Brickbat: Laboring Under a Heavy Burden


If the British Labour Party returns to power, it plans to seize some £300 billion (about $370 billion) of shares in some of the nation's largest companies and turn them over to workers, according to the Financial Times. The party's plans for "inclusive ownership funds" would force every company with more than 250 employees to transfer 10 percent of its shares to workers over 10 years. Those workers would get up to £500 (about $615) each year in dividends from those shares. Any income above that would be kept by the government.

NEXT: Trump's Trade War Is a Loser for America

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. All Bob’s money.

      1. Meaning Bob from Remy’s Beatles tune? That was brilliant!

  1. The laws of economics will just turn that into a shell game where workers will pay $2000 more for goods and services so they can get $650 more in their paycheck and the other $1350 then gets flushed down the toilet by the government mafia.

    1. My first thought was that it’s a radical plan. But the way you describe it, it’s just business as usual for government.

      Or better. I doubt people normally get $650 of value for $2000 in taxes paid. That seems suspiciously efficient for government.

      1. I would venture to say that you’re right.

  2. There’s no thief like a government thief. I’m sure A.O.C and the dem presidential hopefuls are takes notes. Since many would be small businesses who do not pay dividends it comes out of what ever profit they have to reinvest ,expand, hire new employees and put some back for working capital. Hard to get a ‘dividend’ in the unemployment line.

    1. The “Squad” will issue a press release any moment now: “This is what leadership looks like”

  3. Any income above that would be kept by the government.

    Where does a 100% marginal tax rate fall on the Laffer Curve?

  4. 249 employees, start new shell company. Rinse. Repeat.

  5. It’s funny how they haven’t figured out how this would likely have the unintended consequence of fewer jobs and less economic growth.

    You think they would have learned from seeing how guaranteeing jobs in Europe (where you can’t be fired for laziness or incompetence) leads to fewer jobs and high unemployment.
    But I guess you can’t expect a politician to learn.

    1. A politicians first priority is to get in office; thereafter it is to stay there.

      So they tell the majority of their voting constituents what ever they want to hear, and blame whomever they are likely to pile on with.

      As for consequences, kick that fucker down the road.

      1. You beat me to it. They’re not looking to create jobs; they’re looking to create votes.

  6. Please do not let Sanders and Warren hear about this. They will immediately want to implement it, with the percentage increased.

    1. “If a small island in the North Atlantic can mandate worker dividends of $615, the richest country in the world can afford to mandate worker dividends of $6000!”

  7. I’m just imagining that there would be a chunk of foreign companies that would decide the UK’s economy isn’t worth it and leave

  8. Garbage Island.

    Why would any company want to be positioned in England if they will have shares stolen like that?

    1. Such policies will necessarily require laws that prevent such businesses from leaving. And that will go for the principals, and investors, as well.

  9. Way to link to a paywall Oliver.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.