Elizabeth Warren unveils bold new plan to reshape American capitalism

[riversedge]

Source: the guardian




Accountable Capitalism Act would bring about ‘fundamental change’, redistribute wealth and give more power to workers

Wed 15 Aug 2018 15.09 EDT






Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator tipped as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, has unveiled new plans for legislation aimed at reining in big corporations, redistributing wealth, and giving workers and local communities a bigger say.


Warren will introduce the bill dubbed the Accountable Capitalism Act on Wednesday. The proposal aims to alter a model she says has caused corporations to chase profits for shareholders to the detriment of workers.

Under the legislation, corporations with more than $1bn in annual revenue would be required to obtain a corporate charter from the federal government – and the document would mandate that companies not just consider the financial interests of shareholders.

Instead, businesses would have to consider all major corporate stakeholders – which could include workers, customers, and the cities and towns where those corporations operate..........................................

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/15/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-act-richest-companies

---

I hope she gets serious discussions.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-shouldnt-be-accountable-only-to-shareholders-1534287687

Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
My new bill would require corporations to answer to employees and other stakeholders as well.




By Elizabeth Warren
Aug. 14, 2018 7:01 p.m. ET

Corporate profits are booming, but average wages haven’t budged over the past year. The U.S. economy has run this way for decades, partly because of a fundamental change in business practices dating back to the 1980s. On Wednesday I’m introducing legislation to fix it.

American corporations exist only because the American people grant them charters. Those charters confer valuable privileges—such as limited legal liability for their owners—that enable businesses to turn a profit. What do Americans get in return? What are the...
To Read the Full Story



https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-shouldnt-be-accountable-only-to-shareholders-1534287687

?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=44b0e166c55ce47697b22fe2e900bce3

Elizabeth Warren: ‘The obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.’ Photograph: Charles Krupa/AP

[AlexSFCA]

1. love it

social capitalism is a winning direction

[pecosbob]

2. I posted it earlier today and I'll post it again...

Wall Street needs to be chained like a chicken-killing dog. If you unchain it, it will kill chickens if it can find them. Your only alternative to chaining the dog up is to put it down.

Kudos to Ms. Warren...we need more like her who speak truth. Also it should dovetail nicely with Ms. Pelosi's plan to hammer the GOPers on corruption as the mid-terms approach.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Elizabeth once again showing why she's a potential top-tier candidate.

[stuffmatters]

39. Exactly.

[zentrum]

4. Love Warren so much.

[Eko]

5. The ACA?

It sounds good, but Im still laughing.

[democratisphere]

6. Good luck taking the candy factory away from the wealthiest babies.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

7. yep

[Sophia4]

37. That is not how this works in reality.

Some of the most prosperous candy factories are in countries like Germany and Austria where the community on the whole does have more say about what goes on in the economy than we do.

This is how we can be come competitive in the international market.

Trump's tariff plans are not going to work. Good planning and working together just a bit without harming the entrepreneurs in our country, that is where economic success lies.

[JoeOtterbein]

8. Great Idea!

Keep them coming!

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread riversedge

[PSPS]

10. Outside the US, this is pretty much standard in all capitalist countries.

[Sophia4]

36. Yes. And we need it here if we are to become really competitive in the international

economy. It would allow communities to plan better than we can now.

[Recursion]

11. I really like this

Different countries legally recognize much broader stakeholders than US law does. Fixing that would fix so much.

[poetshepherd]

12. A Bad idea, politically, economically

You don't get big things passed by making big enemies.

Who cares how much tax the Feds collect from corporations--they get taxed a state & local levels.

Collect the $$ at the end--a flat 28% tax on ALL income, exempting the first $50k. No more capital gains baloney. If a corporation buys back its stock, the dividends/profit will be taxed at 28%.

That is sellable, politically, and is better economics.

[hueymahl]

13. Agree 1000%

Love Warren, but this is a terrible idea for all the reasons you said.

Would much rather clean up the tax code like you say and institute real basic entitlements. Food, shelter, health care, education. Let capitalism do what it does best.

[rzemanfl]

14. Bookmarking. n/t

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. But corporations should pay federal income tax because they benefit from federally funded programs

A big reason we have military bases all over the planet and start wars in places like Iraq is to "protect American interests". That's not you or me. That's CORPORATIONS.

But I agree with you about getting rid of the capital gains tax rate on income over $50K. Wy should someone who earns wages by the sweat of their brow pay a higher tax rate than someone getting passive income from savings? That never made sense to me.

BTW, stock buy backs were illegal until the Reagan years. Maybe they should be made illegal again. It really chaps my hide when the Walton family spends Walmart's "excess profits" on stock buybacks while their employees get hundreds of $millions in taxpayer funded welfare. FUCK THAT!!!

[Sophia4]

34. Good points!

[MichMary]

41. Corporate taxes

are passed on to the consumer as part of the cost of the product. Increasing taxes on corporations simply means that people are paying more for good and services that they want or need.

I've never understood the idea of raising taxes on corporations, as if that would solve all of our problems and fund all of the social programs we want.

[TexasBushwhacker]

53. I didn't say the taxes should be raised

I'm saying they shouldn't have been cut. As we've seen, when the taxes are cut, corporations don't cut the prices of their products and they don't share the wealth with their lower paid employees.

The prices charged for consumer products is only partly determined by the cost of that product. The latest iPhone doesn't cost significantly more to manufacture than the latest Android, but Apple will charge $800 for it because people will pay it.

Net profit is income. I pay taxes on my income and corporations should too. Though the top marginal rate was 35%, when all the deductions are taken away, the US corporate tax rate was less than 19%.

Now that the GOP has cut the rate to 21%, it will be interesting to see how it affects the federal coffers. Had the corps passed the savings onto their employees, the amount of personal income taxes would have gone up. Since that didn't happen, all it will do us blow a big hole in the deficit and the national debt will soar.

[poetshepherd]

59. Of course, but here's a much better idea

Corporate tax of 5% on net REVENUE over $5million [excluding salaries over $250k] for revenue earned in USA, 10% on net revenue earned outside USA.

By my estimates, that would produce between $60billion in bad years, to $160 billion in good years.

Distribute the $ to County Governments on a per capita basis. So, in a good year, NYC would get $8 billion, my rural county, $80 million--still more than all our infrastructure budget!

It would be loved in Red/rural America, thus, have lots of support.

[Sophia4]

35. It isn't so much about money. It's about giving communities the chance to

impose conditions on corporations building and operating in their areas like controls on pollution that communities don't now have, like training agreements, etc.

I think there is a lot of good in this idea.

It would promote more strategic planning in terms of industry, jobs, education, etc.

Corporations would not be quite so able to do secret things like suddenly move jobs out of a community without some plan to employ those who lose those jobs.

This would help us have healthier communities.

[proglib217]

40. I love Warren, but...

I don't necessarily disagree with what Warren is proposing, but I tend to agree that greater and easier economic justice can be accomplished through reform of the Internal Revenue Code.

But I don't like the idea of a flat 28% tax. I *do* like the idea of abolishing all deductions and tax being paid on all forms of corporate and individual income. But the concept of a graduated tax should be maintained. Why should George Romney and the janitor at the local high school both pay a 28% tax? It's utterly unjust.

I'm not gonna propose specific numbers here, but clearly Romney should be paying in the neighborhood of 70% while the janitor pays 3%. The $400,000 hedge fund manager would pay 35%. Etc.

I stress that these aren't intended to be actual tax brackets. I only throw these numbers out for conceptual and discussion purposes.

[poetshepherd]

61. We saw 2 Rmoney returns. He paid $0 and $14%

in the 2 years we got to see. trump paid nothing for 20years.

THAT is the whole problem w/ our economy! Your point, "Why shout Mitt pay what a busdriver pays [flat 28%]--he NEVER pays even 28%!

And the busdriver would only pay 28% after his first $50k. So your math is way off.

[Judi Lynn]

15. Wonderful. Thank you, riversedge. n/t

[paleotn]

17. Sounds good, but....

It will run afoul with the states. Incorporation has traditionally been a state function, and certain states make gobs of money from it, ie. Delaware. I'm not saying she doesn't have a point. In spirit, she does. But this would be an incredibly heavy lift even if we Dems controlled Congress and the White House. It's a potential legal quagmire with existing corporate entities.

