START WITH MAKING BUSINESS THE FAVORITE UNCLE: Ari Fleischer: Lessons From the Last Republican House - WSJ.com
It would seem to be worthwhile to consider totally turning around the way entitlements and benefits are approached - i.e. to deal with these matters as a family would - based on income.
Right now the idea is to borrow and soak the rich - or, as the French unions recently demonstrated, any business with profits can always pay more toward early retirement benefits.
Bottom line would be that American should start by figuring out what it will take to make America the best place in the world to start and maintain a business (reading loud and clearly, "this means jobs").
Off the top of the list, the corporate tax rate is too high; immigration restrictions are a disaster (businesses need to be able to easily bring in employees from all parts of the world); tax rates on entrepreneurs (the old $250,000 are too high and all the extra taxes for the healthcare bill are crazy high).
People need to feel the US will treat them fair (and better than other countries) on taxes and regulations.
Sure the teachers unions and public employees need a major reorientation and the some states will go BK if they can't get their own taxes, etc. under control.
Business needs to be treated as the 'favorite uncle' not a 'black sheep'.
The black sheep should be those who feel 'entitled' to take more from society than they are giving back (let's start with some of these public employees who spike their benefits) and yes, Medicare and Medicaid - cap it and adjust benefits.
The end result of making the US 'business friendly' will be that there isn't the money for all these benefits!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Jim DeMint: Welcome, Senate Conservatives - WSJ.com
TAX RATES IMPACT ON JOB CREATION:Jim DeMint: Welcome, Senate Conservatives - WSJ.com
What might help bring back jobs? Start with fair tax rates:
Yes the middle class is hurting - but sadly, its a reflection of the results of 'why' we are in the economic fix we are in and 'not' the solution.
Did you ever work for someone who also had a lot of family that he or she was taking care of that weren't working or had 'needs' that became your bosses 'priority'.
And then when it came time to get paid, the boss said, "sorry we are out of money, cash flow is short"; and, you well knew it was because the money had gone to relatives?
Well, this is what you are suggesting is the right policy for the country!
In other words, why not think - heck, if you work and save and invest and educate yourself and constantly work to improve your skills and capabilities, the society has a limit (percentage) it can take of what you make?
I'd say 15%! Anything beyond 15% is robbery and definitely a 'disincentive' to ork and save and invest and educate yourself and constantly work to improve your skills and capabilities.
With this 15%, society can do all the things you might want it to do; but, as with any family budget, you have a choice of living within it or borrowing and living beyond it. Right now the US is taxing success at way more than 15% in most cases and not living within its budget!
As a result, those who could provide jobs find it doesn't pay to do so, etc.
What might help bring back jobs? Start with fair tax rates:
Yes the middle class is hurting - but sadly, its a reflection of the results of 'why' we are in the economic fix we are in and 'not' the solution.
Did you ever work for someone who also had a lot of family that he or she was taking care of that weren't working or had 'needs' that became your bosses 'priority'.
And then when it came time to get paid, the boss said, "sorry we are out of money, cash flow is short"; and, you well knew it was because the money had gone to relatives?
Well, this is what you are suggesting is the right policy for the country!
In other words, why not think - heck, if you work and save and invest and educate yourself and constantly work to improve your skills and capabilities, the society has a limit (percentage) it can take of what you make?
I'd say 15%! Anything beyond 15% is robbery and definitely a 'disincentive' to ork and save and invest and educate yourself and constantly work to improve your skills and capabilities.
With this 15%, society can do all the things you might want it to do; but, as with any family budget, you have a choice of living within it or borrowing and living beyond it. Right now the US is taxing success at way more than 15% in most cases and not living within its budget!
As a result, those who could provide jobs find it doesn't pay to do so, etc.
Obama Is Dealt a Tough Hand - WSJ.com
THE ANTI-JOB MAN WHO DOESN'T KNOW IT: Obama Is Dealt a Tough Hand - WSJ.com
In terms of jobs, if you are familiar with the expression "regression to the mean" - the US has been doing exactly that. We have an excess share of the world's resources and lived a better lifestyle.
But, to keep that share of resources and/or the lifestyle, the US has to be able to give something comparable back.
Instead, the US is blaming business and looking for government to provide what the average American wants but can't pay for - whether early retirement, greater health benefits, etc.
So, the productive sector is being bled to provide it. Of course, not benefit receiver wants to see this and since these people vote, why tell them something they won't want to believe.
The Tea Party is far more up front than most Republicans. (I don't know if you saw the interesting yardstick discussion in this paper a few months back where at either end of a yardstick were left and right viewpoints. While the Dem's were at 36", the Republicans were put at 28".
The other problem the Republicans have is their pandering to the religious right. Those of us in the middle think of these people as 'crazy' (not too dissimilar from crazy Muslims). And, the religious right loses elections. Witness California just yesterday!
