Technically they could also go into your pocket or into foreign investment, but as someone who I'm guessing is a small business owner, you're probably correct. That said, the problem with a lot of tax breaks is that they don't go to small businesses, they go to large businesses who use them in ways that aren't as good for the US economy.

They should. Apparently unless they are too big to fail or as a result of crony capitalism or corporatism. We small and medium business owners do. Sure, if we go under our employees stand to lose their jobs but that is the extent of their risk. We owners shoulder all of the risk. Many of us pour our compensation back into the business when times are tough. We (our company) take a great amount of pride in the fact that we have not laid anybody off, cut back in benefits (despite a 20% cost increase over the past two years), cut back on Christmas bonuses or reduced anyone's hours. Yet there is still grumbling and discontent from our hourly employees because there haven't been any raises in two years. Me? I've reduced my compensation by almost 25% to keep things at a comfortable level, business-wise certainly not personally. They're still gainfully employed, with a better benefits package than our state employees and getting paid the same as they have been. We could certainly make-do with one or two less of them, but that wouldn't sit well with us. Yet we're still the cheap bad guys who won't give them a raise.


Profit is the reward. And when there is profit left at the end of the fiscal year, we're going to take a chunk of it. If there's a larger chunk, we give them percentage larger bonuses and profit-sharing contributions.


But Washington is able to call a reduction of an increase a cut? :) While it's such a crazy number for me to try to get a grasp on, it does make a big difference where that $750 million number comes from. Is that net? Gross? EBITDA?

If a business PROJECTS a profit of $1million and only realize $750k BUSINESS considers it a LOSS of $250k, you know that.

however the AVERAGE person on the street considers it a profit of $750k.


If what you say above is true i commend you for not laying off those one or two "extra" employees however we both know NO business keeps more employees than they KNOW they need;)

I take it, and I could be wrong, that you're not in immediate danger of losing those experienced employees due to their perceived low compensation levels? They aren't going to "jump ship" to a higher paying competitor, otherwise you might consider increasing their wage/benefit package or offer some other form of recognition.

The labor market is in business' favor at the present. As reported in the news, larger companies have cut their largest cost component, human costs, and despite lower sales revenue, have maintained or increased their margins and are sitting on fairly large cash reserves, and the qualified ones have the ability to obtain very low interest loans to add to capital.

Is it really regulatory or tax risks that is preventing hiring, growth or expansion? Or is there a sizable component of "who are we going to sell to?"

Sounds like businesses use the same accounting as government bureaucrats.
I disagree with both.
Profit is profit, a small profit is still a profit. If my broker tells me that I will earn xxx and I don't can I hold him accountable?

I do not get your argument. Just because some businesses do questionable accounting, they should be taxed more? huh? Your argument seems tangential. at best, to the discussion.

Correct, it is more complicated.

If cutting taxes is the cure all and Bush cut taxes why did economy blow up during the end of his presidency?

The economy blew up because of the bubble in real estate prices, people were using the 'equity' in their homes to live beyond their means. This practice tended to keep up the economy until the bubble burst.

Now I have a related question for you... if the answer to our economic problems is to borrow more money for the government to spend to 'prime the pump' and 'get people back to work' why in this era of record governmental spending is the economy still in the toilet?

It is widely accepted, except by the average Faux noise viewer, that the stimulus saved jobs and prevented the country from falling into a depression. Quite a few reports out that the recession was much worse than originally believed. My complaint, shared by many economists is the stimulus was NOT LARGE ENOUGH. But then hindsight is always 20/20.

Because the real estate bubble burst. Without the stimulus the economy might be in the sewer instead of the toilet.

Would these economists be the ones who are always surprised by what the economy actually does?
There are economists, and economists. Hopefully the ones who believe in "priming the pump" as a way to stimulate the economy are being exposed as wishful thinkers.

Of course you can say that and even believe it. There is no way to prove that it is true.

You claim and believe the stimulus was worthless.
There is no way to prove that it is true either.

I don't guess we will ever really know will we:rolleyes:?

From my perspective, living in the rural south it looks like the stimulus did not do much long term for anyone around here although I did hear tell of one local fella that obtained a $5 million grant to grow grass that can be burned in steam boilers:eek:. Not sure if that was DOE (taxpayer money) or stimulus (taxpayer money). Oh yea that shut down Range Fuels ($75M+) facility is still over there and it was either DOE or stimulus. Not sure what is going to happen to all that high dollar inconel that the plant was built with. Not all of the local scrappers know what inconel is. With that said we are probably a community that could just go away and no one would ever notice:rolleyes:. The town is getting a new building from federal grant money. It is a new building to house workers of the Dept of Family and Children Services Dept. The town was fine without one (for 90+ years) till just over the past decade or so. I suspect that there is a direct relationship between there being no jobs around here and the need for the additional space the new building has to offer.

It is as close to being a depression as I believe I have ever seen but what do I know. I'm trying to start up an import repair business in this economy.

Don't believe I ever maintained that it was "worthless".
But was it worth what it cost you, and me and our children and grandchildren? On that I would say it was not worth it.

Advocates say it prevented a depression. Maybe; maybe not. But How moral is it for us to spend huge sums of money to keep us out of depression while passing the cost on to generations yet unborn? Strikes me as the height of self-serving.

If not mistaken, this is not the first generation to engage in deficit spending. I recall an article earlier this year that discussed what "The Boomers" could do to approach the sacrifices of the previous "Greatest Generation" and one proposal would be to lower or pay off the deficit via estate taxes and doing away with other credits.