[Sophia4]

33. Delaware, sponsor of the "race to the bottom" in terms of corporation laws.

Delaware should not be the incorporation sewer of America. The US government should set the standards for incorporation law.

[henbuck]

46. Right on and I live in Delaware.

[ProfessorPlum]

44. I think she is trying to start a conversation about

what we should expect from corporations, not expecting to get this version of things passed, especially not with the corporate hos that infest Congress at the moment.

And she's succeeding

[yonder]

18. I'm liking what I'm hearing here,

especially the recognition that the entire community are all stakeholders, including any specific shareholders. It's way past time that external costs are diligently examined and mitigated along with the usual corporate proclamations of community benefits "because jobs".

Whether or not this proposal gets anywhere is a different story. I think the shitty oligarchical foundations of our current corporate MO have been set, poured and backfilled too, with republican nonsense. Perhaps the typical business as usual structure can be redesigned and placed atop of?

Good luck Senator, this new ACA will likely send the redhats over the edge.

[2naSalit]

19. I admire her efforts to do something abput income equality but...

Fuck capitalism, look what it's got us. It has no positive correlation to any kind of betterment of humankind. If you don't think I know what I'm talking about, just look around yourself, right where you are and think about what capitalism actually does to contribute to all the ills from which we currently suffer.

[Honeycombe8]

20. "Redistribute wealth"? A business owner can't make business decisions best for the business?

Sorry, but this is dead in the water. If I understand it, that is not capitalism. America's economy is based on capitalism.

This will hurt the Democratic Party, throwing this out there, since it will confirm all the conspiracy theories of the far right that the Democrats are out to steal the fruits of your labor and give them to someone else...code words of "redistribute" and "socialism."

That's what I think the reaction will be. But I'm willing to learn more about it, to fix the wage stagnation.

[LiberalLovinLug]

22. I think there's a new untapped demographic

Even the Financial Times is saying that Democrats should listen to the new rising left in the party

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/f6de7d2a-90c6-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421

The US Democratic party is returning to its roots. During Barack Obama’s administration, the president’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, derided the “professional left” for wanting things like “Canadian healthcare.” Eight years on, the most popular new liberal faces are asking for just that — and much more.

...............

It is true, and is something that Democrats, who have moved too far away from their labour roots in recent decades, have not fully reckoned with. From Bill Clinton’s administration onwards, the Democratic party has been led by “neoliberals” who were more or less happy to continue down the laissez-faire path set during the Reagan era.

[KPN]

31. Good post!

[Honeycombe8]

48. Playing devil's advocate...

So when I say, "Let's appeal to the middle class blue collar worker, and get those votes back!" Some on the far left would say, "What? Why should we cowtow to the white male? It's time to pay attention to others. They can go to hell!"

But when I say, "Let's appeal to the middle class blue collar worker, work on wage stagnation, and get back to our roots of a union and jobs supporter for the blue collar middle class!" Some on the far left would say, "Power to the people! Yeah...let's get back to our roots!"

WTH? It's the same thing. I swear some progressives have been dead set against working on anything that benefits the middle class blue collar worker, most of whom are white males.

It's all too bizarre. Everything old is new again. Sort of. Maybe. But not really?

[LiberalLovinLug]

60. Good point

They shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
I don't see why it has to be one or the other. I'm a white male too ffs.
It's too bad but there are some that seem at war with all white men. Straight ones. It's true that most of the institutionalized injustices have been the fault of white men, from human slavery to corporate slavery. But there are plenty of us that abhore both. It shouldn't be a decision that the white males issues are over and anyone that champions issues that helps them is putting their energies in the "wrong" place

We mix up Trumps deplorable white men with all white men to much for my liking. But I don't complain much because we also are still at the top of the white privilege heap. And there are so many others that lack privilege.

But there should be equal emphasis on fighting for worker and union rights as standing up for immigrant rights. That's why I prefer the Sanders and the rest of the progressive wing in shooting for a broader social movement that lifts everybody up. I think it's a mistake to get into identity politics too much to the point that we are fighting each other as to which issue we must solely concentrate on before others are addressed.

