A real letter from a CEO to his employees.(rense.com)
rense.com
A real letter from a CEO to his employees.
http://rense.com/general84/letter.htm
79 comments
I didn't care for the tone of the letter, but the complaints were valid and your response doesn't correspond to them in any way. He's not showing any disdain for "hapless employees", but rather the government which seizes his wealth.
If you don't see his disdain you must be blind...
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.
-1, Condescending prick
Then he goes on to:
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?
-1, self-centered "I'm the navel of the universe" prick
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future.
-1, disdain for hapless employees.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.
-1, Condescending prick
Then he goes on to:
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?
-1, self-centered "I'm the navel of the universe" prick
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future.
-1, disdain for hapless employees.
Currently, 51% of every tax dollar spent ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war.
51% of our society's problems (which, rightly or wrongly, we look towards our government for solutions and leadership) cannot be solved by the DoD.
If you want "smaller government", you're going to have to demand a smaller standing army. And a spending cap for the DoD. His wealth isn't just being seized, but squandered.
51% of our society's problems (which, rightly or wrongly, we look towards our government for solutions and leadership) cannot be solved by the DoD.
If you want "smaller government", you're going to have to demand a smaller standing army. And a spending cap for the DoD. His wealth isn't just being seized, but squandered.
If you want "smaller government", you're going to have to demand a smaller standing army.
That's simply not true. The DoD's money doesn't go on salaries for Infantrymen. It doesn't even go on rifles and boots and jeeps.
I'll give you a clue, how many planes do the Taliban have in their Airforce? How much does an F22 cost and how many of them is the USAF buying? What about the Al-Queda Navy, how many aircraft carriers they got? What does a Seawolf-class submarine cost? That's where your taxpayer dollars end up. Soldiers (and Marines) are cheap and if anything we need more of them.
That's simply not true. The DoD's money doesn't go on salaries for Infantrymen. It doesn't even go on rifles and boots and jeeps.
I'll give you a clue, how many planes do the Taliban have in their Airforce? How much does an F22 cost and how many of them is the USAF buying? What about the Al-Queda Navy, how many aircraft carriers they got? What does a Seawolf-class submarine cost? That's where your taxpayer dollars end up. Soldiers (and Marines) are cheap and if anything we need more of them.
I considered military hardware to be part of the "standing army". I know a fighter jet isn't exactly counted as personnel, but we need less of an inventory of them. So I'm sorry I was obtuse.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, but this false statement discredits your argument:
ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war
Not true. It also supports most of the research done in this country.
ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war
Not true. It also supports most of the research done in this country.
Agreed. I've used this logic in several political discussions:
Either get a smarter foreign policy, or raise taxes to fund our policies
It's amazing how the meaning behind "Supporting the Troops" would change.
Either get a smarter foreign policy, or raise taxes to fund our policies
It's amazing how the meaning behind "Supporting the Troops" would change.
Currently, 51% of every tax dollar spent ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war.
I'm curious, what's your source on that. I've heard dozens of statistics on that, all very different, all skewing the data in some way. Some of them only measure discretionary spending, some exclude it, etc.
I'm curious, what's your source on that. I've heard dozens of statistics on that, all very different, all skewing the data in some way. Some of them only measure discretionary spending, some exclude it, etc.
One explanation: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Measuring discretionary spending isn't skewing the results.
Measuring discretionary spending isn't skewing the results.
I was hoping for a less partisan source. Even still, they don't place a figure of 51% of our income taxes on the occupation in Iraq. They don't measure it, but it looks closer to %5. Considering that they're including the national debt as part of the military budge (a very dubious assumption,) I have trouble taking these figures seriously.
With regard to discretionary spending; there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget. I only cited is as an example; I make no claims about any particular survey.
With regard to discretionary spending; there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget. I only cited is as an example; I make no claims about any particular survey.
I was hoping for a less partisan source.
