[developerdylan]

Money being spent causes the economy to grow. How is that a bad thing? The investments of rich people often never see the consumer economy.

It doesn't matter how they utilize it, UBI is still reducing inequality. You are allowing families to purchase things they wouldn't have had the money for otherwise. Quality of life purchases that the well-off take for granted.

[nightski]

We need to rethink reward structures in this country. The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me. They aren't actively doing anything to earn those dividends. It's simply a scheme to reward those with capital and assets.

Meanwhile, the employees who work hard to contribute to GDP and grow the company see a fixed salary. They do not see those dividends for the rest of their lives, instead when they leave a company it's over. Why? Why don't employees build up dividend streams from the companies they helped build? Why do Amazon employees get paid minimum wage and are denied bathroom breaks when Bezos' net worth can swing $9B in a single day? Why aren't all employees, from Janitor to CEO receiving dividends from the success of the company?

It all seems ridiculous to me. We need to encourage people to work hard and innovate, not sit on piles of capital and assets.

I'm someone who invests heavily and takes advantage of the system. But I see the flaws and it really bothers me.

[sokoloff]

> The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me.

This (and other forms of return) is the motivation for the investor to put up the initial capital.

Do you have an alternative proposal to handle the common case where someone who wants to work hard and innovate needs capital to do so?

[nightski]

My proposal would simply be to make it a legal obligation for all companies to provide ownership in the company proportional to salary each year they are employed. Not only that, it's a special type of stock which is paid dividends on profits before external shareholders. This stock should have exclusive premium benefits over any other stock. A lot of thought would need to be put into how to structure this so it could not be gamed.

External shareholders could still see a return. But I think the days of seeing massive returns on capital need to be over. It should be a fight just to beat inflation imho.

To be honest though I'm still thinking about this a lot and don't have an exact answer. So this idea is in flux. That doesn't mean it's not a problem though.

[ac29]

Employees are welcome to use a portion of their salary to purchase a stake in the companies they work for already. Mandating that their employer do that on their behalf (thus decreasing their cash salaries) probably wouldn't go over too well.

If fact, its generally considered a poor idea to own shares in the company you work for - if the company takes a downturn, not only do your shares lose value, you're probably also out of a job.

[justanotherc]

> The investments of rich people often never see the consumer economy.

That's not true at all. Investments from the rich contribute greatly to the economy -- otherwise they would not be investments. Let's say that I had a billion dollars, and all I did was stick it into a savings account. The bank uses that to fund mortgages, LoCs, provide business loans, etc. Those all have a direct effect on the economy.

More likely the rich are investing in a combination of VC, real estate, and the stock market. Those are ALL job creators.

Really the only thing you can do with money that DOESN'T contribute to economic growth is bury it in the ground or spend it overseas.

[nybble41]

> Money being spent causes the economy to grow.

Money spent well causes the economy to grow. Mindlessly spending money on things that aren't worth their cost is simply waste, and causes the economy to shrink.

In economics it is generally assumed that money wouldn't be spent if the transaction wasn't expected to generate a net benefit for the spender. If you make spending money a goal in its own right, however, then that is no longer true, and spending can result in a net loss instead.