▶ Click here to enlarge
Ahead of the by-election, controversy over the pros and cons are heating up as the ruling party is pushing for profit-sharing institutionalization, such as the Cooperative Profit Sharing Act, the Social Solidarity Fund Act, and self-employment loss compensation. This is not the first time that the profit-sharing system has been controversial. When former Prime Minister Jung Un-chan, who served as the first chairman of the Shared Growth Committee (Chairman of the Shared Growth Research Institute), insisted on the introduction of the’excessive profit sharing system’ in 2011, it was also a social controversy. However, even Prime Minister Jeong Jeon, who is referred to as the “aid” of the benefit-sharing system, pointed out that “the benefit-sharing system claimed by the current government and politicians is a deterrence that lacks logical grounds and voluntaryness.”
It is criticized that it is highly likely to fall into a company that was packaged as’win-win’, but eventually, a company packed with’forced’.
On the 24th, Maeil Economic Daily heard what the former presidents of the Shared Growth Committee, who were in charge of the policy of profit sharing and shared growth in the past regime, had thoughts about the profit-sharing system and the legalization of self-employed loss compensation, which have emerged as a sharp social debate.
Prime Minister Jeong, who insisted on the introduction of the’excessive profit sharing system’ while serving as the first chairman, expressed deep concern over the drive to legislate the profit sharing system between the Blue House and the ruling party. Prime Minister Jeong said, “If the excess profit-sharing system was a concept to share the profits created by large corporations with companies in a cooperative system such as partners, the ruling party’s profit-sharing system lacks the basis for companies to raise funds.” It should be in shape, but the President and the ruling party representatives said a word at a time, and as legalization was promoted, it became impossible to voluntarily.”
The excess profit sharing system that Prime Minister Jeong promoted to introduce is a number of companies that have voluntarily introduced the system. A typical example is that Samsung Electronics pays tens of billions of won in incentives to semiconductor partners every year. Prime Minister Jeong said, “The excess profit-sharing system is a system that can be’win-win’ with each other in terms of being on the same boat. It is a system that is active worldwide, but this profit-sharing system is a problem that needs to be considered.” This means that the possibility of success itself is slim only if the benefit-sharing model, which requires confidence that the fundraising benefits will be’benefits’ to both donors and recipients, is forced into the framework of institutionalization. Yoo Jang-hee, an emeritus professor at Ewha Womans University, who served as the 2nd Chairman of the Shared Growth Committee, diagnosed that the legalization of the profit-sharing system was “a concept derived from the anti-business sentiment that large corporations only pursue profit maximization and do not share profits.” Professor Emeritus Yoo said, “The idea of punishing companies that do not share profits by law does not fit into common sense at all,” and said, “It is quite radical and out of common sense that the National Assembly makes laws and enforces profit-sharing of large companies by law.” Criticized.
Chung-young Ahn, the third chairman of the committee, also expressed concern over the plan to raise funds through legalization. Chairman Ahn drew a line saying, “At least, fundraising through legalization, which is currently being discussed around the ruling party, is the wrong way.”
Regarding the legalization of self-employed loss compensation, former chairpersons expressed negative stance. Prime Minister Jeong said, “If the self-employed person is at stake, it is correct to do something in terms of social stability,” he said. “However, if the business limit is extended from 9 PM to 10-11 PM for just 1-2 hours, compensation for losses It will have the expected effect.” “It’s a pity that I feel politicized with Corona 19,” he said.
Professor Emeritus Ahn warned, “There is no way to calculate the additional profits and losses of companies caused by the corona in an accounting method, so we are concerned about moral harm.” Previous shared growth chairpersons agreed that only voluntary agreements based on social consensus could be an alternative. Professor Emeritus Ahn said, “Like a win-win payment that helps large corporations to cash out payments to their partners early, we need to use the existing system,” he said. “Or, rather than simple support, such as creating a platform that shares market information of large companies with SMEs and small business owners, You have to go in a way to increase your competitiveness,” he predicted. He also advised that the self-employed person’s loss compensation should be further strengthened and actively utilized, along with measures to minimize the loss of self-employed persons rather than legalization. Professor Emeritus Yoo said, “It is important to make sure that the loss of the self-employed is compensated in large part by the taxation.”
[전경운 기자 / 송민근 기자]
[ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]