I googled Publix and got this: Publix stock is not publicly traded and is made available for sale only to current Publix associates and members of its board of directors.
If that's the Publix stock we are talking about it's private.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You Can't Be Kidding Me With Sanders (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
If that's the Publix stock we are talking about it's private.
rustycolts
Footballguy
Yes privately held. Stock that is given to employees as part of profit sharing usually 8 to 10% of their annual gross earnings cannot be sold until departing the company. Stock purchased individually can be sold at anytime. It has been awhile since I retired but I believe they no longer allow you to have more than 25% of Publix stock in your 401k. The new rule is not real popular with the associates but probably in their best interest.
THE reason to become an employee owned company is to transfer ownership to it's employees so that the employees have a real responsibly for the success of the company and they get rewarded for that success. They are more invested than just collecting a pay check. It also protects the company's total net worth. One of our biggest problems is having too much cash that can't be turned around into investments or put back into the company fast enough to get the higher returns. You would be amazed, and am almost afraid to mention, all the tax code and money loopholes we are able to jump through to move money around and protect that money.
For a private company to be able to do that seems the exact opposite of socialism and I have no idea why @The Commish picked employee owned companies as an example. It's as far from the same thing as I can think of.
Disenfranchised means being denied some rights. In the context of your statement you fail to defined what rights you are talking about nor do you even remotely explain how a higher wage fixes that. Somehow you make this huge leap that you raise minimum wage and then magically higher paying jobs are available for everyone and everyone works harder to get more. The left mocked Reagan for voodoo economics, but what you describe is the ultimate in voodoo economics.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
It is a reason. And is often the one told to employees and in press releases since...
"I am selling my company to my employees since i dont have any very good offers and i want to take advantage of tax laws to try avoid paying capital gains taxes under IRS section 1042"
Doesnt usually go over too well.
JAA
Footballguy
Thanks for the response.
Do you agree that higher wages creates more opportunity for those who are currently disenfranchised? How about if we used the term "underprivilaged" instead. Would that be a softer context?
The goal here is to attempt to put all people on an equal playing field. That is not possible, but its the goal and one worth fighting for. That is unless you disagree with those desires, like my uncle who is a tribalist.
One easy way to bring the classes closer together is to increase minimum wage. More-so, as Im sure you are of the concept and values of a living wage. If we had a living wage which created a quality life we will deem X and have our welfare system which creates a quality of life Y. When X is much higher than Y, people want more X and less Y. The problem arises when Y is no different than X. Why would anyone strive for X?
Maybe you disagree with this? Maybe you believe people want to not work and be handed things. Sure, there are some of these, but the vast majority of disenfranchised and/or underprivileged people I have met it is not the case.
PS - you didn't answer my other question ... have you ever been disenfranchised?
Capital gains are paid when employee cashes out the stock.
except we've figured out a way to not even pay that for a significant chuck
If it's a failing company that no one else is interested in buying that's something completely different. You might want to try a different company. There are lots of hugely successful examples to your exception.
Increases in wages leads to more expensive labor which reduces the demand for labor and thus opportunity. A minimum wage job, even one which is not a 'living wage', creates opportunity to advance. Making unskilled jobs pay a living wage actually discourages the need to obtain skills which is the real key to economic growth and opportunity.JAA said:
Unfortunately, human nature is to do the least possible to get by comfortably. This is why real Marxism/socialism fails time and time again. Not saying there is not some benefit to having a minimum wage, but it needs to be set at a level which is both fair and encourages the need to obtain more skills to advance to a living wage level job. Raw capitalism is not the answer, but the base of the economy needs to be based on capitalistic principles to thrive.
If by disenfranchised you mean underpreviledged, certainly I have been. I was raised by a single mom who had varied jobs from school bus driver to a food line factory worker. We were well below the poverty level especially during periods of her being laid off and on food stamps. I had been mistakenly identified and arrested by police. But I still recieved an education and have been successful.
Social programs and socialistic economic policies have their place, but never in history have they been the backbone of a successful economy. It is always capitalism which is the key engine.
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA
Footballguy
Thanks for responding.
I understand your position. How would you recommend we fix this? I’m sure you have seen my posts on the current state of capitalism. It’s broken and not working for the good of the people.
Are you a supply side / trickle down person? Maybe you believe things aren’t broken?
caustic
Footballguy
Not if the employers are monopsonists! https://equitablegrowth.org/monopsony-market-power-labor-market/
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
When an owner sells his stock via esop said owner can defer capital gains.tonydead said:
So in other words owner buys company for 1 dollar. Owner sells company via esop for 1million. Owner within 12 months puts into new qualifying purchase and pays zero cap gains on sale to employees(at least right away).
