Everything You Need To Know About How Liberals Kill The Economy In A Single Column

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Everything You Need To Know About How Liberals Kill The Economy In A Single Column

Written By : John Hawkins

This column by small business owner Michael Fleischer is absolutely extraordinary because it gives people who’ve never worked for themselves a window into the world of the small business owner. These are the people who are endlessly vilified by the Left despite the fact that they create most of the jobs in our country.

They’re called greedy for wanting to be rewarded for their hard work. They’re called selfish for not giving more to their employees. But, few people ever take a look at how much the government takes from those very same employees. Democrats certainly never consider how much better off the overwhelming majority of people in this country would be if the government was much smaller and people could keep more of the money they’ve earned. Just take a look at the numbers Fleischer presents (It’s worth reading the whole column to see the numbers broken down).

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it’s going to be later—much later. Here’s why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She’s been with us for over 15 years. She’s a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

…When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this “summer of recovery.” We can’t pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we’d lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

…A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Few of the pampered members of Congress have ever run a business. They’re not risking their own money. In most cases, they’re not constrained in any meaningful sense by a budget or even by the rules they force other people to live by. They’re overstaffed, overbudgeted, and only in rare cases, when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jars, do they have to pay any sort of price for making mistakes. So, the world that small business owners live in is something they don’t truly comprehend because it’s completely outside of their reality.

That’s how we end up with the government imposing a 33% surtax on a job even as liberals condemn the people providing that job. It’s like a tick condemning a dog for not providing him with enough blood.

Lee

Nothing surprising here to those of us in touch with reality. There may even be some liberals who understand this reality. The difference is they don't care.
President Friedman

A lot of employers are combating this problem by re-examining the basis of their working relationship with their employees, and seeing if they can exist as contractors instead. My business is nearing 5 years old, and depending on what is going on we fluctuate between 3-10 real employees (mixture of part time and full time), but we (very carefully and legally) contract out enough business to keep an additional 15-20 folks hooked up with full time work, most of whom aren't even in my state. The way most small businesses were run a decade ago, my company would have around 30 employees instead of doing it the way we do.

The best part? I don't know what these folks do as far as paying their taxes goes, or what they do for insurance, or if their kids go to daycare or sit beside them at the office all day, or where they buy their groceries. I offer them money to do a certain job based on a certain standard, they agree to do it, and I pay them for it. It's almost enough to make me resent the few actual employees I have to keep on payroll. ;-)

baoxian

Which, perversely, is exactly what the government wants. You as the employer stop providing benefits, purchasing health coverage on the open market is exorbitantly expensive (and not tax deductible), people be fined if they don't carry coverage, so the only alternative is Obamacare.

It's certainly not the fault of employers. If we had a government that was actually concerned with improving the lives of its citizens instead of enslaving them, we would have gotten things like a national exchange, portability, tax deductibility, and a reduction in mandates that lead to expensive one-size-fits-all plans.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

By most measures, about half of the working people in this country work for a “small business”. My greatest concern for our economy is that Mr. Obama's administration doesn't seem to care much about those small businesses. They listen to large businesses in a number of sectors, you know, the ones with the resources to donate handsomely to political campaigns; they listen to large unions, you know, the ones with the resources to donate handsomely to political campaigns; when it came time to talk health care, they had the time to listen to the big pharmaceutical companies, you know, the ones with the resources to donate handsomely to political campaigns. But when it comes to small businesses, much of the time, they seem to turn a deaf ear.

Since they account for roughly half our jobs, small businesses are as much the engine of economy as are big corporations. But time and again, this administration refuses to recognise that the cost of compliance with regulations hits much harder in the small business sector than it does for the large companies. Time and again, they refuse to acknowledge that incremental increases in the cost of doing business result in fewer jobs.

