Hillary Clinton Will Pledge Profit-Sharing Incentives to Boost Wages

[riversedge]

Source: TIME




Hillary Clinton Will Pledge Profit-Sharing Incentives to Boost Wages

Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell

8:05 AM ET

?quality=65&strip=color&w=1100
David Greedy—Getty Images Former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addresses supporters at an organizational rally at the Iowa City Public Library in Iowa City, Iowa, on July 7, 2015.



Hillary Clinton will on Monday pledge to change the tax code to encourage corporate profit-sharing, calling such programs a “win-win” for business and employees.

Profit-sharing “will be good for workers and good for business,” Clinton will say on Monday, according to an advance excerpt provided by her campaign. “Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win.”

Clinton’s plan involves changing the tax code to push businesses to share corporate earnings with their employees, said a Clinton campaign official. She will expand further on the plan at a campaign stop in New Hampshire this week.

The profit-sharing proposal is part of the Democratic frontrunner’s broad vision for the economy that Clinton will be laying out in a speech Monday........

Read more: http://time.com/3955261/hillary-clinton-profit-sharing/

---

You go gal.

[Wilms]

1. Good idea. n/t

[Snotcicles]

33. Profit sharing is usually an incentive in lieu of wage increases and are offered when productivity

is low. Our productivity is very high, productivity is also a term used to mean less man hours= job loss.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Precisely. This is more trickery from Hillary (nice try) that will only drive down wages per hours worked.

Bernie has a REAL plan to put more money in the pocket of the American worker. Go Bernie!

[Wilms]

63. I wondered about unintended consequences...

...or the possibility I was missing something.

That's why I love this place. Thanks for the heads up.

Meanwhile, I just face-planted while saying something nice in response to an HRC concept. Oh, well. I tried.

[erronis]

77. And profits can be easily finagled by executive bonuses, payouts, stock transactions, etc.

That's why I never trust a company that says "We pledge xx% of our profits will go to charities." There are no profits if the suits and investors get the difference between income and expenditures.

[They_Live]

113. Correct.

Too many details. Just pay people more.

[Snotcicles]

82. If she were smart, she would be proposing "pension protection guarantees" and

putting some teeth behind the promises made to workers, for the times when they will need those promises fulfilled most.

[still_one]

85. Profit sharing in a company builds a team effort to motivate employees not only for the companies

success, but also, to make them feel as an integral part of the company.

In my entire career, my wages were NEVER lowered because of a profit sharing plan.

[Snotcicles]

93. I have seen contracts where during times when things were tough

agreements were made that instead of lets say, the standard 5% wage increase, a profit sharing plan of a couple years
if profits exceed X. All is fine if the profits are very good and they come quickly. But that 5% wage increase is gone
forever so you are always be minus that 5% you would have had all a long.

Don't get me started on lump-sum cash payments in lieu of wage increases.

[dogknob]

118. OK, junkies... after 'expenses' and 'personal use,' be sure to share the remainder of your stash...

... if any (*wink*).

[Warpy]

130. It's an excuse to keep wages low

as companies boast of their profit sharing plan (typically a drop in the bucket compared to a wage increase) for which employees must compete.

It's just another bait and switch that works best on people who can't do math.

Clinton needs to know that Democrats are generally a little savvier than Republicans and have noticed that profit sharing is no substitute for living wages.

[Snotcicles]

133. If they really want their employees to have a stake in the company than change to employee owned. nt

[Delmette]

141. Wages are a business expense.

And so the wages are part of all the expenses that it takes to do business. What is left over is profit for the shareholders, top management bonuses and then a pittance for the employees.

If wages were higher then the profit would be less. Oh, heaven forbid should the profit ever show a decline.

The one word that stood out to me was incentive. It tells me that she already has an agreement in place so that companies/ corporations will come out ahead no matter what employee profit sharing is.

Just my opinion.

[Warpy]

144. Yes, which is why they've shipped the good jobs overseas

paying peanuts for wages and selling us the worse made third world stuff at first world prices.

Now of course they've choked off the demand side, not even credit to sustain it.

[Delmette]

146. You're right.

It's all about profit one way or the other, screw the people who help make the profit.

[rhett o rick]

136. Depends on how she proposes to "encourage" businesses to go along. My guess is that

it will be in the form of more tax breaks. In other words, you and I will be paying for the "profit sharing".

[malthaussen]

2. In other words, she thinks we should boost productivity, too.

But she puts it more palatably.

