Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 1343

Should it be Easier for Growing Companies to Offer Employees Stock?

Argument in favor

Many companies use stock compensation as a tool to incentivize their workers, but reporting requirements for issuing stock beyond a certain level can act as a deterrent. Raising the threshold from $5 million to $10 million will make it easier to do so.

MJDalio's Opinion
···
04/04/2017
Frankly I am fed up with government micromanagement of the private sector companies. The government is incapable of managing anything without screwing it up. The reason our country is stagnant is because over the past 16 years of Bush then Obama the intrusion by government into the private sector expanded. Anything the government touches other than military it damages.
Like (87)
Follow
Share
MontclairMike's Opinion
···
04/04/2017
Yes. There are many benefits. Giving employees stock options gives them a sense of ownership. They'll be more devoted and work harder to improve profitability. It's also a relatively cost effective way for companies to reward their employees. More owned stock is goof for stock prices, and companies gain additional brand appeal.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
Kaleb's Opinion
···
04/04/2017
Absolutely. I don't see why not, especially if they're helping to build it. That sounds like capitalism at its genuine finest right there.
Like (22)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Lower thresholds and the reporting requirements that go with them help ensure proper oversight and avoid questionable business practices. Besides, a company shouldn’t be issuing stock if its not willing to open its books and be forthright.

Leo's Opinion
···
04/03/2017
Lack of disclosure makes it very easy for corporations to fool the public into buying poor investments.
Like (89)
Follow
Share
Mohamed's Opinion
···
04/04/2017
This is nonsense, the bill's sponsor wants you to believe that there are all these "hard working" people harmed by the current policy. The change really only benefits company owners by exposing them to less oversight from the SEC. As we have seen in the past even large companies with lots of resources and oversight engage in chicanery when it comes to compensation through stocks. This is likely even higher when you're talking about small companies who have less oversight from institutional investors. Oversight is forgotten when times are good, it's for the bad times that we have it.
Like (73)
Follow
Share
LFR2D2's Opinion
···
04/04/2017
I am opposed to this bill. It never ends up benefiting the employees who only get a small fraction of the stock. The companies and large shareholders will be the benefactors of any financial gains.
Like (67)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed April 4th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 331 Yea / 87 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedMarch 2nd, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 48 - 11.
  • action
    Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 115-71.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 42.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 240 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1343 with 1 hour of general debate. Motion to recommit with or without instructions allowed.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 240 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 240.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1343 with 1 hour of general debate. Motion to recommit with or without instructions allowed.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1343.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 240, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Polis amendment.
  • action
    Mr. Swalwell (CA) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a section to prohibit any exemption to an issuer if the issuer or affiliate of the issuer has withheld information from Congress relevant to its investigation of any collusion between persons associated with the Russian Government and persons associated with a presidential campaign.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 185 - 228 (Roll no. 215).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 331 - 87 (Roll no. 216).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed April 4th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 331 Yea / 87 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedMarch 2nd, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    MJDalio's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Frankly I am fed up with government micromanagement of the private sector companies. The government is incapable of managing anything without screwing it up. The reason our country is stagnant is because over the past 16 years of Bush then Obama the intrusion by government into the private sector expanded. Anything the government touches other than military it damages.
    Like (87)
    Follow
    Share
    Leo's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/03/2017
    Lack of disclosure makes it very easy for corporations to fool the public into buying poor investments.
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    Mohamed's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    This is nonsense, the bill's sponsor wants you to believe that there are all these "hard working" people harmed by the current policy. The change really only benefits company owners by exposing them to less oversight from the SEC. As we have seen in the past even large companies with lots of resources and oversight engage in chicanery when it comes to compensation through stocks. This is likely even higher when you're talking about small companies who have less oversight from institutional investors. Oversight is forgotten when times are good, it's for the bad times that we have it.
    Like (73)
    Follow
    Share
    LFR2D2's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    I am opposed to this bill. It never ends up benefiting the employees who only get a small fraction of the stock. The companies and large shareholders will be the benefactors of any financial gains.
    Like (67)
    Follow
    Share
    MontclairMike's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Yes. There are many benefits. Giving employees stock options gives them a sense of ownership. They'll be more devoted and work harder to improve profitability. It's also a relatively cost effective way for companies to reward their employees. More owned stock is goof for stock prices, and companies gain additional brand appeal.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    misteranderson's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    It's not worth giving up 2 existing regulations to make this change.
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    Henry's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/03/2017
    I think it's a great idea for companies to offer stock incentives! They need to do this transparently, though and not by offering effectively "worthless paper" instead of real potential value in the company. If this bill were written differently, I may have been a supporter.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Kaleb's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Absolutely. I don't see why not, especially if they're helping to build it. That sounds like capitalism at its genuine finest right there.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Adam's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    This seems like an opportunity for companies to offer forms of compensation to employees that they may not fully understand.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Laura's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/03/2017
    Why are you making it harder for the public to get information. Transparency and accountability are important, and we can't trust YOU to make the right choice.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Michael's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/03/2017
    This law makes it possible for people to sell anything less than $10,000,000 (as opposed to $5,000,000) in terms of stock without filing a notification with the SEC in a 12 month period. This is not necessary and will encourage people to attempt to screw with the stock market with even more money.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    selliebee's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Absolutely not. Lack of transparency in business and banking contributed to the 2008 crash economic crash and many others.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Barbara 's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    This is yet another way for the business owners to take advantage of it's employees. If they want to award their employees they can do profit sharing. I've been on the receiving end of receiving stock options which weren't worth the paper they were printed on.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Frederalist's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/03/2017
    The concept of sharing ownership is of immeasurable value to entrepreneurs and the people they choose to associate with when innovating. The moral fiber of humanity will only shrivel if we do not support this vote. For most men in modern times there are but a few moments when life offers a value proposition not founded in financial profit, but rather in a flight of moral quality.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Mary beth's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/03/2017
    This sounds like opening the flood gates to abuse. The amount of money being considered indicates a plan that would benefit only those already with deep pockets.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    GrumpyMSgt's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/04/2017
    The SEC does a pretty good job of regulating trading and monitoring activity. Why do you need more government bureaucracy to add to the mix. Government is not the solution folks. All most politicians are interested in are themselves and retaining power. They could care less about you except at election time. Then the phrase, "Fighting for you" gets beaten to death.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Nancee's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Does Enron debacle come to mind. Over investment in an employer stock is not a good idea. It's fine as a piece of a diversified and independently and well managed strategy but should not be at the company's control.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Jayson's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Transparency and accountability. And stock can be a dubious way to incentivize.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Udit's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Smells like another way for smaller riskier companies to take undue advantage of employees. Let them disclose all the facts and not cheat employees into investing and then going belly up
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    TuckerWantsLiberty's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/04/2017
    Let people make whatever employment arrangements they want. Why does the government deserve a say in this?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE