(08-17-2011 12:10 PM)Eastside_J Wrote:  b,
He is selling his new fuel efficiency standards. He is also selling the MASSIVE amount of taxpayer money that has been sunk into better battery cells for the VOLT.

The VOLT money was supposed to be a huge growth stimulus project. Because rising gas prices meant Americans would want smaller fuel efficient cars. The Volt has been a massive money losing flop.

Here is the point Obama has never worked in the Auto industry. He has never worked in the oil and gas business. And yet he not only has deemed himself autocrat over the billions of our dollars he WASTED on projects he thought would benefit us in industries he knows basically nothing about.

Same with Windmills.

Same with Solar Energy. We GAVE 58 million to Evergreen Solar. It was a centerpiece of Obama's green energy job explosion. Not only did Evergreen file for Bankruptcy this month. They are 485 million in debt and owe 4 million to massachusetts. 58 million in free money and their business plan is so bad that they tank in two years 485 million in the hole. Nice. Great.

Same with "Shovel ready jobs" - which he finally admitted was basically an outright lie

Think about it, the stimulus money = 821 billion dollars which comes out to $228,000 per job created and that is MINIMUM estimate cited by the CBO.

Is there any clearer indication that these are fools engaging in areas where they have no experience, no expertise (not to mention no constitutional reason to be meddling?

1) No more effing stimulus.
2) Bureaucrats are sh*tty at achieving even the smallest positive gains when they try to manipulate businesses and markets (no matter how much money they spend to accomplish it) .
3) You can't save everything and shouldn't try. Most things that fail, fail for a reason and will continue to fail even if you throw big money at them and want them to succeed really really badly-- See Evergreen Solar, Chevy Volt etc etc etc.

GM and the other car companies sank itself. Sure obama could have withheld the lifejacket but how many more jobs would that have lost? And he would get the blame.

You are not gonna sell electric cars--or even fuel efficient ones as long as the oil companies can play with the pricing. The last time they pushed electric cars, gas miraculously dropped to under 2 bucks. As far as photovoltaic, and wind energy, we are gonna have to take politics out of it and get behind it. the positives outweigh the negatives IMO. Under bush, congress agreed to do away with incandescent light bulbs. now that obama is in office, they (republican congress)repackaged it as obama taking away your right to use the inefficient bulbs you choose.

so again, I say let him get his hands dirty and fix things or let him stay out of it. If he stays out however, you have to blame the lack of jobs on the 'job creators". And most of you would rather be kicked in the nuts by the bionic women then do that.

(08-17-2011 03:34 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  [quote='Bearcat_Bounce' pid='6723795' dateline='1313606643']
[quote='BeerCat' pid='6720752' dateline='1313530864']


I think he was pretty damn dumb also. It is pretty funny to me though that you automatically assume that because I hate Obama, then I must be a raging Republican. To be completely honest yeah I do align, Ideologically more with the right. But really I think that there are as many Republicans that undeserving of their office as there are Dems. If there was just a party out there that governed with.....COMMON SENSE and also paid attention to the Constitution, I would support them with all the vigor I could muster.

It's pretty pathetic that political discussions in this country have been reduced to who has been less terrible lately.

I agree. it's kind of funny that we as a nation cannot find anyone to run for office that most of us would agree on.

I honestly don't see any solution outside a split in the country. if the republicans worked with obama and things turned around, obama would get re elected and republican would lose their seats because a dem was in office when things turned around. It simply don't benefit them to work together. congress is a cushy job. that's a gig you want to keep.

(08-17-2011 04:40 PM)b Wrote:  so again, I say let him get his hands dirty and fix things or let him stay out of it. If he stays out however, you have to blame the lack of jobs on the 'job creators". And most of you would rather be kicked in the nuts by the bionic women then do that.

WHERE DO JOBS COME FROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll give you a HUGE hint:

They DON'T come from government (from Wikipedia):

"A total of 91% of Americans are employed by the private sector. Government accounts for 8% of all US workers."

Why not let the job creators create the jobs--this is preferable to taxing and regulating them straight out of the country. If you let the job creators create jobs....we wouldn't have an employment problem.

Quote:WHERE DO JOBS COME FROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll give you a HUGE hint:

They DON'T come from government (from Wikipedia):

"A total of 91% of Americans are employed by the private sector. Government accounts for 8% of all US workers."

what are you talking about? sometimes I swear you are having conversations with yourself.

