Lower taxes and ress regulation= More entrepreneurship, more jobs and a better functioning economy..

page: 2
50
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


That's why I said, less regulation instead of "no regulation". And when I mean "less regulation" I mean that especially in the case of when one wants to start a small business or wants to invest in businesses, stocks, Forex etc... The U.S. has recently adopted very strict leverage limits when it comes to Forex.

www.forexcrunch.com...




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
That has ALWAYS been the truth of the matter. Not to cast aspersions, but have you been more liberal-minded, pro-government up to this point? This has been common knowledge the entire history of capitalism.

I own a small business, and the government is killing me with the taxes and proposed taxes (Obamacare in particular). If something doesn't change soon, I am going to have to lay off 8 people and close up shop. That takes away ALL of the employment tax from the government that I have been paying up until now, and it takes away gross receipts tax from the state, city and county.

If my tax burden would decrease, I could hire more people because the demand for my services would be greater because people would have more disposable income because the economy would improve. In this scenario, the government would actually get MORE tax money because I have more employees and more revenue coming in. Isn't that a lot better than getting nothing?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Conclusions come from a Cato Institute report plus online gaming and an obvious back door to theft errr .. . . patent infringement, in Malta? These sources hardly need to be discredited. I believe you are looking at the world through $$$$ colored glasses.

I do agree that "what actually matters in business: making money" is what businesses are all about. What you leave out is who actually bears the cost. Legitimate, focused and properly enforced regulation is always necessary for commerce and banks, otherwise we the people pay their costs and bills.

PS - Sort of funny that "Bandit" argues for fewer laws.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I usually don’t rant on politics but just the same here goes.
I’m not here to debate with anyone or join a cause. I just to want to rant for a bit.

One of the talking points that has been going around and around for the last two decades has been “less taxes and less regulation” which if it were to benefit most of the people it would probably be a good idea. But as it is, the infrastructures of many of our cities (small and large) have been in need of repair, upgrading, or rethinking for a long time. The money to fix of all that comes from taxes unless the “less tax and less regulation” people’s long term goal is to privatize our roads, city services, and anything else that hasn’t been corporate branded. Does anyone really think that after whatever initial profit taking has occurred that any corporation is going to dedicate long term planning and budgets for upkeep?

The thinking is that “less taxes” will allow the “job-creators” to do more. Are these the same “job-creators” that since the 80’s have been outsourcing as many US jobs as possible because they didn’t want to pay Americans a decent wage and instead decided to move thousands of jobs to 3rd world counties so that they could get away with paying significantly less than minimum while at the same time doing business in countries with “less regulations” that have lead health & safety issues for those employees? Are these the same “job-creators” that in the last two years have turned many of what would have previously been open positions into college internships so that they can get away with not hiring a “real person” and paying benefits, etc.? Are these the same “job-creators” whose corporations are sitting on high cash reserves withholding dividend payouts while handsomely paying their corporate officers bonuses for meeting the goals of “continued cost-cutting?” And it has been noticed that all those cost-cutting measures simply mean more work for the survivors and an attitude of “if you don’t like it here no one if forcing you to stay and we support you in your search for a more fulfilling role?”

I’m not saying that all corporations and corporate officers are “evil-self-serving-individuals-whose-ability-to-think-long-term-is-only-until-the-next-quarterly-report is ready.” But they sure looks like they are the ones who get to put out & control many of the talking points that their hired politicians use on talking head shows which are then picked by the troll-alias du jour and spread on every news story comment page.

One of the problems with “less regulations” and it is probably due to a short-term memory issues or a lack of history study is that people forget that once upon a time in the US there was a lot less regulation and that lead to monopolies, cronyism, environmental & health issues, unfair labor practices, pay inequality, discrimination and a long list of other infractions that have been somewhat controlled through “regulations.”

And when it comes to “less regulations” why can’t they specify which regulation(s) they want less of? Each time that question is asked the stumbling begins or the “job-creators can’t do their work unless we have less regulation” speech begins and once again, the question is evaded until the next headline. Or they begin spouting the commercial for clean coal and by removing environmental regulations there could be more jobs for coal miners. Didn’t the world already learn enough from what happens to the health of coal miners, the people that live in nearby communities, and the generational trap that can be created from the history of the industry not to mention movies and songs? We are living in the 21st century and an industry from the 18th century doesn’t want to wake up to that fact.

