"_____is the mighty foundation of society!"
 

It seems to me that growing up in Ohio in the 1960's-'70s that we were always hearing about how the "Workin' Man" was the foundation of our economy, the "muscle and sinew" of American Industry and that nothing was too good for our workers. Of course this propaganda was spouted off largely by the Democratic Party at the behest of Union Leaders. Although I tend to be pro-labor, mostly due to the fact that I was raised in a union family and because of some of my own personal experiences, I am neither blind nor stupid. I see that organized labor accrued far too much power by the 1960s and used this nearly unlimited power to push things too far. Especially in the Steel and Automotive industries. The "job banks" that forced employers to continue to pay inactive workers, the worker protections that made it just about impossible to fire poor performers, etc, etc. Guys, I grew up in the middle of the worst of it. Dead smack in the center of the Rust Belt. There is nothing any of you can tell me about it that I don't already know. Nothing you can show me that I haven't already seen.

My saying this might shock some of you who've been hanging around this board for the last year or so. But, I believe that the truth, as ugly as it might be, is the truth all the same.

Now, on to the point.

The last several election cycles I increasingly hear about the "Small Businessman". The small businessman is the "engine of our economy", he is "what makes America great". We all owe the small businessman a "debt of gratitude". We need to help him address his issues and give him whatever he wants, so he can create a few jobs. We need to shine his shoes and walk his dog. Give him tax cuts and ease his burden so he can run his business in his sleep. And, oh what the hell; Why don't we cut his grass and prune his friggin hedges while we're at it?:rolleyes:

I expect to hear this drivel from Republicans, because most of them ARE businessmen. So it only follows that they want us to throw money at them and run at their heels. Raise the valleys up and lay the mountains low, as it were. For THEM, but not ourselves of course.

The other day, as I was driving to work listening to NPR, they were interviewing Sen. Barbara Boxer, and taking call in questions. A woman called in, described herself as a small business owner and proceeded to tell Senator Boxer all about her problems, some of them perfectly reasonable complaints. Taxes in California are too high, the wages she must pay due to the high cost of living in LA are tough on her bottom line, and so on. Then she launches into this list of things that "have to go". She lists virtually everything from every last environmental regulation, to unemloyment insurance, to overtime pay, to the minmum wage, everything, she wants it all, and she wants it immediately.

Screw that. Who in the hell do these people think they are, and what makes them think anyone owes them this? If that woman simply can't run her business under conditions that others do, and do well every day, then perhaps she is just incompetent? Could Cali lighten up on the tax burden it places on business? Perhaps. Is the cost of living in Cali. too expensive? Perhaps. But, why she thinks anyone OWES her cheap, doclie labor and a life of servitude in an environment choked with pollution is beyond reasonable comprehension.

Here is how I see it.

1). This is nothing but pandering to a voting base. Much like the pandering to the unions.

2). The "small businessman" is NOT the sole "engine of our economy". This is ridiculous. Everyone who gets off of their ass and goes to work, be he a small businessman, a big businessman, self employed or an employee is a part of the "economic engine". The "engine" needs everyone who is able to work, to do their part in order to function.

3). When you single out a narrow segment of society and start telling them that they are the center of our universe, and that they should have whatever they want, you are inviting trouble. Placing anyone on such a lofty pedestal will inevitably lead to abuses. You can count on it.

4). If your competitor is running his business in the same location and under the same circumstances as you are, and he's kicking your butt, maybe it's because you are a loser and nothing more? So, stop your damn whining and find another way to make your living. It's what the rest of us do.

I await your thoughts.

Dave

In truth "small businesses" do not ad any more jobs than "big businesses" assuming the dividing line is 500 employees. Asking any of us for sacrifices to aid the economy when we know the rewards will go to the top 10% (who already have most of the ewqealth) is only going to get you a New York bird.

Big businesses are adding jobs - overseas! Since technological changes allow them to produce more with the same number of workers they won't be adding jobs here unless we change the tax rules to make outsourcing non-profitable.

Small businesses will not be adding jobs until the economy picks up - and that won't happen unless the workers get paid just salaries.