Back before the first Gulf War, Saddam had inflicted a grievous harm on Iraq's economy by persecuting and then chasing off the Chaldean population – the Christian Iraqis. They were the shopkeeper class of Iraq. They were the traditional small businessmen of Iraq. After years of persecution, they started to leave. And when they left, they took piles of cash with them. After fighting an expensive protracted war with Iran, after facing down economic sanctions, Saddam's purging of the Chaldean merchant class really put his nation into an economic tailspin.

I'd really hate to see our government do something equally stupid here. But there are times that I get very concerned for the future of small businesses here, which in turn makes me very concerned about our economic survival.
Huge Richard

The left simply does not vilify the small business owner as John and conservatives like to claim. This statement demonstrates the rest of your conjecture will be just as partisan.

John as a blogger, your job is to look up exactly how many members of congress have owned a small business. The actual numbers would be more illuminating than your bald-faced claim.

It's common knowledge, John, that the insurance industry is raising rates in advance of the health care reform taking effect. The reform isn't to blame, the industry that needs reform is to blame.

I guess 33% just sounded about right to you, and doesn't have anything to back it. It was high enough to frighten and not so high as to be unbelievable. Good job with the numbers choice in that respect.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=836619118 Michael Torkildsen

Huge Richard, not a small business owner. Hey, idiot, go ahead and tell us what you paid in taxes last year?
Hotspur1

So how many are there, if you've done the research? Funny, you blaming John for not giving numbers, yet you've supplied none of your own.

Troll.
Christopher_Taylor

The left simply does not vilify the small business owner as John and conservatives like to claim.

Not deliberately, but that's what they end up doing with their policies. Your deliberate efforts to ignore what was being said (and by whom) are noted. And pathetic.
mightysamurai

The left simply does not vilify the small business owner as John and conservatives like to claim. This statement demonstrates the rest of your conjecture will be just as partisan.

Well obviously if “Huge Richard” says it, it must be so!

Vegeta1

yep, a lot more credible than when he was pete moss, jack scite zimmy and all the rest. He's a hint troll, when you're banned don't show back up under a different name preaching the same bs and think no one will notice.

northerncanuck

“Few of the pampered members of Congress have ever run a business. “

Weren't the Dems slamming a Republican for being a pest controller? And of course Joe the Plumber was slammed for being a mere plumber. Todd Palin is slammed for being fisherman. It goes on and on.
UFKA_Smithwick

I think the simplest take is that they reward failure at the expense of success.
Mazen Abdallah

Yeah, the small business owner has some very creative math. First of all, the nice lady needs to shell out a total of 6,000 in income tax. The rest depends on her specific location, worker class and age group. New Jersey happens to have really good minimum wage, so if she ever gets laid off after her 15 year stint, she has other options besides 'go home and start car in garage until drowsiness kicks in'. New Jersey also has good state benefits so that's why it averages higher taxes. You wanna save up, move somewhere like Wyoming. Conversely, ya get less state benefits. Sorta like eating at Mickie D's vs. Applebee's. You pocket more, you eat with less quality.

Finally, it's the conservative's fault for advocating the nuclear family so much. The American government you guys rag on so much is actually a financial supporter of traditional same-sex marriages and child-rearing. Meaning the more your nice picture-perfect family grows, the more you get to write off what you acquire.
Finally, the whole argument behind taxation and financial regulation is that Washington can be held accountable by the voter. If you don't feel the need to pick up the phone and talk to your congressman, we can't very well feel sorry for you.

Oh and quit moaning about doing your American duty

“pay to every such person of the age of fifty years … the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty…This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right” -Thomas Paine, rights of man

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Wow. That screed is some of the fuzziest thinking I've seen around here in a while.

A few points:

– I don't understand your point about 'good minimum wage' is since New Jersey uses the Federal minimum wage as it's state minimum wage. About half the states and US territories do. New Jersey does absolutely nothing to distinguish itself amongst the various states with regard to minimum wage. It always helps to arm yourself with the facts before you open your mouth, rather than to be called out on factual errors later. And the point about the woman killing herself – where did that come from? No need to answer, my friend, because I know it was an emotionally-charged strawman you dragged into the conversation in place of having a rational argument.

