The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Attributes: Definition: Shareholder & Stakeholder | Do Well Do Good
Stakeholder-oriented companies are primarily concerned with a company’s triple bottom line
Whereas shareholders have a legal right to directly affect a company’s policies and actions, the other groups incorporated stakeholders can influence a company indirectly as many stakeholders have no involvement with the company in any financial or legal way.
In other words, not all stakeholders are equal nor entitled to the same considerations.
In a stakeholder business model, a company can address or be influenced by the needs and concerns all people, groups, and places affected by the company (including the same parties that shareholders affect investors, employees, suppliers, and customers).

Shareholders own the business. Shareholders have a legal right to directly affect a company's policies and actions. Shareholders ARE stakeholders. And shareholders ARE influenced by the needs of employees, suppliers and customers. That's something known as "doing business". But in the end, what we're talking about all comes down to who gets the profits from the business and that all comes down to ownership.

WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD OWN CORPORATIONS, if not the shareholders who purchased shares of the corporation?

 

[Henrin]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Instead of going towards more mansions, cars or private jets, is some substantial portion of that wealth being used instead to benefit that society as a whole - used to fund education, healthcare, arts, universities, research, infrastructure and environmental programmes - a bad thing?

Because that is injustice.

 

[Henrin]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Shareholders own the business. Shareholders have a legal right to directly affect a company's policies and actions. Shareholders ARE stakeholders. And shareholders ARE influenced by the needs of employees, suppliers and customers. That's something known as "doing business". But in the end, what we're talking about all comes down to who gets the profits from the business and that all comes down to ownership.

WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD OWN CORPORATIONS, if not the shareholders who purchased shares of the corporation?

Your talking to someone that thinks rights come from government and thus the government can simply come in and assume control over whatever they desire.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Ah, I understand now. You read one paragraph - directly responding to another poster's comments - in a four or five paragraph post, filtered it through that creative imagination of yours, and responded accordingly. I think it's time for me to stop taking you seriously.

Sorry, but you quoted me (not another poster) and I quoted back just to let you know I was talking to you. Do you want to address the actual point I made or do you just want to whine because you can't?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Your talking to someone that thinks rights come from government and thus the government can simply come in and assume control over whatever they desire.

Exactly. And in this case, the person I'm talking to thinks the government should control "the means of production", but wants to deny that and has spent hours and endless posts beating around the bush. Apparently, Rabbit is too ashamed of her belief system to admit that she is a communist.

 

[Henrin]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution is needed to prevent violent social upheaval.

Do you think the poor will just starve to death in the street without a fight? A lot of people would resort to cannibalism before they'd starve to death.

Wealth redistribution doesn't prevent violent social upheavals, but makes them inevitable. It doesn't even make people more civil, but instead makes them less civil as it causes tensions between the people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

What is the alternative? You're going to pay one way or another whether it be through TANF or some alternative plan on what to do with these babies. The better solution is try to avoid the undesirable outcome through education, the availability of birth control etc....these things are often discussed but there will always be children born in poverty. You can't just cut a program and say the problem will solve itself. Also, educational spending is not solely tied into outcomes. There is so much more that goes into spending and a huge costs these days for big districts is transportation and heating. For districts with crumbling infrastructure it may be repair. High poverty schools have to think about much more of where their spending goes than wealthier. The list goes on and on so to say just cutting educational spending based on outcome is a logical fallacy.

Just cutting what you perceive is not working doesn't answer the question "what's not working". For instance, unwanted pregnancy may be on the rise in some places, by cutting TANF does that automatically mean teen pregnancy will stop? Perhaps, the better answer would be investing in education on teen pregnancy (for example). The investment is still needed but the area of investment shifts saving us more in the long run. That is always the hope.

Nonsense. The current reality is that a non-disabled, poor person without any dependents is simply a poor person, but add a dependent and they are magically transformed into a "needy household" and qualify for all manner of "safety net" program support. Requiring a work history, HS level education and remaining sober are not unreasonable qualification tests for the receipt of public assistance. Simply rewarding personal economic failure only encourages it.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Shareholders own the business. Shareholders have a legal right to directly affect a company's policies and actions. Shareholders ARE stakeholders. And shareholders ARE influenced by the needs of employees, suppliers and customers. That's something known as "doing business". But in the end, what we're talking about all comes down to who gets the profits from the business and that all comes down to ownership.

WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD OWN CORPORATIONS, if not the shareholders who purchased shares of the corporation?

Cooperatives Belong to Everyone
In many ways a cooperative is like any other business; but in several important ways it's unique and different. A cooperative business belongs to the people who use it—people who have organized to provide themselves with the goods and services they need.
These member-owners share equally in the control of their cooperative. They meet at regular intervals, hear detailed reports, and elect directors from among themselves. The directors, in turn, hire management to handle the day-to-day affairs of the cooperative in a way that services the members' interests.
Members invest in shares in the business to provide capital for a strong and efficient operation. All net savings (profits) left after bills are paid and money is set aside for operations and improvements, are returned to co-op members.
What is a Cooperative? | Cooperative Center FCU | Berkeley - Oakland - Emeryville | California - CA

 

[Henrin]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Cooperatives Belong to Everyone
In many ways a cooperative is like any other business; but in several important ways it's unique and different. A cooperative business belongs to the people who use it—people who have organized to provide themselves with the goods and services they need.
These member-owners share equally in the control of their cooperative. They meet at regular intervals, hear detailed reports, and elect directors from among themselves. The directors, in turn, hire management to handle the day-to-day affairs of the cooperative in a way that services the members' interests.
Members invest in shares in the business to provide capital for a strong and efficient operation. All net savings (profits) left after bills are paid and money is set aside for operations and improvements, are returned to co-op members.
What is a Cooperative? | Cooperative Center FCU | Berkeley - Oakland - Emeryville | California - CA

That's just socialist drivel.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Your talking to someone that thinks rights come from government and thus the government can simply come in and assume control over whatever they desire.

Another strawman.

 

[Henrin]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Another strawman.

Not really. Your argument is mounted on the idea the government can assume control over other peoples property and then reassign ownership the way it sees fit.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Cooperatives Belong to Everyone
In many ways a cooperative is like any other business; but in several important ways it's unique and different. A cooperative business belongs to the people who use it—people who have organized to provide themselves with the goods and services they need.
These member-owners share equally in the control of their cooperative. They meet at regular intervals, hear detailed reports, and elect directors from among themselves. The directors, in turn, hire management to handle the day-to-day affairs of the cooperative in a way that services the members' interests.
Members invest in shares in the business to provide capital for a strong and efficient operation. All net savings (profits) left after bills are paid and money is set aside for operations and improvements, are returned to co-op members.
What is a Cooperative? | Cooperative Center FCU | Berkeley - Oakland - Emeryville | California - CA

What's your point? I know what co-ops are and you can already create or join a co-op whenever you want. What does this have to do with publicly traded companies that are owned by shareholders? Or private companies? Those who own the company get the profits and that goes for co-ops, too, because the profits go to the member-owners.

So once again, why shouldn't shareholders be first in line for profits since they own the company? Profits always go to the owners.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Nonsense. The current reality is that a non-disabled, poor person without any dependents is simply a poor person, but add a dependent and they are magically transformed into a "needy household" and qualify for all manner of "safety net" program support. Requiring a work history, HS level education and remaining sober are not unreasonable qualification tests for the receipt of public assistance. Simply rewarding personal economic failure only encourages it.

The rules and regulations for TANF are different depending on state rules. Many states require the person to either work or look for work to qualify for certain subsidies, or go back to school to learn a skill/trade. Hence, the money is limited with strings attached. People producing babies to make money is a fallacy. Maybe under the old program prior to changes, but I see no proof of that now. It just perpetuates the false illusion of a welfare queen.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Not really. Your argument is mounted on the idea the government can assume control over other peoples property and then reassign ownership the way it sees fit.

No, it doesn't. That is your strawman.

 

[Henrin]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

No, it doesn't. That is your strawman.

So exactly how are you going to do your little plan of yours?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's just socialist drivel.

If people want to form co-ops I see that as fine and dandy. I think people should be able to join together into a commune if that's what they want. Live together and share the fruits of each other's labor as long as that's what they sign up for by their own free will.