-- Mal

[Tea Potty]

4. More palatable for her rich donors?

[riversedge]

7. Nothing wrong with

increases in productivity as long as the workers are treated with dignity and liveable wages.

[malthaussen]

8. Plenty wrong with increasing productivity.

Starting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and going from there. But considering that the caveat in your own words never seems to come to pass, and instead of dignity our workers are undergoing a mass test-to-destruction, you don't even need to bring climate into it.

-- Mal

[daleanime]

31. +1

The days when we could have addressed Climate Change with small changes in our lifestyles is long past.

[BeanMusical]

60. Does she stand for workers being treated with dignity and liveable wages?

Just asking.

[Kelvin Mace]

105. When will we be compensated for the 75% jump in worker

productivity between 1979 and 2012?

While wage stagnation is not new -- a median U.S. wage earner has seen a 5 percent growth in wages between 1979 and 2012 while boosting productivity nearly 75 percent -- what is more recent is that a college education is less valuable than it used to be.

The wage premium for a college degree has barely grown since 2000 even as the average U.S. college graduate is entering the workforce with a record $40,000 in student loan debt, according to Edvisor.com, which operates college planning websites.

http://www.ibtimes.com/america-workers-are-more-productive-their-wages-are-flat-some-cases-lower-1393941

[Adrahil]

45. Wait....

One of the problems in our economy is that workers don't enjoy the success of their company.. They don't join in profits of their labors. This helps resolve that. WTF is wrong with that?

[karynnj]

67. Depends on what this is - not enough detail yet to know.

Many past profit sharing ideas benefited the top earners far more than those at the bottom.

[Adrahil]

84. For sure we need details.

It should be easy to cap the corporate tax benefits at a certain income level. That would likely not benefit me, for example, but the idea is to boost lower-middle class incomes, I think.

[JustAnotherGen]

79. At my company

It goes into your 401K.

For me - that's fine.

For the coordinator level fresh out of University - they might actually need that cash in hand.


Make profit sharing tax free and allow the employees to select annually how they wish to receive it -and she's 'got me' on this.

If mine did not go into a 401K - I would be paying taxes on it. By putting it in my 401K - I don't pay taxes on it.

Also -in light of the recent layoffs here - They were taking you average salary PLUS your annual bonus over say - 15 years - for the pay out.

But they didn't include the profit sharing OR the 'we used to have' long term bonuses.

[Adrahil]

83. Great ideas! Send this to Hillary!

I mean it. That's good stuff. My company also puts "company performance bonuses" into our 401ks. Would love to have other options.

[JustAnotherGen]

87. I think I'll send it to O'Malley instead

[Adrahil]

89. Hey, send it to whoever! :). nt

[JustAnotherGen]

94. It SHOULD be a part of our platform

So you send it to Clinton.
I'll send it to O'Malley.
A Senator Sanders supporter should send it to him.

[Adrahil]

97. Excellent idea! nt

[PeoViejo]

3. How about just raising the minimum wage to $15. per Hour?

Corporations don't need another Tax Break to abuse.

[bvf]

10. Agreed.

Keep it simple.

[mcar]

23. She's recommending that too

This article is talking about just one of her proposals.

[Tea Potty]

152. Wrong

Hillary does not support a $15 min wage.

[NYC Liberal]

27. She's supported raising it for years.

Pushed for it the entire time she was in Congress too.

[PeoViejo]

140. Then,consider what happened in Honduras

..when the president tried to raise the Minimum Wage.

That coup would not have happened without her OK.

[Adrahil]

47. This is an "and" not an "or"

An invpcreased minimum wage helps the bottom wrung of our economy, but profit sharing helps up through the middle class, which also needs help, as middle class wages are stagnated.

[karynnj]

5. It will be interesting to see the details -- one form of this already exists as ESOP accounts

which give employees shares of stock that are held until they leave the company. (This says change the tax laws, so it can't mean something like bonuses tied to company performance - as that is simply income.) It will be interesting to see what is proposed - maybe something like ESOP, but less tied to it being retirement savings, allowing the employer to use it immediately. (This would immediately help a worker needing money, would stimulate the economy with the new spending, but would not give employees long term stakes in the company - as happens if you can't access the money without big penalties.)

[PoliticAverse]

20. Yes, "the devil is in the details". Will this just end up being a way for everyone to subsidize

corporations paying their employees?