Make sense what i am saying now?
The Commish
Footballguy
I didn't....Bernie did via his proposal for ownership to be 20% by employees. So you think that's not a form of socialism? Interesting. I'm just getting back and reading through all the replies to my comments earlier today. Still trying to form an opinion on this.tonydead said:
The Commish
Footballguy
I hear what you're saying. I've just never heard people attach "forced government action" to the definition of socialism. I'm not sure I'm there on that. I know that some would argue that this is covered in the " owned or regulated by the community as a whole" but I've always been taught that this part INCLUDES the government, but doesn't necessarily mean the government....the "community as a whole" could include literally a neighborhood running a neighborhood farm/co-op where they control every aspect from ownership of the land, equipment, tools, produce etc. It's an example I heard all the way through school and even in upper level civics classes in college.Maurile Tremblay said:
JAA
Footballguy
The US military is socialist because it is mandated by the US govt.
Just had a funny thought of asking a US general his/her thoughts on leading a socialist regiment ...
Well if the government starts forcing private companies to do things. I didnt gleam that from your comments about Publix.
The Commish
Footballguy
Right....and that's never been a requirement for being "socialist" that I've ever seen or been taught. That's what I've been discussing with MT. This is going to take further consideration on my part. Essentially it's being proposed to me that socialism has a "forced sharing of things by the government" component. That seems more like communism to me though.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no one kind of theory which works always. There is a time and place for both supply side and demand side economics. Our system is far from broke. We have a thriving middle class. The average wealth of a retiree in this country is over $750K. We have low unemployment and solid growth. To characterize that as broken is bizarre.
That said, our current balance is not optimal. There are lots of things I would fix. I would reduce all kinds of government spending and get it under control, including defense spending. I would probably go back to tax rates closer to what we had under Clinton. I am fine raising minimum wage up to about $10. Of course skilled workers who are productive should be earning a wage they can live comfortably on. But that is not all people. Unskilled inexperience workers should be earning less and have something to strive for. You just can't give people what they need. You must have the Capitalistic incentives to propel people to become productive members of society. The socialistic policies can only be a check for abuses and a safety net for a small minority. To propose socialistic policies as the answer for economic growth and opportunity completely ignores human nature.
I don't think combine state and federal marginal income tax rates should ever exceed 50%. Budget deficits should be held under 2% of GDP except for extraordinary circumstances, such as war or a serious recession.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I am not going to waste much more time on this one, but in a last ditch effort...
Lets look at the wikipedia listing....
Obviously we don't have that now, but a government policy that mandates turning over ownership(even if only 20% to start) of companies to employees would pretty obviously be a step in that direction.
If it is just an issue of not wanting to admit that such a law would be completely socialist because it wouldn't be 100% and some companies do it voluntarily because you have entrenched yourself there, at the very least admitting that such a policy is socialist in nature should be pretty easy to concede.
The Commish
Footballguy
I appreciate this clarification. Initially the position seemed to be "this IS socialism". And the definition provided here is the one I've always known which is the primary driver of confusion in my discussion with MT on this. And I'm not "entrenched" anywhere. I've said several times that some comments here have given me pause to go and reflect. If I were entrenched, I wouldn't be doing that would I?
If your overall argument is "this is a red flag to me because its putting us on a slippery slope that could lead to socialism" then I can absolutely see that perspective regardless of how unlikely I believe it's reality to be. I didn't get that at all from anything you posted prior to this post. And remember the context here. This is a response to me saying "none of his policies...." in a different conversation were "socialist" and I already conceded, in a follow up post after you bringing this one up, that I didn't have this one in mind when I made the comment because it has virtually no chance of going anywhere ever. So it was a good "gotcha" on me saying none....I lose, you win. IMO, that should tell you I see this differently than the more mainstream and well known policies, but I wasn't clear. That's on me.
What came of that with convo with MT wasn't whether the policy was socialist or not. It was why people had issue with THIS brand of socialism and not the sort of socialism we have in companies or in co-ops. As I see it, it's either a valid approach or it isn't regardless of how the approach came to be implemented. MT's assertion is that government forcing it on people is a factor of what makes something socialist or not and I don't see that in the definition above and have never been taught that, so more consideration of that component is needed on my part. In my mind, what you're talking about and what MT is talking about are two completely different things.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Here was my first post that started our discussion regarding this and was the first you had even heard of this policy so i think maybe you are thinking of somebody else because the context is certainly there.
parasaurolophus said:
The Commish
Footballguy
And my subsequent replies.....showing you I had completely forgotten about this until provided the refresher from another poster. I was aware, but had completely forgotten about it since it has virtually no chance of moving forward and isn't something he's pushing in any meaningful way (reasons he'd have to explain). And sorry, when I read the bold in your post I read it as "this is how a socialist pushes his socialist agenda in our environment". I didn't read it as "this is a slippery slope, we need to be careful" After a revisit, I can see how you meant it the other way too. Thanks.
