There are many options for a company that hits performance metrics. The big ones would be re-inveermemt back into the company after the employee and shareholder compensation reaches the limit. A company with several departments that see a growth in their budgets will improve the value of the company and at the same time will see improvements to quality of life for the employees.
More ideas for excise wealth:
spinning off functions from the parent company to become other companies
a flat, one time bonus for all employees
expansion of employee benefits
social program investments, like parks, schools, recreation centers, local sports teams, libraries, etc.
community improvement projects (which are constantly underfunded)
If the extra wealth was actually allowed to trickle throughout the people, it would be an explosion of improvements to community health and well being. Businesses would directly help the people who patronize it, leading to more recognition (ie free advertising) for the companies who contribute the most.
There are many, many options for how to weigh the value the of a company, the performance of its books, and find a way to keep the business thriving while not sucking out the money of its customers.
I don’t know what that means- but how do these options not still increase the wealth of the company and therefore increase the wealth of the owners of the company
Re-investment. I figured a typo like that would be safe to assume but oh well.
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
What does a maximum wage and wealth cap even mean? What happens when you start a company and it gets too successful?
Probably a bit extreme but taxes could scale up in a way that the more you earn, the harder it is to earn even more, so your wealth reaches a plateau
or maybe minimum wage has to scale to the wealth of a company
But wealth isn’t a wage. The value of the company goes up, do you have to sell the company?
There are many options for a company that hits performance metrics. The big ones would be re-inveermemt back into the company after the employee and shareholder compensation reaches the limit. A company with several departments that see a growth in their budgets will improve the value of the company and at the same time will see improvements to quality of life for the employees.
More ideas for excise wealth:
spinning off functions from the parent company to become other companies a flat, one time bonus for all employees expansion of employee benefits social program investments, like parks, schools, recreation centers, local sports teams, libraries, etc. community improvement projects (which are constantly underfunded)
If the extra wealth was actually allowed to trickle throughout the people, it would be an explosion of improvements to community health and well being. Businesses would directly help the people who patronize it, leading to more recognition (ie free advertising) for the companies who contribute the most.
There are many, many options for how to weigh the value the of a company, the performance of its books, and find a way to keep the business thriving while not sucking out the money of its customers.
I don’t know what that means- but how do these options not still increase the wealth of the company and therefore increase the wealth of the owners of the company
Re-investment. I figured a typo like that would be safe to assume but oh well.
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
I thought that, but that doesn’t change the wealth of the person assuming the investment is successful.
Valuations are often very wrong, and missing for privately held companies.
Divested and given to who?
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
I’m gonna be completely honest I don’t know enough about economics to answer that question