So, the problems aren't really being addressed and perhaps will be brought closer to the surface - thus, maybe we are getting closer to the end of the 3rd of 9 innings. But, we'll have to see.
If you get a chance to read the Steele biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, he has good comments about how the US changed by the 1870's with the vast expansion of railroads and the building up of large corporations with their myriad workforces.
A not dissimilar momentous change is occurring with respect to information technology. I can do my job from any country I want, work when I want, do several different types of jobs at the same time.
Thus, there is no reason for me to be in a place with crime, high taxes, pollution, political risk, etc. All of which companies have to consider; but, with modern communication and transportation systems, they also have to serve their shareholders/owners and maximize returns.
The US is largely blind (certainly all Democrats) to what happens when the above factors impacting business are negative.
It may be unpleasant when a company decides to relocate (the list out of California a friend just sent went on for page after page), but government doesn't ask why or what it could do to change it. The workers blame the business, they don't blame the government (or sometimes a union).
So, as they say in science and problem-solving, the first thing to do is to figure out what the real problem is to identify.
At least the Republicans are able to identify the tax issue. Sadly, they make up for their good sense with their bad views on immigration policy. Yadda, yadda....
In terms of jobs, if you are familiar with the expression "regression to the mean" - the US has been doing exactly that. We have an excess share of the world's resources and lived a better lifestyle.
But, to keep that share of resources and/or the lifestyle, the US has to be able to give something comparable back.
Instead, the US is blaming business and looking for government to provide what the average American wants but can't pay for - whether early retirement, greater health benefits, etc.
So, the productive sector is being bled to provide it. Of course, not benefit receiver wants to see this and since these people vote, why tell them something they won't want to believe.
The Tea Party is far more up front than most Republicans. (I don't know if you saw the interesting yardstick discussion in this paper a few months back where at either end of a yardstick were left and right viewpoints. While the Dem's were at 36", the Republicans were put at 28".
The other problem the Republicans have is their pandering to the religious right. Those of us in the middle think of these people as 'crazy' (not too dissimilar from crazy Muslims). And, the religious right loses elections. Witness California just yesterday!
So, the problems aren't really being addressed and perhaps will be brought closer to the surface - thus, maybe we are getting closer to the end of the 3rd of 9 innings. But, we'll have to see.
If you get a chance to read the Steele biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, he has good comments about how the US changed by the 1870's with the vast expansion of railroads and the building up of large corporations with their myriad workforces.
A not dissimilar momentous change is occurring with respect to information technology. I can do my job from any country I want, work when I want, do several different types of jobs at the same time.
Thus, there is no reason for me to be in a place with crime, high taxes, pollution, political risk, etc. All of which companies have to consider; but, with modern communication and transportation systems, they also have to serve their shareholders/owners and maximize returns.
The US is largely blind (certainly all Democrats) to what happens when the above factors impacting business are negative.
It may be unpleasant when a company decides to relocate (the list out of California a friend just sent went on for page after page), but government doesn't ask why or what it could do to change it. The workers blame the business, they don't blame the government (or sometimes a union).
So, as they say in science and problem-solving, the first thing to do is to figure out what the real problem is to identify.
At least the Republicans are able to identify the tax issue. Sadly, they make up for their good sense with their bad views on immigration policy. Yadda, yadda....
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Pressure Builds on Obama to Shake Up Inner Circle - WSJ.com
BLAME THE GUY WHO WANTS A PAYCHECK: Pressure Builds on Obama to Shake Up Inner Circle - WSJ.com
Blame the guy who wants to keep what he earns!
Sadly, the White House, Pelosi and many Democratic voters still believe in the free lunch - i.e. they can tax, berate, regulate and fail to support business and support expanded entitlements that are all over the ballpark (but in particular retirees, healthcare and unions) and that somehow this will help make a more competitive business climate in the US to keep jobs here.
Are they in a real life or a real world or a real planet?
They are like the employer who has lots of itinerant family members who always get a handout from the boss before he pays his employees and consultants. Then the boss wonders why his business isn't doing to well (can we say outsourcing and moving jobs abroad)!
Blame the guy who wants to keep what he earns!
Sadly, the White House, Pelosi and many Democratic voters still believe in the free lunch - i.e. they can tax, berate, regulate and fail to support business and support expanded entitlements that are all over the ballpark (but in particular retirees, healthcare and unions) and that somehow this will help make a more competitive business climate in the US to keep jobs here.
Are they in a real life or a real world or a real planet?
They are like the employer who has lots of itinerant family members who always get a handout from the boss before he pays his employees and consultants. Then the boss wonders why his business isn't doing to well (can we say outsourcing and moving jobs abroad)!
Opinions Are Split on Fed Policy Move - WSJ.com
THE MICRO-LENDING PARALLEL: Opinions Are Split on Fed Policy Move - WSJ.com
Why does the micro-lending (Gameen Bank) come to mind?
Well, it does seem as though the Fed is thinking of trying to boost the amount of lending (or money) in the economy.