The Commish said:
The Commish said:
The Commish said:
JAA
Footballguy
I got lots I want to say, and it sounds like we could have a couple beers and discuss this as you have an open mind. That said, I want to focus on only 1 of your points.
For above, I think your barometers for measuring the success of our country is incorrect. Before we debate this, I have to ask, are you ready to be wrong? What I mean is are you ready to develop a plan if you are proven wrong? I ask that for the reason that if you are not ready to be wrong, then you truly dont have an open mind.
As for how you measure success, here are the books that have inspired my thoughts on the matter:
- https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Age-of-Eisenhower-Audiobook/B0793DGJR7
- https://www.audible.com/pd/Beyond-Outrage-Audiobook/B0089MTH50
- https://www.audible.com/pd/Dying-of-Whiteness-Audiobook/1549125818
- https://www.audible.com/pd/Americas-Bitter-Pill-Audiobook/B00R8MAZIU
- https://www.audible.com/pd/Tools-and-Weapons-Audiobook/0593107527
- https://www.audible.com/pd/Freakonomics-Audiobook/B002V5GOHA
For example, when thinking about how the country is doing, I start with median household income. The next would be wealth inequality, (https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/)
Do you agree with my barometers or do you believe they are bad measurements?
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
I don't think they own it, they have a controlling interest. They take part in the shareholder profits and decision making.
Medium household income is an appropriate measure. I put much less weight into wealth inequity. It can be bad if too extreme. But rewarding success is great. You may hate the wealth how insanely rich Jeff Bezos is, but he made shopping for goods so much faster and easier. And a lot of it was because he had incentives to improve and improve what he was doing. If the system said, well you earned your $10 million you are done, we would never have the Amazons or Apple or Microsoft. Maybe $50 Billion is too much. And there are issues such as a corporate tax structure which allows Amazon to owe no taxes. We do let them accumulate tons of wealth and pay virtually no taxes. If he paid $25 Billion on his $50 Billion, that would be much better.
JAA
Footballguy
I completely disagree with this. Also believe there is 0 data to back i up.
Im not hear to say $X is too much, im here to say that the more you make the more you pay, there needs to be an appropriate wealth tax. There is not one today and its never been worse.
Do you believe the age of the robber barrons was OK? We used progressive policies to get from there to where we are today. Isnt it possible to use progressive policies to get from where we are today to where we can be in the future?
I agree. Trump and Sanders shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office unless they buy a ticket and take a White House tour.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Looks like Bernie is going to beat Warren in her own state. After Tuesday Bernie should have an easy path to the nomination.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
A couple of issues. A lot of people believe a wealth tax is unconstitutional. But if you want to just table that argument, there's actually a good bit of data to back up why it won't/hasn't worked when it's been tried.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
If I'm understanding correctly, you are granting that Sanders is not explicitly in favor of hard Venezuela type socialism now, but inferring based on his past and the way he discusses issues that he could be hiding the extent of his philosophy for political expediency?
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, that was exactly what I was getting at, only I think he's less nefarious than that seems. I think his default position is actually that of a socialist optimist, one who really believes that tax rates and corporate ownership won't be anything but a change for the better, so why not?
rockaction
Footballguy
It appears, at least to me and others, that Sanders promises unprecedented things within a market economy, things that are potentially so disruptive that to view them with anything but optimism is to scare one's self.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
That seems plausible, though I don't necessarily agree. I also feel you aren't representative of the norm voter who cries 'SOCIALIST!!!' without knowing what that means or how Bernie's policies compare with real Socialism. You have a more nuanced and defensible position here, it seems.
rockaction
Footballguy
This is all over but for shouting at Overton windows. Well-played by Bernie and his supporters, aside from the bizarre insistence on calling himself a "socialist," which his supporters still take pains to point out that he isn't via his platform. But we will no longer be so blessed with that debate because it's time to concede and make Biden look as strong as possible. Shore him up, as it were.
I guess you weren't be kidding me with Sanders.
I guess you weren't be kidding me with Sanders.
Similar threads
