This doesn't even make sense. I run a small business, and I can't imagine being in a scenario like this unless the government raised taxes to an unrealistic/near astronomical level. Sounds like another made up scenario, ie Joe the plumber.
What ideas? There's no numbers given that could be used to calculate what the tax increase would be, so what can we talk about?
Instead of dreamed up symbolic scenarios, why don't we talk to actual small business owners like professorjay, Dadakota, or Clutch and Jeff?
That's kind of the problem with the whole McCain campaign mentality. They did everything for symbolic reasons while most of us live in the literal world. Sarah Palin was hired to symbolize small town Americans.. the Joe Six Packs going to Washington. As turns out, the literal version of Sarah Palin left a lot to be desired and the favorable/unfavorables have turned against her. Joe the Plumber, was supposed to symbolize small business owners making over $250K. As it turned out, the literal version makes more like $40K and has no hope of owning a business anytime soon.
Here's more deregulation loving and less protection for everybody but big business. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466701/ Bush launches last-minute deregulation push White House moves to relax many rules covering private industry The Washington Post By R. Jeffrey Smith updated 3:17 a.m. CT, Fri., Oct. 31, 2008 The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January. The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms. Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining. Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis. 'Last-minute assault' "They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."
What is the symbolic value of a message that is totally inaccurate and clearly not written by an actual business owner? That the GOP is so desperate that they make up smears and can't base their campaign on facts?
It still doesn't make sense. Wouldn't Les Alexander have to fire people too? Isn't he affected by this? He supports Obama.
I already fired all the McCain supporters in my office.... NOT ! My CFO and I argue every day about politics......unless we want to get work done then we just move on..... DD
Either the employees produce value or they don't. If they aren't generating more for the business than they cost, they should be fired/laid off regardless. If they are, there's no reason to fire/lay them off because they are still producing net value. The whole premise here doesn't make any sense. You're going to cut employees because you're raising prices which is going to lower your sales which will lower your profits. You're doing this to avoid paying higher taxes on higher profits which would occur if you left everything as-is?
I agree with the others. I still don't get the symbolism. It's fake. I went through several layoffs while at one company. The employees bringing in the $$$$ got to stay. In a depressed market, the employees that couldn't bring in more value than they were worth, were laid off. It made the company leaner and more efficient. They essentially kept the top 50% of the performers. Company still went bankrupt, but they would gone under years earlier, if they just laid off people willy nilly.
You are r****ded. At this rate you'll soon have no customers and eventually run out of business anyways. You are lucky you only had to lay off 8 workers. If you know anything about economics you will hire workers until your marginal revenue equals marginal cost. So that will come into play regardless. Another thing, is differeing political views even grounds for firing? I suppose you will do whatever you like (and get away with it), even if it means self-destruction of your business, but if you were a smart business owner you wouldn't fire your most productive worker just because of his political views. By the way I love how these "business owners" come up with these stories. You sir, are the new Joe Plumber.
Like someone would fire his best employee by some standard that has nothing to do with value to the company or performance? Sure... that happens all the time-- especially among the Republicans.
Sure and I think part of the message (if accurate) is that the effects of the policy will (dare I say it) trickle down. Bob Johnson owner of the Charlotte Bobcats fired about 60 employees before this season began. I think his is in Obama's camp, too.
I'm the r****ded one? I didn't write it; I just posted it from another site because I thought it would generate some discussion. You even had the chance to read (?) my comments about not taking it literally. This is not a suggested thesis for a dissertation. It's just someone's idea of how people are taking a potential Obama presidency. You have a chance here to change/correct some thinking and most of you can just get upset and snipe or mock. That is the equivalent of Lamar Odom's pass out-of-bounds to his teammate the other day. Turnover. You had your chance.... Remember, I voted (ambiguously) for Obama.
It did generate some discussion... of how stupid the writer is and how idiotic is it to copy and paste something so stupid and repeat it.
Look at my message posted a few posts after the one you quoted. The entire premise of the original post makes no sense. It's inaccurate to suggest that as a response to higher taxes, you have to raise prices and cut back on staff to end up more profitable. If anything, that will only make your situation even worse. If it WERE more profitable to raise prices and cut back staff, it would be the case to do so now without the higher taxes as well. Meaning that you only have your own inefficiency to blame for your problems.
Depending on what state you lived in though this would violate employment laws as you are discriminating against employees for political views.
