Well, I don't expect this is a simple perfect system. It isn't new. I just think it might be better than what most places have currently.
US business has a history of "stock options" and "yearly bonuses". So this isn't new. (I haven't seen it here in Australia as a common thing.)
> If everyone gets the same dividend it becomes a tragedy > of the commons since an individual player can do the
> minimum while profiting off other players actions.
They still don't get the same salary as you. Unless they do in which case, no real change.
Alternately, if the company is making megabucks to the point where salary becomes insignificant, then I am ok with others being better off too, even the dead weight.
Also, you could argue that with everyone in the company wanting a bigger share, this puts pressure to remove the dead weight. 1 less employee means a bigger share for me. 1 more productive person(as opposed to dead weight) means more for me.
> Not only that, businesses are meant to make money if
> the people who start the business is giving out half
> their money away this system better make 2x the revenue > every single quarter or why would they do it.
This doesn't change the idea of businesses making money. Just who they should be making it for. It doesn't force a bonus every year. It just says that if rentseeking investors get dividends, employees do too.
Do we want a society whereby rich people can buy shares and then seek rent forever, using that rent to buy more shares etc.
Or where the people who do the work, get the rewards?
I understand that floating publicly is used to draw large sums of money for business to do great things. But it is also used as a forever debt, to pay shareholders forevermore for doing nothing more. Under this scheme, those investors would do their sums differently, obviously and it may well come down to the business getting "less for their float action".
But I like the idea of trying not to trample salaried employees to make others rich.(Many startups do in fact operate on stock option basis. I'd just argue the stock options should be equal value, from the CEO to the cleaner.)
Honestly, I'd prefer more than 50% go to employees - I hate "rentseeking" - but lets not go crazy.