(01-04-2018 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad, too long to quote so I won’t. You’re trying to parse my post into little pieces when the point I’m making is at the level of the whole.

What I think about our worker protections is that our conceptual approach is wrong. I think we could achieve both greater worker protections and less intrusive regulation at the same time if we got away from micromanagement by regulators and more of a macro approach. Focus less on how many inches your guardrail is above the floor and more on how many people have fallen over the side, of that makes sense. Perhaps a story will indicate my point. Friend of mine is an engineer with Dow. OSHA came in and said they had to make a $2 million safety improvement. After meeting with OSHA he went to his supervisor and said, “I’ve got an idea. We can accomplish the same result for about $100k by doing this instead.” The supervisor replied, “Be quiet. We can afford $2 million. Some of our competitors can’t. This could put them out of business.” Yes, that’s an anecdote but hardly unique. Eoropean regulation focuses more on results—or at least it did back when it was done on a national basis. Now that it’s on an EU basis, not so much.

Things that I do think would help:
- an economic based approach to the commons
- the German concept of labor relations, where labor gets seats on the BOD (it’s unions who have oppose this here, any guesses why?)
- congressional review of administrative agency rule making
- move adjudication of administrative disputes from captive agency ALJs to article 3 administrative law courts

Bottom line: a lot of our regulation is aimed more at preserving jobs for regulators than really making things safer or our air and water cleaner. A different focus would IMO make for safer workers and a cleaner environment and less regulatory red tape.

So I want more protections but with a different implementation philosophy.

And as for the relationship with taxes, here is my point. Everybadditional tax or regulation increases the cost of doing business. Make that cost too high and business doesn’t shut down, it moves elsewhere. We’ve had a lot of that lately. If we want highly paid workers (and I do) and sensible regulatory protections (and I do), then we have to give business a break somewhere to offset those costs. I think taxes are a good place to do that. And make up the tax revenues with a consumption tax which has protection effects.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to parse your response into little pieces, I was actually trying to do the opposite and get a big picture view of what you were saying.

Your response is actually so nuanced that you almost can't relate it back to the original topic of this thread or what I was getting at (about us having swung to far towards business interests), because your opinions don't match our current political climate. No one, left or right, can actually have a conversation on the national level that is anything outside of either "business need regulations cut" or whatever would be the best soundbite from the left. It's either black or white, and perhaps that is why I was confused.

From my perspective, what's missing from the national conversation on the right is what is highlighted above. However, while it's clear about how this would work from a purely workers safety perspective, how would it work for other aspects? Say PTO, wages, etc.? What is your preference to make sure wages keep up with productivity gains/inflation, or that people get adequate maternity/paternity leave like the rest of the industrialized world?

Lad, not going to quote to save room. Here's my point--PTO, wages, all your concerns come at a price. If I'm going to pay workers more, or provide more benefits, that's less to me--unless there's some tradeoff. And I think taxes can be a reasonable tradeoff in many cases.

I'm not opposed to any of the things you want, per se. But I opposed to imposing them unilaterally, without some offset somewhere else. You can say, oh that's a big old goose, she can keep laying more and more golden eggs--until the goose gets tired and decides to go nest somewhere else. And that's what has happened here. I'd be in favor of all the things you want, as long as there is some recognition that those things don't come free, so there has to be an offset somewhere.

There were democrats who favored doing those things, but giving back in one area while taking in another. Lower corporate taxes to world rates (which has now been done), but keep everything else the way it was, and all we've done is get to somewhere near break even with the rest of the world. Now impose a consumption tax (which has protection impacts) and use the money to fund Bismarck universal private health care (taking a big burden off employers) and to balance the budget (freeing up capital markets) and now you've created some advantages that can offset the costs of PTO and higher wages and the things you want. You have to look at it from the producer's perspective, not the consumer's, to see this.

If you just impose more and more costs without offsetting them, eventually businesses must move overseas to compete. That's why I think we need some realistic cost benefit analysis. I've seen analyses suggesting that certain OSHA rules cost up to $50 million for every life they save. Maybe it would be better to accept that risk and focus instead on fixing all of the things that cost $100,000 or less for every life they save.

It's all tradeoffs, and where do you want to trade?

(01-04-2018 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your response is actually so nuanced that you almost can't relate it back to the original topic of this thread or what I was getting at (about us having swung to far towards business interests), because your opinions don't match our current political climate.

They match mine.

(01-04-2018 03:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.

We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

One of the issues is defining market boundaries within the US. Also, would such a system supercede or complement current regional regulatory limits, such as those in "non-attainment areas"?

I always thought you could deal with non-attainment areas much the way Austin is doing the Mopac express lane:

For Mopac, using the express lane is a base 25 cents. That toll goes up depending how stacked up that lane is. Last night headed to downtown at high rush hour and that lane zipped at 60 while Mopac was stop and go, but the toll was $5.65.

You could easily apply the same principle to emissions markets and non-attainment areas. In fact, it is the exact same issue of market based solution to regulating the use of a 'commons' -- but the 'commons' items are 'road lane' vs particulate.

Another wrinkle is the use of emissions standards that expire and have to re-
bought and the use of a shrinking pool of emissions standards.

As for supplementing or superceding regional issues, you are invoking at its base an underlying tension between sovereigns that is part and parcel of the structure of the Constitution.

What was the question again?

(01-04-2018 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We agree on one thing. You’re confused. Or perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

As for the externalities, the libertarian solution is simple. Create a robust private cause of action. You pollute my air or water, I sue you.

And your whole binary concept distorts my point. Many other countries have more robust worker protections and environmental regulations, but they have much more speedy and certain processes for implementing them. The trade off is you spend more to provide adequate protections, but you spend less time and money to litigate issues and obtain permits and the like, and your results are known with more certainty. Businesses gladly take that trade off. Corporate America and indeed corporate world will gladly pay more to get certainty. That is one thing that has hurt the EU, as national governments have ceded power to Brussels, it has become more cumbersome to get answers to regulatory questions.

Where it all comes to a head is here. I am going to make investment decisions based on risk and reward. The US has an advantage because of lower perceived risk. If we are competitive in other areas, investment and jobs will come here. If we are not, as long as demand exists then businesses will expand to fill it, but they will do so elsewhere. Look at all the factors—risk, lanbor costs, labor productivity, infrastructure, proximity to markets, proximity to sources of raw materials, taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions, among other factors. We have to win on at least some of those in order to attract investment and jobs. When the others pretty much offset, taxes are often the decider. I am not seeing where you see a binary question.

Next time try responding to what I write instead of making stuff up. Got it?

Owl#s, the problem with the externalities is that they typically affect the 'commons'. It is hard to distinguish 'your (air/water)' from 'my (air/water)'.

Easy to do with defined private property rights, even to the extent that pooling is now widely employed to deal with a 'commons' problem with the oil reservoirs not necessarily observing a set of 'metes and bounds', but even in that case 'metes and bounds' is necessary to define the extent of the reservoir and the appropriate mineral rights holders. And this is a perfect example of where (imo) a true libertarian approach and the 'governmentalist' approach each fail, and a good crucible for finding how each group can work with the other (again imo).

I will give some to the 'governmentalists' in terms of them expanding the issues of pollution and 'appropriation from the commons' to necessarily involving government action. One action that tends toward the middle of the inherent debate between libertarianism/true free market captitalism and those of 'government diktat'/command and control is the implementation of an artificial market on the commons in question. A good example are the markets for sulphur compound and nitrogen compound credits (i.e. emissions trading). That is a middle ground I can live with if done fairly and properly.

I am a big fan of markets such as these. They can be powerful tools to help deal with these sort of negative externalities, but I don't know why they have not become more popular in the US.

One of the issues is defining market boundaries within the US. Also, would such a system supercede or complement current regional regulatory limits, such as those in "non-attainment areas"?

You would likely be able to treat these markets in the same way states treat environmental issues, in general. There is a federal floor that you must meet, and should a state want to make stricter requs, they are free to do so. In the Cap and Trade bill that passed the house back in 2009, the federal rule allowed states with existing programs to merge theirs with the federal program. Not sure if it allowed them to potentially require companies operating in their state to hold more permits than they actually would emit, or increase alternative energy production.

The questions you have, do you view those issues as insurmountable mountains towards creating these markets? Or just issues that need to get hammered out?

I would think that those issues would be of the order that wouldnt kill a cap and trade regime, but the comments leave *no doubt* that a simple sentence solution is far from the final rollout.

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

The discussion has focused on a useful topic, which is ways to accomplish social goals in a pro-business environment. I think some sort of economic model to deal with externalities like pollution is a good one. As for things like workers' issues, they can be addressed but with the understanding that for all these things there is a tradeoff.

I think lowering corporate taxes below world levels is one thing that could be traded for a number of other concessions. A consumption tax would help in a number of ways, providing some mild degree of trade protection, plus funding Bismarck universal private health insurance/care (lifting a major cost off businesses) and also reducing or eliminating the budget deficit (freeing up some capital markets).

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

What was the answer?

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

What was the answer?

42, of course. Which is the answer to everything. Duh.

(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

The discussion has focused on a useful topic, which is ways to accomplish social goals in a pro-business environment. I think some sort of economic model to deal with externalities like pollution is a good one. As for things like workers' issues, they can be addressed but with the understanding that for all these things there is a tradeoff.

