Stop Walmart Act

[Weatherman2020]

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

How come you commies weren’t worried when Leftist companies did it?

Apple Says It Will Buy Back $100 Billion in Stock

 

[Winston]

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price. And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price. Two things happened during the Reagan administration. First, stock options as a means of compensation were allowed to be "off the books". If a company gave their executives an option at x price and the price increased to y the company did not have to list y - x on their balance sheet, nor did they have any expense to list on the income statement until the option was exercised. Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives, and that was the purpose behind them. Honestly, both stock buybacks and the EITC lead to economic inefficiencies as can be seen by the Sears example and the unproductive employees at Walmart.

 

[Weatherman2020]

FANTASTIC!

Bernie Sanders targets Walmart: Bill would block stock buybacks unless workers get $15 minimum wage

Apple Says It Will Buy Back $100 Billion in Stock
So why was there no outrage?

 

[Winston]

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

 

[Winston]

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

How come you commies weren’t worried when Leftist companies did it?

Apple Says It Will Buy Back $100 Billion in Stock

Use the search function. I bitched about Apple buying back it's stock. Truth is, a company uses funds to buy back stocks when they have to acceptable investment to put their money in.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

Uh, because they own more of their own company?

Duh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price. And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price. Two things happened during the Reagan administration. First, stock options as a means of compensation were allowed to be "off the books". If a company gave their executives an option at x price and the price increased to y the company did not have to list y - x on their balance sheet, nor did they have any expense to list on the income statement until the option was exercised. Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives, and that was the purpose behind them. Honestly, both stock buybacks and the EITC lead to economic inefficiencies as can be seen by the Sears example and the unproductive employees at Walmart.

Because it is nothing but the artificial manipulation of the stock price.

Why do you feel it is manipulation? Why is a purchase "artificial"?

And the reason behind it is executive compensation that is based on that stock price.

The reason is also increasing earnings per share and efficient return of capital to shareholders.

Then the ban on corporate buybacks was lifted. Now you see what happened.​

The Dow went from below 1000 to over 25000. Awful, just awful.​

​

And I mentioned Sears earlier in this thread. Sears spent 4 billion dollars on stock buybacks over the last several years. Now they are bankrupt. ​

Sometimes companies go bankrupt.
​

Had they spent that four billion on upgrading their brick and mortar stores maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in today.​

And maybe they would.
​

All that stock buyback did was inflate the incomes of the executives,​

And the wallets of anyone who sold their stock back to the company.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business? In fact, the opposite happens. When a company uses funds that could otherwise be reinvested into the business to buy back stock simply to inflate the stock price for the benefit of executive compensation plans they can sometimes end up like Sears.

Tell me, if a company buys back their stock and then retires it, just how are they investing in their business?

Tell me, if you aren't an owner of a company, why should your opinion of what they should do with their cash matter the tiniest bit?

 

[McRocket]

I am against this bill.Government should never, EVER meddle in the economy.

`
I see some government intervention as necessary,

Not me...unless there is a major war on.

Most politicians have not a clue how to run an economy properly, and that DEFINITELY includes central bankers (bankers make great bean counters but lousy investors/economists).

Can you please give me an example of how government intervention can be 'necessary' (out side of during a war)?

 

[Synthaholic]

That legislation would be unconstitutional on its face.

Explain, law professor.

 

[Synthaholic]

Equivalent to a Walmart tariff that consumers will ultimately pay. You know, those middle class and poor customers?

Make an argument that Walmart can't afford to raise pay and buy-back stock while never touching their prices.

Make an argument that Walmart can't afford to raise pay

Create your own WalMart, pay as much as you'd like.
Let me know when your IPO is ready.

You've got nothing.

 

[Windparadox]

wish i was 'too big to fail'.......~S~

`
I was thinking more along the line of consumer/working class protections, not corporate.

 

[Windparadox]

Not me...unless there is a major war on.Most politicians have not a clue how to run an economy properly, and that DEFINITELY includes central bankers (bankers make great bean counters but lousy investors/economists).Can you please give me an example of how government intervention can be 'necessary' (out side of during a war)?

`
OSHA
Civil Rights Acts
Pure Food and Drug Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act: Free Credit Reports
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I could actually list a couple hundred laws that directly affect and protect US citizens. While many of these are arguable and some detrimental (No Child Left Behind Act) this is all a result of government intervention.
`

 

[McRocket]

Not me...unless there is a major war on.Most politicians have not a clue how to run an economy properly, and that DEFINITELY includes central bankers (bankers make great bean counters but lousy investors/economists).Can you please give me an example of how government intervention can be 'necessary' (out side of during a war)?

`
OSHA
Civil Rights Acts
Pure Food and Drug Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act: Free Credit Reports
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I could actually list a couple hundred laws that directly affect and protect US citizens. While many of these are arguable and some detrimental (No Child Left Behind Act) this is all a result of government intervention.
`

I am not talking about regulations on goods, services, etc., to 'protect' consumers.
I am talking about governmental interference in the economy to deliberately try to alter it's trajectory in some way (like the New Deal, ARRA, Bush's Stimulus Act, etc.).

