Corporations are paying a smaller portion of the pie than any time in recent memory.
and two-thirds of corporations pay absolutely nothing in taxes.
...Maybe we should apply the same rationale to them that some "conservatives" want to apply to people, and make them all pay taxes so that they begin to appreciate their government better.
I still don't support subsidies and special exemptions/loopholes, but they're certainly no where near as prevalent as applying to 2/3 of all businesses. No one should be cherry picked by the government to have a special tax rate or exemption and certainly not out of all the tax they'd otherwise owe on their profits. This is something tea partiers and OWSers could really coalesce behind b/c it's actually a unifying idea. And yet here we are, divided as ever, even while agreeing.
Re: Appreciate their government better? That's Obama, not conservatives. No that's not what it's about IMO. It's about having a stake in the game, caring about how your own money is spent so that you have motivation to keep yourself informed and active in how the government rules.
[ We haven't talked about failure at all in this thread, and I'd be interested to see the viewpoints on that. As is stands, lilm, your statement doesn't flow with the thread.
Actually, it was stated. Twice, at least (mominatrix and me).
Again, I laugh at all of this because, many people do thank the Almighty State when they invite local officials out for ribbon-cuttings of their new office spaces, development sites, etc. LOL ;D
I'm totally fine with that. I just think when people ask for thanks it's impertinent and condescending. This is right up there with a someone who did something really important calling himself a hero. Someone else has to call you a hero. Otherwise you just look like an egotistical ass.
[ We haven't talked about failure at all in this thread, and I'd be interested to see the viewpoints on that. As is stands, lilm, your statement doesn't flow with the thread.
Actually, it was stated. Twice, at least (mominatrix and me).
ETA: ok I'm never that concise. There's also federal loan guarantees, subsidies to the business, subsidies to the consumers who buy from that business, special tax breaks/loopholes. There's probably more ways, but that's all I can think of right now.
So if a business is successful, it's because of the roads, the teachers, the loan from the bank along with the SBO. But if it fails, it's just the SBO. Got it.
We haven't talked about failure at all in this thread, and I'd be interested to see the viewpoints on that. As is stands, lilm, your statement doesn't flow with the thread.
If a business succeeds on it's own, then does it fail on it's own? Isn't that the flipside of the coin?
Then, logically, if we say that a business depends on society to succeed, then isn't society letting down that business when it fails?
Who here is saying that SBO succeed on their own?
Oh, and downtoearth, thanks for looking out for me. I'm just too dumb to know what I mean.
He got very little help along the way; not his family, teachers, etc. I guess the government "helped" him thanks to the GI bill. But I argue that was an even exchange since he was ya know, serving in hte air force in korea. He didnt get help from friends or family financially, even after asking. Our family made the sacrifices and we were lucky his risks paid off.
Easy way-TARP, Too big too fail, tax code (though this is more of an opinion) are programs. Saying things like "capitalism is the devil" when things fail (housing market, Wall Street, for instance(s)) will do it as well.
ETA: ok I'm never that concise. There's also federal loan guarantees, subsidies to the business, subsidies to the consumers who buy from that business, special tax breaks/loopholes. There's probably more ways, but that's all I can think of right now.
Ok, I thought that was what she meant. I'd also mentioned the use of tax write-offs for business loss.
So, let's ask this, I thought cons were ok with this to an extent? I mean, don't you want to incentivize SBOs to get out there and try to strike it big?
I admit, I'm not very fond of the billions of dollars my city has doled out in PILOTs, but I recognize there is some benefit even if it pisses me off at times.
Ha ha..LOL. I was mostly referring to the fact that I don't think KA knows what 'rewards' she thinks SBOs are missing out on right now.
But I'm a die-hard SBO shopper (spend probably 80% of my shopping in small businesses - including local/farmer food) and we had one that didn't reap the financial benefits for all the time my DH devoted, so I guess I just think she's a little out of touch. And if someone put that sign in their shop, you bet, I'd laugh and go in and buy something.
ETA: ok I'm never that concise. There's also federal loan guarantees, subsidies to the business, subsidies to the consumers who buy from that business, special tax breaks/loopholes. There's probably more ways, but that's all I can think of right now.
So, Caden, do you agree that business risk is somewhat (if not largely) socialized?
if that's the case, why shouldn't SOME of the benefits be, as well?
Instead, we're to a place where MORE business benefits are privatized than ever, while at the same time MORE of the risks are socialized. How is that not bassackwards?
I'm not completely disagreeing with her either. All I'm saying is that, there was a level of help here. Again, this goes back to the Bootstraps mentality of Ain't Nobody HELP ME!!!!!!!!!! And that's just not entirely the case - SBOs, local tax incentives, Federal tax incentives, the ability to write off loss on your taxes, consumers, family support, etc. are needed to get your SBO off the ground.
I'd like to say ain't nobody help me either - but it's not true. The women who fought to get the right to vote, suffragists, the black folk who came before me and paved the way, the professor that gave me a recommendation ... etc., etc. Yes, I interviewed. Yes I did the work, but someone was a mentor and gave me a helping hand.
I don't know why we are so adverse to this.
anybody realizing that this thread is curving into the one about Marissa Mayer...
