Latest Lists

Shouldn't businesses quit "spreading the wealth" to stock holders?

And just keep the money they make for themselves, say the top one or two guys? It seems socialistic that they are required to keep spreading this wealth to people who buy stocks. Stock buying is only necessary at the start of a business, but once it takes off and makes big time money why should they have to have "stockholders", like leeches expecting continual entitlements from that company's success?

Public Comments

1. The business classes are dedicated Marxists. It's just the values are inverted. The wealthy love their government handouts.
2. The stockholders own the company. It is completely amazing how little Liberals know about economics.
3. Are you kidding me?
4. stock holder ARE the business along with the employees without share holders most businesses would not exist which means millions of people would not have jobs and be able to support themselves and fee their family...of course this is exactly what the left wants because it would give them absolute power and control
5. The CEO's answer directly to the stockholders. The stockholders own the company, not the executives. Just a little Econ 101 FYI.
6. Selling stock gives companies extra money to expand. They can buy back the stock, but it is much cheaper to pay the dividend of usually a few cents or so on each piece of stock. Sorta like interest on a loan. People make money selling stock and buying stock. There are many types of stock, some do not pay dividends, some do, and some pay higher dividends. Companies often use stock as bonus payments to employees, and as collateral. There are tax benefits to stock, and its an economical way to fund employee retirement funds.
7. It's not spreading the wealth, it's paying dividends on investment. That's pure capitalism, not socialism. Once you reach 8th grade, you may learn the difference.