[shanny]

27. capitalism needs to die, before it kills all of us

[Honeycombe8]

49. America has a capitalistic economy. Not gonna change.

It was set up that way.

However, what we are witnessing NOW is an oligarchy-based capitalistic society. There is not really a free market...we are being ruled by wealthy, global corporations, and billionaires.

Real capitalism is good, IMO, as long as there are protections for citizens, and social programs as safety nets. This is what all the big First World countries have...the U S to a lesser extent. So when you open a corner store, you get ahead financially by working long, hard hours, and you make money for taking that risk and putting money into it. You get to keep most of the fruits of your labor. You hire some workers, and you pay them the going rate. Those workers get money, get to keep most of the fruits of their labor, and spend it on local goods & services...and hopefully get other jobs later where they get more money. Then the workers form unions, because they are being abused, since they have no power. Unions give them power. Social Security safeguards senior citizens from living in poverty at a time of life when they can do little about it.

And so on.

But what WE have right now are mega-corporations that dictate the prices of things to us. Medications, health care, even cars. Special interests with lobbyists, who buy off politicians. That's not capitalism. That's a rigged system.

[shanny]

52. "real capitalism" does not include protections for citizens, and social programs as safety nets.

By definition. "Real capitalism" is extractive, exploitative, inevitably results in monopolies and is based on the principle of continuous growth...which in the closed system of planet Earth, is unsustainable and a recipe for disaster.

We are staring down the barrel of that disaster and all arguments about capitalism or modified capitalism or socialism or whatever are the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. FDR "saved" capitalism--from itself--back in the 1930s but we are way past the point where a similar program would work now.

[brooklynite]

66. "By definition" capitalism says nothing about social programs...

It say something about owning the means of production. Redefining capitalism and socialism for political gain is doomed to failure.

[shanny]

67. I am aware.

I'm not the one redefining capitalism.

[Politicub]

43. A billion-dollar business today makes the best decisions for the leadership and shareholders

Under Warren's proposal, a business will need to take into account ALL stakeholders, employees among them, when decisions are made.

Mom and pop businesses won't be affected by this idea. It will be the oligarchs who will be most affected, and the CEOs that bring in millions in salary each year.

This is an idea whose time has come. The abuses of Trump and the zeal of millennials create the conditions for which to usher it in.

[Honeycombe8]

50. You can't dictate the WHY of business decisions. It's subjective.

Unless you can read minds, you have no idea what a CEO or board took into consideration when it decided to buy a small business. In fact, it can always be argued that what is good for the business profit is good for the shareholders AND the employees.

While I'm in favor of regulation to avoid fraud, some things can't be regulated because of their nature.

[kcr]

62. You're arguing for unregulated, unchecked capitalism

That is the death warrant of American workers and any hope of economic equality.

[Honeycombe8]

64. No. There are laws in place for corporations...

that protect the rights of employees and shareholders.

Small businesses are at risk, as well. Let's say you use your life savings to invest in a deli and hire 3 workers, plus your nephew cleans the place on weekends.

Are you telling me that you accept the fact that you can't sell it and move to West Virginia, unless your 3 employees say you can? Seriously?

Come on. Who is going to open a business here, under those conditions? You risk the money, the work, the time,...and you can't make the decisions you want or need for your own business? Anyone who thinks that is going to fly in this country is smoking somethin' that I wish I had.

That wouldn't be accepted in Canada, Great Britain, the U.S., or any other democratic First World country these days.

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Because this is so far off from a democrat's vision of the country, that it doesn't make sense. But if this is what they think will fly, IMO we won't need Russia to torpedo us.

[KPN]

21. I like it conceptually a lot. But i'd be

surprised to see much more than the progressives in our party support it. Nevertheless, it’s important for us to have a national debate about capitalism in its current form and address the serious problems it creates. We need to deal with those problems. Legislative proposals like this serve as valuable catalysts for debate and broader awareness. Good for Elizabeth!

[Politicub]

23. Genius. I love it.

[Demsrule86]

47. A flat tax is not progressive in my opinion...it is a regressive tax and a bad idea.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. It's more than past time we have this discussion

Personally, I would create an new stock exchange purely for betting on stocks. All the trading algorithms can be transferred to betting and not used to force companies into short term actions purely to goose stock prices. All these hedge funds can then speculate to their hearts content and whatever gains/losses they make will be irrelevent to the existing markets. This would in turn free up companies to make rational corporate planning and investment decisions.