- On the 2008 report (last year for which this report is currently available) from the US Census Bureau which presents data about population change, New Jersey ranks 21st among states for population growth for the period 2000 – 2008. Texas, which has no state income tax and probably has lower benefit levels, ranks 1st in population growth for the same period. For 2008 alone (not cumulative for the period) New Jersey ranked 25th in population growth and Texas ranked 1st.

What this most likely shows is that people tend to self-select into the states which most closely approximate their idea of a better environment. Further, that more people have a preference for a low-tax, low-benefit environment than do for a high-tax, high-benefit one.

The idea that the various states would compete with one another for population based in part upon the climate of government, level of taxation, level of economic opportunity, and other elements of daily life which they provided to their citizens was a key element in the creation of our national republic. That precept was made very clear during the states rights discussions, which as you recall, ended up being the basic compromise which allowed the founders of this nation to proceed with forming a national republic. Our founding fathers clearly preferred that the states be free to attract people to their realms through offering a unique legal, social, regulatory and economic environment.

So here in the 21st century, people seem to be expressing a greater like of a low-tax, low-benefits state as opposed to a high-tax, high-benefits one. That's not to say that people who desire a high-tax, high-benefits place to live don't exist, or that they should be forced to live in a low-tax, low-benefit state, only that those who don't desire a high-tax, high-benefit state should have elsewhere to live and that a greater percentage of people find the low-tax, low-benefits choice the more desirable one.

– Apparently you're contending that the nuclear family is going to be the downfall of our civilisation, or something. That was so muddled I couldn't really get any sense from that part of the comment. But what's most interesting is that we're all well aware that family sizes are shrinking in this country, not growing (with the exception of the family sizes of non-citizens and immigrants), which really stands in contravention to the point you're making.

Now I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that English isn't your first language, and so some of your thoughts may suffer in their expression as you compose them in English. But that doesn't explain the wild leaps of logic and large unsubstantiated claims you make throughout your little rant. That's down to fuzzy thinking, mate. And lots of it.

Mazen

Wow! I didn't know someone could sound so smart and yet express such moronic thoughts simultaneously. Brava!
- State minimum wage is higher in different states if they so elect. Federal laws place a minimum, not a universal law. And New Jersey was already doing better than other states when Federal evened everybody out to $7.25. They were already ahead of other states before the FMWA in 2007
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
So yeah, that was a fact. And no, the suicide remark wasn't an emotional strawman, because i a) used it in a crude and somewhat sarcastic manner 2) after using it to refute your point and 3) I would never dream of trying to strike an emotional chord with a conservative (oh and that one wasn't an ad hominem, it was just an insult)
- Non-sequitur much? If the commonly given argument for stopping immigration is that immigrants try to leech off of state benefits, how are you now arguing that legal Americans aren't going places for those same benefits. A simple fact-finding will reveal that Texas does in fact, have very attractive state benefits, such as: SNAP food benefits, Medicaid, Texas Health Steps, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Women's Health Program, Cash help for families (TANF), Nursing home care, Rides to the doctor, dentist, or drug store
https://www.yourtexasbenefits.com/

So your observations carry on pretty oddly, but let's see if i can decipher the substance. You seem to sum it up here
“So here in the 21st century, people seem to be expressing a greater like of a low-tax, low-benefits state as opposed to a high-tax, high-benefits one.”
No, see people love the crap out of benefits, but they're not enthusiastic about the cost. An unfortunate economic reality to be sure, but it doesn't mean they're going to stop paying taxes and hope the US will start selling oil like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (not viable)

- My point is that the US encourages the nuclear family through tax breaks. So tell the government to stop effectively subsidizing traditional marriage, that ought to ease the burden on the singles, childless, gay, etc. Just a thought.

