• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,530
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say | McClatchy
Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say

Politicians and business groups often blame excessive regulation and fear of higher taxes for tepid hiring in the economy. However, little evidence of that emerged when McClatchy canvassed a random sample of small business owners across the nation.

"Government regulations are not 'choking' our business, the hospitality business," Bernard Wolfson, the president of Hospitality Operations in Miami, told The Miami Herald. "In order to do business in today's environment, government regulations are necessary and we must deal with them. The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations. It is the government regulations that help keep things in order...

...McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business.

Their response was surprising.

None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.

Another republican lie has been put to rest
 
Lack of demand is killing businesses. Supply side economics (something Republicans subscribe to) doesn't work.
 
The article suggests that all of the overreaching control by banks and insurance companies are the problem. Some bigger businesses preying on smaller ones and keeping people away from financial independence. It's not good to be a nation of debtors.
 
The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations.

I know I can vouch for this. One time I was exiting a business and I almost fell and busted my tail, were it not for the local regulation that was there to grab my arm.

Seriously? A "lie" put to rest with one study, huh? If that's the case, than why don't we pass a million regulations a day? The more regulations, the better for business, right? And hell, the owners say they are looking forward to them, so let's get crazy with it.
 
I know I can vouch for this. One time I was exiting a business and I almost fell and busted my tail, were it not for the local regulation that was there to grab my arm.

Seriously? A "lie" put to rest with one study, huh? If that's the case, than why don't we pass a million regulations a day? The more regulations, the better for business, right? And hell, the owners say they are looking forward to them, so let's get crazy with it.

No need to indulge in absurdisms. Some regulation is necessary, nobody is claiming that regulation for its own sake is worth being pursued.
 
Lack of demand is killing businesses. Supply side economics (something Republicans subscribe to) doesn't work.

That is what the QE programs have been. When people get to keep their money, they will spend it. When the government gives other peoples money to Wall Street, as we've seeen, not so much.

The problem isn't with mom and pop businesses either.
 
No need to indulge in absurdisms. Some regulation is necessary, nobody is claiming that regulation for its own sake is worth being pursued.

So you wouldn't think it absurd for the business owner to state this?

The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations.

As if his business doesn't care one way or the other about customers, and he would expose them to all sorts of dangers and health risks if left to his own devices? Sure, my comment was absurd. But it was a reply on a forum board, not a quote in a news article.
 
That is what the QE programs have been. When people get to keep their money, they will spend it. When the government gives other peoples money to Wall Street, as we've seeen, not so much.
QE is just another top-down approach, IE supply side. Something else I'm not happy with concerning Obama's approach.
The problem isn't with mom and pop businesses either.[/QUOTE]
Most of the jobs in America are generated by small businesses.

What we need is a comprehensive jobs bill specifically for repairing American infrastructure.
 
As if his business doesn't care one way or the other about customers, and he would expose them to all sorts of dangers and health risks if left to his own devices? Sure, my comment was absurd. But it was a reply on a forum board, not a quote in a news article.
History proves that a business will risk harming it's patrons if it could make them money or cause them to lose money.
 
No need to indulge in absurdisms. Some regulation is necessary, nobody is claiming that regulation for its own sake is worth being pursued.

When one tries to defend supply-side nonsense, absurdisms are needed
 
So you wouldn't think it absurd for the business owner to state this?



As if his business doesn't care one way or the other about customers, and he would expose them to all sorts of dangers and health risks if left to his own devices? Sure, my comment was absurd. But it was a reply on a forum board, not a quote in a news article.

The ability to travel within the US and be generally assured that any food establishement, or hotel/inn is going to be generally clean, and not present a health or safety risk to the customer is something that promotes domestic internal trade and tourism.
 
If there was no correlation Obama wouldn't be scrapping the new smog regualtions.


Obama halts controversial EPA regulations.


Obama halts controversial EPA regulation - Yahoo! News

I think he's scrapping for two reasons: 1) even thought the regs. would save money long term by reducing health care costs, they will cost money in the short term by driving up energy bills. Not what you want to be doing when the economy is in need of stimulus. 2) he wants to take the issue away from Republicans. He makes the same mistake he can't seem to unlearn: he gives Republicans what they want and gets nothing but a one finger salute in return.
 
