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. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18562439 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.
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. 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.
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! More great ideas. Who needs the Googles of the world when we can spur our economy on with cookbook sales?
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. 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.
Off the cuff or not, taxing revenue is ridiculous. I agree. Our economy would be much better if we had only mom-and-pop shops selling cookbooks.
That's all dependent on how it's implemented. I am also not concrete in this viewpoint, it could change. 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...
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
An answer to what? You made up hypotheticals that aren't even realistic and don't even deserve an answer. For instance, a business's tax on profit doesn't pay for sidewalks. That is a different tax unrelated to revenue or profit. There are already taxes in place to tax a business just to exist. Why do you want to eliminate all low-margin businesses that can't afford tax on revenue and hire employees? Why are you only in favor of the giant corporations making huge margins? You're fellow pinkos would be ashamed of you.
Oh, please. Excuse me for saying sidewalks. I should have said National Defense. Or Medicare. Or farm subsidies. Ok? Now try to address the question. Why should profitable companies carry the load for non-profitable companies? barfo
Why don't we clean up America and get these handout-begging incompetent businesses off the streets? Why do millions of Social Security recipients have to die early to subsidize Hawaii vacations for small businessmen so incompetent that they need tax breaks to break even? As one who has run the office while the owner takes a vacation for months because of my competence, I know.
Why do you want to eliminate all low-margin businesses that can't afford tax on revenue and hire employees? Why are you only in favor of the giant corporations making huge margins? If a company can cut costs to stay afloat during the bad times, while still paying the existing tax for a business just to exist, I'm fine with that.
I am shocked that no small business said they won't be hiring anyone because they don't run their business well enough to expand. =) Seriously though... There is no context to that number... though it does show small business are very willing to blame their failures elsewhere. Like when corporations axed ton of employees after 9/11 (the company that I worked for at the time 50K+) when they could blame it on something else (it's not US! It was 9-11!!!) Yeah right... they hired most of those positions back with people with less years of seniority.
I don't / I'm not. I was raising the question of why you don't, because according to your philosophy, such as it is, you should be in favor of it. That's more in keeping with the Republican tradition, I guess: lay off workers, don't pay taxes, you are fine with that. barfo
Yes, of course I am, but that isn't a problem for debating you. As you know perfectly well, the 'existing tax for a business just to exist' is actually pretty tiny (in Oregon, it was $10/year until just recently). So, you continue to avoid the question: is it fair/reasonable/good policy that profitable businesses subsidize unprofitable businesses? barfo
Nah brah I don't think so. Reality: Tough luck nigguh. :] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254034/hausers-law-reality-isnt-negotiable-veronique-de-rugy Bush was not a fiscal conservative I don't care what he believes in or what state our economy was in due to his policies. Peace.