[karynnj]

65. ah, as I guess one could say is the case with ESOPs, where there was a tax incentive to do it,

and the accounts were not taxed until they were dissolved (or taken out of a 401 K that they were rolled into. All of this was additional compensation, but was not taxed when originally given.

In addition, I assume that the ESOPs mainly benefited middle to upper income people working at corporations.

If the government is going to give an incentive (ie waive some taxes), why not do it if they raise low hourly wages to a higher minimum wage. I would bet that could be designed to cost the same as something like an ESOP in terms of taxes lost, but it would IMMEDIATELY stimulate the economy. (I can't imagine the Republicans passing it though.)

[SamKnause]

6. Let's make it retro active

going back 40 years.

I would like to be compensated for the blood, sweat, and tears

that made millions for the corporations I worked for.

The wages have been stagnant for 40 years.

The productivity has steadily risen for 40 years.

Pay us what we are owed and it would;

get many out of poverty

get many off food stamps

get many off Medicare

boost the economy

increase revenue for Social Security

increase revenue for Federal Income Tax

Everyone gets paid, everyone benefits.

[cosmicone]

9. Native Americans may want to go back 400 years! n/t

[SmittynMo]

11. To "encourage" corporate profit-sharing?

Can someone enlighten me as to how she is going to force these corporate giants to implement profit sharing?

She makes it sound good, but using words such as "encourage" is dangerous.

[OKNancy]

12. tax incentives

not force, but encourage

[jonno99]

32. Reminds my of Tevye in 'Fiddler on the Roof':

Perchik: In this world it is the rich who are the criminals. Someday their wealth will be ours.

Tevye: That would be nice. If they would agree, I would agree.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067093/quotes?item=qt0386175

[PoliticAverse]

21. If you were a corporation and could save $10 in taxes by paying an employee $1 extra...

it would be a "no brainier". So we need to see the actual details of the proposal.

Will this just be everyone subsidizing corporations paying their employees, or
something that's more "win-win"?

[peacebird]

128. What if you have 11 employees? Seriously, this needs real details before we can discuss it

[PoliticAverse]

129. Exactly. n/t

[KansDem]

41. Remember "Trickle Down?"

We were told that if taxes were slashed on the wealthy, they would use that extra cash to "reinvest" in the US. This would lead to more jobs and better wages for Americans.

We were told the rich would do that. There was no need to "force" them to "reinvest"--they would do it anyway because they had all this extra cash.

We were told that.

Remember?

[Adrahil]

49. Yes, but this is not "supply side fantasy"

In a case like this, the corporation could only benefit once the profit is shared. That's unlike supply-side where we just cut their taxes and hope they do something useful (and they never do).

[Lancero]

55. The benefit is a return on investment...

Reinvest the money into the company, grow the company, make more profit.

So they would get a benefit in exchange for reinvesting into the company... Except they refuse to reinvest.

Both cases require that the corporations actually care for the average person. They don't care for the average person, they see us as trash, and they are willing to hurt us even if such would hurt them longterm.

[rock]

108. Many relatively smart people

Saw this utter rubbish.

[mak3cats]

13. The DLC version of trickle-down economics (eom)

[CharlotteVale]

74. ^^ THIS ^^

[mazzarro]

137. B-I-N-G-O! - n/t

[ruffburr]

14. sounds to me-

Like a way to say forget min wage hike , Hillary and her corporate buddies will share their profits, but only as much profit as is available after , CEO stock bonuses, advertising costs ,political payoffs, So figure a raise in real figures of maybe a buck a day

[leveymg]

15. While technically this might be LBN, it's not news.

It's a promo for a campaign speech without any real news value. It's not like profit-sharing is a new idea.

[aintitfunny]

16. It is another corporate tax break

Buying a shred of decency from the corporate rulers, and donors, to trickle down some income to the people that do the labor. Sounds good, looks good, shiny on the outside, dull and disappointing on the inside.

I read some comments about the minimum wage and looked it up to see her position. Evidently she has not shared her view/policy standpoint on raising the minimum wage. If anyone knows otherwise, please share it.

[William769]

17. Kick & Recommended.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

18. She sure is trying to sound progressive lately.

[Beauregard]

19. She wants us all to be little capitalists.

Isn't that going to be fun, kids?

[groundloop]

22. As a Bernie supporter I'll wait to pass judgement 'till I hear some details

On the surface this proposal sounds good, or else it sounds like nothing, there's just not enough information to tell. The skeptic in me says that corporate bean-counters won't take long to find ways to abuse this if it comes to fruition.

[Dawgs]

24. LOL!! My company has profit sharing and it means very little.

This country needs jobs and a raise. Not a few extra dollars every quarter.

[donnasgirl]

25. Doesn't walmart

Do this?

[Dawgs]

35. Do what? Profit Sharing?

I have no idea.

[Lars39]

39. Yes.

Last I heard it only applied to full-time employees that had worked there a year. It's always a blast to keep shrinkage down to near zip, get zip in profit sharing and then hear of the managers getting $50,000.

[donnasgirl]

52. The reason i asked

I have Neighbors who work for wally world but they are part timers and get nothing at all and they have no idea what the full timers receive.

[Lars39]

56. It's been years since I worked there, but iirc, part-timers weren't allowed in the profit sharing

or shrinkage bonuses. The senior manager at the store I worked at in mid-80s had a shrinkage bonus of $25,000. Fast forward to around 2000, a neighbor was manager of a new store and bonus was enough to buy a new jeep and still have plenty to bank.
I only found out the first example because I worked with older women that were pro-union and grumbled a lot. Nowadays that pro-worker sentiment is making a comeback in some areas, but in others it has faded to nothing, resulting in workers that are sometimes too cowed to freely share that kind of info about disparity of wages and bonuses, etc.

[donnasgirl]

59. Thank you for that information,

[Lars39]

61. Hope it helps! :-)

[ibewlu606]

26. NT

What a scam! The below details what the employer is required to pay, which is determined SOLELY by the employer. Typical DLC corporate whorish behavior.
http://www.fbdmn.com/Profit-Sharing-Plans.c1036.htm

[SunSeeker]

42. That link is a consulting company. It is not offering any rules.

It has no connection to Hillary. I am not sure why you linked to it.

With regard to employers not being required to pay even when the agreed upon circumstances exist, that is not the case with any profit sharing programs I am aware of. Certainly this link does not say that. Of course if a company is not profitable, it does not pay, because there are no profits to share.

[hedgehog]

53. Last year our profit sharing check was bupkiss - and the rules were changed

when it came time to make out the checks. The company's owner just decided to keep the profit to himself without sharing.

[SunSeeker]

115. You're making Hillary's point. Companies need incentives to share profits with employees.

Right now they have no incentive to do that, and so they don't.

[hedgehog]

142. This year the incentive is that some key players will walk if it ever happens again.

[CTBlueboy]

28. Lol change in tax code aka

Give more tax breaks to corps ! They already pay little to no taxes ?

[fbc]

34. Tax cuts for corporations

exactly

[BrotherIvan]

149. Who else likes giving tax breaks?

Starts with an R I think.

[Man from Pickens]

29. So her priority is corporate profits then

surprise level: zero

[shenmue]

64. Wow

You could turn anything into something to whine about.

[Man from Pickens]

68. It's an inborn talent

I mean, not just anybody could find a reason to complain about an essentially Fascist (Italian version) economic platform being promoted by a Democrat. Only special snowflakes like myself can hope to attain such a lofty achievement!

[closeupready]

30. No way no Earth this is going to work. We KNOW that.

We KNOW trickle-down policies DO. NOT. WORK.

Instead, raise taxes on the richest, lower it on the middle class, and eliminate it altogether for the poor. Raise capital gains, property, and wealth taxes - all taxes that would impact those who HAVE the money.

[Avalux]

36. Sigh. Nice idea, won't help much. n/t

[cosmicone]

37. Hillary Clinton, "I'll give all workers $1 million each"

Hillary haters:::::

"Will it be real money?"
"But but she will give way more to the corporations"
"By the time she gives it, it will be worthless"
"She will take it right back and give it to Goldman Sachs"
"But she will be sending all the work abroad - what good is $1 million then?"
"She is only doing it because polls and/or focus groups suggest she should"
"It will not work .. government cannot print money that fast"
"But ... but .. she supported the Iraq war and sent our troops there!"

etc. etc. etc.

[riversedge]

38. Chuckle. But here is a

good poster to pass around

[SunSeeker]

46. I know, right? Oh the butthurt!

Unbelievable that some argue workers shouldn't get a piece of company profit--something workers have always wanted.

[frylock]

57. Wow! She said that?

link?

[silenttigersong]

88. Irag war vote

Perhaps you should talk to some maimed Vets.Furthermore it does say something about Clintons decision making.

