Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Surprise, surprise, surprise


MojoMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Or if we get rid of a ton of needless (not all) regulation, bust unions, and streamline the tax code and reduce the expense the government places on businesses to make America a more competitive atmosphere for manufacturing.

Union-free workplaces make up 93% of the private sector.

 

Any specific regulations we should get rid of? Not dumping your chit in the river, perhaps?

 

"Streamline" the tax code means "yet another tax cut"

 

What expense? Aren't businesses sitting on record piles of cash and making record profits right now? If that's the case - and it is - what are these expenses the government is placing on these companies already making massive bank?

 

Grunge is right - it has frack all to do with taxes, expenses, uncertainty and all the rest of the usual blah. It has to do with demand, pure and simple. Good grief, taxes are at all time lows, same as interest rates. Why is demand dead? Because wages and net wealth of the consuming public is down.

 

Bank of America is about to eliminate another 30,000 or so jobs. Do you think those 30,000 will be spending the same as they were before? Don't you think it ironic that business waffles on about the economy all the while seeking to make it worse? See, uncertainty isn't a one-way street only open to entrepreneurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seriously, that sucks about the franchise. :wacko:

 

But wouldnt you . . . as a small business owner . . . LIKE the fact that the jobs bill includes significant tax cuts for small businesses? isnt that a positive that renoves "uncertainty"? Or because the Republicans may not pass the bill that would support and aid small businesses that has you worried? I too . . am worried about that.

 

Honestly haven't looked into the bill in any depth. What I'd really prefer though is to completely stream line taxes where as a small business owner I didn't have to hire a professional to make sure that the IRS doesn't throw me in jail. I'd prefer that the regulations that govern what ever business I choose to own to be no larger or harder to understand than my families King James Bible. I'd also like all politicians to stop spending today and putting off paying for it until they are out of office. If they want to spend money today, then find a way to pay for it today, not 3 or 4 years from now. I'd rather take my medicine now than be dreading it for a long time. I'd also like for everyone to be a net tax payer, even if it is only $1 a year before we start raising taxes on any particular group that is currently a net tax payer. Then, I'd like to see all increases be across the board, rather than targeted at the few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly haven't looked into the bill in any depth. What I'd really prefer though is to completely stream line taxes where as a small business owner I didn't have to hire a professional to make sure that the IRS doesn't throw me in jail. I'd prefer that the regulations that govern what ever business I choose to own to be no larger or harder to understand than my families King James Bible. I'd also like all politicians to stop spending today and putting off paying for it until they are out of office. If they want to spend money today, then find a way to pay for it today, not 3 or 4 years from now. I'd rather take my medicine now than be dreading it for a long time. I'd also like for everyone to be a net tax payer, even if it is only $1 a year before we start raising taxes on any particular group that is currently a net tax payer. Then, I'd like to see all increases be across the board, rather than targeted at the few.

 

-sigh-

 

The bill is very beneficial towards a small business owner perch. Seriously . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Union-free workplaces make up 93% of the private sector.

 

Any specific regulations we should get rid of? Not dumping your chit in the river, perhaps?

 

"Streamline" the tax code means "yet another tax cut"

 

What expense? Aren't businesses sitting on record piles of cash and making record profits right now? If that's the case - and it is - what are these expenses the government is placing on these companies already making massive bank?

 

Grunge is right - it has frack all to do with taxes, expenses, uncertainty and all the rest of the usual blah. It has to do with demand, pure and simple. Good grief, taxes are at all time lows, same as interest rates. Why is demand dead? Because wages and net wealth of the consuming public is down.

 

Bank of America is about to eliminate another 30,000 or so jobs. Do you think those 30,000 will be spending the same as they were before? Don't you think it ironic that business waffles on about the economy all the while seeking to make it worse? See, uncertainty isn't a one-way street only open to entrepreneurs.

 

Of the private sector, what about of the total workforce?

 

I thought you knew me better than to think I would accept much less condone dumping into rivers. I didn't say all regulation should be done away with, but that there is a ton that could be done away with, or at least be written by people with practical experience in the field they are regulating. I could name about 40 OSHA regs that should be completely trashed just off the top of my head, and about 5 environmental regs that the implementation thereof does more harm than the protection they are supposed to provide. Again I emphasized not all regulation, but if you think there isn't a ton of regulation that could be done away with, then you are one of those blessed individuals that doesn't have to deal with them all that often or at all.

