You suggested paying a dividend was similar to paying employees. When throwaway2048 challenged this, you brought up stock-based compensation. Surely if such compensation (including dividends) was an obligation in the same way as wages, then the employee would have some recourse when it's interrupted. In other words, they could sue.

> ...if such compensation (including dividends) was an obligation...

But I don't think it's an obligation. Not sure where you're reading that from what I said.

Sock compensation is often discretionary, and dividend payments as well. Not an obligation.

Then, Like I said, its nothing like salary, which is absolutely an obligation.

> Then, Like I said, its nothing like salary, which is absolutely an obligation.

But I'm never argued it was a salary or an obligation. Literally never used either of those two words. I think you're arguing against something nobody said.

It's money you'd be paying a person. It doesn't matter if it was 'like a salary' or an 'obligation' or not. What difference do you think that would make? Preventing companies paying dividends is prevent them paying people. Real people!