There is probably more that I want to say but I feel like I vented enough. Now I can get back to the urgent matters of ufo invasion, rogue comets headed this way (run, hide, hurry!), the coming zombie plague and how to survive it, looking for reptilian eyes while politicians are giving speeches, counting down to the next Bilderberg Group meeting and oh, yeah, looking for good doomsday bunker salesperson.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaxnmarko
reply to post by TheBandit795
 

Less regulations all on it's own is dangerous. Some regulations are Absolutely Necessary! Had the banks and wall street been BETTER regulated, we would not be in the bailout mess we are in!

You are so far off its hard to know where to start. First of all, the banking industry is still a top-down fascist monopoly. So your going to tell me a fascist monopoly is an organisation that exemplifies a low-regulation economy? Yes, or no? I ask because a fascist banking system is the what you get with banking regulation. Compare that to a free-market economy where you get a low-regulation banking system.

Had banks been better unregulated, this disaster would also not have been so bad. Ron Paul, myself, and all the other people who understood economics at the time knew this would come regardless of the mortgage bubble that was helped along but not entirely created by the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act. If you ask a biased person who gets their information from the media what caused the mortgage mess, then you'll get the incorrect answer that it was Glass-Steagal. But that was a minor factor and the biggest one was the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. What those organisations do is create a second fascist enterprise in the banking system. Their goal is to give loans to people without considering risk... that is their whole point of Fannie and Freddie. The idea that an organisation could be out there creating home loans without considering risk would lead to anything other than a mortgage bubble is wrong. The regulations that allowed Fannie and Freddy to exist are the primary cause of the mortgage bubble! Fascism, a merger between corporation and the state, caused the mortgage bubble.


Regulations are what prevent child labor, unnecessarily dangerous work conditions, keeping the environment safe (remember, you can have an environment without an economy but you can't have an economy without an environment)
Regulations are what the government does to fool people like you into thinking that child labor and dangerous work conditions have been eliminated. There is more slavery today than at any time in the past. There is one and only one way to eliminate those things. Not regulations. No. What you need is consumer groups that use ethical shopping practices. In other words, private versions like Consumer Reports and the UL that actually get things done instead of public versions that merely pretend to.


, preventing ripoffs of the public, truth in advertising, dangerous products on the market place.... just where do you stop deregulating? As a blanket term you're asking for trouble.

No free-market economist will tell you the civil court system should be ended. None of them. Maybe a few of them believe it should be privatised. Given the difficulty of ending any government department its a bit ridiculous to actually say the concept will be snowballed out of control. Maybe in another lifetime that would be a realistic argument.



It's finding the middle ground that's important. Not cumbersome regulations but not totally free of regulations.

The middle ground would be not eliminating all government entirely. But rather, eliminating merely the vast majority of it. That is compromising.


Lowering taxes on whom? Corporations that don't pay any to begin with?

Lower taxes on people who pay more than 1/3 of their money to the government when all is considered. There are many many such people out there. And no, not the super-elite because you're right they don't pay a lot of the taxes. But they are a tiny fraction of rich people. Corporations literally cannot really pay taxes when all is said and done, because all corporations always pass all expenses on to the consumer. Learn to grasp that basic fact because its extremely important! The idea that all corporations pass all expenses onto the consumer but suddenly they are going to take away from their profit columns to pay corporate tax is extremely obviously wrong!


The rich, who somehow, in this terrible economy, have been getting richer while the poor get poorer? How does this happen anyway?

Corporate Regulations. The more regulations there are in the economy, the more the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. All regulations are capable of achieving in practice is firstly to destroy small businesses in favor of larger ones, and secondly take away consumer choices that they actually want to have but now they don't, thereby weakening the economy.