But, is this 'non-micro' loan facility going to support the start of a business or an investment or just consumption?
Logic would say that as long as the US is 'not' the location of choice for business growth and expansion, the funds will just go to consumption - including overpaid public (union) employees, entitlement programs, unionized teachers that can't and don't know how to teach, early retirees (that should be paying for their own early retirement), overly generous healthcare programs, etc.
None of these are investments for the future and, as with a micro-loan that went for a 'wedding' vs. a 'business', the chances of payback are slim longer term.
Why does the micro-lending (Gameen Bank) come to mind?
Well, it does seem as though the Fed is thinking of trying to boost the amount of lending (or money) in the economy.
But, is this 'non-micro' loan facility going to support the start of a business or an investment or just consumption?
Logic would say that as long as the US is 'not' the location of choice for business growth and expansion, the funds will just go to consumption - including overpaid public (union) employees, entitlement programs, unionized teachers that can't and don't know how to teach, early retirees (that should be paying for their own early retirement), overly generous healthcare programs, etc.
None of these are investments for the future and, as with a micro-loan that went for a 'wedding' vs. a 'business', the chances of payback are slim longer term.
Question: Isn't the Falling Money Supply the Problem?
Answer:
Hi Alex,
The key is cause or effect. I think your money argument is still part of the effect (although in its own right causative).
The causes would seem more all-encompassing (e.g. we need to have an absolutely world-class, most-friendly business climate - which we don't have). This means the Republicans have to open up on immigration. The Democrats on being pro-business and anti-entitlements.
You are right that things are going to take huge amounts of capital to support the highest paying future jobs (e.g. Malaysia is building a billion dollar plant to support 1,000 jobs).
We also need to get rid of teacher unions. We can't afford to pander to their seniority and lack of performance.
Having made America immigration open and educationally strong, we also (for example) need to have competitive corporate and personal income tax rates (again, which we don't).
So money supply to me is more of an effect of having an anti-business climate which both keeps entrepreneurs and businesses from coming to the US and drives those there away.
Hi Alex,
The key is cause or effect. I think your money argument is still part of the effect (although in its own right causative).
The causes would seem more all-encompassing (e.g. we need to have an absolutely world-class, most-friendly business climate - which we don't have). This means the Republicans have to open up on immigration. The Democrats on being pro-business and anti-entitlements.
You are right that things are going to take huge amounts of capital to support the highest paying future jobs (e.g. Malaysia is building a billion dollar plant to support 1,000 jobs).
We also need to get rid of teacher unions. We can't afford to pander to their seniority and lack of performance.
Having made America immigration open and educationally strong, we also (for example) need to have competitive corporate and personal income tax rates (again, which we don't).
So money supply to me is more of an effect of having an anti-business climate which both keeps entrepreneurs and businesses from coming to the US and drives those there away.
Rebel Movement Takes Center Stage - WSJ.com
OBAMA AS AN EMPLOYER OF RELATIVES FIRST: Rebel Movement Takes Center Stage - WSJ.com
Somehow, watching Obama these last few days, I reminded of the employer with a good business, lots of relatives and unpaid employees.
The employer (Obama, Pelosi, et. al.) have a good business (the US economy); but, they also have lots of relatives (i.e. those on entitlements, esp. Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs) who don't work at all, but need money and support.
So, the employer keeps telling its employees that "sorry, I don't have any money to pay you this week!" (When in fact, everyone knows the money to pay salaries and commissions is going to the relatives who mostly don't work.)
Needless to say, the business starts to go down. The actual workers are less and less productive; and, gee, they leave for other jobs (can we say 'outsourcing' and moving plants offshore).
And, as with Obama, the employer doesn't see what the problem is - after all, relatives come first (i.e. non-producers) - they have needs. The employees (i.e. producers) just need to wait and get by on less. Isn't that more fair Obama states.
What is incredible is that he and the Democrats really believe their management of the economy is the right approach.
(Oh yes, there's a comparable story for unions.)
Somehow, watching Obama these last few days, I reminded of the employer with a good business, lots of relatives and unpaid employees.
The employer (Obama, Pelosi, et. al.) have a good business (the US economy); but, they also have lots of relatives (i.e. those on entitlements, esp. Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs) who don't work at all, but need money and support.
So, the employer keeps telling its employees that "sorry, I don't have any money to pay you this week!" (When in fact, everyone knows the money to pay salaries and commissions is going to the relatives who mostly don't work.)
Needless to say, the business starts to go down. The actual workers are less and less productive; and, gee, they leave for other jobs (can we say 'outsourcing' and moving plants offshore).
And, as with Obama, the employer doesn't see what the problem is - after all, relatives come first (i.e. non-producers) - they have needs. The employees (i.e. producers) just need to wait and get by on less. Isn't that more fair Obama states.
What is incredible is that he and the Democrats really believe their management of the economy is the right approach.
(Oh yes, there's a comparable story for unions.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
