Johnny want to open a lemonade stand so he gets 4 friends to help. They decide that since it's Johnny's business, he will get 50% of the profit and the other 4 will split the other 50% evenly (12.5% each). For the first few weeks, the lemonade stand makes $40 a week. Johnny takes home $20 and his friends take home $5 each. Business picks up slightly and they start to make $45 a week. Johnny decides that he'll keep paying his employees what they're used to making and keep the rest. So now Johnny is taking home $25 dollars and his friends are still taking home $5 each. Business goes down lightly and they are now making $41 a week. Johnny is now used to making $25 a week and doesn't want to see his own cut go down so he decides to take his $25 and split the rest among his friends. So Johnny still takes home $25 but his friends are now taking home $4 each. The lemonade stand is making more than when is started but the employees are getting paid less. This is what the Republicans are threatening. Johnny is a selfish prick. He's willing to pocket more money when there's more profit but when profit goes down he makes the employees pay for the difference. I don't like it when selfish pricks try to hold me hostage.
How much did Johnny have invested in the stand, the lemons, the sugar, the ice, the water, the advertising et al? Since it is described as Johnny's business, i would assume he bore all that risk... Or was the stand owned by The Neighborhood?
Perhaps Johnny's friends have a better alternative than working for $4 a week? If not, then I doubt Johnny would have paid them more in the first place. In economics, you generally start with the assumption that everyone is a selfish prick. Likewise, that's generally a good assumption to make in everyday life (as pertains to money and work).
The whole story really doesn't make much sense anyway, because the small business would have it's business diverted to a Fortune 500 company that was coded as a small business under the Bush Administration. Under Obama, he might have to expand his business since they are getting the small business contracts again.
Dear Business Owner, Kindly forward my contact information to your laid off employees. We feel like they have a great legal case against your actions. Enjoy being sued. I heard that's worse than paying a couple more percentage points of taxes. Thanks, Any decent attorney
your revenue reduction has nothing to do with a higher marginal tax rate for you as a business owner. now of course you will throw out the argument that since everyone's taxes are raised, less people will partake of your services. however you fail to take into account that i have a suspicion that most small business's aren't thriving because people making over 250k are buying their goods and services. but they are probably way more dependent on the middle class. reducing taxes for the middle class, in fact would give the middle class more disposable income to use for to buy goods and services from these small businesses. bad argument, try again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...102200478.html?sid=ST2008102200478&s_pos=list http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...08/0004910020&EDATE=THU+Oct+23+2008,+08:00+AM Washington Post Story Ignores Fraud in Small Business Contracting Scandal Bush Officials Claim Small Business Contracts are Miscoding Errors for the Seventh Consecutive Year PETALUMA, Calif., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the American Small Business League: For the seventh consecutive year, Bush Administration officials are still claiming that billions of dollars in federal small business contracts have been diverted to Fortune 500 firms through miscoding, human error and computer glitches. A recent Washington Post story failed to mention 15 federal investigations, which found that blatant abuse and loopholes are rampant within federal small business contracting programs. Several investigations even found fraud. As early as 1995, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General (SBA IG) found fraud in federal small business contracting programs. In its semiannual report to Congress the SBA IG stated, "of a particular fraudulent practice: companies that SBA, after sustaining protests against them, had prohibited from representing themselves as small businesses, under a particular SIC code, were continuing to falsely certify themselves as eligible for small business set-aside contracts." (http://www.sba.gov/ig/igsemiannual.html) In 2003, the SBA Office of Advocacy commissioned a report from Eagle Eye Publishers, which found "vendor deception" as one of the reasons large firms received federal small business contracts. (http://www.asbl.com/documents/eagkeeye_report 2002.pdf) The American Small Business League (ASBL) sued the SBA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) forcing the SBA to release the original draft of the report that found fraud to be the cause of the problem. However, the edited version of the report released by the SBA had removed "vendor deception" as a reason for the diversion of federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms and other large businesses. In 2005, based on information provided by ASBL President Lloyd Chapman, the SBA IG issued Report 5-16 which found large firms had received federal small business contracts by making "false certifications" and "improper certifications." (http://www.sba.gov/IG/05-16.pdf) Based on information provided by Chapman, the SBA IG found that GTSI and Insight Public Sector had misrepresented themselves as small businesses in order to receive federal small business contracts. In one investigation, GTSI was recommended for debarment for misrepresenting themselves as small and in another investigation Insight Public Sector paid a $1 million fine to settle a case in which the firm had misrepresented themselves as a small business to receive federal small business contracts. (http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=533) In 2005, the ASBL filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court, Northern District of California, which forced the SBA to release GTSI's name as the firm that had been recommend for debarment. (http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=530) This July, the Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Inspector General released an investigation, which found the DOI had reported millions of dollars in small business awards to Fortune 500 firms. That investigation found Fortune 500 firms had listed themselves as small businesses in the government's Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. (http://www.asbl.com/showmedia.php?id=1092) In February, Senator Obama released the statement, "It is time to end the division of federal small business contacts to corporate giants." Since then, Senator Obama has not mentioned the issue publicly and has not offered any specific solutions as to how his administration plans to address the problem. Working with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ASBL President Lloyd Chapman has drafted legislation entitled, "The Small Business Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act." The draft legislation is based on the definition of a small business in the Small Business Act of 1953, which states that a small business must be independently owned and operated. The legislation would preclude the federal government from reporting awards to publicly traded firms as small business contracts. "The GAO first reported this problem in 2003, there have now been over a dozen investigations and hundreds of stories. It is time for Congress to pass legislation to stop small businesses from being cheated by the government," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said.
Enron only came to light under the Bush Administration. It was occuring under the Clinton administration.
It has a lot to do with it if your customers are also effected by the higher tax, and thus have less disposable income.
Warren Buffet said it best. "Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets." That's a huge increase in customers with disposable income, and Buffet can still buy something.
Lets do some simple math. Lets assume this "small" business owner is making 1 million profit a year after all his/her deductions. So under Obama's tax plan, he will paying 750,000(amount above 250K) X .04(rate increase from 35 percent to 39 percent) = 30,000 dollars more in taxes. I find it hard for me to believe that this person would have to lay off 6 people (20 percent of his payroll) because of this tax increase.
You really believe that terrorists are going to have more fun under and Obama Admin than a McCain one?
Ok, I will play along....even though the story is fake. If I worked for this guy, I would get some Obama stickers and put them on the cars of my rivals at work. DD