Apparently, she isn't standing on the shoulders of feminist women who...
...got women no longer being the property of their husbands and fathers.
...got women the vote.
...got women wage equality.
...got women equality of educational opportunity.
...got women workplace protection from sexual harassment.
...got women maternity leave and family leave benefits.
etc.
She did it all on her own, so she doesn't have to lump herself in with a bunch of flannel-wearing, mullet-having, bull-dykey "feminists"... the same way that the prophetic "small business owners" do it all by their very lonesome.
Where did Mayer said she did it all on her own? Nothing in the Jezebel article stated that she said that, tho is certainly made the assumption based on her comments to (IMO) the current state of feminism. was it in the Makers video? If so, why wasn't that quoted?
Ok, I thought that was what she meant. I'd also mentioned the use of tax write-offs for business loss.
So, let's ask this, I thought cons were ok with this to an extent? I mean, don't you want to incentivize SBOs to get out there and try to strike it big?
I admit, I'm not very fond of the billions of dollars my city has doled out in PILOTs, but I recognize there is some benefit even if it pisses me off at times.
We don't have to incentivise striking it big. Striking it big is the incentive.
Oh and I thought of one more: keeping interest rates artificially low.
I don't know what you mean about write-offs for losses. I'm not pro-taxing losses. Tax is for profits, not revenues.
He got very little help along the way; not his family, teachers, etc. I guess the government "helped" him thanks to the GI bill. But I argue that was an even exchange since he was ya know, serving in hte air force in korea. He didnt get help from friends or family financially, even after asking. Our family made the sacrifices and we were lucky his risks paid off.
You're right. She left out that he likely traveled on paved roads and used utilities.
So if a business is successful, it's because of the roads, the teachers, the loan from the bank along with the SBO. But if it fails, it's just the SBO. Got it.
We haven't talked about failure at all in this thread, and I'd be interested to see the viewpoints on that. As is stands, lilm, your statement doesn't flow with the thread.
If a business succeeds on it's own, then does it fail on it's own? Isn't that the flipside of the coin?
Then, logically, if we say that a business depends on society to succeed, then isn't society letting down that business when it fails?
When a small business fails, I don't see society holding the bill for it, unless there is no way for him/her to pay back a loan to a loan to a bank that can't afford the loss that needs to raise the rates of others, etc. The SBO can be in financial ruin.
ETA: ok I'm never that concise. There's also federal loan guarantees, subsidies to the business, subsidies to the consumers who buy from that business, special tax breaks/loopholes. There's probably more ways, but that's all I can think of right now.
So, Caden, do you agree that business risk is somewhat (if not largely) socialized?
if that's the case, why shouldn't SOME of the benefits be, as well?
Instead, we're to a place where MORE business benefits are privatized than ever, while at the same time MORE of the risks are socialized. How is that not bassackwards?
Not Caden, but the rewards are socialized. Taxes, especially from employees and capital gains. Is our tax code out of date where this is not seen by all? Heck yeah.
Caden - I think that's where I'm missing something. Are cons not ok with providing SBOs small business loans? I'd think you were to some extent. Because if they can get the upstart funding, and if all market conditions are just right, then they can be the next Fred Smith.
When a small business fails, I don't see society holding the bill for it, unless there is no way for him/her to pay back a loan to a loan to a bank that can't afford the loss that needs to raise the rates of others, etc. The SBO can be in financial ruin.
But dp's argument is that society does feel the backlash in the loss of jobs and contributing members. Also (broadening the argument) we also provide for those members in the form of social services should they need them.
So, Caden, do you agree that business risk is somewhat (if not largely) socialized?
if that's the case, why shouldn't SOME of the benefits be, as well?
Instead, we're to a place where MORE business benefits are privatized than ever, while at the same time MORE of the risks are socialized. How is that not bassackwards?
One can't make a broad statement like that b/c it differs so much between industries and businesses. General Motor's risk is largely socialized. A plumber's small business isn't socialized at all as far as I'm aware. The solution to having too much risk socialized is not to socialize the benefits. It's to stop socializing the risk. I'm not interested in further distorting the market and removing capital from the dynamic sector and bringing into the bloated, unaccountable public domain.
Not Caden, but the rewards are socialized. Taxes, especially from employees and capital gains. Is our tax code out of date where this is not seen by all? Heck yeah.
Excellent point. I was thinking in terms of ownership, but absolutely the government benefits from private economic activity (except when it chooses not to by cherry picking winners and losers in the market place )
Caden - I think that's where I'm missing something. Are cons not ok with providing SBOs small business loans? I'd think you were to some extent. Because if they can get the upstart funding, and if all market conditions are just right, then they can be the next Fred Smith.
I assume you mean government loans, not loans from a bank? Cons (well, everyone) have a spectrum of how much gov't involvement they tolerate so I can't speak for everyone. For me personally no I'm not in favor except in extreme circumstances-- like when we had the financial crisis and credit basically dried up for everyone and the economy was in danger of grinding to a halt. But under ordinary circumstances no I don't think it's necessary, especially when the loans are tailored to only a few ideas the government chooses to sponsor, and not to people generally. Because that leads to overcapitalization in those areas and undercapitalization elsewhere. I've also not seen evidence a great track record of picking successful investments.