 

[sparky]

Not me...unless there is a major war on.Most politicians have not a clue how to run an economy properly, and that DEFINITELY includes central bankers (bankers make great bean counters but lousy investors/economists).Can you please give me an example of how government intervention can be 'necessary' (out side of during a war)?

`
OSHA
Civil Rights Acts
Pure Food and Drug Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act: Free Credit Reports
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I could actually list a couple hundred laws that directly affect and protect US citizens. While many of these are arguable and some detrimental (No Child Left Behind Act) this is all a result of government intervention.
`

I am not talking about regulations on goods, services, etc., to 'protect' consumers.
I am talking about governmental interference in the economy to deliberately try to alter it's trajectory in some way (like the New Deal, ARRA, Bush's Stimulus Act, etc.).

Sure, plenty of them too.
You see, capitalism eventually eats itself w/o regulatory oversight
That is any good gub'mit's job.
~S~

 

[eagle1462010]

Uniformity Clause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Uniformity Clause refers to the clause in the U.S. constitution, requiring the uniform collection of federal taxes. Article I, Clause 1 of the U.S. constitution gives the federal government of the U.S. its power of taxation. The uniformity clause was intended to prevent the legislature and local officials from granting preferential tax treatment to influential property owners and to protect the citizen against unequal and consequently unjust taxation.

 

[McRocket]

Not me...unless there is a major war on.Most politicians have not a clue how to run an economy properly, and that DEFINITELY includes central bankers (bankers make great bean counters but lousy investors/economists).Can you please give me an example of how government intervention can be 'necessary' (out side of during a war)?

`
OSHA
Civil Rights Acts
Pure Food and Drug Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act: Free Credit Reports
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I could actually list a couple hundred laws that directly affect and protect US citizens. While many of these are arguable and some detrimental (No Child Left Behind Act) this is all a result of government intervention.
`

I am not talking about regulations on goods, services, etc., to 'protect' consumers.
I am talking about governmental interference in the economy to deliberately try to alter it's trajectory in some way (like the New Deal, ARRA, Bush's Stimulus Act, etc.).

Sure, plenty of them too.
You see, capitalism eventually eats itself w/o regulatory oversight
That is any good gub'mit's job.
~S~

Sorry, but I don't agree. Sure, free market has corrections, recessions and even depressions. But if left to their own devices, they ALWAYS fix themselves up quickly.
Take the 1920/21 Depression (which was actually caused by the government overspending for WW1 - sure, it's understandable, but that was not free market's fault)? When it began, the government basically stayed out of it. Result? It ended completely in less than 4 years with an actual decrease in federal debt.
Fast forward to the Great Depression and it's 'New Deal'. Result? Ten years after the 1929 crash the DOW was never higher than 52% of it's pre-crash high, the unemployment rate was never better than 4 times higher than its pre-crash low and the national debt skyrocketed by 150%.
Government meddling in the economy almost always makes things FAR worse then if they just let the economy run itself (outside of fraud laws, of course).

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not me...unless there is a major war on.Most politicians have not a clue how to run an economy properly, and that DEFINITELY includes central bankers (bankers make great bean counters but lousy investors/economists).Can you please give me an example of how government intervention can be 'necessary' (out side of during a war)?

`
OSHA
Civil Rights Acts
Pure Food and Drug Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act: Free Credit Reports
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I could actually list a couple hundred laws that directly affect and protect US citizens. While many of these are arguable and some detrimental (No Child Left Behind Act) this is all a result of government intervention.
`

I am not talking about regulations on goods, services, etc., to 'protect' consumers.
I am talking about governmental interference in the economy to deliberately try to alter it's trajectory in some way (like the New Deal, ARRA, Bush's Stimulus Act, etc.).

Sure, plenty of them too.
You see, capitalism eventually eats itself w/o regulatory oversight
That is any good gub'mit's job.
~S~

Sorry, but I don't agree. Sure, free market has corrections, recessions and even depressions. But if left to their own devices, they ALWAYS fix themselves up quickly.
Take the 1920/21 Depression (which was actually caused by the government overspending for WW1 - sure, it's understandable, but that was not free market's fault)? When it began, the government basically stayed out of it. Result? It ended completely in less than 4 years with an actual decrease in federal debt.
Fast forward to the Great Depression and it's 'New Deal'. Result? Ten years after the 1929 crash the DOW was never higher than 52% of it's pre-crash high, the unemployment rate was never better than 4 times higher than its pre-crash low and the national debt skyrocketed by 150%.
Government meddling in the economy almost always makes things FAR worse then if they just let the economy run itself (outside of fraud laws, of course).

WTF?

We were only in that war for like a year.



.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bernie Sanders says that he has the right to target one company and ORDER them to pay what he deems they should pay................

Targeting them by name..............Completely against the principles of this nation.........and the Uniformity clause of Article 1 Section 8. Another Liberal whack job pissing on the Constitution of the United States and the liberals cheer........

 

[sparky]

Sorry, but I don't agree. Sure, free market has corrections, recessions and even depressions. But if left to their own devices, they ALWAYS fix themselves up quickly.

your examples,along with many more, are the gub'mit having to mitigate market anarchy McRocket

free market solutions always end up anarcho-capitalism

Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government