5 ms·

I create a company, I issue shares expecting to get paid in return, but now I have to give them out for free. So I will not issue them. I own shares that have

I create a company, I issue shares expecting to get paid in return, but now I have to give them out for free. So I will not issue them. I own shares that have already been issued. I've paid a certain price for them. I will not give my shares to someone else for free, and I will not tolerate more shares being issued for frre because that will devalue my own shares. This idea of freely distributed shared equity ownership is a nonstarter since equity is only created when people pay for it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jacknews 9y ago
There are many ways to make this work, eg When you create your company, the govt automatically get 30% share, and 30% of future dilutions, perhaps instead of taxes.
- jacknews 9y ago
  But I'm thinking especially about things that that we all should have a natural claim on, like land, minerals, radio spectrum, etc, etc.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    If not for land ownership, why would anyone improve it? If I take out a mortgage on 40 acres, I might log it to generate revenue, and then plant it in hay grass to make (or help make) the mortgage payments, which in turn lets me build equity that I can leverage to acquire additional capital. That's a lot of work. Why would I ever go log, plant, and harvest public land when I don't substantially benefit from it?
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Why are you assuming you wouldn't benefit?
    - jacknews 9y ago
      The current situation is that you can own land (and pass it on to countless generations), and even if you do nothing to it, the value of the land may increase due to the rest of the economy, or if the people next to you build skyscrapers, etc. That's doesn't seem fair, or productive, so I think the land itself should be owned collectively to some degree, but you would still own your improvements, and even 'own' the land in the form of a lease or whatever.
    - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
      You most likely wouldn't log it, you'd sign away rights to a company that wants to log it, and they pay you a percentage of profit, or more likely stumpage fees. This would mean that public land would work the same, companies want to use those resources to turn a profit and the fees would pay out to the public for using public land. The profit one stands to make of improving the land is always going to be the driver to do it in any system. The difference is this is taking "public land" and making it pay out to the "public" directly (supposedly). Unless one veers too far into socialist territory and removes property ownership completely, none of this precludes private property owners from continuing to profit off fees for land use, or even profiting off developing the land they own same as before. If one does take private ownership off the table, you're dealing with a much larger social change and impact than this particular discussion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chongli 9y ago
This idea of shared equity ownership is a nonstarter since equity is only created when people pay for it No, this is equity in real things: land, timber, minerals, clean water, road access, electricity etc. Your company wouldn't owe anybody any shares. Your land value taxes, however, would be distributed to everybody equally. As would the proceeds from your utility bills. Ideally, you would pay back exactly your share of the net externalities your company benefits from. That may be very hard to calculate in practice, though.
- adventured 9y ago
  You can't distribute most of the recurring revenue systems in question. The roads & infrastructure systems need that revenue to sustain themselves, to operate, upgrade, etc. The land/property taxes are a critical revenue source for most local governments. This all just takes you right back to where we are today: you have to tax the top 1/3 heavily to pay for the money you're taking away from utility companies or infrastructure (and redistributing to everyone). You could allocate shared ownership into currently non-utilized land, mineral rights, spectrum, etc. That also simply takes revenue away from government that would otherwise receive that money, which you then have to tax back away from the population afterward to replace it.
namlem 9y ago
It would be done through a public investment bank, so you would be paid for the shares. That, or you pay equity in lieu of taxes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jacknews 9y ago

There are many ways to make this work, eg When you create your company, the govt automatically get 30% share, and 30% of future dilutions, perhaps instead of taxes.

jacknews 9y ago
But I'm thinking especially about things that that we all should have a natural claim on, like land, minerals, radio spectrum, etc, etc.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  If not for land ownership, why would anyone improve it? If I take out a mortgage on 40 acres, I might log it to generate revenue, and then plant it in hay grass to make (or help make) the mortgage payments, which in turn lets me build equity that I can leverage to acquire additional capital. That's a lot of work. Why would I ever go log, plant, and harvest public land when I don't substantially benefit from it?
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Why are you assuming you wouldn't benefit?
  - jacknews 9y ago
    The current situation is that you can own land (and pass it on to countless generations), and even if you do nothing to it, the value of the land may increase due to the rest of the economy, or if the people next to you build skyscrapers, etc. That's doesn't seem fair, or productive, so I think the land itself should be owned collectively to some degree, but you would still own your improvements, and even 'own' the land in the form of a lease or whatever.
  - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
    You most likely wouldn't log it, you'd sign away rights to a company that wants to log it, and they pay you a percentage of profit, or more likely stumpage fees. This would mean that public land would work the same, companies want to use those resources to turn a profit and the fees would pay out to the public for using public land. The profit one stands to make of improving the land is always going to be the driver to do it in any system. The difference is this is taking "public land" and making it pay out to the "public" directly (supposedly). Unless one veers too far into socialist territory and removes property ownership completely, none of this precludes private property owners from continuing to profit off fees for land use, or even profiting off developing the land they own same as before. If one does take private ownership off the table, you're dealing with a much larger social change and impact than this particular discussion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

chongli 9y ago

This idea of shared equity ownership is a nonstarter since equity is only created when people pay for it No, this is equity in real things: land, timber, minerals, clean water, road access, electricity etc. Your company wouldn't owe anybody any shares. Your land value taxes, however, would be distributed to everybody equally. As would the proceeds from your utility bills. Ideally, you would pay back exactly your share of the net externalities your company benefits from. That may be very hard to calculate in practice, though.

adventured 9y ago
You can't distribute most of the recurring revenue systems in question. The roads & infrastructure systems need that revenue to sustain themselves, to operate, upgrade, etc. The land/property taxes are a critical revenue source for most local governments. This all just takes you right back to where we are today: you have to tax the top 1/3 heavily to pay for the money you're taking away from utility companies or infrastructure (and redistributing to everyone). You could allocate shared ownership into currently non-utilized land, mineral rights, spectrum, etc. That also simply takes revenue away from government that would otherwise receive that money, which you then have to tax back away from the population afterward to replace it.

namlem 9y ago

It would be done through a public investment bank, so you would be paid for the shares. That, or you pay equity in lieu of taxes.