I think he's scrapping for two reasons: 1) even thought the regs. would save money long term by reducing health care costs, they will cost money in the short term by driving up energy bills. Not what you want to be doing when the economy is in need of stimulus. 2) he wants to take the issue away from Republicans. He makes the same mistake he can't seem to unlearn: he gives Republicans what they want and gets nothing but a one finger salute in return.

The reason he does that is because he knows he can not convince voters that he is right. The Dems were as solidly against Reagan. Reagan took his arguement to the people. Obama is unable to do that.

Nobody has any desire to hear what he has to say next week.
 
Lack of demand is killing businesses. Supply side economics (something Republicans subscribe to) doesn't work.

yeah increasing taxes on them is really going to help
 
yeah increasing taxes on them is really going to help

The point that you missed is that increased taxes isn't gonna hurt. Andif increased taxes can reduce the gov debt issue, then something good has resulted and nothing bad has resulted so we have a net positive.

The biggest thing harming MY small business is not even the lack of potential customers. I have people call or come into my business every day who want something, but don't make a purchase. The issue is the lack of customers with money.
 
The point that you missed is that increased taxes isn't gonna hurt. Andif increased taxes can reduce the gov debt issue, then something good has resulted and nothing bad has resulted so we have a net positive.

The biggest thing harming MY small business is not even the lack of potential customers. I have people call or come into my business every day who want something, but don't make a purchase. The issue is the lack of customers with money.

No doubt. And I guess raising your taxes wouldn't harm you......not that I believe that.
 
No doubt. And I guess raising your taxes wouldn't harm you......not that I believe that.

I would much prefer a 20% increase in sales and a 20% increase in tax rates, than no increase in either. Not because I want tax rates to go up, but because I want to make more money from the sales increase. A good economy will almost always put more money in our pockets than a cut in taxes.

But more to my point, I guess I didn't make it clear that I am talking about increasing taxes on the rich. Obviously tax increases on middle class people like myself would harm our economy as we are the consumer class - we are the class that accounts for nearly all production and nearly all consumption in the US, and thus our economy is basically the middle class.
 
The point that you missed is that increased taxes isn't gonna hurt. Andif increased taxes can reduce the gov debt issue, then something good has resulted and nothing bad has resulted so we have a net positive.

The biggest thing harming MY small business is not even the lack of potential customers. I have people call or come into my business every day who want something, but don't make a purchase. The issue is the lack of customers with money.

i love people like you saying increased taxes won't hurt.

increased taxes won't pay down the debt-its just an excuse for dems to spend more. and raising taxes isn't going to raise demand for your products.
 
I would much prefer a 20% increase in sales and a 20% increase in tax rates, than no increase in either. Not because I want tax rates to go up, but because I want to make more money from the sales increase. A good economy will almost always put more money in our pockets than a cut in taxes.

But more to my point, I guess I didn't make it clear that I am talking about increasing taxes on the rich. Obviously tax increases on middle class people like myself would harm our economy as we are the consumer class - we are the class that accounts for nearly all production and nearly all consumption in the US, and thus our economy is basically the middle class.

all consumption? and of course you want others to pay more taxes rather than you. its the mentality that politicians pander to because of progressive taxes
 
i love people like you saying increased taxes won't hurt.

increased taxes won't pay down the debt-its just an excuse for dems to spend more. and raising taxes isn't going to raise demand for your products.

You have an interesting view on this. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy won't hurt the uber wealthy -- will in fact benefit them somehow. But raising taxes on corporations will hurt corporations. Hmm.
 
all consumption? and of course you want others to pay more taxes rather than you. its the mentality that politicians pander to because of progressive taxes

But honestly Turtle, how can you accuse anyone of being selfish in their position on taxation when you yourself switch from tax scheme to tax scheme betraying the very principles you espoused in the previous one with the one prominent component being that you get a tax cut for yourself?
 
You have an interesting view on this. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy won't hurt the uber wealthy -- will in fact benefit them somehow. But raising taxes on corporations will hurt corporations. Hmm.

I am talking about most of those in the top 2 percent.
 
But honestly Turtle, how can you accuse anyone of being selfish in their position on taxation when you yourself switch from tax scheme to tax scheme betraying the very principles you espoused in the previous one with the one prominent component being that you get a tax cut for yourself?

why are you misrepresenting what I have said
 
Back
Top Bottom