Why do liberals hate small business?

If someone who supposedly runs a business, is complaining about $150 fee for filing tax then that person is a failure even if the person doesn't want to admit it.
It just surprises me that how some people think that collecting empty bottles and cans and then cashing it in store is actually a business.

 

You don't have to form a company for "run" a company, it is done to shield the owner(s) from risk and build a name, that is what you pay for.

Delaware is the cheapest state run a company, http://www.thedelawarecompany.com/, check it on

 

You obviously misunderstood. The poor and small business are two different groups of people. As I pointed out in the second half of the paragraph, the healthcare legislation is decidedly anti-small business. Any reason why you didn't dispute that?

I can only assume you have problems with the English language if you can interpret "the right to life" to mean "the right to government supplied healthcare". Perhaps you interpret the right to Liberty as a right to liberty from debt, therefore the government should repay or forgive all private debt? The right to the pursuit of happiness as a right not to work while enjoying all the benefits of those who do? I mentioned this earlier, but imagine you propsed these interpretations to the people who drafted the declaration of independence. Taxes for the rich in favor of free healthcare for the poor. You know as well as I do that You would have been a laughing stock, and ran out of town. Your collectivist ideas stand in opposition to everything this country was founded on. Your attempt to twist them to suit your liberal ideology is insulting to anyone with an IQ over 80.

Great quote! The government is doing a poor job of redistributing our resources. The only question in my mind is, how do we get the government out of the resource redistribution business all together. I used to think the answer to that question was vote Republican. Come Nov., a lot of people will be using the answer to that very question as their primary decision making criteria. I don't know the answer right now, but it sure as hell won't be "vote democrat".

What cracks me up is your use of the words "progression" and "regression". You realize why liberals now call themselves progressives right? Because the word "liberal" now carries a negative connotation that doesn't go over well at the voting booth. Your line cracks me up because one can progress towards many things including poverty, servitude, totalitarianism, and chaos. I figure it won't be more than another couple years before liberals are going to have to re brand themselves.... again.

Yes San Francisco is a glorious symbol of liberalism. A few very wealthy people surrounded by a sea of poverty. Aint it grand?

 

Laws aren't based off of the Declaration, that would be the Constitution.

You should start here by reading this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

You're right about government not doing a good job of insuring that "right", through excessive regulation and industry monopolization, they f#cked up big time in that regard. Which is why handing over to them more power makes just so much sense.

 

The only failures are your ability to read and to make correct assumptions. Go back to the beginning of the thread and read what I wrote, it really isn't that long and I didn't use any difficult English words.

 

What is wrong with raising minimum wage? Cheap labor is not the way to go. Quality is the key. I also think people who make more money should pay more taxes because they are the ones who are profiting more from the infrastructures. My simple logic is a businessman/woman uses more of government infrastructure than the average Joe who the businessman is trying to hire for less. If you own a trucking company, it is likely that one of your truck will damage a bridge than Joe's Toyota Corolla. The same goes for fire department, law enforcement and etc. You see? It is not that complicated.

 

Very simple: With that logic, the middle class will eventually disappear and American entrepreneurs will wind up working for big corporations giving all the power to them. Go to a country like Indonesia where 0.1 percent hold 99.9 percent of the country's wealth and see how 70 percent of the nation live.

 

So you're a protectionist?

The rich would still be paying considerably more in taxes if the proportions were the same, compensating for their increased use of government services.

 

On point man, I hadn't thought about that but corporations do have a much higher level of negative externalization on the environment, infrastructure, ect., as you stated and we do a poor job of regulating it, hell, I mean if we find it we tell them to stop doing but look how much these regulatory agencies are given to work with. On the point of taxing them more for there high negative externalizations, we hardly do that at all - I mean if we catch it hopefully we stop it but the fines are often hardly enough to be a slight slap on the wrist. Conservatives need to face it, businesses are in the business of making money, if you don't have government, taxes, and regulation then business will simply destroy the foundation of our country (literally from the earth to bone by the use of near-slavery priced labor) in the search for cheaper labor and ways to cut costs regardless of the environment. Can you blame them though? Their businesses, their whole duty is to maximize stockholder wealth (hopefully) while remaining bound by the laws and regulations like minimum wages, emissions, OSHA standards, etc., etc., there's many (not enough) agency, too many to list but you get the picture, most of them have to spend most their time regulating business because business needs regulating, so why shouldn't they pay more? I think big business is not paying enough if you ask me, certain sectors need to be taxed extra just for the sheer number of agencies required to ensure they don't destroy the environment. You and me are paying to keep business from being naughty, not that I would rather that we didn't have these agency, rather that I think they need to pay their fair share so we can have more of our taxes being spent in our own communities.