I think lowering corporate taxes below world levels is one thing that could be traded for a number of other concessions. A consumption tax would help in a number of ways, providing some mild degree of trade protection, plus funding Bismarck universal private health insurance/care (lifting a major cost off businesses) and also reducing or eliminating the budget deficit (freeing up some capital markets).

But that is the crux of the tension between the the ideals of 'doing social good' and the pragmatics of 'doing business', are they not? And that is a main dividing point between libertarianism/conservative-economic agendas and liberal/progressive agendas.

I think it might be good to bifurcate the picture. Might make the amalgamation a bit easier to address:

For 'social good' (i.e. pure non-business associated social programs)
In the former school of thought, the thought seems to be in a good business environment the ample grain can be used to further good in the social context. Much like the Gates Foundation *is* the direct product of the business environment.

In the latter school of thought, the drive seems to most of the time to the use of government as the actor of change in terms of command/control type regimes and agendas, and the business being the largess that provides the largest pot to fund the social aspects of that agenda. (see Obamacare for that example....)


For business-type social good or regulatory processes

This is where the real friction lies. Pollution, OSHA, equal opportunity, etc. are all regulatory schemes built at direct intervention in business practice.

Some involve 'commons' issues (pollution), some involve health and well-being of employees (OSHA), and some are social agenda issues (equal opportunity).

And this is where the tension of power to act is an absolute struggle. The power of the business to make decisions affecting its path versus the power of the government to literally dictate not just goals, but fundamental steps at a micromanagement level to do so.

(01-05-2018 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 12:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

I think it was "Why did it take so #$%^ing long for them to finish the Mopac express lanes?"

Took them a long time but they work like a charm, imo.

My commute is situated such that the construction wreaked havoc on my commute times but the toll lane doesn't actually help me now.

However, as a progressive, I am of course elated that they help the greater good. In a grumpy sort of way.

I take it you live south of 2222 (if you work city center). For anyone north of that divide the end result rocks.

And I think the construction process clobbered *everyone's" commute during that time, not just yours.

(01-05-2018 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

The discussion has focused on a useful topic, which is ways to accomplish social goals in a pro-business environment. I think some sort of economic model to deal with externalities like pollution is a good one. As for things like workers' issues, they can be addressed but with the understanding that for all these things there is a tradeoff.

I think lowering corporate taxes below world levels is one thing that could be traded for a number of other concessions. A consumption tax would help in a number of ways, providing some mild degree of trade protection, plus funding Bismarck universal private health insurance/care (lifting a major cost off businesses) and also reducing or eliminating the budget deficit (freeing up some capital markets).

But that is the crux of the tension between the the ideals of 'doing social good' and the pragmatics of 'doing business', are they not? And that is a main dividing point between libertarianism/conservative-economic agendas and liberal/progressive agendas.

I think it might be good to bifurcate the picture. Might make the amalgamation a bit easier to address:

For 'social good' (i.e. pure non-business associated social programs)
In the former school of thought, the thought seems to be in a good business environment the ample grain can be used to further good in the social context. Much like the Gates Foundation *is* the direct product of the business environment.

In the latter school of thought, the drive seems to most of the time to the use of government as the actor of change in terms of command/control type regimes and agendas, and the business being the largess that provides the largest pot to fund the social aspects of that agenda. (see Obamacare for that example....)


For business-type social good or regulatory processes

This is where the real friction lies. Pollution, OSHA, equal opportunity, etc. are all regulatory schemes built at direct intervention in business practice.

Some involve 'commons' issues (pollution), some involve health and well-being of employees (OSHA), and some are social agenda issues (equal opportunity).

And this is where the tension of power to act is an absolute struggle. The power of the business to make decisions affecting its path versus the power of the government to literally dictate not just goals, but fundamental steps at a micromanagement level to do so.

And this helps explain well why the term "business-friendly" is really just another way of saying "small-government" in the end.

No one would ever really call a Dem business friendly because they are generally advocating for legislation that requires government intervention, often times because there are no immediate market incentives for action, and thus no guarantee that companies would work to maintain the environment, public health, worker safety, worker well-being, etc.

However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss, but no one counts any of the Dems that supported Cap-and-trade as being business friendly, even though that system allows some flexibility in how carbon emitters would handle regulation.

But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

(01-05-2018 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What was the question again?

The question was are there any pro-business democrats left.

The discussion has focused on a useful topic, which is ways to accomplish social goals in a pro-business environment. I think some sort of economic model to deal with externalities like pollution is a good one. As for things like workers' issues, they can be addressed but with the understanding that for all these things there is a tradeoff.

I think lowering corporate taxes below world levels is one thing that could be traded for a number of other concessions. A consumption tax would help in a number of ways, providing some mild degree of trade protection, plus funding Bismarck universal private health insurance/care (lifting a major cost off businesses) and also reducing or eliminating the budget deficit (freeing up some capital markets).

