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.
> 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!
1. They are still paying your salary, and
2. They are still granting you stock, but
3. They have suspended dividends on the shares you were granted
seems like a reach. I'd definitely be interested in reading about it if someone actually tries it, though!