lead to higher wages, while still giving the big wigs the ability to make vastly more than their underlings.

That means a CEO whose lowest paid employee makes $10 an hour could make a max of $200 an hour. Employee makes $20 an hour? CEO can make up to $400 an hour.

This might actually bring back the middle class because human greed would make CEOs raise their low wages.

[Barnabas]

Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the left wing party in the UK. He announced a new plan: all the workers at a business get to share 10% of the business' ownership or equity or stocks.

Say if you work for a franchise that has 4 restaurants, the owners of the franchise will have to set aside 10% of the business for the workers.

John McDonnell said it could net almost 11 million workers up to £500 a year each.


I think it would be fine if a business wants to do this on their own, but it's not so good when the state forces it on them. Why can't a worker save up and buy the stocks on their own?



https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ence-liverpool


EREMY Corbyn has warned the rich they are on “borrowed time” because a Labour government is coming as he took aim at their tax breaks and offshore havens.

33
Jeremy Corbyn says rich 'are on borrowed time' during speech

The Labour leader said the "poorest and most vulnerable" had been forced to pay the price for the 2008 financial crash.

During a fiery speech at a rally at the World Transformed Festival, Mr Corbyn said that winning an election is "not going to be easy" but hailed the power of "popular movements coming together".

Mr Corbyn promised major change if he is elected in to Number 10.


Jeremy Corbyn told the audience in Liverpool: "Challenging neoliberal economics is fundamental to what we believe in.

"Austerity has been meted out on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.

"They are the ones who paid the price of the banking crisis of 2008, all the time the very richest in our society have had tax breaks, giveaways and tax havens.

Jeremy Corbyn

"I tell you what: they are on borrowed time because a Labour government is coming."

His speech comes after Labour launched a radical plan to require private companies to hand over a 10 per cent share of their equity to workers.

Unveiling the scheme at the party's national conference in Liverpool, shadow chancellor John McDonnell said it could net almost 11 million workers up to £500 a year each.

But additional income would be capped at that level, with any further dividends going to a national fund to pay for public services and welfare, in an effective new levy on private business worth an estimated £2.1 billion a year.


Labour news: Jeremy Corbyn took aim at the wealthy for tax breaks and offshore havens (Image: GETTY )
Conservatives branded the proposal "yet another tax rise" which could deter companies from taking on staff, while the CBI warned it would drive down investment.

But speaking this morning, Mr McDonnell denied his plans would result in less investment.

Mr McDonnell told BBC1's Breakfast: "If you look at other economies, like Germany, where there's been much more worker involvement, it's been the reverse.

"You get more investment, you get longer-term decision-making and you have a growing economy.

"This is nothing unusual. It happens in other countries and it has proved to be successful."

K so the government wants to assuage voters by offering them a virtual stake in the company they work for in exchange for a measly bump in earnings that they can ultimately take away from them at some point down the road? Why can't the government use the tax dollars to buy these stakes instead to pay for social programs? I'd vote no if I could just out of principle of how stupid this idea is.

- - - Updated - - -

I've always thought a law that caps corporate salaries at 20 times the lowest paid employee would lead to higher wages, while still giving the big wigs the ability to make vastly more than their underlings.

That means a CEO whose lowest paid employee makes $10 an hour could make a max of $200 an hour. Employee makes $20 an hour? CEO can make up to $400 an hour.

This might actually bring back the middle class because human greed would make CEOs raise their low wages.

Say on Pay has proven that as long as the companies performs well against peers the ceo gets a raise. That has been the message this experiment has shown time and time again. Nobody really cares how much they make in comparison. Average worker just needs to keep up with inflation. That seems to be a 2.5% raise every year. It'd be a simple proposal to do that. No matter what the inflation rate is you add 1% on top of it every year. Then it's done. Don't need some far left dumbfuckery that people like corbyn come up with to solve the underlying problem and the constant blasting that companies are bad.