Quote:Why not let the job creators create the jobs

The way you use the term job creator is just stupid. lets just get that out of the way. I know every republican politician has to use that term to brand it, but you're no politician. You wanna create jobs invest in green energy that would open up new career lanes. A bank hiring a damn teller is not creating jobs, it's hiring help.

Quote:this is preferable to taxing and regulating them straight out of the country.

You do know that we still have the bush tax rate right? what was OK under bush is now a problem under obama. Tax rates are historically pretty low right now. I don't think you understand business or whats really going on. maybe your head is just in the sand.

Quote:If you let the job creators create jobs....we wouldn't have an employment problem.

fine, I see you're gonna believe what you want facts be damned. These so-called job creators are not creating jobs. They didn't under bush, or obama.

Take wal mart for example, this is a huge company that makes tons of profits and pay their workers crumbs. Basically it's a republicans wet dream. How many times have you been in a walmart with an adequate amount of registers open? They could hire more people but rather not. I work for a company that installs and program those self checkouts for walmart. They keep me busy creating a system for them to avoid creating jobs. how often do you call a company and get an automated operator? or some guy with a strong Indian accent saying his name is chris? I can go on with examples. You thinking that business owners should be put on level of firemen and soldiers is just plain wacky to me. I'm sorry.

(08-18-2011 05:26 PM)b Wrote:  The way you use the term job creator is just stupid. lets just get that out of the way. I know every republican politician has to use that term to brand it, but you're no politician. You wanna create jobs invest in green energy that would open up new career lanes. A bank hiring a damn teller is not creating jobs, it's hiring help.


Take wal mart for example, this is a huge company that makes tons of profits and pay their workers crumbs. Basically it's a republicans wet dream. How many times have you been in a walmart with an adequate amount of registers open? They could hire more people but rather not. I work for a company that installs and program those self checkouts for walmart. They keep me busy creating a system for them to avoid creating jobs. how often do you call a company and get an automated operator? or some guy with a strong Indian accent saying his name is chris? I can go on with examples. You thinking that business owners should be put on level of firemen and soldiers is just plain wacky to me. I'm sorry.

b, you say, "Invest in green energy."

Who are you telling to invest in green energy? Are you saying for the government to invest?(Since they have done so well investing other people's money in the past) Or are you asking those god forsaken business owners(Job creators) to invest?(In a business that is almost impossible to make a profit in because most "green" energy is not even comparable pricewise to what is already available.)

And your second point is absolutely ludicrous. FREE ENTERPRISE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT EXIST TO CREATE JOBS. It exists to make the owners money. Period. If you want to create a business that exists only to create as many jobs as possible then do it and see how long you are in business. Then once you close your doors, you are creating zero jobs.

You live in a Liberal fantasy world where not only does everyone DESERVE to have a job, but that job should be a great, well paying career. God forbid anyone suffer through the injustice of having to be a bank teller or a Wal Mart employee. The world simply could never operate like, and if you don't like it TOUGH S**T!

Oh dear.

Quote:b, you say, "Invest in green energy."

Who are you telling to invest in green energy? Are you saying for the government to invest?(Since they have done so well investing other people's money in the past) Or are you asking those god forsaken business owners(Job creators) to invest?(In a business that is almost impossible to make a profit in because most "green" energy is not even comparable pricewise to what is already available.)

I don't have a problem with government investing money. sometimes the benefit comes in ways other then profit. state colleges are cheaper then private. becoming less reliant on foreign energy is a good thing.
Putting a solar panel on a house is not cost effective but used on large buildings or campuses is well worth it.

Quote:And your second point is absolutely ludicrous. FREE ENTERPRISE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT EXIST TO CREATE JOBS. It exists to make the owners money. Period. If you want to create a business that exists only to create as many jobs as possible then do it and see how long you are in business. Then once you close your doors, you are creating zero jobs.

it's obvious we are on different sides of this debate but don't assume everything you disagree with is coming from. converll is the one who keeps on harping that business are for creating jobs. I have been telling him what you said in at least 4 different threads. maybe he'll listen to you.

Quote:You live in a Liberal fantasy world where not only does everyone DESERVE to have a job, but that job should be a great, well paying career. God forbid anyone suffer through the injustice of having to be a bank teller or a Wal Mart employee. The world simply could never operate like, and if you don't like it TOUGH S**T!

I GUESS USING CAPITOLS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING SO I'LL TRY IT. AND I DIDNT KNOCK A TELLER JOB OR A WALMART JOB. YOU GUYS LOVE TO CREATE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE OTHER GUY.

I DON'T LIVE IN A LIBERAL FANTASY WORLD. I LIVE IN A REPUBLICAN NIGHTMARE WHERE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSER TO THE POVERTY LINE(WHICH I BET IS ALL OF US) THEN THE RICHEST OF AMERICANS. YET THEY'LL GIVE THEIR LEFT NUT TO STAND UP FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T NEED YOU STANDING UP FOR THEM.

THE REALITY IS WAGES HAVENT KEPT UP WITH INFLATION AND THE WEALTHY ARE MAKING MORE WHILE THE MIDDLE CLASS IS STAGNANT AND DISAPPEARING. IF YOU ARE LOADED, BY ALL MEANS SUPPORT THE EXTREME WEALTHY.

I DON'T GET HOW SOME OF YOU FEEL INCREASING THE TAXES OF THE WEALTHY TO 39%--THE LEVEL IT WAS IN THE GOOD OLE DAYS IS INSANITY BUT LOWERING MINIMUM WAGES BY NEARLY 50% IS A GRAND IDEA. DO ANY OF YOU LOOK BEYOND YOUR OWN POT BELLY'S?

LET'S THINK ABOUT IT.

WE KEEP WAGES LOW WHILE THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING GOES UP. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? INSTEAD OF REALIZING PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO BUY, THEY BLAME IT ON THE WORKERS BEING PAID TOO MUCH. JUST A RACE TO THE BOTTOM.

THESE POOR KIDS WHO ARE IN COLLEGE AND WONT BE ABLE TO FIND JOBS THAT JUSTIFY THE COLLEGE EXPENSE. OR EVEN WORSE, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN COMPANIES NO LONGER HAVE A POOL TO CHOOSE FROM BECAUSE NO ONE CAN AFFORD COLLEGE?

TO BE HONEST GIVEN THE CHOICE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT RUN EVERYTHING OR BIG BUSINESS. GIVE ME THE GUBMENT EVERYTIME. AT LEAST THEY CAN BE VOTED OUT.

YEAH I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A JOB WHERE THEY CAN AFFORD TO FEED THEMSELVES. DO YOU THINK THAT IS ASKING TOO MUCH? WE HAVE MINIMUM WAGES AND YOUR PRECIOUS COMPANIES ARE STILL HIRING ILLEGAL WORKERS FOR PENNIES. AT SOME POINT IT GONNA OVERTAKE ALL OF US

INSTEAD OF US ALL GETTING TOGETHER FOR A BEER, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET TOGETHER FOR A GAME OF MONOPOLY AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE PERSON CONTROLS EVERYTHING

(08-18-2011 05:26 PM)b Wrote:  

Quote:WHERE DO JOBS COME FROM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll give you a HUGE hint:

They DON'T come from government (from Wikipedia):

"A total of 91% of Americans are employed by the private sector. Government accounts for 8% of all US workers."

what are you talking about? sometimes I swear you are having conversations with yourself.

Quote:Why not let the job creators create the jobs

The way you use the term job creator is just stupid. lets just get that out of the way. I know every republican politician has to use that term to brand it, but you're no politician. You wanna create jobs invest in green energy that would open up new career lanes. A bank hiring a damn teller is not creating jobs, it's hiring help.

What are you talking about? Anyone working in the private sector has a JOB...a JOB that provides income for that individual and as a result, that individual pays TAXES...If you totaled up all the retail employees and summed their tax payments to the FED it would be far greater than the public sector employee contribution. Another example of how the private sector's health is directly related to the health of the overall economy.

I guess that's what you are failing to understand---when you create jobs in the private sector, you broaden the tax base and increase the amount of money entering the federal coffers. If you don't believe me, do a quick check of how well the unemployment numbers track the total Federal tax take--it's a pretty tight fit. As a result, it's to the Fed's advantage to rescind policies that choke the life out of the private sector--that includes both taxing AND SPENDING....AND REGULATIONS.

Quote:fine, I see you're gonna believe what you want facts be damned. These so-called job creators are not creating jobs. They didn't under bush, or obama.

I repeat: 91% of the jobs are in the PRIVATE SECTOR--are you saying that nobody works in the private sector? Or are you upset that the types of jobs change--that's what happens in a dynamic economy--I feel bad for the buggy whip industry as well...but we simply don't use horses to drive commerce any more!?!

