Yes. Easily, in fact. Any statement that isn’t “I pay too much taxes” or “I shouldn’t pay any more taxes” or “our taxes, despite being the lowest they’ve ever been, are too high” is a good start. Oh, yes, and let’s not forget to omit the perennial favorites “If you raise my taxes, I’ll stop working in a fit of pique and cripple my own income just to make sure you don’t get an extra 10% of it”. Basically, you are making good money, so complaining about having to pay slightly more of your money to keep up the society you’re currently making your money in makes you a whiny bitch.
Really, it’s simple. I am upper middle class and well on course for “rich”, so I have nothing against the rich in general. I just hope by the time I get there the top marginal tax rate is closer to 50%-60% and that the capital gains tax rate is at least double what it is now–maybe then we’ll actually have some fucking highway repairs, infrastructure improvements, and a proper money-saving and much more efficient single-payer health care system.
“Small businessman” makes him sound like the guy next door; your kids go to the same school, you chat over the fence when you’re trimming the hedge, he greets half the customers who come in to his restaurant by name. “Huge benefit to society” makes him sound like Andrew Carnegie.
This is always a fun feature of these conversations to me.
I grew up as the kid of an entrepreneur. “Small business” in my head means “Owner + 0-10 employees, and maybe his kid started a ‘franchise’ in the next town over.”
The 60-person shop I work for now is not a small business in my head.
Except that the congressman here isn’t saying anything like the above at all–you are supplying those ideas yourself.
And you’ve got a strawman in there–no one actually argues that rich people will work less in a fit of pique if taxes are raised. Rather, higher taxes and more government spending inevitably slows down the economy by removing growth capital from it.
Finally, you end with the notion that rich people are leeches making money off society and not wanting to support it, which is exactly backwards–rich people help society through doing whatever it is that made them rich (heiresses etc of course excepted).
Basically you are saying you are OK with Bob not having a job and Mary making less money (both due to a slower economy) so you can have nicer roads and can assuage your guilt re: health care and poor people. Even more basically, you completely ignore the negative effects of your policy choices.
Not my point. As soon as there are any tax advantages to be had, creative juices begin to flow. As noted above, “small business” is a term of marvelous flexibility. And everybody loves “small business”, its the engine of prosperity, it is the American entreprenuer, it is simply full of crunchy goodness! Why, Jesus was a small businessman, he only had twelve employees and distributed loaves and fishes while delivering motivational lectures.
My point (and I do have one!) is that “small business” has so many definitions, it effectively has none.
And even better are those noble paladins who sacrifice so much to help the fiscally overburdened relieve thier crushing tax drain! We give so little credit to them, who help keep private property out of the greedy grasp of moochers and leeches, who will squander it on roads, schools, and the advance of world socialism!
Far too often are their sacrifices ignored! I will start the ball rolling to make amends!
Not really. There are different definitions depending on the specific rule you are talking about, but absent a reference to any specific rule, the general definition is the best to use. More to the point, making a claim that “small business” must mean < 10 people is not supported by the facts.
Actually, the definition provided by John Mace (500 employees) has been around for quite a long time.
I’ve done some research in the archival papers of the National Association of Manufacturers, an industry group founded in the late nineteenth century, and it is quite common to come across letters, memos, and published documents from the group, dating back to the period of the Great Depression, that define a small business as any concern with fewer than about 500 employees.
Obviously, the definition is a little flexible, and it also doesn’t mean that all “small businesses” share the same interests or priorities. If Business 1 has 480 employees and Business 2 has 525, they probably have more in common with one another than they do with a business that employs 15 people, or a business that employs 15,000.
The term small business has generally been used, by associations like the NAM, to distinguish themselves from very large industrial concerns with thousands of employees, like Ford, General Dynamics, etc. My experience of NAM’s history, and the more general historiography of American business, suggests that these smaller concerns have, for most of the period since the Depression and New Deal, been more hostile to government intervention in the economy than have the very large corporations. This is largely because smaller businesses and their representative organizations have often argued that they were placed at a competitive disadvantage by all the government contracts that big business received. Big business, they argued, was helped more by government intervention than small business.
He is agitating for no tax increase. That’s equivalent to bitching about it, when one’s job is voting on taxes.
My cite to the contrary is every thread on taxes. Do you actually read anything on this board?
Also, right now we are seeing record levels of hoarded cash reserves, which are not growth capital. Removing that money is not going to slow the economy further, as it’s not growing the economy.
Disagree. Many professions of the upper middle class and rich are net drains on society. Yours included. Any industry that relies on the CEO making 8 figures while the people at the lowest level are near minimum wage is also a net drain on the economy. Poor people and lower-middle-class people having more spending money is better for the economy, because they spend more which drives investment into producing things people actually want to buy as opposed to rich people, who (as far as I can tell, having worked for venture capitalists) spend money in the hopes of making more money fast and then getting out before anyone realizes the product invested in is all useless hype.
Let’s make it plainer–you can’t have a growing economy unless people, in general, can afford to buy things. Rich people, proportionally, don’t buy as many things per net income. Period, end of discussion.
No, I’m saying you’re completely wrong. More government spending, a flatter income disparity, and less cash hoarding by businesses and the rich will improve jobs and the economy. Your claims about the economic effects of my proposed policies are not borne out by historical reality, and the handwaving theorycrap won’t change that.
Yeesh. What you don’t know about economics could fill a book (and in fact does, several even). Your theory that poor people are better for society than rich people is just ridiculous, and your lack of appreciation for the power of economic growth to help everyone is absolutely staggering.
You do know that your Econ 101 textbook isn’t some kind of holy book? It presents a simplified model; the real world doesn’t work like that.
Society would collapse immediately if all the poor people disappeared. If all the rich people disappeared it would take a while for anyone to even notice.
You crack me up. I have plenty of economic formal study, thanks.
Read for comprehension, by the by–poor people are bad for the economy, as I’ve said. Rich people stopping with the cash hoarding and instead paying their workers enough to be middle class people is GREAT for the economy. Rich people who have so much cash in a low-demand environment that they’re hoarding it rather than spending is BAD for the economy.
I’m not at all crazy about a consumer economy. So long as consumer choice drives improvement and competition, cool. When all it spurs is more effective advertising for loud, shiny crap, I say its plastic spinach, and I say to hell with it. But it is what it is.
And if you have a consumer economy, and the consumers have no money, you’re dead. Period. And thats not class warfare, its not even math, its just arithmetic.
You’re using your “perception” of a word’s meaning to criticize someone, but your “perception” is wrong. The guy runs an operation that easily fits the standard definition of “small business”.