But that is the crux of the tension between the the ideals of 'doing social good' and the pragmatics of 'doing business', are they not? And that is a main dividing point between libertarianism/conservative-economic agendas and liberal/progressive agendas.

I think it might be good to bifurcate the picture. Might make the amalgamation a bit easier to address:

For 'social good' (i.e. pure non-business associated social programs)
In the former school of thought, the thought seems to be in a good business environment the ample grain can be used to further good in the social context. Much like the Gates Foundation *is* the direct product of the business environment.

In the latter school of thought, the drive seems to most of the time to the use of government as the actor of change in terms of command/control type regimes and agendas, and the business being the largess that provides the largest pot to fund the social aspects of that agenda. (see Obamacare for that example....)


For business-type social good or regulatory processes

This is where the real friction lies. Pollution, OSHA, equal opportunity, etc. are all regulatory schemes built at direct intervention in business practice.

Some involve 'commons' issues (pollution), some involve health and well-being of employees (OSHA), and some are social agenda issues (equal opportunity).

And this is where the tension of power to act is an absolute struggle. The power of the business to make decisions affecting its path versus the power of the government to literally dictate not just goals, but fundamental steps at a micromanagement level to do so.

And this helps explain well why the term "business-friendly" is really just another way of saying "small-government" in the end.

No one would ever really call a Dem business friendly because they are generally advocating for legislation that requires government intervention, often times because there are no immediate market incentives for action, and thus no guarantee that companies would work to maintain the environment, public health, worker safety, worker well-being, etc.

However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss, but no one counts any of the Dems that supported Cap-and-trade as being business friendly, even though that system allows some flexibility in how carbon emitters would handle regulation.

As for the first bolded: Most libertarians/economic-conservatives are adherents to a strong concept of private property rights and the Chicago School mold of economics. Each either impliedly or explicitly is a detraction from government power and government intrusion.

Most progressives/liberals view direct government command/control of 'solutions' as necessary. And most take a more Keynesian view of economic theory. And that is at the crux of the issue as well. It doesnt help that this school seems to view the private business sector not just as a tool to enforce the 'doctine de jour', but as the never ending piggy bank for what is deemed to be 'socially good' at the moment. And they make no bones about using governmental power to do this.

What you speak is really the crux of the major differences between libertarians/economic-conservatives/neo-liberal economics and the progressive/liberal outlook.

Quote:However, there are more business-friendly solutions to these perceived problems as we've started to discuss,

Some issues lend themselves to a economic-based solution. Most do not. Pollution just happens to be the major one that does, since the core function is turning an externality cost into a direct cost. Seems the emissions programs can emulate that at a fairly approximate level. I dont think such things as government mandates that *every* employer is on the hook financially for its employees health benefits can ever be shoehorned as anything *but* a prime example of the government not only forcing business to be its tool, but using business as the piggy bank to do it. I dont see how that approach could *ever* be classified as anything *near* business friendly.

As for the last bolded portion, the crux of the issue is that you now equate 'carbon emitters' as polluters. No one can doubt that SO2 and SO3 are driving causes of acid rain and other issues; nor can one doubt scientifically such things as the NOx links to physical manifestations; nor can one doubt the issues of CFC to ozone destruction.

Equating 'carbon emitters' to those schemes has a much smaller grounding in empirical science than those drivers and pollutants cited in the previous paragraph -- in terms of: a) whether the effect is actually true; and b) the scope of any such effect. There are orders of magnitude more uncertainty in the carbon emissions / climate change science that any of those discussed above.

(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

(01-05-2018 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

By "rest of the industrialized world", do you mean "Europe"?

(01-05-2018 03:51 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 03:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But cap and trade will impose additional incremental costs. You’re not business friendly unless you are willing to offer something to offset. What do you have in mind for that?

I know the usual refrain from the left, “Oh they just make such huge profits that it wouldn’t hurt them to make less.” Except they don’t want to make less, and they have options where they don’t have to make less.

So we do cap and trade, which isn’t a terrible idea. How do you make it up to businesses?

With the massive reduction in corporate taxes, why do there now need to be other concessions?

Aren't we now on even footing with the rest of the industrialized world, so we should expect companies to take on similar burdens as they do elsewhere?

By "rest of the industrialized world", do you mean "Europe"?

Should have included "western" in there.

But yes, am comparing use to Europe. Europe has been referenced repeatedly as to where our corporate tax rates should be. So now that we have lowered our rates to be more in line with Europe's standards, a major concession to business, doesn't it make sense that concessions are made in the other direction?

Or does being business-friendly require even more concessions to be given? Because if so, that keeps proving my point that there's no way to be "business-friendly" if you want to put any sort of regulation on businesses.