What do you make of this, mook?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I posted last year that a CEO I know (sorry, can't give his name) went to a major CEO Conference and at that time other CEO's noted they will do the barest possible hiring as the current administration was too unpredictable and punitive to risk hiring.
 
I wasn't trying to call out mook on this. It is related to some posts he made in another thread a while back about his small business and why he wasn't expanding and hiring. Survey says, 64% aren't hiring due to government interference.
 
Remember when Clinton was President and he raised taxes AND made small business go back one year and pay retro taxes. Dozens of small businesses in Klamath Falls closed. Friends of ours closed a pizza joint, others closed an appliance store... it was a blood bath. Obama is unstable, unpredictable and punitive going after businesses and various sectors not run by unions and it's easy to see why a small business owner would be gun shy about adding staff and/or expanding.
 
A recent survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that 64 percent of small businesses will not hire anyone in the next year.

64% of small businesses are 1-man businesses.
 
Yep, need to lower them taxes. Cutting a business's taxes a few thousands really pays a living wage to a new worker, that or it just gives the owner more money with no incentive to hire.
 
64% of small businesses are 1-man businesses.

You might actually be underestimating here. http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html


Denny Crane said:
A recent survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that 64 percent of small businesses will not hire anyone in the next year. The reasons given all concern government: taxation, regulation, and the threat of new legislation.

Here's the actual study: http://www.uschambersmallbusinessna...mmit-Presentation-from-Harris-Interactive.pdf

It's methodology is weak. It does not list the average size of each business & it only sampled 1409 businesses. The reasons your article listed for "not hiring" aren't actually reasons given for not hiring(edit: actually two of three are, page 8), they're listed in the study as the "top concerns" of small businesses owners. The concerns quoted aren't the correct order either. Comparatively, regulation(edit: 17%), legislation(edit: not on this list, but only has 7%) & taxation(edit:not listed as concern for hiring) are at the bottom.

FrLaF.jpg


Additionally the study does not link these concerns as reasons for not hiring. The main reason probably is because they are indeed sole proprietorships or companies with small payroll who do not do a lot of hiring on a yearly basis regardless.
 
Last edited:
^^^ You missed page 8, 9, 10, etc.
 
^^^ You missed page 8, 9, 10, etc.

No, apparently you did:

Denny Crane said:
A recent survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that 64 percent of small businesses will not hire anyone in the next year. The reasons given all concern government: taxation, regulation, and the threat of new legislation.

Page 8, Obstacles to Hiring:

#1: Economic Uncertainty, 30%
#2: Lack of Sales: 22%

barfo
 
^^^ You missed page 8, 9, 10, etc.

Only page 8 specifically references concerns regarding hiring. Yes, legislation & regulation are on that page as being specific concerns regarding hiring, but they're not top reasons, heck, regulation is at the bottom of the list with a paltry 7% & legislation is at 17%.

Study said:
19% will add new employees (almost the same as last year's 18%). Only 12% say they will lose employees over the next year – significantly fewer than the 29% who said they lost employees over the last year

One could almost take this study as a sign that small businesses are seeing less losses & the economic picture is possibly improving.

Regardless, relying entirely on the beliefs of the owner for why they're not hiring may be somewhat foolish. There are many internal factors regarding why a business might not hire. The study should have excluded all sole proprietorship business or businesses that have consistent employee levels year-to-year, which would indicate their business just doesn't do a lot of hiring or firing.
 
Last edited:
Let me pass on some worse news: What we've seen in the past years was the recovery and expansion. We're entering another recession that will be worse than the one we just exited.
 
Yep, need to lower them taxes. Cutting a business's taxes a few thousands really pays a living wage to a new worker, that or it just gives the owner more money with no incentive to hire.

Let me give you an example. My wife writes freelance educational supplemental curriculum. She makes about $14-20,000 per year. We live in Vancouver so there's no state income tax. She pays 45% tax to the feds. You really think a small businessman should pay that much for so little income?
 
Let me pass on some worse news: What we've seen in the past years was the recovery and expansion. We're entering another recession that will be worse than the one we just exited.

With 25% unemployment/underemployment and commodity prices rising I'd say it's been (and still is) a depression. The only difference between this depression and the Great Depression is that we have credit cards and numerous government programs to buoy us along. But the numbers are staggering. And, on top of that, the left wants massive tax increases.
 
Let me give you an example. My wife writes freelance educational supplemental curriculum. She makes about $14-20,000 per year. We live in Vancouver so there's no state income tax. She pays 45% tax to the feds. You really think a small businessman should pay that much for so little income?