If you don't think taxes are necessary, how do you pay for all the damage done with recent storms and fires? How do we build roads and bridges?
Insurance programs and charity programs can do a great job of doing that.... better than the government.
edit on 13-9-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Less federal regulations will do little in Calif.
The big problem in Calif is they duplicate federal regulation with state regulations then tack on fees(taxes) on the state regulations. Fees for permits for every little thing a business wants to do.

Case in point the state and feds mandate catalytic converters on newer cars in Calif .
The cars have catalytic converters on them new that meet both state and federal rules.
But if something happens to your catalytic converter and it has to be replaced you have to buy a special state approved and marked catalytic converter, This is the same converter internally that is sold in other states but in Calif it has to have special marking on it to show it is Calif approved.
Now these converters cost 3 times as much just because they have to have the special markings.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Those look like unnecessary State regulations.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


Thank you for the excellent post, seachange. I hope it's an eye-opener for some.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


Lots of Government regulation = bad for business

The bailouts went to certain banks and corporations. Government regulation (as it applies to small, medium businesses) doesn't apply the same way to the banks and corporations that got bailed out. These guys have friends in Washington. It's not that we're not over-regulated, it's that these corrupt corporations and politicians make exceptions for their friends, and cover their a$$.

We're over-regulated by the Government, which created a toxic environment for businesses to exist in. The big guys have friends, they have the funds to pay off law makers, and until we change these rules and punish those who truly deserve to be punished, the economy will continue to tank. When thinking of business, think of the millions of small and medium-sized businesses who struggle to survive under current regulations. The big guys are above it all, they don't suffer the same way, if at all.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Not so fast, free-marketer...



Looks like you need to do some homework on how social safety nets and PROPER regulation (which focuses on environmental/worker/consumer/freedom protections) can actually be a bigger boon to entrepreneurship than blind/aimless deregulation:

In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism


We venture to the very heart of the hell that is Scandinavian socialism—and find out that it’s not so bad. Pricey, yes, but a good place to start and run a company.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


It sounds great and all, but can you imagine what would happen in a country that was already overrun with manufacturing, as well as energy, food and drug producing companies having a free hand to pollute the general populous with impunity because of no regulation of their industries?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
We need higher taxes for the rich and big companies, lower for the middle class and poor. We need more regulations on BIG business and less on small business. I am all for the small businesses but they are in a different class so to speak because small businesses don't have huge power upon people. For example; AT andT is a huge company and it can come buy it a new small competing company thus creating a monoply. We need regulations to protect us against the monopolies;(such as the ones our local utlities have.). Monopolies create an uneasy atmosphere as people are forced into certian business relationships they don't want. There also needs to be more employee and consumer protection. A big issue is a company should not be able to lay off workers to cut costs or so their CEOs could get a big bonus. KCPLs top CEOs get half a million in salary up to almost a million and $50,000-70,000 bonuses. Their bonuses are equvilant to 1 persons salary or 2-3 people's salaries.
Sticter laws also need to be in place against outsourcing and hiring illegal aliens. We want the government to have less control over the private citzen and more over big business. BIG business is what is destroying the USA and the american dream espeicallly the banks. Furthermore BIG business and the government is basically almost the same things anymore. Did you know a business can detian you or search you against your will? They have just as much authority as police! They can also change your billing date at any point without your knowledge, charge you late fees due to that as well. They can fire you for ANY reason and can refuse you as a customer. They can throw you out for saying the word lesbian, a cuss word or really for any reason they feel like. When I think of the new rules or laws that I would apply to society I am thinking of a society where the government is the people and business and government are not linked at the hip.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
That has ALWAYS been the truth of the matter. Not to cast aspersions, but have you been more liberal-minded, pro-government up to this point? This has been common knowledge the entire history of capitalism.

I own a small business, and the government is killing me with the taxes and proposed taxes (Obamacare in particular). If something doesn't change soon, I am going to have to lay off 8 people and close up shop. That takes away ALL of the employment tax from the government that I have been paying up until now, and it takes away gross receipts tax from the state, city and county.