Fun! Now you're taking a shot at my English abilities. Which is it, cowboy, the dems are over-educated elitists or they're too stupid to warrant your attention? Well, I apologize deeply for failing to keep up with your razor-sharp wit, sir. You've blown me away with your attempts at scathing comebacks and clever put-downs. Perhaps next time you could regal me with an actual observation rather than your own dull substitute for satire.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

You've entirely missed the comment I made regarding minimum wage. New Jersey's minimum wage is currently at the same level as is Federal minimum wage, along with about half the states and US territories covered by the FLSA. Your calling them out as having a “good minimum wage” introduced a superfluous and disingenuous twist to a point which is absolutely moot – there is no current difference between New Jersey and Federal minimum wage. None. But feel free to carry on with your indignation. It's so cute when you froth at the mouth like that.

In the next ¶, your desire to take a swipe at a live conservative (yes, I've noticed that not many people have bothered to respond to the screed you've posted here previously, which I'm sure you find a tad frustrating since you're so seething with anger toward us and we're just not playing your game the right way, apparently) seems to have clouded your reading and comprehension of what I said. The whole point of the ¶ on Texas v New Jersey was not that Texas has poor benefits, but that relative to New Jersey, they're not as rich. And just as importantly, I was making the point there's no state income tax there, which is not the case in New Jersey, a point which you managed to elide over, I suspect because it doesn't fit your narrative. But I guess you see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read and understand the world through the blinders you wear.

And yes, people are flocking to Texas at a much higher rate than they are to New Jersey, and they have been for most of the past decade. I suspect that's because there's far greater perceived economic opportunity there for them than there is in NJ. If you'll go back and re-read that text of mine that you quoted, what I stated is that people seem to find the low-tax/low-benefits combination of Texas more appealing than the high tax/high benefits combination of NJ which is why they're moving there at a far greater rate than they're moving to NJ. I made no case or statement that people don't like benefits, but again, your predispositions and stereotypes seem to have thrust that point into a sentence in which it clearly doesn't exist. I do find it interesting that you dragged immigration into the discussion here when absolutely no one has commented one way or the other on immigration prior to your introducing it. That certainly gives the appearance, at the very least, of that being a classic forensic red herring, rather than a real concern. When in a pinch, try to divert the subject onto something else.

You really want to know what I'd propose as a tax structure? Flat tax. No deductions, exemptions or credits. People, businesses and organisations would pay a fixed percentage of what they bring in. Take government out of the business of incentivising people to behave in one way or the other entirely. It's frankly none of government's business. This would work best in combination with a requirement that government balance their budget every year. Oh, and elimination of withholding taxes. Let all taxpayers gain the full benefit of their earnings throughout the year and have them settle up with government just as they would with any other organisation to which they owe money at the end of the year. Plus, eliminating withholding taxes would give people a much better understanding of exactly how much that government monkey on their backs is costing them each year. With it being withheld, it's “out of sight, out of mind” for many people.

Interesting that you've tried an either/or gambit on my comments about your self-expression skills. I don't think I'll play, thanks. I try my best to deal with people as individuals, based on what they actually say and do, not on what my fantasies of them might be. You on the other hand have demonstrated several times this today alone, a pronounced and habitual proclivity to read your own thoughts and ideas into what was written and then proceed in wild logical leaps onto your own predisposed agenda points. And when other don't “cooperate” with what you want to say, you drag those points into the conversation whether they belong or not. I condensed that to “fuzzy thinking” earlier for the sake of brevity, but I'll spell it out for you so you'll gain a better understanding of what I was saying. It's probably a good part of the reason that most people steer clear of responding to you. But that's just a guess.

Cheers.
ApplePie

What kind of name is Mazen Abdallah sounds like a mix between a Syrian and person from tripoli, why dont you get an actual american name before you spew your lefty, alaa chicken bull

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN