I guess we’re talking past each other. You’re unhappy that big businesses get a lot of help; got it.
But the OP is saying that small businesses should get more help… and so you and I basically agree that small businesses seem to be getting a pretty reasonable degree of help, right?
I am not sure if the amount is reasonable, and to be honest I would question if the money being spent even qualifies as “help.” Perhaps it’s meant to be, but for the most part the money is pretty much thrown out of helicopters for the purpose of impressing people by being able to say “look what we’re doing! We’re helping!” I really don’t think anyone truly believes there’s any help going on.
The theory that small business is a better target for government help in the sense that it creates more jobs per dollar spent is a pretty well supported one. In general, it’s probably true. In practice, however, the dollars are best not spent at all.
Such “help” as there is is not just disproportionately given to large businesses, but is disproportionately given to businesses who, specifically, know how to either play the game (like using the SRED program I cited) or who simply pay off the government. Coincidentally, there is a major stink going on here right now about how Ontario cabinet ministers are hosting “dinners” with business leaders with $5,000 a plat fees that go directly to the Liberal Party’s war chest. The dinners have been described by some as “shakedowns.” If you pay your $5,000 to the Liberals at the Minister of Transportation’s dinner, well, maybe your business will get that subsidy. If not, well… someone else WILL pay, and they get the subsidy. The money goes to the business that has a lot of spare cash to spend on such things and the connections to get invited, not necessarily the business that will create the most jobs.
Even if we are a little less cynical and concede some of the money might be given out in the spirit of helping, what’re the odds the government can get it right? I work with 100 businesses a year and can tell you half of them don’t know for sure how many employees they should have. If you gave Mike’s Welding a million bucks how does he know it’s worth hiring someone? Where are the new orders? Does he even have the capability to handle the additional sales he’d need to put that million bucks to use? Is Mike’s Welding in an area saturated with fabricators, and you’d just be lowering the price of welding and cannibalizing the work from other equally worthy weld shops? Unless a government bureaucrat spends months analyzing every business, how can you reliably pick your winners? You’re asking the government to make decisions about investing in businesses that are notoriously hard to get right - that’s why businesses fail, and it’s why your investment advisor won’t beat the stock market in the long term. If Mike’s Welding was so obviously worthy of investment, then why in the hell aren’t investors lining up to buy a piece of the action?
While I concede there is a place for government to use taxation policy to achieve public policy aims, and I am sure if I wasn’t so tired I could cite excellent examples, most of it is just complete and total bullshit. Small business or big. If your business serves a purpose you’ll make a profit and if it doesn’t it won’t. C’est la vie.
I am not sure if the amount is reasonable, and to be honest I would question if the money being spent even qualifies as “help.” Perhaps it’s meant to be, but for the most part the money is pretty much thrown out of helicopters for the purpose of impressing people by being able to say “look what we’re doing! We’re helping!” I really don’t think anyone truly believes there’s any help going on.
The theory that small business is a better target for government help in the sense that it creates more jobs per dollar spent is a pretty well supported one. In general, it’s probably true. In practice, however, the dollars are best not spent at all.
Such “help” as there is is not just disproportionately given to large businesses, but is disproportionately given to businesses who, specifically, know how to either play the game (like using the SRED program I cited) or who simply pay off the government. Coincidentally, there is a major stink going on here right now about how Ontario cabinet ministers are hosting “dinners” with business leaders with $5,000 a plat fees that go directly to the Liberal Party’s war chest. The dinners have been described by some as “shakedowns.” If you pay your $5,000 to the Liberals at the Minister of Transportation’s dinner, well, maybe your business will get that subsidy. If not, well… someone else WILL pay, and they get the subsidy. The money goes to the business that has a lot of spare cash to spend on such things and the connections to get invited, not necessarily the business that will create the most jobs.
Even if we are a little less cynical and concede some of the money might be given out in the spirit of helping, what’re the odds the government can get it right? I work with 100 businesses a year and can tell you half of them don’t know for sure how many employees they should have. If you gave Mike’s Welding a million bucks how does he know it’s worth hiring someone? Where are the new orders? Does he even have the capability to handle the additional sales he’d need to put that million bucks to use? Is Mike’s Welding in an area saturated with fabricators, and you’d just be lowering the price of welding and cannibalizing the work from other equally worthy weld shops? Unless a government bureaucrat spends months analyzing every business, how can you reliably pick your winners? You’re asking the government to make decisions about investing in businesses that are notoriously hard to get right - that’s why businesses fail, and it’s why your investment advisor won’t beat the stock market in the long term. If Mike’s Welding was so obviously worthy of investment, then why in the hell aren’t investors lining up to buy a piece of the action?
While I concede there is a place for government to use taxation policy to achieve public policy aims, and I am sure if I wasn’t so tired I could cite excellent examples, most of it is just complete and total bullshit. Small business or big. If your business serves a purpose you’ll make a profit and if it doesn’t it won’t. C’est la vie.
But the paper mill or whatever is the biggest source of jobs in town, and lots of those small businesses are indirectly dependent on it for their existence. Like the home day care centers that care for the workers young kids, or the shoe store that sells work boots to them, etc. They would all have greatly reduced income if the paper mill closes, even though they don’t work there.
Look at the numbers. A major employer that could employ 1,000 people can be easier to work with than say 100 employers employing 10 people. Or 200 employing 5 people.
Politicians pay much lip service to helping small businesses, but they could do more. As a specific example, consider the effect of ACA on businesses with 50-99 employees. I think some of these companies are laying off employees (or replacing them with contractors) to get the favorable rules for 49-employee companies. ACA is very complex legislation, and “growing pains” that need to be corrected are normal — but the Party of Obstruction and Obfuscation refuses to allow any vote in Congress on improving ACA.
Speaking of obstruction and obfuscation, what are the rules on reporting hijacking tripe like the following?
The first sentence derives from a blatant lie — did you pick it up from Ann Coulter or from Sean Hannity, Shodan?
I’ve no idea where the second sentence comes from — hallucinogens? wet-dreams?
But thanks for sharing anyway, Shodan. 