[cosmicone]

100. She DID NOT vote for the Iraq war

She voted to give GW Bush the authority to go to war. That is what a majority of her constituents wanted. This is why many liberals voted for the IWR including some of the liberal stalwarts like Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Maria Cantwell, John Edwards, Max Cleland (a severely wounded veteran himself), Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl etc.

You'll note that most of the senators who voted "no" were long-established small state or deep blue state senators for whom it was an easy vote.

She has already stated that she got it wrong. The no vote was an easy vote for Bernie Sanders -- could Bernie have ever been elected as a Senator from NY in the first place? Nooyawkers like moderate politicians and even if Bernie had been elected as a senator from NY, would he then have had the guts to vote "no" when the whole country's mood was for revenge for 9/11 ?

[silenttigersong]

111. Listen she is your candidate

She is being scrutionized and like it or not her vote to authorize has alot to do with being Prez.I am making a comment about this silly post.To some people it is not funny or lite.

[silenttigersong]

114. Her

soundbite with Diane Sawyers,We Came We Saw We Killed"really should be her Dean Scream.

[London Lover Man]

147. She got it wrong, and she got Patriot Act wrong too.

So there is two black marks against her.

Her third black mark can be any myriad of issues. Religion? The Family. Black mark. Economics? Goldman Sachs. Black mark. Foreign policy? Screwed up (Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia - and mustn't forget Arab Spring). Black mark.

She is unqualified to lead America. Yes, she is qualified to be President, but is she qualified to lead? In my opinion - no.

[cosmicone]

148. Opinions are dime a dozen

Great leaders make mistakes and learn from them. They change for the better.

FDR was wrong about Japanese internment but he gave us social security.
Eisenhower was wrong about Korea but he gave us the highway system.
JFK had the bay of pigs but he succeeded in the cuban missile crisis. He also started the dialgogue on civil rights.
LBJ was wrong about Vietnam but he gave us Medicare and the civil rights act.
Carter was wrong about the Shah of Iran ... but he succeeded in the Camp David accords.


No one is perfect except of course Bernie Sanders -- right? A small state senator who never had a tough vote so he always voted the way DU wanted him to -- what a great accomplishment.

[Proud Public Servant]

40. "Workers are getting raped by corporations. So I'm going to encourage corporations to help them."

Gosh, can't see any drawbacks to that approach. Especially since Congress -- which has famously remained completely immune to corporate interests -- is sure to just tackle this one issue and not use it as an excuse to tinker with other parts the tax code and give more money away to Paris Hilton. Phew!

[Adrahil]

51. Ya! But Bernie will convince them to support his agenda, amiright? nt

[cosmicone]

72. LOL! n/t

[Proud Public Servant]

73. "Hillary - Because Corporations Can't Be Defeated, Only Deferred To"

Yep, there's an inspiring slogan.

[Adrahil]

78. I see you cleverly avoided the issue...

The fact is, neither Bernie nor Hillary is going to be able to do much until Congress sees a big change. In that sense, it doesn't really matter which one grts elected, so long as it is NOT a Republican.

Many Bernie supportes cannot admit this to themselves.

I did the candidate match thing. I actually agree with Bernie MORE than Hillary. But I thunk Hillary is way more likely to win the generals. I dunno. Maybe I'm just practical, but to me, a candidate who is pretty good and gets elected is better than one who is very good and isn't.

[Proud Public Servant]

106. To my mind, teh great distinction between

The Warren/Sanders wing and the Clinton/Obama wing of the party is that the Warren/Sanders wing is willing to speak frankly about what has happened in this country and -- more to the point -- who is responsible. Of course such speech alone doesn't effect change, but it is a bracing tonic in these mealy-mouthed times. It also helps shift the political discourse, which heretofore has considered direct criticism of corporate greed beyond the pale. So no, in this Congressional climate Bernie's no more likely to get things done than Hillary is. But at least he's willing to declare war, and not simply look for ways to "encourage" the enemy to stop attacking (while no doubt appointing enemy leaders as Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Fed).

[mazzarro]

138. +1000% !

[Dawgs]

150. Brilliant!!

[cosmicone]

153. Talk is cheap ... Bernie is playing people with talk

and being disingenuous in NOT providing a disclaimer that none of his policies will go beyond talk.

As usual, sheeple are salivating over sound bites and war declarations which are neither realistic nor substantive.