I think what Rabbit would like but is too intellectually cowardly to actually state is that all businesses should be made "co-ops" by the government. She's beat around the bush on this for countless posts but just won't come out and say it because she's been denying all along that she's a communist.

The only thing worse than a communist is one that is embarrassed by their communist belief system. That means they know that it doesn't have merit and that it's not just and that it's not defensible but they want it, anyway. I've got a lot more respect for self-admitted proud communists who, though they may be wrong-headed, have conviction in their own beliefs.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

What's your point? I know what co-ops are and you can already create or join a co-op whenever you want. What does this have to do with publicly traded companies that are owned by shareholders? Or private companies? Those who own the company get the profits and that goes for co-ops, too, because the profits go to the member-owners.

So once again, why shouldn't shareholders be first in line for profits since they own the company? Profits always go to the owners.

Shareholders don't have to be viewed as the most important is the point and therefore should not get preferential treatment.

GCSE Business Studies/Stakeholders - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

If people want to form co-ops I see that as fine and dandy. I think people should be able to join together into a commune if that's what they want. Live together and share the fruits of each other's labor as long as that's what they sign up for by their own free will.

I think what Rabbit would like but is too intellectually cowardly to actually state is that all businesses should be made "co-ops" by the government. She's beat around the bush on this for countless posts but just won't come out and say it because she's been denying all along that she's a communist.

The only thing worse than a communist is one that is embarrassed by their communist belief system. That means they know that it doesn't have merit and that it's not just and that it's not defensible but they want it, anyway. I've got a lot more respect for self-admitted proud communists who, though they may be wrong-headed, have conviction in their own beliefs.

And yet another strawman, I didn't say government should make businesses into coops. My point is corporate law should not dictate that shareholders are the most important owner in a company and therefore should get preferential treatment.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Shareholders don't have to be viewed as the most important is the point and therefore should not get preferential treatment.

GCSE Business Studies/Stakeholders - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Just because shareholders don't HAVE to be viewed as the most important doesn't mean they SHOULDN'T be viewed as the most important. They are the owners of the company. How the hell can them being first in line for the profits be anything BUT the way it "should" be? Can you explain why anyone but the owners of a corporation deserve control over the profits of a corporation?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

So exactly how are you going to do your little plan of yours?

It's not really a plan. It's a shift in attitude and thought.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Just because shareholders don't HAVE to be viewed as the most important doesn't mean they SHOULDN'T be viewed as the most important. They are the owners of the company. How the hell can them being first in line for the profits be anything BUT the way it "should" be? Can you explain why anyone but the owners of a corporation deserve control over the profits of a corporation?

The shift in thinking is that it is not just the shareholder that holds ownership.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

And yet another strawman, I didn't say government should make businesses into coops. My point is corporate law should not dictate that shareholders are the most important owner in a company and therefore should get preferential treatment.

Since shareholders are the only owner of normal companies, how can they not be the most important owner?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

The rules and regulations for TANF are different depending on state rules. Many states require the person to either work or look for work to qualify for certain subsidies, or go back to school to learn a skill/trade. Hence, the money is limited with strings attached. People producing babies to make money is a fallacy. Maybe under the old program prior to changes, but I see no proof of that now. It just perpetuates the false illusion of a welfare queen.

TANF is but one of over 70 federal "safety net" programs based on household income/household size. Note that the federal poverty level is structured such that adding a dependent adds over $4K of annual "need" per dependent. Try to get Medicaid in Texas if you are not disabled, not over 65 or do not have a dependent. Which one of those "qualifications" is most easily obtained?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

The shift in thinking is that it is not just the shareholder that holds ownership.

How do you justify anyone but the shareholder being considered "owner" of a company?

Why can't you just say that you want the people (otherwise known as "the government") to control/own the means of production? It's clear where you're going with this but you don't can't seem to reach inside you to find the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Just go to your profile and change your "lean" from "Other" to "Communist" and be done with it. When you embrace what you actually believe, it will be a weight lifted from your shoulders because you won't have to lie any more.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Since shareholders are the only owner of normal companies, how can they not be the most important owner?

That is because under current corporate law that is true. It doesn't mean it is a natural born truth or a law carved in stone.