Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: DEMAND 2: give 10% back to the community or workers!

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 7:30 p.m. EST by FabFab (21)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Corporations' massive earnings should be shared among all employees of such companies. it should be mandatory to return a 10% or just about based on earnings size. This should happen in the form of cash and well as retirement plans or shares for those who chose to (because 99.9999% of people do not understand wall street and stocks). The company should have an option to give this 10% or part of it to a separate entity (not the gov, but an independent nonprofit org) that would manage the capital and give i back to the community (health services, food, education).

16 Comments

16 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by armchairecon (138) 2 years ago

I think the other name for that is a 'tithe'

[-] 1 points by FabFab (21) 2 years ago

Cool! I never heard of that, and you thought me something new! (I googled it) You are awesome!

[-] 1 points by armchairecon (138) 2 years ago

Thanks, I try to help.

I'm a teacher in my other life, can you imagine how smart my students are? If they were only half as appreciative as you.

[-] 1 points by FabFab (21) 2 years ago

he, he... I feel ya. Just spread the education to as many as possible. Appreciation will come to you in the form of knowing that you have helped this country to be a better place. So, on behalf of those that never said thank to you, I am officially saying thank you to for being a great teacher and helping in making this country a better place!

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

Income redistribution means a less productive job force. Who's going to want to work harder when a large part of your income is being sucked out of your pocket. More jobs= richer country. This kind of nonsense will destroy jobs because less money to invest= less expansion= less jobs for the regular people. If you lower unemployment and make goods and services cheaper to the public, taking away money from those who create jobs would be the wrong approach.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by NeoEconomist (19) 2 years ago

How about "workers" setting up their own companies and getting back 100%...?

You know what's ridiculous about these idiot commies who ask for shared profits? They only see the profits and and never the losses... So, if a company has a bad period and starts losing money, will they come with money from home? Because that would be the logical reaction.

[-] 1 points by FabFab (21) 2 years ago

I hear what you are saying... That is the whole concept of owning shares of a company... If workers would control 100% of stock in a company then they could do that. That would be a private company though, not public. That means much smaller access to investment capital to grow the company. Getting back to stocks talk... Now,do you expect regular people to understand how to do manage shares? Look at it, how many stock owners lost a fortune during the market crash? many... why? Because they don't know how to control their share of the company. In order to do that it takes lots of studying and not that many people are willing to do that. Should a company with 100,000 eployees or more be left 100% in the hands of the workers? I am not sure I agree to that. I think that workers should be able to choose to have a stake in the company they work for.

[-] 1 points by NeoEconomist (19) 2 years ago

No, workers should set up THEIR OWN NEW COPMANIES with their own money and their own knowlegde, taking THEIR OWN RISKS... I know it's very tempting for some to somehow forcibly take over companies already established by others, but this would a criminal act and not different in any way from what the Bolsheviks did many years ago in Russia, and other communists in Eastern Europe... and once in the hands of these commies, all the successful companies would fail quicky... Why? Because they don't have the motivation, know-how, the education, the risk appetite and can't make crucial decision that would help the company, but which may "hurt" the employees (yes, there are always conflicts of interest between the employees and the owners/management - and if the employees become the owners, the complany would slowly go down and most likely eventually die - that's why there are few employee owned companies and workers cooperatives, and thet's also why none of them can compete seriosly with an ordinary company)

[-] 1 points by FabFab (21) 2 years ago

I am confused... you start by saying "workers should set up their own new companies" and end by saying "and if the employees become the owners, the complany would slowly go down and most likely eventually die". By no offense, it just seems contradictory to me. What do you mean? What's your point?

[-] 1 points by NeoEconomist (19) 2 years ago

It seems contradictory because I'm referring to two different things:

  • companies set up and managed by the workers from the start

  • succesful companies started by others and operated on entirely different princeples, forcibly taken over by the employees

In the first case there are some slim chances of succeeding, albeit with modest results.

In the second case, the company will go down and eventually become bankrupt. Why? Because most ordinary commercial companies work on very different principles compared to eployee owned companies/workers cooperatives.