Edit: Just glanced at nates argument against minimum wage...

Protectionist: an advocate of government economic protection for domestic producers through restrictions on foreign competitors.
- Merriam Webster

When conservatives have no argument they'll tend to say... well just about anything. See Bushisms.

 

With the need for a minimum wage there should also be a maximum income....25 million, to the treasury after that. - For the need of relativity to taxation.

 

He said cheap labor is not the way to go. If labor costs enough here it gets outsourced. Get it?

Still confusing me for a republican?

 

WOW...It must be tough to talk politics and economics with people who don't understand either above and beyond the idea that both exist to give them what they want regardless of who else it hurts.

I usually stay away from these threads, but I am going to follow this one for a while.

To understand why raising the minimum wage is actually a bad thing requires someone to understand the proper flow of the work force. Minimum wage jobs are entry level crappy jobs that you are only supposed to work long enough to do one of two things:

1) Get promoted if that is your aspiration.

2) Find a superior stream of income by means of competitive employment, trade/academic education, or some sort of entrepreneurship.

People who stay in low-level minimum wage jobs or other unskilled labor positions eventually clog the work flow so that people who need entry level jobs (usually the young, undereducated, developmentally limited, and those who need to find work fast due to emergency circumstance) cannot get them because 'squatters' of sorts don't want to move. Move up, move out, move on - that's what people are supposed to do in an ideal workforce so that there is always room for those who need employment.

In an ideal situation, you are supposed to GRADUATE FROM THE NEED TO EVEN BE EMPLOYED BY SOMEONE ELSE AT SOME POINT IN TIME!

So, keeping minimum wage jobs crappy inspires people to do what they SHOULD be doing - working toward something better! Why in God's good world would you want to work a minimum wage job for 5 years or more? The only people complaining about the minimum wage are those who DEPEND on it because they aren't making plans to graduate from it.

Workforce complacency, pure and simple.

Liberals argue that it is a person's right to keep a crappy job forever if they want to. I guess you do technically have the right to be a complacent idiot if that's what you want. However, the reason why conservatives do not support raising minimum wage is NOT because they don't want poor people to survive - we want to help them stop being poor!

If you don't get it after that, I don't know what else to tell you :-P

 

^ Thank you.

 

I just think we shouldn't have our tax brackets stop at 35%, but there still needs to be some incentive to make that next dollar. But you do have a point, who really needs more then that much anyways. That's a few big houses, a few nice cars, college for all your kids (and their kids), property taxes, food, an EXPENSIVE nightlife every weekend. You can be taxed 50%-60% for every dollar after 10 million and still be living the same lifestyle, no problem.

LMFAO @icjackson and conservatives wanting to help poor people stop being poor by not having a minimum wage. And you want to help make a better educational system by removing public education. Improve healthcare by insuring that only who can afford private insurance can buy it. Reduce hunger by removing food stamps. Reduce the homeless population by reducing government housing projects. Help people who are disabled by removing or lowering SSRI so they can "find a way." Conservatives solutions to all the peoples problems are insuring the people stay down. I'm well off, I don't use any of these social programs but I know people who need them from volunteering and talking to people who are barely surviving on government assistance, minimum wage regulations, etc.,

Its clear some of us care about the people (the indigent) while others think they should just "figure out a way." Much of the homeless population is mentally or even physically disabled, working isn't an option and if they do find a job moving up isn't a plausible because they often times can handle that much responsibility, at least not without proper treatment, there are people out there just "getting by," luckily many of us here on the forum are not included in that group but to say that we don't need minimum wages and that people are simply not motivated is simply conservative (which I use synonymously with illogical and/or stupid). We don't need a minimum wage, we don't need social welfare programs but there are people who do and many of them really have no other option. Sometimes we aren't all born into the world equally and government needs to insure a somewhat level playing ground for at least surviving.