So yes, it is all GOP bullcrap.

Pretty much how I see it, Rob.

P.s. Didn't we just get screwed out of the opportunity to, "change the tax rules to make outsourcing non-profitable"?

Dave

Yes, the Repubs and a few fuckwit Dems voted it down, can you believe on the grounds that it "Would hurt business"?

I am beginning to uderstand why the Chamberpot of Commerce is against all the new regulations, they are protecting their sex life, after all without us they would have no one to screw.

What they're not saying, is that it would hurt the import business. Give ya a big warm and fuzzy to know our elected officials are so concerned about protecting sweatshop labor, doesn't it?

"But, Dave, if we made it here, it would be more expensive!" It would also bring lower unemployment in the lower skill levels, which would mean lower "welfare" costs and possibly better wages. So, just shut up and pay, you damn tightwad.:D

Dave

Dave thanks for your original post. I'll join the madness fest and say that unions have done a great service to all and probably still have a spot in public life.

I love the GOP and business link, even though our fearless leader is using small business to justify the $250k tax break.

I may contribute every time I take care of a customer, but business men and women often drive growth. Business IS the economy.

Pete

Once again, Pete. I am referring to the dangers of extremes.

It's not me that makes the GOP/Business link---They do.
All day long, every day, at every political rally, and in every political ad.
"I've run a business, made payroll,......blah, blah, blah."

Of course "business is the economy". But, do you really think it's wise to just give business leaders whatever they demand of us? I think that's every bit as dumb as giving the unions whatever they wanted was. Would it create more jobs? MAYBE. But, would they be worth having in the end?

Obama is just desperate to make a point, and trying what seems to work for the other guys. It isn't going to work for him.

Balance, my friend.

Dave

Obama pandering to the GOP? ;)

Us little cogs have no idea of the huge burden of paperwork foisted on business by the government. Now they have to file every single time they make any purchase over $600!

Pete

Awwwwww. Let's have a "Pity Party".:p

Dave

Poor little millionaires, having to scrape by on $250k a year, worlds smallest violin :D

Pete

Joking aside,

What is the purpose of this filing?
This is the first I've heard of it.

Dave

This was a provision added to the Health Care Reform legislation (PPACA).

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smal...re_tax_change/

So, if I'm reading this right, it's tightening up of an existing tax? In otherwords, if I sell (As a business owner.) something to a customer that is priced at over $600, and don't report the sales tax collected on that item, I get caught on the 1099---filed by the customer? Who is also a business owner, filing a 1099 for an expense deduction?

The article kind of confused me a bit, so please bear with me. I'm trying to get a clearer picture of what's going on here.

Dave

Under current law, businesses generate a 1099 for payments in excess of $600 for rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when these payments are made to entities other than corporations. Payments made to a corporation and payments for merchandise are not required to be reported.

Beginning in 2012, businesses will be required to report any and all payments in excess of $600 for services or merchandise to any individual or entity. This change is unique for two reasons:

Most of a business’s revenue now will be reported to the IRS by the businesses that paid it, so understating large amounts of revenue will be more difficult, and;

It will force businesses to identify the recipients of their business expense payments. For example, an accountant travels from the company headquarters in Chicago for a week to do an audit at the company's distribution center in Kansas City. The company will have to send the hotel a 1099 for if the hotel charge exceeds $600. A small business buys a network copier/scanner. It costs $1000 for acquisition and installation. It pays the bill from the supplier's invoice, but also then has to send the supplier a 1099.

The rationale for all this is that the health care bill mandate aims to collect lost revenue from companies that under-report on their tax returns. The provision is expected to raise $17 billion over 10 years. There's no accounting for the administrative costs that will be created complying with this mandate, however. I imagine it will be substantial.

Substantial is an understatement!

That's pretty much what I was thinking. It's an attempt to capture tax revenue lost due to under-reporting, which isn't really "raising" taxes per se, just "sealing the leaks" so to speak. But, as you said, I imagine the administrative costs for both the private sector and the government are going to be considerable.

Dave