We have had such candidates before -- McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988. I hope we don't have Bernie in 2016 because he will be eaten alive in the generals. His "socialist" label will be repeated like a mantra by the media giving him the same status as Mao Tse Tung or Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Bernie is a decent man with high values. He is classy and I agree with him for the most part. However, there is BIG valley between being a Senator for mostly white 500K people who live a semi-rural existence in a uniform climate and a nation of 362 million people with varying cultures where being Machiavellian and media savvy helps.

[SunSeeker]

43. Sounds good to me.

It will put more money in workers pockets and/or will cause companies to reinvest into the business. Win-win for the economy and workers.

[jalan48]

44. LOL-what about the big corporations that currently pay little or no taxes?

What's their incentive to share? This sounds like a Republican idea.

[Proud Public Servant]

50. Yup. And no corporations have clever accountants

who might find ways to understate or erase "profit." That could never happen. We just have to trust teh corporations on this one; after all, when have they ever let us down?

[mazzarro]

139. The idea is akin to the trickle-down of the regan era

And those enthusiastic about this profit sharing idea are not but trickle-down dreamers.

DLC/Third-wayers are back with vengance!!!!!

[PoliticAverse]

70. Some taxes credits are 'refundable'. Some corporations actually pay negative taxes...

and get a payment from the government.

[jalan48]

76. Cool. So if we give them even more money they will give some of it back?

Trickle Down tax incentive program anyone?

[d_legendary1]

48. What about bringing back pensions? And protecting them from

vulture capitalist like Mitt Romney? Enough with the 401 (k)s and the portfolios! How about having enough money to retire on and not worry about working until we croak?

[SmittynMo]

66. Although I whole heartedly agree with you,

pensions are soon to be a thing of the past. When was the last time you interviewed for a job and pension was part of their benefits?

It use to be that way, decades ago. People live off pensions and ss, and 401k. Now 1/3 of that is gone and 401k are risky.

Most people 10 years from now, when they retire are going to feel it big time. Most of retired do now. If we don't change something, we're in for a huge collapse. It is a proven fact that without a thriving middle class, we're all doomed.

That is why I am voting for Bernie.

[d_legendary1]

109. The place I work for offers a pension along with a 401 (k)

But you are right that very few places offer pensions now a days. We need retirement security like every other developed nation has in place. We're one of the few developed countries in the world that allows bankers to take care of our retirement. This needs to end!

At my old job there were a few guys who were at retirement age who could not retire because the derivative crisis that set them back thousands of dollars! That debacle cost me half of my 401 (k), but I was starting back then. Someone needs to end the Wall Street money train and redirect it at the people who bust ass for a living.

I cringe every time I hear that tax breaks should be used to encourage businesses to do something positive since it always ends with obscene profits and only minimal positive change (if any). This "let's be nice to big business" attitude needs to end.

[silenttigersong]

54. Frosting

For "let them eat cake"

[BeanMusical]

58. Ah!

[Thespian2]

69. Many years ago,

I worked for a profit sharing company, Eastman Kodak...once a year workers got a bit extra in the paycheque...managers ordered new cars...Reason for the bonus? Keep unions out of the workplace...Oh, shares were figured on "net" profits...The big guys already had theirs...

[closeupready]

96. That's the rub here - workers will need to trust corporations

that they aren't playing games with "profit". Yeah right.

[Fearless]

71. So for every million the rich make off us... we get what an extra $0.35?

How about raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses instead. That way a business will invest in their people instead of giving their money to taxes.

[Adrahil]

80. We'd have to see the numbers, of course...

But my guess is that the corps would get to dedeuct something like 50% of funds paid in profit-sharing, as opposed to currently having to pay taxes on the full amount paid in dividends.

I do think that profit sharing funds should be taxed by the recipient as dividends and not earned income. After all, that's the break an investor would get.

[Android3.14]

75. Late to the table, but welcome

This would have been nice when she was on the Walmart board.

I'm sure her speech will be pretty, if overly nuanced. Unfortunately she is so late to the table that she lacks credibility with most voters. Luckily, the Republicans are in even worse shape than Ms. Clinton.

She can make promises until the bovines return to the family habitat, but her past decisions speak louder than campaign promises.

[Bonhomme Richard]

81. That would require another tax cut for business......and

who is going to make that deficit up. You and I both know.