Quote:Take wal mart for example, this is a huge company that makes tons of profits and pay their workers crumbs. Basically it's a republicans wet dream. How many times have you been in a walmart with an adequate amount of registers open? They could hire more people but rather not. I work for a company that installs and program those self checkouts for walmart. They keep me busy creating a system for them to avoid creating jobs. how often do you call a company and get an automated operator? or some guy with a strong Indian accent saying his name is chris? I can go on with examples. You thinking that business owners should be put on level of firemen and soldiers is just plain wacky to me. I'm sorry

I shop at Wal-Mart all the time--I've never had a problem with under-staffing...ever! Must simply be your neck of the woods--please explain to me how it would be in Wal-Mart's best interest NOT to move product? That's how they generate their profit margin!

Bitching about automation is simply holding on to the past--jobs that disappear from one sector appear in ANOTHER sector....I'll bet a whole new crop of jobs opens up that will involve servicing these automated registers and manufacturing parts for them if they go into place in wide distribution. You'll also see HUGE problems with loss prevention, which will mean increased security personnel to make certain they aren't getting ripped off every whip-stitch. I also imagine that with the DECREASE this will bring in the COST of their products, they will be able to build MORE STORES to sell MORE PRODUCT and hire MORE EMPLOYEES.

And while it's true that a business doesn't exist to create jobs, the fact of the matter is that if a business is EXPANDING it HAS to create more jobs. Sort of like if you eat a lot and exercise you HAVE to get stronger--the 2 are LINKED.

It's interesting how the economy works, isn't it?

Quote:Another example of how the private sector's health is directly related to the health of the overall economy.

true but a lot of business's don't look at the big picture. I use gm as an example. they bought out all of their workers who made a good wage and brought in lower wage workers. In the short term they saved money and executives got bonuses. In the long run their most loyal customers (their employees) could not afford to buy their cars. so i wished the private sector realized how their success and a strong economy go hand in hand. but it's dog eat dog.

Quote:What are you talking about? Anyone working in the private sector has a JOB

but the private sector is not in business to create jobs. I'm not going to go around and around again with you on this. we've been here before.

Quote:it's to the Fed's advantage to rescind policies that choke the life out of the private sector--that includes both taxing AND SPENDING....AND REGULATIONS.

taxing and spending-- a broken record. tax rate is pretty low and contrary to what you republicans spread, higher tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy. During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was like 90%. and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

and lets end regulations too. put the 12 years olds back in the coal mines. let the factories release toxic poison into neighborhoods, and that will solve everything, except it won't.

Quote:I repeat: 91% of the jobs are in the PRIVATE SECTOR--are you saying that nobody works in the private sector? Or are you upset that the types of jobs change--that's what happens in a dynamic economy--I feel bad for the buggy whip industry as well...but we simply don't use horses to drive commerce any more!?!

then I expect you to join me in saying that it's not obama fault that 'there are no jobs. times are a changin people need to change with it. but nope. you give the private sector the pass. Lets be clear people are working in the private sector but more are going out then coming in.

Quote:I shop at Wal-Mart all the time--I've never had a problem with under-staffing...ever! Must simply be your neck of the woods--please explain to me how it would be in Wal-Mart's best interest NOT to move product? That's how they generate their profit margin!

wellllll, they undercut the stores around them and run them out of business. then you really have no choice but to wait. how's that?

Quote:Bitching about automation is simply holding on to the past

my b!tch always has and always will be your belief in the almighty job creator. Automation is just an example of what your "job creators" did with the money they saved from bush's tax cut.

Quote:You'll also see HUGE problems with loss prevention, which will mean increased security personnel to make certain they aren't getting ripped off every whip-stitch.

dude, have you been in a walmart? with the camaras, plain cloth security, a person at the register and at the door, it's like fort knox.

Quote:I also imagine that with the DECREASE this will bring in the COST of their products, they will be able to build MORE STORES to sell MORE PRODUCT and hire MORE EMPLOYEES.

gotta give a ya a big fat wrong on that. again you somehow believe that the "job creators" are angels from heaven. did gm lower the price of cars when they brought in lower paying workers? nope.

you think they can't build stores now? you think they are smothered under the low wages they pay? you think those self check out are needed for them to survive. If so you may have had to much of that PURPLE DRANK. hire more people? oh the stories I could tell you.

these corporations are in the business to make money, not create jobs. the more they can get done with less people the better. why is netflix raising it's rates? hell, they have a few rooms to store videos without nearly the overhead of a blockbuster. even with streaming lowering their cost of postage, they still needed growth. greed my friend.

Quote:And while it's true that a business doesn't exist to create jobs, the fact of the matter is that if a business is EXPANDING it HAS to create more jobs. Sort of like if you eat a lot and exercise you HAVE to get stronger--the 2 are LINKED.

the thing is a lot of these business expand to other regions of the world. that don't help us any. and taking my netflix example, they are growing. not sure they are hiring more people but the results of their growth is putting blockbuster out of business who hired local folks and paid local taxes.

so what you really don't understand is at some point we are gonna be eaten up by these large corporations. and its particularly sad when you low wage republicans can't see how you are hurting yourself. if you ever lived in an area where there was no competition, the service sucked.

Quote:It's interesting how the economy works, isn't it?

i'm not real sure you got a real grasp of it. I think you cling to a set of belief and stick with them no matter how many holes have been shot through them. But you are still my homey.

B, since you have all the answers why don't you just start a company and hire all of us.

He might need to by the time this joke of an administration gets done crapping its shorts.

He has somehow figured out a way to make GW look smart, Bubba look honest, and Carter look like an economist.

(08-18-2011 08:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  B, since you have all the answers why don't you just start a company and hire all of us.

for one, you guys spend too much time on the computer during work hours. and how little are you willing to work for?

(08-18-2011 09:15 PM)b Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 08:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  B, since you have all the answers why don't you just start a company and hire all of us.

for one, you guys spend too much time on the computer during work hours. and how little are you willing to work for?

This might shock you but maybe some of us don't have "normal" work hours.

Are you starting a company?

B you obviously havent worked in pubic sector and paid attention.. In myjob alone ive seen waste in the last year that could hire 2 median income employees plus some.. Or 5 walmart employees... The public sector has no idea what to do because there is absolutelyno incentive.. Justlikemost union jobs... But its big bad rich people who make the poor stay poor.. Not their work ethic...

Eastside , you are becoming Vottomatic, or maybe you already are her.
You ***** about everything, you cut the GOP a free pass and you are convonced the tea-bagger mantra is all true and all good.
bu$hy's oil buddies love those guzzlers so you do too.

(08-18-2011 07:34 PM)converrl Wrote:  I shop at Wal-Mart all the time--I've never had a problem with under-staffing...ever! Must simply be your neck of the woods--please explain to me how it would be in Wal-Mart's best interest NOT to move product? That's how they generate their profit margin!

I've grown to like WalMart - even as they seem to have lost sight of what they did best. But my patience is wearing thin...it's no wonder same-stores sales have been declining.

In July I went to the WalMart on Colerain near the Ronald Reagan. Started out in the garden store. They had not adequately watered the plants and literally everything in the place was damaged or dead - and there was a lot of merchandise. Looking for bargains, I spent the next 15 minutes finding things to purchase. None of it was marked down.

Found a damaged japanese maple. Went to the checkout to see if what price reduction there may be. Stood there for 5 minutes and the clerk never returned. I could have walked out and no one except the security camera would have known.

I wanted a bag of soil for tree planting. I had to pull a bag off a pallet of a high shelf as none were at floor level.


Went inside to make my purchases. About 20 checkout counters, maybe 3 open, each with 6-7 people waiting in line. Got the maple for about $12, a bargain. But I wouldn't have known because until then because there was no one to help me.

Went to the WalMart on CinDay Road in West Chester. Lemons. I wanted a couple lemons. That's all I needed. The box marked lemons was empty. I ask the hispanic guy working the department if there were any more lemons. He takes me to limes and points to them. "Lemons" I say. He points to limes.

Went back to the same Walmart, this time looking for green onions. That's all I needed. Green onions. The green onion box was empty. Talk to the hispanic guy? "Any more green onions?" No. Off to Kroger. They have green onions there. Always.

B, I like you and enjoy most discussions you are in on this board even if we have a difference of opinion sometimes. That said, this is an instance where I disagree with the crux of your argument.

Let’s forget about large companies like GM and Walmart and look at small businesses. I happen to work with quite a few small business owners. Here is a recent example…

This particular business owner made around 250K before he opened up his own business (works in the pharmaceutical industry). He has been in business on his own now for 5 years as a business owner and has 3 full time employees…his business generated around 500K in income last year. Let’s look at some expenses.

~100K salary for the staff / 70K for rent and equipment / 30K for other business operating expenses.