 

By streamline i actually mean what I said, not a cut, though I believe if you did do away with all the deductions (with the exception of charitable donations) that you could lower the marginal rate and still be revenue neutral or even pick up some revenue. What I'm talking about is making it where the average business owner can do his/her own taxes with confidence, instead of having to have a CPA do it.

 

While some corporations may be making record profits, the average business is not. Raising the top rate will affect more businesses than it will listed corporations. If you don't think uncertainty caused by all the spending, legislation and proposed legislation hasn't caused people to hold on to their money instead of investing it or spending it, you aren't nearly as smart as i think you are, or you have no idea what it is like to have your money on the line in the business you are working in. I know my family has drastically reduced our spending, and it isn't for lack of funds as I currently have more liquid assets than I have ever had, but because of the amount of uncertainty that is out there. I just spent about $10,000 looking into a business I was thinking of starting until I realized it the amount of regulation I'd be dealing with, and that due to the number of employees I'd have to have, it would be subject to Obamacare. I'm now looking at another business, but am not sure if opening it and dealing with the headaches is worth the little bit of extra coin I'd get or if I should just go to work at a 9-5 with no headaches and allow my investments to supplement my income so that I can maintain my current standard of living.

 

I recently looked at buying an existing business, my first three questions were as follows:

1. What is the EBITA?

2. How may employees do you currently have?

3. What regulatory bodies do you have to deal with?

 

I was encouraged with the answers to questions 1 and 2, but the answer to question number 3 made me decide that it just wasn't worth the heartburn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't think uncertainty caused by all the spending, legislation and proposed legislation hasn't caused people to hold on to their money instead of investing it or spending it, you aren't nearly as smart as i think you are, or you have no idea what it is like to have your money on the line in the business you are working in.

As always, you make a good argument but only from one POV. You're looking at it from the business POV and blaming the government for some perceived over-regulation, over-taxing and "uncertainty" in general. By these lights, it's a miracle anyone ever started a business and this fear of "uncertainty" kind of make me wonder if entrepreneurs are dead.

 

Well, actually, it doesn't. Entrepreneurs aren't dead, they are just hibernating. They are waiting for Joe Consumer to get over his own "uncertainty", brought on by the wildly out of control gyrations of the idiot financial community, the ongoing efforts of companies to slash as many jobs as possible, the collapse of housing, the death spiral of the 401k and the inability of his wage to keep up with costs.

 

That's where your uncertainty is - on the demand side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a google search. Perhaps you'll be less lazy in the future, :lol:. :wacko:

 

So does this elimination of over 500 rules counter your link?

 

No? How about this one?

 

Does this one work?

 

:rofl::tup:

 

Your personal hatred of Obama is well documented. But you are really confusing implementation of laws passed by congress as being the sole province of the WHite House and Obama personally in his remote legion of doom lair as he plots how to screw the world over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you did read cliaz posting that taxing the wealthy won't move the needle, right? neither will punishing our american companies, the engines of growth and prosperity. just think of the power of the entire government focused on nothing other than making our corporations the best in the world, free to compete fully, with incentives for investing here. instead, it's punishing them with some idea that taking a third of what they earn isn't living up to their fair share ... it's about tightening the tax code even further to lay on them a burden to bear. it's about putting them at odds with the gov vs. forming strong partnerships. and no, this doesn't mean dumping in rivers you moran. it should be about lightening their load and staying up nights trying to figure out how to get more and more cash in their coffers. cash that funds retirements an provides reasonable health care plans.

