Posted on 05/03/2015 8:51:00 AM PDT by asinclair
Income inequality -- most Democrat-proposed solutions don't give any incentive to the employee, at all levels, to work better and more productively in order to earn more money by their effort. I propose here extending the "bonus pool" to all employees, and show how government can help make that happen.
So, what is missing from all these proposals? The workers themselves. Where is the link between the workers' efforts and their remuneration? Most of these solutions interject government in some way between the people with money and the people without money, and with little regard for how each worker contributes to the bottom line of the company. Indeed, too many of the current "solutions" (think unemployment payments and food stamps) encourage people to not work to their maximum potential.
For income inequality to be brought under control, the focus needs to be on all the workers -- the people who make profits happen -- and not just on management...or government. That's not to say that exiting participants of the bonus pool don't have an effect on profits, but the remuneration may far exceed the contribution to the bottom line. Incentives need to extend further downward.
In publicly-traded companies, encouraging employee ownership participation is one way to reduce the inequality. Profits are distributed to shareholders, whether they be institutions, mutual funds, or employee-held stock. In a company I once worked for, they had an employee stock-purchase plan that offered stock to all employees at a reduced price, and provided for payroll deduction to buy stock. But it wasn't all about the dividends; employees were kept abreast of the shift in stock price, and managers let employees know how their activities affect it. It provided focus, it did.
Private companies have the option of paying bonuses to all employees per a formula, but there is no requirement for a company to do so. In this case, some companies need an incentive to share the profits. Bonus payouts are tax deductible. Increase the deduction over and beyond the dollars-and-cents, and the program becomes more attractive to the owners. So my suggestion is to change the tax code to encourage profit-sharing, but instead of having the government collect and re-distribute money, Congress provides a tax credit for an all-employee bonus and/or profit-sharing program over and above the regular deduction.
There are two good reasons to do this. First, it directly rewards the working employee who contributes to the success, and the profit, of the company. Second, it will cost less to implement, because the administration of the plan rests with the company, and not the IRS or other government bureaucracy. Third, the economy as a whole benefits because profit-sharing money paid directly to the employee is more likely to be spent, not saved. Or invested in college savings funds.
To be profitable a company needs employees who can work, come to work (8 hours day and not whenever they feel like it), can speak English, are American citizens, are illegal drug free, and can at least count to 100. Unfortunately many companies have to deal with a work force that is unreliable. Companies now a days want 100 percent profits not the 5 to 10 percent in days gone by. They like employees dumb and they like drifters even more.
Part of it is also CEOs being willing to go with less pay, too.
I will believe the Democratic income equality mantra when Congress agrees to be paid minimum wage.
92 million not working.
1-9 in overpaid government jobs.
Doubled people on disability under Obama and doubled the debt.
Private sector pays for everything.
Illegals are invited over to collect social services, medical and hundreds of billions in education for free while mostly working under the table.
No lawyer reform and the government becomes the majority finacial partner in your life if you can get by the regulations that try to end all businesses.
What could be wrong with all the above? Logically doesn't the above scream ethical and fiscal sanity?
FWIW, plenty of congress wouldn’t need a salary at all to make it along in life.
FWIW, plenty of congress wouldn’t need a salary at all to make it along in life.
Don’t forget their multiple pensions.
That completely missed the point.
The successful will reap the rewards of their successful ways.
The chronically unsuccessful are jealous, have decided that they have done enough, and want the rewards that they won’t admit they haven’t earned. They democracy, they can vote themselves rewards - diluting the wealth and devaluing it until all have the best, and the best is worthless.
Employees can be incentivized by becoming owners in the company is one way to motivate.
I like my idea better: Put them on MBO compensation. Hit the criteria and you get a great payout
Miss em and you will have to look for another job, where your slothfullness will be appreciated.
One reason, and it is a big one, that there is income inequality is because there is mental and physical inequality. We are not born equal in earnings potential. Business wants to hire the brightest and sports teams want to hire the athletic. So make sure that all can finish college or b
e all-state in some sport.
True, but with all the money that they make in stocks, many CEOs would make it by with little salary at all.
Dems are kjown for income inequality. They dont pay their staffers hardly what they make, and mny times nothing at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.