[crdoconnor]

>If you take a dollar from every four dollars of corporate profits, corporations (meaning the compact created between shareholders) will have less money to invest with.

But since they're currently sitting on record high stacks of cash (Apple alone has ~1/4 of a trillion dollars), I wouldn't be too worried about that.

>The shareholders will also have less incentive to reinvest their dividends

They're currently sitting on record high stacks of cash because they have little incentive to reinvest. It's not about tax though, it's about a lack of demand (see original points one and two for how to fix that).

[Fantastic_T]

Corporations also have record high corporate debt levels right now. Cash reserves are vitally important as cushions to provide stability in a volatile economy that crashes every few years. Companies correctly became more conservative post-financial-crisis and built up their financial reserves, and that makes the economy as a whole less fragile and likely to suffer a cascading debt default crisis.

The attitude of wanting to violate other parties' property rights invariably comes down to a sort of arrogance in believing that the way the market works and the way people manage our own property is incorrect and that you have a better idea on how they should be using their property.

[crdoconnor]

>Corporations also have record high corporate debt levels right now.

Strangely enough Apple is one of those companies taking advantage of near zero interest rates despite having 1/4 a trillion in cash.

If you make debt cheap enough it makes sense to do all kinds of crazy stuff.

>The attitude of wanting to violate other parties' property rights invariably comes down to a sort of arrogance in believing that the way the market works and the way people manage our own property is incorrect and that you have a better idea on how they should be using their property.

Some people believe that property rights should be configured to serve society's best interests. Other people believe that society should be configured to serve the interests of people with property (or, the market as you put it). One example of this type of person was Southern US slaveowners.

[Fantastic_T]

Right, but who knows how property is best configured to serve society. Given the market's profit loss system aligns the interests of private investors with the interests of society, private investors do. Not only do they have the right incentives, they have the local knowledge about a particular segment of the economy, that big picture politicians have no hope of acquiring when creating their clumsy plans.

A spending plan that's imposed with a stroke of a pen, and that recklessly interferes with hundreds of millions of people, and forces them into economic relationships with people based on crude categorisations, like income levels, and simplistic formulas, like those that determine eligibility for government assistance programs, is no substitute for the intelligently formed personal relationships and market transactions that spontaneously emerge when property and contracting rights are respected and protected. The latter is based on the unique knowledge of hundreds of millions of people, that is aware of local conditions and opportunities for optimisation.

As for slaveowners, what they have in common with socialists is a belief that they have a right to forcibly confine those who refuse to surrender their rights to them.