Frankly my radical ideas are that we implement a single payer healthcare system, don't tax small businesses up to $x millions of dollars in revenue & then heavily tax those above it. Additionally we subsidize a "living wage", so that anyone who is working has enough to afford basics like housing & healthy food, while at the same time making it easier for small businesses to afford workers. The idea is to promote small business & de-incentivize large hulking corporate empires that take over the country.

I think my main point was, if your wife gets a tax break is she going to run out and immediately hire another person? No, she'd keep the money. Not saying the amount paid in taxes via the self-employed is fair, but the idea that tax cuts = instant jobs is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Frankly my radical ideas are that we implement a single payer healthcare system, don't tax small businesses up to $x millions of dollars in revenue & then heavily tax those above it. Additionally we subsidize a "living wage", so that anyone who is working has enough to afford basics like housing & healthy food, while at the same time making it easier for small businesses to afford workers. The idea is to promote small business & distinctive large hulking corporate empires that take over the country.

I think my main point was, if your wife gets a tax break is she going to run out and immediately hire another person? No, she'd keep the money. Not saying the amount paid in taxes via the self-employed is fair, but the idea that tax cuts = instant jobs is wrong.

Generally I agree with this premise. However, I also think there are a lot of small businessmen who would like to expand but won't under the current administration. To be sure, one reason is certainly taxes.How much hiring they might do and how much they might pay are another thing. The small business ABM works for has cut way back and he lost his salary and now works straight commission.

I don't know, but this economy is strangling small businessmen.
 
Let me give you an example. My wife writes freelance educational supplemental curriculum. She makes about $14-20,000 per year. We live in Vancouver so there's no state income tax. She pays 45% tax to the feds. You really think a small businessman should pay that much for so little income?

She is doing something wrong if she is paying that much, seriously. Do you guys have an accountant?
 
She is doing something wrong if she is paying that much, seriously. Do you guys have an accountant?

I would have to agree, back of napkin math is giving me around 18 - 19% federal tax rate even with self employment taxes on $20,000.
 
I don't know, but this economy is strangling small businessmen.

Well there you go, the economy sucks & everyone is holding their cards waiting for everyone else to jump out there & put some money down. Tax rates were the same during the 2000s & the economy was booming, but that was due to a bubble, not really tax cuts. I'd be for adding incentives to employment such as offering tax credits to those who can prove they hired new workers. Cutting taxes across the board so businesses can horde more money doesn't sound like a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Steve McCroskey: Mook, what can you make out of this?

Mook: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
 
The small business ABM works for has cut way back and he lost his salary and now works straight commission.

Well, Denny can't afford to have every poster on salary. ABM wasn't producing much, so it makes sense to switch him to a per-post pay scheme.

barfo
 
Frankly my radical ideas are that we implement a single payer healthcare system, don't tax small businesses up to $x millions of dollars in revenue & then heavily tax those above it. Additionally we subsidize a "living wage", so that anyone who is working has enough to afford basics like housing & healthy food, while at the same time making it easier for small businesses to afford workers. The idea is to promote small business & de-incentivize large hulking corporate empires that take over the country.

I think my main point was, if your wife gets a tax break is she going to run out and immediately hire another person? No, she'd keep the money. Not saying the amount paid in taxes via the self-employed is fair, but the idea that tax cuts = instant jobs is wrong.

Heavily taxing any group of people seems like a bad idea. No matter how unpopular they are, their revenue is tied to America. Single payer healthcare is also extremely expensive.

http://www.fraseramerica.org/newsandevents/news/6217.aspx

What about Hauser's Law like maxiep mentioned recently? It sounds pretty legit. Taxation is a barrier for all kinds of revenue.

Hauser's Law, named for Economist William Hauser, pegs that tax capacity at about 19.5 percent of GDP, observing that regardless of tax rates, since World War II, federal revenues have held to that average. The GOP plan is to gradually balance the budget at that level of spending with economic policies that unleash businesses to grow the economy at a rate greater than federal spending growth. Obama's tax-rate increases would dampen economic growth and perpetuate deficits with revenue shortfalls and excessive spending.

The stupidest thing ever said by an economist was John Maynard Keynes​' pronouncement that, "In the long run we're all dead." We're now living in the long run of the leviathan welfare state. Our nation isn't dead yet, but we're getting close.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18562439
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.

................

The target of the Obama tax hike is the top 2% of taxpayers, but the burden of the tax is likely to fall on the remaining 98%. The top 2% of income earners do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and society are interwoven. Employees and employers, providers and users, consumers and savers and investors are all interdependent. The wealthy have the highest propensity to save and invest. The wealthy also run the lion's share of small businesses. Most small business owners pay taxes at the personal income tax rate. Small businesses have created two-thirds of all new jobs during the past four decades and virtually all of the net new jobs from the early 1980s through the end of 2007, the beginning of the past recession.

In other words, the Obama tax increases are targeted at those who are largely responsible for capital formation. Capital formation is the life blood for job creation. As jobs are created, more people pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the economy grows, corporate income tax receipts grow. Rising corporate profits provide an underpinning to the stock market, so capital gain and dividend tax collections increase. A pro-growth, low marginal personal tax rate stimulates capital formation and GDP, which triggers a higher level of tax receipts for the other sources of government revenue.

It is generally accepted that if one taxes something, one gets less of it and if something is subsidized one gets more of it. The Obama administration is also proposing an increase in taxes on capital itself in the form of higher capital gains and dividend taxes.

The historical record is clear on this as well. In 1987 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% from 20%. Capital gains realizations as a percent of GDP fell to 3% in 1987 from about 8% of GDP in 1986 and continued to fall to below 2% over the next several years. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997, to 20% from 28% and, at the time, the forecasts were for lower revenues over the ensuing two years.

In fact, tax revenues were about $84 billion above forecast and above the level collected at the higher and earlier rate. Similarly, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 2003 to 15% from 20%. The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002 and twice the forecasted revenue in 2005.


The Obama administration and members of Congress should study the record on how the economy reacts to changes in the tax code. The president's economic team has launched a three-pronged attack on capital: They are attacking the income group that is the most responsible for capital formation and jobs in the private sector, and then attacking the investment returns on capital formation in the form of dividends and capital gains. The out-year projections on revenues from these tax increases will prove to be phantom.

Mr. Hauser is chairman emeritus of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and chairman of Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, a San Francisco investment management firm. He is the author of "Taxation and Economic Performance" (Hoover Press, 1996).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html

Hey let's keep it real, government is too big and your policies won't be of much help.
 
Last edited:
Heavily taxing any group of people seems like a bad idea. No matter how unpopular they are, their revenue is tied to America. Single payer healthcare is also extremely expensive.

http://www.fraseramerica.org/newsandevents/news/6217.aspx

That supposed superiority comes at a cost...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

Having "the best" means jack shit if people can't afford it.

What about Hauser's Law like maxiep mentioned recently? It sounds pretty legit. Taxation is a barrier for all kinds of revenue.

0pX8e.jpg


Doesn't really stand up very well when the highest data point is pre-Bush tax cuts(well above 19.5) & the second lowest data point is during Bush tax cuts(below 15%). When your "law" swings wildly by up to 25% or more I don't think you get to call it a law anymore.
 
Last edited:
Frankly my radical ideas are that we implement a single payer healthcare system, don't tax small businesses up to $x millions of dollars in revenue & then heavily tax those above it.

Yes... Awesome plan to tax revenue. Any plan that can potentially tax a business that is LOSING money sounds like a great one. Keep the ideas coming!

The idea is to promote small business & de-incentivize large hulking corporate empires that take over the country.

More great ideas. Who needs the Googles of the world when we can spur our economy on with cookbook sales?
 
Yes... Awesome plan to tax revenue. Any plan that can potentially tax a business that is LOSING money sounds like a great one. Keep the ideas coming!

My ideas were off the cuff. Obviously there is more thought that would need to go into crafting such an economy. No one can make an airtight economic policy in a single paragraph.

More great ideas. Who needs the Googles of the world when we can spur our economy on with cookbook sales?

Google has good & bad qualities about it, so do other large mega-corps. One issue with large companies is that once they get to a certain size they start to spread out & use their amassed wealth to dominate other sectors & buy up smaller companies. We're already using Google branded search, advertising, operating systems, phones & social networking. Soon maybe we'll be talking in our Google branded car & get our energy from GooglePower...

Large companies have a lot of power & aren't adverse to abusing it. For example: Google recently banned people from referring to Facebook in their ads through Google's advertising service, AdWords. AdWords is by far the most dominate advertising service on the Internet. This comes after Facebook banned AdSense from being used as an advertising medium on Facebook, but also closely after Google released their Google+ social networking platform, which competes directly with Facebook. While these two giants slug it out, the people who were using their platforms for business now have to find alternatives. The only problem is that since Facebook is essentially the only game in town for social networking & Google is the only game in town for advertising, you're kinda screwed if you relied on one or both of these services.

When markets are dominated only by giants you have to wait for disruptive tech to come in & shake up the ecosystem. This usually doesn't happen very quickly & when it does, often the incumbents will have a head start due to the capital & reach they already have.
 
Last edited:
My ideas were off the cuff. Obviously there is more thought that would need to go into crafting such an economy. No one can make an airtight economic policy in a single paragraph.

Off the cuff or not, taxing revenue is ridiculous.


Google has good & bad qualities about it, so do other large mega-corps. One issue with large companies is that once they get to a certain size they start to spread out & use their amassed wealth to dominate other sectors & buy up smaller companies. We're already using Google branded search, advertising, operating systems, phones & social networking. Soon maybe we'll be talking in our Google branded car & get our energy from GooglePower...

Large companies have a lot of power & aren't adverse to abusing it. For example: Google recently banned people from referring to Facebook in their ads through Google's advertising service, AdWords. AdWords is by far the most dominate advertising service on the Internet. This comes after Facebook banned AdSense from being used as an advertising medium on Facebook, but also closely after Google released their Google+ social networking platform, which competes directly with Facebook. While these two giants slug it out, the people who were using their platforms for business now have to find alternatives. The only problem is that since Facebook is essentially the only game in town for social networking & Google is the only game in town for advertising, you're kinda screwed if you relied on one or both of these services.

When markets are dominated only by giants you have to wait for disruptive tech to come in & shake up the ecosystem. This usually doesn't happen very quickly & when it does, often the incumbents will have a head start due to the capital & reach they already have.

I agree. Our economy would be much better if we had only mom-and-pop shops selling cookbooks.
 
Off the cuff or not, taxing revenue is ridiculous.

That's all dependent on how it's implemented. I am also not concrete in this viewpoint, it could change.

I agree. Our economy would be much better if we had only mom-and-pop shops selling cookbooks.

I'll be waiting for your detailed plan regarding "Cookbookonomics" with baited breath. You seem to think this is the only small business that could ever exist for some reason. Perhaps your "off the cuff" ideas are actually sillier than mine...
 
Last edited:
Off the cuff or not, taxing revenue is ridiculous.

Well, let's just explore that for a minute.

Suppose you hold tax revenue constant (wouldn't want to be raising revenue, oh no!), but suppose you tax revenues rather than profits. What happens?

Well, unprofitable and marginally profitable businesses will pay more tax, and profitable businesses will pay less tax.

I'm sure you'll cry "a whole lot of businesses will go out of business!". And they surely would.

But maybe they deserve to. The current system effectively subsidizes unprofitable businesses at the expense of profitable businesses.

Why should that be so?

If you are a lousy businessman, and I am a successful businessman, I must pay for the sidewalks in front of your E. coli-ridden hot dog stand, while you get to keep the few coppers you "earn".

Wouldn't capitalism be better served by MegaHotDogCorp taking over your stand?

Well, from my liberal point of view, it's better to have lots of small businesses rather than a few giant corporations. Power corrupts, and large corporations have power. But it seems strange that an "unfettered capitalist" such as yourself would be taking such a pinko view. Why have you turned against capitalism, blazerboy30?

I agree. Our economy would be much better if we had only mom-and-pop shops selling cookbooks.

You say that sarcastically, yet the argument you are making here is an argument for heavily subsidizing mom-and-pop shops selling cookbooks, at the expense of big business. John Galt would not approve of you.

barfo
 
Last edited:
Well, let's just explore that for a minute.

Suppose you hold tax revenue constant (wouldn't want to be raising revenue, oh no!), but suppose you tax revenues rather than profits. What happens?

Well, unprofitable and marginally profitable businesses will pay more tax, and profitable businesses will pay less tax.

I'm sure you'll cry "a whole lot of businesses will go out of business!". And they surely would.

But maybe they deserve to. The current system effectively subsidizes unprofitable businesses at the expense of profitable businesses.

Why should that be so?

If you are a lousy businessman, and I am a successful businessman, I must pay for the sidewalks in front of your E. coli-ridden hot dog stand, while you get to keep the few coppers you "earn".

Wouldn't capitalism be better served by MegaHotDogCorp taking over your stand?

Well, from my liberal point of view, it's better to have lots of small businesses rather than a few giant corporations. Power corrupts, and large corporations have power. But it seems strange that an "unfettered capitalist" such as yourself would be taking such a pinko view. Why have you turned against capitalism, blazerboy30?



You say that sarcastically, yet the argument you are making here is an argument for heavily subsidizing mom-and-pop shops selling cookbooks, at the expense of big business. John Galt would not approve of you.

barfo

Silly, silly barfo. You're better than this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top