Can you explain what "damage" it might cause? Giving labor a seat on the board seems like a logical, small step in this direction. Maybe a lower tax rate for Employee Owned Companies (ESOP's) would incentivize owners to spread some of these record profits.
I think you're right, these are good ideas. My concern for damage has to do with the ratio between production and wage. Obviously wage earners should keep more than they currently keep, but the amount they keep needs to be flexible. If the economy tanks or there's a shift in the market, the wage needs to be flexible. I merely advocate for an approach with the necessary responsiveness to a dynamic economy while still improving wages.
> Why should the government take the ideological view of favoring one type of company over another?
Because it does that inherently when it decides what form of business organization to allow in the first place. Corporations are creatures of government, not nature, by creating them and setting standards for what the rules are for governing them it is favoring a particular type of company. But taxing them and then creating a variety of more-or-less tax exempt categories with different behavioral restrictions it is favoring one type of company over others.
Even if it chose not to charter corporations (or similar, newer types like LLCs) and only to allow sole proprietorships and partnerships, that would be favoring one type of company over others.
The question is not whether the government should favor certain forms of business organizations -- there is no way that it can avoid that. The question is what forms it should favor and how.