 

and i love the rich. i want more and more and more of them everywhere. this is the only way, the only way to grow the pie. no gov jobs bill is ever going to move the needle, especially one that is using funds that could be used to reduce the debt our kids are facing as a result of the gov's absurd mismanagement of our money. you fools are actually arguing to give them more ... wake up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you did read cliaz posting that taxing the wealthy won't move the needle, right? neither will punishing our american companies, the engines of growth and prosperity. just think of the power of the entire government focused on nothing other than making our corporations the best in the world, free to compete fully, with incentives for investing here. instead, it's punishing them with some idea that taking a third of what they earn isn't living up to their fair share ... it's about tightening the tax code even further to lay on them a burden to bear. it's about putting them at odds with the gov vs. forming strong partnerships. and no, this doesn't mean dumping in rivers you moran. it should be about lightening their load and staying up nights trying to figure out how to get more and more cash in their coffers. cash that funds retirements an provides reasonable health care plans.

 

and i love the rich. i want more and more and more of them everywhere. this is the only way, the only way to grow the pie. no gov jobs bill is ever going to move the needle, especially one that is using funds that could be used to reduce the debt our kids are facing as a result of the gov's absurd mismanagement of our money. you fools are actually arguing to give them more ... wake up!

 

Best post in the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that it's the upper middle class/lower upper class (those making a little more than $200K/year) who are paying the Lion's share of the taxes in this country. As was stated in another thread, a large proportion of the American public does not pay regular income tax (although most of those do pay payroll taxes).

 

How much does the gummint squeeze those who are comfortable but not "rich" before they say "enough" and take their ability to make a good wage (and taxbase) elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that it's the upper middle class/lower upper class (those making a little more than $200K/year) who are paying the Lion's share of the taxes in this country. As was stated in another thread, a large proportion of the American public does not pay regular income tax (although most of those do pay payroll taxes).

 

How much does the gummint squeeze those who are comfortable but not "rich" before they say "enough" and take their ability to make a good wage (and taxbase) elsewhere?

 

Or just say to hell with it? If it weren't for my kids, and if my wife would let me, I'd buy 500-1000 acres out in West Texas and become the best damned Wal-Mart greeter in the world. I'd have no bills and enough to pay the taxes on the land. I could get most my electricity from windmills and solar, my water from wells, and pay for my food, clothing, and gun powder for what would be considered bellow the poverty level. If it weren't for the kids, I could probably talk the wife into it. If things don't start changing for the better with regard to taxes and regulations, the minute I marry off my girls will be the same minute I retire and live off the fat of the land. By then hopefully I won't even have to be a Wal-Mart greeter.

 

BTW I haven't had a job since April, and have yet to locate the unemployment office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much does the gummint squeeze those who are comfortable but not "rich" before they say "enough" and take their ability to make a good wage (and taxbase) elsewhere?

Where exactly are they going to go? This argument works fine in state vs state discussion but it decidedly does not work in nation vs nation discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly are they going to go? This argument works fine in state vs state discussion but it decidedly does not work in nation vs nation discussion.

 

What if those of us with the intelligence and the ambition earn enough money and just say screw it? What if we take our money and pull a John Galt, but rather than disappear, we buy land and commodities and live off them? I've thought of it, and know several other entrepreneurs that are considering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if those of us with the intelligence and the ambition earn enough money and just say screw it? What if we take our money and pull a John Galt, but rather than disappear, we buy land and commodities and live off them? I've thought of it, and know several other entrepreneurs that are considering it.

 

That is called "retirement".

 

 

Enjoy your commune . . . . . hippie. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is called "retirement".

 

 

Enjoy your commune . . . . . hippie. :wacko:

 

What happens if you have a lot of entrepreneurs retiring at 40 instead of 50 or 60? What does that do to the tax base? What does it do to the SS pool?

Edited by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens if you have a lot of entrepreneurs retiring at 40 instead of 50 or 60? What does that do to the tax base? What does it do to the SS pool?

well, if markets work as well as many people pretend they do, the overall impact will be minimal as new entrepreneurs spring up to create businesses that fill the gaps left by the retiring entrepreneurs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, if markets work as well as many people pretend they do, the overall impact will be minimal as new entrepreneurs spring up to create businesses that fill the gaps left by the retiring entrepreneurs

 

If you had two or three times as many people as normal "retire" you think that would have a minimal impact? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had two or three times as many people as normal "retire" you think that would have a minimal impact? I doubt it.

I highly doubt that we have that many entrepreneurs who would be able/willing to retire that early.

 

However, that wasn't my point. My point was that if markets work very well, there will be no real impact. But you have basically acknowledged that markets would not really rise up to fill the gap (implying some sort of market failure/market friction). This acknowledgment sort of surprises me given your thoughts concerning the automobile industry:

Had (GM and Chrysler) been allowed to fail, someone would have bought their assets, the bond holders wouldn't have been screwed, and the workers would have been hired back at with more reasonable wages and benefits.

It seems like you have two conflicting positions going on. In one case, a market gap would be filled, but in the other case it would not be filled. I could actually reconcile this conflict if you were arguing that the market would fill small gaps that required not too much capital (such as are often what entrepreneurs are involved in) but might fail to fill the gap with respect to very large capital-intensive firms (such as automobile manufacturing). But instead, you are arguing the other way around and it seems quite strange to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that we have that many entrepreneurs who would be able/willing to retire that early.

 

However, that wasn't my point. My point was that if markets work very well, there will be no real impact. But you have basically acknowledged that markets would not really rise up to fill the gap (implying some sort of market failure/market friction). This acknowledgment sort of surprises me given your thoughts concerning the automobile industry:

 

It seems like you have two conflicting positions going on. In one case, a market gap would be filled, but in the other case it would not be filled. I could actually reconcile this conflict if you were arguing that the market would fill small gaps that required not too much capital (such as are often what entrepreneurs are involved in) but might fail to fill the gap with respect to very large capital-intensive firms (such as automobile manufacturing). But instead, you are arguing the other way around and it seems quite strange to me.

 

Money is easy enough to find, but experience or know how are not. Most entrepreneurs are very hands on and their loss would result in a loss of knowledge. With the car companies the companies fail, but the people and production means are still there, it just takes capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEMAND

 

Supply side economics is a failed ideology. Big business is sitting on piles of cash. Give them more tax breaks and they'll continue to do the same. Hiring won't take place until demand goes up. Demand won't go up until the middle and lower classes start spending more money. And they can't do that without more income. They are not sitting on piles of cash. Catch 22 or what? Seems to me you do exactly what O is advocating, get more money into the hands of consumers who will spend it, causing business to ramp up production to meet increased demand, and hire more people. Of course they'll try their best to squeeze more efficiency out of existing labor resources first.

 

And yes, i've come around to the line of reasoning that uncertainty is killing growth as well. The admin and congress need to pass a long term budget deal that gives everyone certainty in the business environment for the next ten years to start with.

 

well, which is it?

 

I think you should read this.

 

The administration’s $800 billion stimulus program raised government demand for goods and services and was also intended to stimulate consumer demand. These interventions are usually described as Keynesian, but as John Maynard Keynes understood in his 1936 masterwork, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” (the first economics book I read), the main driver of business cycles is investment. As is typical, the main decline in G.D.P. during the recession showed up in the form of reduced investment by businesses and households.

 

What drives investment? Stable expectations of a sound economic environment, including the long-run path of tax rates, regulations and so on. And employment is akin to investment in that hiring decisions take into account the long-run economic climate.

The lesson is that effective incentives for investment and employment require permanence and transparency. Measures that are transient or uncertain will be ineffective.

 

And yet these are precisely the kinds of policies the Obama administration has pursued: temporarily cutting the payroll tax rate, maintaining the marginal income-tax rates from the George W. Bush era while vowing to raise them in the future, holding off on clean-air regulations while promising to implement them later and enacting an ambitious overhaul of Wall Street regulations while leaving lots of rules undefined and ambiguous.

 

and this, on more or less the same topic:

Advocates of traditional fiscal stimulus often view low levels of investment as a symptom, rather than a cause, of the weak recovery. Businesses are reluctant to invest, they argue, because they lack customers eager to spend. If the government can goose demand by handing out dollars to households short on cash, or by buying goods and services directly, businesses will respond by expanding their own spending as well.

 

Yet fluctuations in investment spending, rather than being only a passive response, are also one of the driving forces of the booms and busts of the business cycle. The great economist John Maynard Keynes suggested that investment spending is in part determined by the “animal spirits” of investors, which he described as “a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction.” Recessions occur when optimism turns to pessimism, and businesses are reluctant to place bets on a prosperous future. Recovery occurs when investor confidence returns.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information