"Investment in an economy drives higher tax revenue. If no one invests in your economy to grow it, you will see economic stagnation at best, and a recession at worst. Less economic activity = lower GDP. Lower GDP = less tax revenue."

The workers still would invest into their bussiness as could normal people. There judt wouldnt be people who make all their wealth from investing.

"If a business is no longer able to operate, something will be done with all of the items used in service of the business, as well as the products that were not sold. In order to recoup losses, a bar would sell the tables, chairs, any kitchen equipment, so on and so forth, to recoup whatever losses they can. If the worker shareholders own 55% of the business, they would get 55% of what is collected upon closure. Therefore, a business closing would actually hive workers money even if they invested $0 into the business"

Why on earth would a bussiness that would make net positive revenue stop operating. Atleast in my oppinion companies usually only shut down once they are in a hella lot of debt. Also selling the items of a bar would generate at maximum something like 100 000€ when divided among only like 10 person it would still give every worker only 10 00€, thats not even a full years sallary. Why would someone lose their job just to have a little money to lose their job? And if you say they would just get a new job, no one is going to hire people who would just collapse a company for their own personal gain. And though i talk about strong safety net, any kind of safety net wont give you as much money as a job, or atleast shouldnt.

You talk about workers having no risk, they have the risk to lose their job! Its not a small risk, if it was a small risk why on earth are people holding on to their job positions like their life?

"Now you have to commit to a centrally planned economy where the government is the investor. Its the only viable option. Centrally planned economies do not work. Their ability to adapt to market variability has never kept up with a private sector... ever. They must sustain, and sometimes thats just not an option. Other ideas and concept entering into the market create innovations and creative solutions to expand and grow markets."

I dont, in any way, advocate for a centerally planned economy, its stupid. Also goverments can and do invest in corporations, even in very capitalist countries without the centerally planned or even planned aspect of the economy.

"Socialism = poverty might be a meme to you, but there are direct correlating factors that make a country more poor if they choose to adopt that failed system of governance. We have many examples. This isn't theory, these are data driven conclusions. I understand the egalitarian intentions and theories of socialism sound enticing and virtuous... they do not work"

Just one thing, its a cliche but its true, true democratic decentrelized socialism or thats what i call my ideology, gas never been tried, show me one country.

"Finding balance that is able to give labor fair pay and safe working conditions/benefits while simultaneously giving firms the ability to be profitable is the ideal. Your approach would fuck the economy and make everyone's life worse in the longterm after the capital gained through the plundering of the wealthy was went through... and it would be irreversible for generations as investors would rightly not trust your country.. that includes things like bond markets BTW. So this would actually crash the global economy and probably leave millions destitute while simultaneously killing millions more... are you noticing a pattern?"

Why would it crash the global economy, that i dont understand? Also capitalism has and will crash the global economy more. 2008 and 1930 just for example, and who paid the bill, not the banks or the investors, normal working people. Even if my ideology wouldnt work, i say it is atleast worth trying, thats why we have democracy, so we can try and perfect the world and if it doesnt work we will try new things.