For example, let's say a private owner starts a company, hired employees, pays them the agreed wage, and makes a profit. The owner should get the profit, right? They didn't do all the work, but they directed things, and took the risk that their capital would be lost.
Now, suppose you had the same situation, except the owner sold to a private shareholder. This private shareholder wouldn't seem to be in a different position. They risked their capital that the enterprise might succeed.
What about a public IPO? Well, the investors are putting their capital at risk to sustain the enterprise. Still seems fair.
The objection is that subsequent shareholders have done nothing. They haven't worked on the business, and they haven't injected capital. Instead the stock merely changed hands from the original owners.
So, the idea is we don't pay these people, or we don't pay them very much. What are the options:
1. We pay out less to shareholders. But then, this would affect ALL shareholders, including the original owner who put capital in.
2. We reduce payments to shareholders who didn't put capital in. All very good, except this means that those who did put capital in can never sell at the real price. The share is worth more to a capital injector than to subsequent purchaser. So, these people would be more reluctant to invest capital in the first place, knowing the shares could not be adequately resold.
3. Cut payouts for everyone except employees. In this scenario, the business simply doesn't get created. There is no reward for the capital at risk.
There's no way I can see to get the outcome you want without wrecking the whole system that creates the wealth in the first place.