[Adrahil]

110. Here's the thing....

This isnt just about tax cuts for businesses. In fact, if theyb do it right, it wouldnt affect deficits at all. As any good Keynesian will tell you, stimulating demand is the way to boost economic activity. To do that, you need to put money into the hands of consumers. The best way to do that is directly, either through tax policy, or better yet, a massive jobs program (say, to irmpove infrastructure). But another good thing to do is shift corporate profits from invesptrs, who or more likely, may not invest in stimulative ways, to workers, who are much more likely to spend the money, and create a multiplicative effect from the economic ny increasing demand. If implemented effectively, this could lead to a virtuous cycle of increase in both demand and wage growth, which naturally translates into higher tax receipts.

[PoliticAverse]

116. "Deficits don't matter" - Dick Chaney taught us that. n/t

[HenryWallace]

86. Well.... I hope she's got something else!

Really…. Confronted by an avalanche of problem and their progressive solutions provided by her nomination rival and she comes up with Tax Cuts!

Isn’t a minimum wage hike “profit sharing?” Oh..... but it doesn’t apply to highly compensated employees!

I guess if your opponent is Jeb “Work Harder” Bush, this this is a way out in left field!

Tax cuts are the least targeted, least coercive and ultimately least effective of policy proposals!

[still_one]

90. There is nothing wrong with profit sharing. As Rachel said several months ago, if Hillary had the

cure for cancer, the Hillary haters would find fault

[frylock]

91. And if Hillary proposed more tax cuts for corporations so that profits would trickle down..

to the workers, the Hillary lovers would rationalize it.

[PoliticAverse]

99. Yes nothing wrong with it certainly, but the question is what are the "incentives" offered

to encourage them.

[still_one]

102. That is a valid question. Not every corporation is evil. Employees at Costco and

Southwest Airlines are examples of happy employees, and they provide profit sharing

[restorefreedom]

92. so these "encouraging" tax incentives

are just more goodies for the rich.

i'm sorry, job creators

[CanadaexPat]

95. 1. How do you determine profit? 2. Profit is not always related to worker effort.

1. A lot of US companies report little or no profit because they pay fees to offshore affiliates. That's how they avoid US taxes. E.g., a company might transfer all ownership of its intellectual property to an affiliate in Luxembourg. The US affiliates then has to pay fees to the Luxembourg affiliate for use of that intellectual property. The 'profit' ends up in Luxembourg, and there is little or no profit in the US affiliates (and thus little or no taxes to be paid).

2. In the airline industry, profitability is driven in large part by the price of fuel. When fuel cost spikes there is no profit, but the workers are still putting in the same effort. There are always external items that heavily impact profitability and would affect worker compensation.

It's a good idea in theory but #1 would require a lot of work to fix and #2 would mean that the profit-sharing could only be a 'bonus' not a major part of compensation.

[L0oniX]

98. Can interns benefit from profit sharing?

[still_one]

104. Probably not

[L0oniX]

107. Maybe she should pay her help so they can share the profit.

[CTBlueboy]

101. oh look

Clinton will not propose reinstating bank break-up law: campaign adviser Blinder

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will not propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act, said Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton's campaign.

"You're not going to see Glass-Steagall," said Blinder, who was named by the Clinton campaign this weekend as one of 10 outside advisers on economic policy development. He said on Monday he spoke to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/us-usa-election-clinton-banks-idUSKCN0PN20K20150713

[cosmicone]

112. Bernie will reinstate it by convincing the republican congress right? RIGHT? n/t

[CTBlueboy]

117. So give up huh

So are you saying that we shouldn't break up big banks ?

Do we not live in a democracy ? If the American people are given facts on how big banks screw the little guy you don't think this will energize people out to vote. If the people are energized its translate to better elected officials getting into office to make the change possible

So instead you rather us sit on our hands and continue to let Big Banks get do as they please?

thanks for letting me know . I do not want a candidate that going to kiss Corporations asses

[cosmicone]

119. I asked a simple question.

You guys elevate Bernie to the level of Superman and Batman combined.

No matter who is POTUS, that person HAS to get around a republican house -- regardless of what people want. We are NOT a democracy -- we are a REPUBLIC and we do what GERRYMANDERED PEOPLE want.

So, if Hillary promises she will reinstall Glass-Steagall, she will be promising something she cannot deliver. I would rather have a candidate that promises what she CAN deliver rather than paint elaborate fantasies of Superman who will be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to jump tall buildings in a single bounce.

Instead of promoting an unrealistic candidate, why not use your energy to change the house so that more democrats are elected?

[CTBlueboy]

121. He more like Captain America if you ask me

So according to you Sen.Sanders an unrealistic candidate
And
Those who support Sen.Sanders should shut up and not voice our oppostion?