I would also make it illegal for hedge funds and other speculative financial entities to own or buy stock in companies with the exception of venture capitalists.

[BlueWI]

25. Kudos for the big idea.

It's easy to assume that the processes of incorporation can never change to better support the public interest. The conversation has to start somewhere if we value socially responsible business practices. The alternative is to decimate the planet's resources while leaving oligarchy to dictate macroeconomic decision making, as we are doing now.

Let's not kill off the idea before it is discussed.

[yonder]

29. +1.

"while leaving oligarchy to dictate macroeconomic decision making, as we are doing now."

[KPN]

32. +1000

[gtar100]

26. Oh my gosh, this is so unfair

to the people who can't earn a living without lying, cheating, stealing or otherwise gaming the system in their favor. Whatever will they do to survive if they can't skim wages off workers. I'm worried they might have to get a second job in retail or something like that. I do hope they're okay and don't have to settle for a used car.

[David__77]

28. Sounds like it could be a good reform.

...

[Sophia4]

30. It's about time. This would be the first step toward taking back our country in terms

of the economy and of operating on human values rather than just monetary ones.

Difficult and complex to implement as this plan would be, it would permit America to compete as a nation with other nations and do some very general organization and planning for the future of our business sector. Jobs would be considered in our municipal and state and federal planning. Right now, there isn't much we can do to improve our trade balance, build healthy communities (especially in terms of environment for example) other than punish "offenders." We as a people play no part in deciding what happens at the corporate level.

I am very much a capitalist, but communities should offer space to entrepreneurs if they want to, and there should be a much stronger feeling of working together toward economic goals. The public should have some impact on the planning that corporations, especially local corporations, do, and the public's say should be backed up by power.

Corporations will do better if they are more a part of the communities they are in and don't just go off and make their decisions without answering as to the impact of those decisions on communities around them.

This sounds good to me as long as it is not too intrusive. Gifted, talented individuals who have ideas and start new companies should have a lot of freedom to develop their ideas, but we have gone too far in terms of corporate power. Corporations can crush communities.

[Devil Child]

38. An excellent start! n/t

[malthaussen]

42. That should complicate the Due Diligence lawsuits.

If a corporation is legally permitted to take things other than increasing shareholder value into account, it would provide a defense in Due Diligence lawsuits.

I wonder what the unintended consequences might be.

-- Mal

[ProfessorPlum]

45. this is a brilliant plan. And an even more brilliant way to start a discussion on

what we should expect from our corporate overlords. We have the power to demand that they coexist peacefully with us, without making our lives a fucking misery. Let's talk about how we do that.

[Cold War Spook]

51. Yes, certain people make a lot of money such as the CEO.

But corporations are owned by many people, a lot of people have money invested in 401K and IRA. This could effect how much money they have at retirement. Also, a corporation is a person and has rights.

[pecosbob]

54. Here's a crazy thing...pay for what you use

When I was young vehicle registration in Texas was determined by the weight of the vehicle. A heavy truck puts more wear and tear on the road than a compact car, so it makes sense.

Taxes are a social compact...pay in and you receive in return. A system that taxes corportions only on it's profits misses the entire point of the tax, to pay for the services it uses and the strain the corporation places upon the public infrastructure from roads to education to the fire department. When a corporation does some accounting mumbo-jumbo and effectively pays no taxes we all lose except the faceless shareholders.

[MichMan]

56. Are you saying individuals should be taxed on the amount of services they use regardless of income?

"Taxes are a social compact...pay in and you receive in return."



That seems like a bad precedent

[pecosbob]

58. Certainly not, but there has to be some equity

so that our tax dollars don't literally go straight into shareholders' pockets...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

55. Excellent thinking, I like it!

👍🏾

[mopinko]

57. should go double for those that get incentives.

local or state.
might be a place to get a foot in the door.

[kcr]

63. That is why she's my first choice for POTUS.

I love her.

[sarcasmo]

65. Bold and new is what we need.