 

Close, but not quite right. True liberal philosophy precludes getting a job in the first place. If you never get a job, the state will take care of you.

You've touched on something EXTREMELY important here. If the poor were to cease being poor, the Democrats would loose the majority of their base. Being a political party, the Democrats are obviously interested in growing their base, not shrinking it. For all the lip service they pay to helping the poor, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats want and need more poor people in America. It is the unspoken reason behind why most of their social programs actually promote poverty in the name of helping the poor.

 

Minimum wage is the slave wage . It should be raised in the same rate as inflation every year. Shame on all businesses and corporations who opposed the recent minimum wage hike. How can somebody that is willing to work hard raise a family with that pitiful pay ? I am sure that everyone who is working for minimum wage is always looking to find a better job and some people do but depending on personal circumstances is not always possible. People take this shity jobs because they have no other choice .

 

I can see the gushing crocodile tears. As person who understands both Economics and Politics, what do you think about paying a little more for a worker who needs to save some pennies for his/her future and pay his/her bills? Do you think keeping the minimum wage low will help him/her stop being poor? According to you, being poor is voluntary. There might be some truth to it but there are many factors involved.
Have you ever chosen an applicant who demanded more pay over the one who demanded less? Assume they both met the required qualifications.
I know you won't admit this. Do you like all your workers to be on minimum wage to maximize your profit? I mean including your Software Engineer. LOL. I assumed you are going to be the CEO with massive bonus package.
FYI: I don't depend on a minimum wage.
BTW, what do you think about equal pay for women?

 

There is nothing wrong with being protectionist. Free trade is good when there is some regulation. That means you have to pay the guy from China more.

 

@Obamanation That liberal argument I mentioned is one I have actually heard - but I do agree with your point!

Thanks for speaking on this topic frankly and honestly. To others who have broken down my points, I just dont have the time right now to get into a point-by-point analysis, so I will say this:

1) None of the poor wish to be poor, but most of the poor could do more to change their circumstances. There are real barriers and challenges that prevent the upward mobility of any poor population, but just like it is not ALL their fault, they are not absolved from all responsibility simply because they are less fortunate or underprivileged. That's life. If you want more, regardless of what obstacles you face, you have to do more. No matter who you are and where you start in life, this is true.

2) Just because your average Democrat leader has ulterior motives for promoting pro-poverty programs and platforms, that doesn't mean you have to mistrust every conservative who gives you a reason for his or her beliefs and actions. Think about it: if the 'rich, greedy Republicans' are only concerned about money and staying rich, they don't have to keep poor people down to survive because they know how to make money! According to you they're all rich, right? Be more suspicious of those who only get paid and stay in power when people stay poor...

3) Personal responsibility is the cornerstone of freedom. If you want the government to take care of you, you essentially want to trade in your freedom for what you perceive to be security. Period.

4) Limited government does not mean NO government - that's anarchy.

5) Show me one government-run program that is doing well overall and I will show you a blind man grasping at straws. Don't tell me about a handful of public school districts when the whole of the system sucks. People do survive government-run institutions, but the track record shows that government run programs are generally inferior. If you don't think so your standards are simply too low for me to even discuss politic with you. You might be a nice person, but you don't get it.

6) I AM a woman, so figure it out ;-)


Stereotypes are not foundations upon which anyone should build arguments, platforms, or beliefs. Look at the facts. Analyze them. Put your guilt-ridden bleeding heart aside for a moment and consider all sides of the issue before assuming that ANY group is totally innocent and victimized or totally guilty and oppressive. Such extreme views are juvenile and only show proof of anti-intellectualism and ignorance.


Have a great weekend, everyone

 

Exactly. Like I said, some people don't have options and there needs to be some minimum wage that is considered livable, the current minimum wage is not enough to live on.