If my tax burden would decrease, I could hire more people because the demand for my services would be greater because people would have more disposable income because the economy would improve. In this scenario, the government would actually get MORE tax money because I have more employees and more revenue coming in. Isn't that a lot better than getting nothing?



that is because you should only look to the super rich for jobs not to the average joe with an idea to have a small business. Only the rich can ensla.. err employ us like back in feudal times.
edit on 13-9-2011 by yaluk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by yaluk

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
That has ALWAYS been the truth of the matter. Not to cast aspersions, but have you been more liberal-minded, pro-government up to this point? This has been common knowledge the entire history of capitalism.

I own a small business, and the government is killing me with the taxes and proposed taxes (Obamacare in particular). If something doesn't change soon, I am going to have to lay off 8 people and close up shop. That takes away ALL of the employment tax from the government that I have been paying up until now, and it takes away gross receipts tax from the state, city and county.

If my tax burden would decrease, I could hire more people because the demand for my services would be greater because people would have more disposable income because the economy would improve. In this scenario, the government would actually get MORE tax money because I have more employees and more revenue coming in. Isn't that a lot better than getting nothing?



that is because you should only look to the super rich for jobs not to the average joe with an idea to have a small business. Only the rich can ensla.. err employ us like back in feudal times.
edit on 13-9-2011 by yaluk because: (no reason given)


Uh oh, wrong again:


How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
Small firms:

• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
• Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.


SOURCE



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Not so fast, free-marketer...



Looks like you need to do some homework on how social safety nets and PROPER regulation (which focuses on environmental/worker/consumer/freedom protections) can actually be a bigger boon to entrepreneurship than blind/aimless deregulation:


This is incorrect. While Norway does have low business regulations (Source: www.heritage.org... ), Norway's economy does not do as well as those countries with even fewer regulations than them.

The six most free economies ranked by the Index of Economic Freedom are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada. The average 5-year compound GDP growth of those countries is 2.16%. The 5-year compound GDP growth rate of Norway is 1.3%.

Hong Kong is the only place with something resembling a capitalist economy. Singapore more or less comes close. Hong Kong has a 3.1% 5-year compound GDP growth rate. Singapore has a 4.0% compound 5-year GDP growth rate.

The more free an economy, the faster it grows. Its interesting that even with the economic problems of the world just how well the most free countries do, and also how well the most free states within the US do compared to the least free states. Go to New Hampshire, one of the most free places in the USA, and tell me how polluted everything is.

The one and only way of actually working to save the environment is using ethical shopping practices. If you merely count on the government to do it all that will happen is your job will be exported overseas to a place where that regulation does not exist. However if you do your moral duty as an ethical shopper and start up a shopping union that only buys from companies that don't pollute, then your job no longer gets sent overseas to dirty businesses.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
You are absolutely correct, less government mean more success for everyone. More government means less success. Why the Liberals can't figure that out is beyond me. It’s not rocket science.
edit on 12-9-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)


were you alive during W. bush??? what's wrong with you, do you have dementia?...it was THE LACK of government oversite that caused this mess we are in...and now you want to go back to it? i guess you want the rest of the middle class destroyed that perhaps survived with some money in their accounts. study the economics of early 1930's germany, and it will look strangely familiar. so far, i think the republicans want this country turned into a 3rd world country, where corporations rule, rather than the people. they are pushing for legislation that is making that happen. if anyone thinks 2008 was bad, just put the republicans back in power...eff medicare...eff social security...eff healthcare...eff unions...eff workers rights...eff wage laws...don't think so????....just look at the voting record of republicans...it's there in black and white, and not some "liberals" opinion.
edit on 19-9-2011 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-9-2011 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

were you alive during W. bush??? what's wrong with you, do you have dementia?...it was THE LACK of government oversite that caused this mess we are in...


Wasn't it the regulations protecting Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae that caused this whole mes??? Regulations???



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Why Can't Chuck Get His Business Off the Ground?





I was looking for this video when I found this thread. Finally found it.
edit on 20-9-2011 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 




Who was in charge during 07 and 08 to incorporate more regulation and government spending when it came to the HOUSE and the SENATE? The democrats had control and Bush made a mistake at compromising and allowing their policies not to be vetoed. With the more spending, regulations and oversight, you saw this government take us in to a nose dive. Again, if you know anything about political science, not that hard to understand. So I will cut you some slack. Take care.





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join