The owner made around 300K last year (his best year ever)…2 years ago his business still had similar expenses but the business only generated 350K of income. He netted around 150K that year (didn’t cut his workers pay) and made 100K less than he did working for his previous employer. He really didn’t want to close up shop and fire his employees, very glad that his business has rebounded thus far. Like any business that has had growth, he is thinking about hiring but has not pulled the trigger yet….one of the main reasons he gave me for not hiring yet was not knowing what new taxes he is going to face. Let’s say his company’s numbers stay similar to the last couple of years with around 500K of company income….but he faces 30K in new taxes…what are his options?

~Take 30K less income himself…yet all the company risk/debt is in his name, he signed the loans for rent / equipment…what if another bad year like 2 years ago happens?
~Fire an employee due to the increase in taxes
~Try to spend 30K less on business expenses / upgrades making him less competitive in his marketplace
~Close shop, work for his old company (that would take him back in a heartbeat) and fire his 3 employees

With all the uncertainty out there in this economy and a president who openly states he wants to tax him more because he is in the top 5% of income earners...what incentive does he have to hire more employees?

I'm confused as to why big business expects a government bailout and people expect government not to have a say about how they operate.

Government didn't run GM into the ground. The upper management who was supposed to be stewards for the shareholders ran GM into the ground. Let's start there.

And like it or not, Obama does have a point. When gas prices continue upward - and they will go upward - no one will want those SUVs. Having spent quite a bit of time in used car lots, I've found the best deals on used SUVs.

Other car manufacturers make money off of compact cars - why can't American car manufacturers?

I love it when someone who's never held a private sector job tells people who have spent their whole lives in business how to make money. Especially when he's one of the biggest obstacles to their profitablitiy.

(08-18-2011 09:45 PM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  B you obviously havent worked in pubic sector and paid attention.. In myjob alone ive seen waste in the last year that could hire 2 median income employees plus some.. Or 5 walmart employees... The public sector has no idea what to do because there is absolutelyno incentive.. Justlikemost union jobs... But its big bad rich people who make the poor stay poor.. Not their work ethic...

I have worked in the private sector, so the only obvious thing is how wrong you are.

Like I told beercat, don't assume we are on different sides. I agree about the waste. unproductive employees is very expensive. It's your boy converrl who keep saying the only thing hurting business is taxes.

you're barking up the wrong tree.

(08-19-2011 11:25 AM)SeniorBearcat Wrote:  B, I like you and enjoy most discussions you are in on this board even if we have a difference of opinion sometimes. That said, this is an instance where I disagree with the crux of your argument.

Let’s forget about large companies like GM and Walmart and look at small businesses. I happen to work with quite a few small business owners. Here is a recent example…

This particular business owner made around 250K before he opened up his own business (works in the pharmaceutical industry). He has been in business on his own now for 5 years as a business owner and has 3 full time employees…his business generated around 500K in income last year. Let’s look at some expenses.

~100K salary for the staff / 70K for rent and equipment / 30K for other business operating expenses.

The owner made around 300K last year (his best year ever)…2 years ago his business still had similar expenses but the business only generated 350K of income. He netted around 150K that year (didn’t cut his workers pay) and made 100K less than he did working for his previous employer. He really didn’t want to close up shop and fire his employees, very glad that his business has rebounded thus far. Like any business that has had growth, he is thinking about hiring but has not pulled the trigger yet….one of the main reasons he gave me for not hiring yet was not knowing what new taxes he is going to face. Let’s say his company’s numbers stay similar to the last couple of years with around 500K of company income….but he faces 30K in new taxes…what are his options?

~Take 30K less income himself…yet all the company risk/debt is in his name, he signed the loans for rent / equipment…what if another bad year like 2 years ago happens?
~Fire an employee due to the increase in taxes
~Try to spend 30K less on business expenses / upgrades making him less competitive in his marketplace
~Close shop, work for his old company (that would take him back in a heartbeat) and fire his 3 employees

With all the uncertainty out there in this economy and a president who openly states he wants to tax him more because he is in the top 5% of income earners...what incentive does he have to hire more employees?

I hate being put into a position to defend tax increases. I think your story is a little skewed toward blaming everything on taxes.

Quote:Like any business that has had growth, he is thinking about hiring but has not pulled the trigger yet….one of the main reasons he gave me for not hiring yet was not knowing what new taxes he is going to face.

See to me, growth don't always mean one needs to hire. If he needs more people to service his customers, then it's a no-brainer you hire, otherwise you are costing yourself money.

uncertainty comes with running your own business. if he don't have the stomach for it, go back and work for someone else. does he pay insurance for his workers? increased utilities cost, and surcharges on deliveries should all be factors as well. focusing solely on taxes just makes you seem not credible.