Can you imagine President Obama being told that he was an unrealistic candidate and him listening to the naysayers in the party lol

So big banks under a HRC presidency would still tbe too big to fail,no one would go to jail,and the tax payers would have to bail them out again

[cosmicone]

123. I don't think Bernie is unrealistic -- his supporters are

The supporters think Bernie is a super hero -- Bernie himself doesn't.

The bottom line is that neither HRC nor BS can change banks as long as the house is in republican control. PERIOD. End of story.

So, blaming HRC for something Bernie couldn't accomplish either is manifestly unfair.

[CTBlueboy]

124. May the best candidate win :)

I will continue to support my candidate or as you refer to him superman mixed with batman

[misterhighwasted]

125. Well THIS is the most Truth I've seen yet as to the reality of the banking system.

No president can do a thing to change it without the support & majority of the House & Senate.

[restorefreedom]

135. she doesn.t have to promise a magic wand

but saying she wholeheartedly supports it and will get as much of it as possible would be nice. bernie has come out in full support of g-s.

[Dawgs]

151. Post #106 says it best

The Warren/Sanders wing and the Clinton/Obama wing of the party is that the Warren/Sanders wing is willing to speak frankly about what has happened in this country and -- more to the point -- who is responsible. Of course such speech alone doesn't effect change, but it is a bracing tonic in these mealy-mouthed times. It also helps shift the political discourse, which heretofore has considered direct criticism of corporate greed beyond the pale. So no, in this Congressional climate Bernie's no more likely to get things done than Hillary is. But at least he's willing to declare war, and not simply look for ways to "encourage" the enemy to stop attacking (while no doubt appointing enemy leaders as Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Fed).

And, you should quit telling people what they think ... because, more often than not you're wrong.

[arcane1]

126. Who says we're not trying to change the House too? That's a strawman argument.

And if it's true that it doesn't matter who is POTUS until we get a new congress, then we should vote for the one with whom we share the most values, not the one will will have the most republican-approved proposals.

[hollowdweller]

120. She's got the right idea but to me this is a bit too weak

I personally would rather see the gov't actually mandate a floor on wages that is much higher than the current minimum. Make it extremely easy for workers to unionize and not be retaliated against or tax more and then give the money to the workers.

The whole tax incentive for doing the right thing is what we have been doing but I don't think her idea is going to be enough.

[douggg]

122. Pay raises almost a sure thing this year

Fri Jan 02, 2015 at 10:29 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/02/1355207/-The-stupidest-quote-to-start-2015

LAUER: We talk about this a lot, we have in the past, will this be the year that Americans see a real raise in terms of their ability to have a good lifestyle?

CRAMER: Yes. Because this is the year where the companies have so much profit that it would be embarrassing if they didn't return it to some of the workers.

.

CRAMER: There's going to be such great wealth, and such success for so many companies, that don't be surprised if you get a raise even if you didn't ask for it.

[peacebird]

127. Details please. What percentage of profit is to be shared? Do we know the company that gets

Our $$$ as a tax benefit actually pays taxes? What sort of $$ amount will each employee get in this profit sharing plan? What percent of the profit goes towards profit sharing? Who checks the company books to ensure they are not hiding profit...?

[HooptieWagon]

131. Sounds like lower wages + tips.

I'll bet Hillary is a poor tipper.

[bucolic_frolic]

132. Consumerism and Inflation will be the result

Once the CEO's figure out their companies are paying out to workers,
they'll raise prices to feed themselves.

This is dynamite economics - BOOM!

[bigwillq]

134. I think profit sharing is just an excuse

to freeze wage increases.

My company offers profit sharing. I think we reached our goals this year, and will be receiving some sort of bonus. That's great, I will certainly take it.

But, last year we did not reach our goals and the company informed us we would not be receiving any raises. They have not given raises in years. I am non-union.

I think profit sharing is the carrot they dangle above our heads. I would rather have yearly wage increases, cost of living increases, better benefits.

[cstanleytech]

143. You want incentives to businesses? Tell them they get no tax breaks at all

if more than 20% of their workforce earns less than 500% above the federal poverty level.

[madville]

145. I prefer employee stock purchase programs

It's an item the employee actually owns. If there is a profit the company could pay out a dividend.

I know a guy that is a meat cutter for a grocery chain that has an employee stock purchase plan, he makes $20 an hour and owns about $200,000 in company stock.