• 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

If you are an established company regulations help keep competition away. Most of what regulation does it make it more expensive to start up a company. Regulations are definitely needed. There just has to be a balance. If I was running a hotel where I provided clean sheets every day, and did other things mandated by regulation I wouldn't want to compete with someone who didn't have to abide by those regulations. If we talk about regulations 'killing" businesses, I'll bet we can find a few that are just not necessary or overreaching but regulations in themselve aren't inherently evil. I really don't think most Republicans are talking about necessary regulations.
 
There's no such thing as a necessary regulation in a free market. Unless you want to call laws against the use of force and fraud regulations, but my preference is to not call them that.
 
phattonez said:
There's no such thing as a necessary regulation in a free market. Unless you want to call laws against the use of force and fraud regulations, but my preference is to not call them that.
Click to expand...

That was nonsense. By definition, a free market has no regulations. Whether or not regulations are necesary is a question that the free market does not address.

The people have decided that regulations are necessary. Free marketers are inherently undemocratic because they do not allow the people to have their say in the marketplace. Preferring to call regulations something else is just a pretense needed to defend an irrational support of undemocratic free markets
 
sangha said:
That was nonsense. By definition, a free market has no regulations. Whether or not regulations are necesary is a question that the free market does not address.

The people have decided that regulations are necessary. Free marketers are inherently undemocratic because they do not allow the people to have their say in the marketplace. Preferring to call regulations something else is just a pretense needed to defend an irrational support of undemocratic free markets
Click to expand...

Democracy is a sham. Democracy is antithetical to freedom, because with democracy is supposed that you have the right to force others to do your will. That's not freedom, that's coercion. If the goal is freedom, then democracy needs to be done away with.
 
phattonez said:
Democracy is a sham. Democracy is antithetical to freedom, because with democracy is supposed that you have the right to force others to do your will. That's not freedom, that's coercion. If the goal is freedom, then democracy needs to be done away with.
Click to expand...

Right!! Freedom is the freedom to adulturate food with poisons and enslave people who are different that you!! :cuckoo:
 
sangha said:
Right!! Freedom is the freedom to adulturate food with poisons and enslave people who are different that you!! :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Without democracy there are no pretensions about the immorality of slavery and endangering. With democracy, it is supposed to be the will of the people, and since the people are us, we voted to do any action that the government undertakes. For instance, if we choose to tax the rich, the rich choose to tax themselves since it is the will of the people. And by that logic, the Jews committed suicide during the Holocaust because the Nazis were democratically elected. Do you see the absurdity?
 
phattonez said:
Without democracy there are no pretensions about the immorality of slavery and endangering. With democracy, it is supposed to be the will of the people, and since the people are us, we voted to do any action that the government undertakes. For instance, if we choose to tax the rich, the rich choose to tax themselves since it is the will of the people. And by that logic, the Jews committed suicide during the Holocaust because the Nazis were democratically elected. Do you see the absurdity?
Click to expand...

Yes, I see the absurdity and it started with your first sentence
 
1Perry said:
When people get to keep their money, they will spend it.
Click to expand...
a good trick... like having your cake and eating it too.
When the government gives other peoples money to
Click to expand...

i can help ya with that...the government is not 'other'. it is us. what you want to say is when WE take money from ourselves and aside from putting it to work at things you approve of, use it for things you don't approve of.... blah, blah, blah.

it is not voters he needs to convince... it is right wing republican extremists in Congress.

geo.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
raising taxes isn't going to raise demand for your products.
Click to expand...

but cutting them will?

the argument between supply and demand side is pretty much over... demand drives the economy because demand is constant... it never goes away. you HAVE to eat, you do not have to grow food UNLESS you have to eat.

it is sensible to raise revenues when you are in need of money. if it makes sense to allow revenues to decrease, it is when you are NOT in need.

supply side economics is putting all economic power into the hands of suppliers and even more, supply manipulators... not consumers. it is a predefined method for failure.

geo.
 
imagep said:
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.
Click to expand...

That has got to be the single most rediculous thing I've heard on this board. Whenever someone says something close to this I always say, well lets see.. if you want to sell something, what do you do? Answer, you ALWAYS put it on sale. You don't raise the price..

Sheesh.. Feel good liberals annoy me.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
lets see.. if you want to sell something, what do you do? Answer, you ALWAYS put it on sale. You don't raise the price..
Click to expand...

by which you mean 'reduce the price'?

no. not true. when your need (want) of the money it will return is greater than the want of the buyer for what you have to sell, you reduce the price... when the demand (want on the part of the consumer) is greater than your desire for profit, you keep the price as high as you can afford to NOT gain until you find a buyer whose want for the produce meets your want for profit.

Feel good liberals annoy me
Click to expand...

unthinking conservatives have much the same effect on me...

geo.
 
Geo Patric said:
by which you mean 'reduce the price'?

no. not true. when your need (want) of the money it will return is greater than the want of the buyer for what you have to sell, you reduce the price... when the demand (want on the part of the consumer) is greater than your desire for profit, you keep the price as high as you can afford to NOT gain until you find a buyer whose want for the produce meets your want for profit.



unthinking conservatives have much the same effect on me...

geo.
Click to expand...

Yes, exceptionalize all you wish, but retailers, and business owners have used the "putting it on sale" mantra for a millenium.. I'll take that as the standard, NOT your example if you don't mind. On another note, how exactly does your exceptional situation fit into the context of raising taxes? :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Yes, exceptionalize all you wish, but retailers, and business owners have used the "putting it on sale" mantra for a millenium.. I'll take that as the standard, NOT your example if you don't mind. On another note, how exactly does your exceptional situation fit into the context of raising taxes? :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Only the deluded rightwingers think prices have gone down because retailers mark up their prices and then put "On Sale" signs out front :cuckoo:
 
sangha said:
Only the deluded rightwingers think prices have gone down because retailers mark up their prices and then put "On Sale" signs out front :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

I assume you're speaking to me? Well, why don't you prove it, sparky? Prove to me that retailers hike their prices before they put it on sale?


Tim-
 
There is a disconnect between what people say and what people do. Someone may say that he doesn't hire more people because of taxes and regulations, but the reality is if he had more customers he would generally hire more employees. I suspect that historical evidence would point to a more solid conclusion than any poll.

When I was in high school making so so grades I said that I would make good grades the next year...but never did. History is a much better predictor of future actions than polls.
 
Geo Patric said:
a good trick... like having your cake and eating it too.


i can help ya with that...the government is not 'other'. it is us. what you want to say is when WE take money from ourselves and aside from putting it to work at things you approve of, use it for things you don't approve of.... blah, blah, blah.

it is not voters he needs to convince... it is right wing republican extremists in Congress.

geo.
Click to expand...

If you wish to only post partial quotes, anything said in response to the partial quotes can be dismissed.
 
imagep said:
There is a disconnect between what people say and what people do. Someone may say that he doesn't hire more people because of taxes and regulations, but the reality is if he had more customers he would generally hire more employees. I suspect that historical evidence would point to a more solid conclusion than any poll.

When I was in high school making so so grades I said that I would make good grades the next year...but never did. History is a much better predictor of future actions than polls.
Click to expand...

If Obama didn't think the new regulations concerning emissions would hurt the economy he would have never cancelled them.
 
imagep said:
There is a disconnect between what people say and what people do. Someone may say that he doesn't hire more people because of taxes and regulations, but the reality is if he had more customers he would generally hire more employees. I suspect that historical evidence would point to a more solid conclusion than any poll.
Click to expand...

History is wrought with too many variables to make any educated guesses about cause and effect solely from that source. You need a theoretical apparatus as well. Taxes and regulations hamper investment and growth, despite growth in demand. As such, the period of the highest growth in US history was the 1870s. Not surprising given the lax amount of regulations back then.
 
stevil said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's as stupid as believing tax cuts and subsidies will encourage more growth and that if a company makes more money, they're not going to increase bonuses of CEO's, but somehow give that extra money back in the form of lower prices or returns to stock holders, etc.

Regulation is a necessity on some level. Too much is as damaging as none at all. Our regulation has been particularly lax lately, particularly with the banks and Wallstreet. Those jerks get away with everything.
 
Ikari said:
That's as stupid as believing tax cuts and subsidies will encourage more growth and that if a company makes more money, they're not going to increase bonuses of CEO's, but somehow give that extra money back in the form of lower prices or returns to stock holders, etc.

Regulation is a necessity on some level. Too much is as damaging as none at all. Our regulation has been particularly lax lately, particularly with the banks and Wallstreet. Those jerks get away with everything.
Click to expand...

Those are problems of a lack of competition, not that taxes are too low. Monopoly privileges, bailing companies out, etc. That's the problem. Lower taxes keeps capital in private hands, and private hands know how to allocate resources better than the government.
 
phattonez said:
Those are problems of a lack of competition, not that taxes are too low. Monopoly privileges, bailing companies out, etc. That's the problem. Lower taxes keeps capital in private hands, and private hands know how to allocate resources better than the government.
Click to expand...
Aren't companies now in a position where they are sitting on quite a bit of capital? The result appears to be no new jobs and a floundering economy.

Companies only do what's in their best interest to do, not necessarily what's in the best interest of the country.
 
Tettsuo said:
Aren't companies now in a position where they are sitting on quite a bit of capital? The result appears to be no new jobs and a floundering economy.

Companies only do what's in their best interest to do, not necessarily what's in the best interest of the country.
Click to expand...

They're sitting on it because of uncertainty about future costs due to new regulations not fully implemented, new programs that will cost companies more money not fully implemented, threats of new taxes, threats of new regulations, etc. How can you make a long investment such as hiring with all of that uncertainty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom