Isn't this 'socialism'? Telling rich people what they should or should not be doing? That they 'should' be creating jobs?
It doesn't work that way for any person own a real business. Employees are a cost. You only hire them, if not hiring them turns into a liability. The tea party business members may be able to get by with overtime, but any business person will work on increasing overtime before hiring new employee. I know hundreds of restaurant owners(father was in the restaurant business). If business picks up and hiring more people means more profit, they hire. None of them would harm their profit margins, if hiring meant higher sales. They have kids to feed and a lifestyle to maintain. It's a big bluff by tea party activitsts.
That's fine if its a dispute between my neighbor and me but that doesn't quite work that well for a coal plant without a scrubber that is sickening thousands of people. WOuld you propose the coal plant pay each of those people there medical bills? The simpler solution is to have regulation in place that would tell the coal plant that they need to have a scrubber or they cannot operate. The situation in Ohio though shows the flaw of that reasoning where they guy let his animals go and then killed himself so financial penalties never applied to him. Leaving aside this is a rare instance of where the violator killed himself your reasoning is an ex post facto solution. That the person is liable if there is a problem. Given the dangers of exotic animals like lions and tigers the danger could be that someone gets killed. While yes the owner will be liable under your system, they are under the current regulatory regime too, but it seems to me the better solution is to make sure ahead of time that the risk associated with exotic animals is mitigated through regulation that greatly limits the ownership of them than just holds the owner accountable after the fact.
I agree that, for the most part, it won't "work." However, there are always a few Tom Yawkeys out there for whom making a political point is more important than even rational self interest (Yawkey is the Boston Red Sox owner who resisted hiring black players for years, a decision that was detrimental to his team). In any case, I see this being effective only with a relatively small minority of business owners and it is mostly bluster. However, the point isn't whether it will work or not, but that it is reflective of a "scorched earth" mentality among a good number of the right wing types. They advocate harming the country, even harming themselves, in order to score points against Obama.
I am a small business owner. I don't get money from the gov't. I don't get tax breaks. I don't get anything. Loans, whatever. But my competitors do. They are big businesses. They have an army of lobbyists. They have lawyers to sue me and patent my ideas after I already implemented them. They change the rules on a whim. You know what the gov't could do to help me? Get bigger. Yes. That actually helps me. Why? Because it employs more people and thus stimulates demand and allows me to do more business. Right now no one wants to spend money. We need more demand. Cutting spending and tax breaks aren't going to do that. I took a loss this year, how is a tax break going to make a difference? Even next year when I make money again, a tax break won't be enough to even hire a freelancer. What would make a difference is if the economy improved. So about time, tax the rich and make them pay their fair share. They made all this money on the backs of the rest of us, they profited from being in the U.S.A. Let them give back the same share they did in the Clinton era.
Actually, it does work in that situation. The cost of damages to the victim parties would simply be an aggregate, and there would be a new equilibrium which would reduce the amount of emissions the coal plant was putting into the atmosphere. There's no flaw in my reasoning. It's just a special scenario in which the perpetrator is dead before they can be held liable. I'd say being dead is a lot worse than being held financially or criminally liable. So, in other words, because special scenarios exist in which liability cannot be applied, people should be punished before any harm is ever done?
So basically you are advocating for the equivalent of class action suits. While yes those do provide a check on behavior it seems to me a better solution would be to prevent that behavior to begin with. Except you are still talking about an after the fact solution. To use a more accessible example you are advocating lawsuits and insurance. Now while I have liability insurance for my car and am liable also to civil suits if I get in an accident that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws against drunk driving. Regulation preventing a potentially harmful behavior.
I've been saying this for awhile. I own a small business and tax breaks are practically meaningless when it comes to hiring. Frankly I wish I was in a higher tax bracket.
In fact most small business owners say that a tax cut doesn't really help them. It's the biggest GOP lie pushed forward. I am so amazed at how the rich can convince those who live a meager life to give themselves even more money. Create enough demand and business will start hiring and we will begin back on a growth spiral.
Tax cuts for the rich are the biggest sham for job creation. The number of jobs created after 10 years of Bush cuts have been nil, compared to the higher tax rates in the previous administration. A business owner is never going to expand his business or reinvest the extra money, if there is no demand. Tax cuts for the rich don't increase demand. A business owner will expand only if there is increased demand. Employees are a liablility and cost, as a business owner. Overexpansion is a money drain that a few extra % in tax cuts won't solve. The trickle down economics only worked to increased luxury sales. After the previous tax cuts for the rich, it is no surprise that the best performing consumer goods are luxury brands.
And where do you draw the line on what the government should and shouldn't regulate? To use your example. Drunk driving accidents are essentially cases of negligent damage to life and property. Making drunk driving illegal does nothing to address the real problem: consumption of alcohol. So, since alcohol consumption increases the risk of drunk driving, and drunk driving increases the risk of damage to life and property, we should make it illegal to consume, and thus buy and sell alcohol. In my opinion, the government shouldn't regulate when the regulation doesn't address a direct violation of a person's rights. Using the same example, a person consuming alcohol isn't always a risk to life and property. The same goes for a drunk driver. Of course, the risk of a tragedy increases, but it isn't inherently wrong because there is no direct violation of a person's rights. I understand you might not agree with me, but, consider this and then let me ask: where do you draw the line?
And I'd also note that making a regulation banning a risky behavior doesn't eliminate that behavior. If it did, we wouldn't have drunk driving accidents, and we wouldn't have police checkpoints in the search for drunk drivers.
You are correct, it doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it. Using the not 100% effective reason as a reason to abandon it is silly.
Except that I'm not basing my argument on that small tidbit. I was addressing his assertion that it did.
In this case the line is pretty easy to draw which is that while you can consume alcohol you can set up a standard to determine what legally determines impairment, .08% in the blood stream in most states, and prohibit what behaviors you can while under the influence. Consumption of alcohol alone isn't a problem it is what you do while under the influence. Of course a person just drinking isn't a threat, a person driving a car, operating heavy machinery or flying a plane is. Ideally perhaps we should protect there right to drink and drive but that activity represents an irresponsible threat to everyone else. I've explained it pretty simply. You draw the line when the behavior represents a likelihood of a threat to the health and safety of others. Under your reasoning the only way of addressing that threat is ex post facto through liability of the offender. With something like drunk driving though could very well be the death. Drunk driving laws seem a very reasonable compromise in regard to individual liberty versus public safety. Finally just to note consuming alcohol and driving are not rights.