Sorry about that, was in a rush. Here's one for total spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2...
Here's one for discretionary:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html
Here's one in relation to GDP, as well as historical discretionary:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget
Yes, absolutely. I think one would have to be quite confused about all this to mix up the two. One is what the president proposes and congress debates and votes on. The other is that, plus the laws that have already been passed in the past. The GDP figure is even farther complicated by uncertain estimates.
This might be my bias coming in, but it's pretty clear that if you want to talk about what our elected officials are doing with our money, we have to talk about discretionary spending.
Sorry about that, was in a rush. Here's one for total spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2...
Here's one for discretionary:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html
Here's one in relation to GDP, as well as historical discretionary:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget
Yes, absolutely. I think one would have to be quite confused about all this to mix up the two. One is what the president proposes and congress debates and votes on. The other is that, plus the laws that have already been passed in the past. The GDP figure is even farther complicated by uncertain estimates.
This might be my bias coming in, but it's pretty clear that if you want to talk about what our elected officials are doing with our money, we have to talk about discretionary spending.
Is this still true after the recent bailouts? (honest question)
"The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job.
What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country...
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't."
Umm news alert, both Obama and McCain supported the flawed '700 billion' (in reality unlimited) bailout for the bankers. What's even better is that a Republican administration made the initial proposal for and has lead the largest bailout in US history.
I may lean to the right... but this letter (if real) just reads as a veiled threat to employees and not to mention it's really short on details... nor does it address the real problem: politicians on both sides of the aisle spend money like drunken sailors
What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country...
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't."
Umm news alert, both Obama and McCain supported the flawed '700 billion' (in reality unlimited) bailout for the bankers. What's even better is that a Republican administration made the initial proposal for and has lead the largest bailout in US history.
I may lean to the right... but this letter (if real) just reads as a veiled threat to employees and not to mention it's really short on details... nor does it address the real problem: politicians on both sides of the aisle spend money like drunken sailors
Dear Employees,
That nasty black man wants to tax me more so he can tax you less. I value you so much that if this happens I will immediately fire the lot of you. That's because I'm a noble altruistic person, unlike you useless unproductive slackers whom, by the way, I value.
So, I'm not telling you how to vote, but if you vote for the guy who says he wants to help the middle classes rather than the rich then it may make you lose your job.
Fuck you^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLove,
The boss.
That nasty black man wants to tax me more so he can tax you less. I value you so much that if this happens I will immediately fire the lot of you. That's because I'm a noble altruistic person, unlike you useless unproductive slackers whom, by the way, I value.
So, I'm not telling you how to vote, but if you vote for the guy who says he wants to help the middle classes rather than the rich then it may make you lose your job.
Fuck you^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLove,
The boss.
If the guy is real it doesn't mean he is racist because he disagrees with Obama's policies.
http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001339.html
"Dear audio memoirs. Today I was racist by word substitution again. This -- this is the hardest racism not to be." - The T-Rex
"Dear audio memoirs. Today I was racist by word substitution again. This -- this is the hardest racism not to be." - The T-Rex
Forgive my ignorance (and being a non-US), I could not understand who he points his finger to vote (obama or mccain). I really don't know about their tax policies.
Apart from that, I think not only in US but all around the world, these kinds of taxes should be reduced. But in only favor of the employees. I mean, an employer should have an option to pay tax or spend that amount on creating new jobs. Otherwise, rich bussinessowners spend that tax money (or save it for worse days) and also still spend their employees when their bussiness is not good.
Apart from that, I think not only in US but all around the world, these kinds of taxes should be reduced. But in only favor of the employees. I mean, an employer should have an option to pay tax or spend that amount on creating new jobs. Otherwise, rich bussinessowners spend that tax money (or save it for worse days) and also still spend their employees when their bussiness is not good.
He's anti-Obama. The reference to "change" and the bottom 95% were straight out of Obama's campaign.
"So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't."
Here's a guy who respects his employees.
Here's a guy who respects his employees.
Dear employees,
I'm middle-aged, burned out and on the verge of a breakdown. I'm casting around for someone to blame for my feelings of ill-directed rage.
Please help me.
Love,
The boss.
I'm middle-aged, burned out and on the verge of a breakdown. I'm casting around for someone to blame for my feelings of ill-directed rage.
Please help me.
Love,
The boss.
If this letter is true, I think this guy needs a good tax lawyer and tax accountant to help him out.
The gist of his message makes sense, business and employers need more encouragement/incentives to produce and build... don't kill inspiration, innovation. The part of firing your workers near the end because he pays too much taxes is a childish. What about the employees who think they pay too much taxe. Should they all just quit and shut down the business? Two way street buddy....
And, if the company is making money, I'm sure you'll be able to sell the business to someone willing to make a go of it. Why would you just shut it down? Seems a little dumbass too me.
Unfortunately we live in a day and age of perpetual complainers. Rich, poor and everyone in between believes they are entitled to everything and anything that satisifies there primal cravings.
The gist of his message makes sense, business and employers need more encouragement/incentives to produce and build... don't kill inspiration, innovation. The part of firing your workers near the end because he pays too much taxes is a childish. What about the employees who think they pay too much taxe. Should they all just quit and shut down the business? Two way street buddy....
And, if the company is making money, I'm sure you'll be able to sell the business to someone willing to make a go of it. Why would you just shut it down? Seems a little dumbass too me.
Unfortunately we live in a day and age of perpetual complainers. Rich, poor and everyone in between believes they are entitled to everything and anything that satisifies there primal cravings.
It's probably not legitimate, and while there are lot of objections to some of the premises, it's an interesting read. If you read "Atlas Shrugged" and were an anarcho-capitalist like myself, you'd be able to appreciate it more. :)
Then again, if I was gay and into S&M, then I'd be able to appreciate anal sex at a slaughterhouse.
http://www.crowley-crisp.com/Principals/tabid/55/Default.asp...
That's the guy and the company website.
Seems like they're still going!
That's the guy and the company website.
Seems like they're still going!
"Professional" engineers my ass. Up here in Canada engineering is a regulated profession, and similar to doctors, we're expected to put the interests of the general public above our own. There is a purpose higher than merely making boatloads of cash (and I honestly don't think this man is starving).
It's regulated to prevent free competition from lowering your wages. So much for the "interests of the general public"...
No, you have to be certified by a professional society to be considered an engineer. You can't just dub yourself a "Software Engineer" because you self-taught yourself visual basic.
Likewise, there are certain legal penalties attached to performing the duties of an engineer without certification. Its like architects in the U.S. -- they put a final "seal" on their blueprints. Its their name/career/license on the hook if the building falls down and kills people.
Likewise, there are certain legal penalties attached to performing the duties of an engineer without certification. Its like architects in the U.S. -- they put a final "seal" on their blueprints. Its their name/career/license on the hook if the building falls down and kills people.
> You can't just dub yourself a "Software Engineer" because you self-taught yourself visual basic.
Well, to me it just looks like canadian Engineers(TM) are afraid of competition.
Well, to me it just looks like canadian Engineers(TM) are afraid of competition.
Actually, software engineering is relatively new to the engineering profession here in Canada (and elsewhere too, I suppose).
To clarify, in Canada:
- You cannot call yourself an engineer unless you're a graduate of a CEAB accredited program.
- You can perform engineering without being a certified engineer.
- You cannot approve final designs without being a licensed professional engineer, which involves graduating from an accredited program (or recognized foreign equivalent), as well as passing technical competency and ethical integrity exams.
- Engineers are held personally liable for the consequences of their work. No passing the buck to your employer, and no "just following orders" Nuremburg excuses.
- Engineering advice you give, on duty or off, just like doctors and lawyers, unless otherwise indicated, are legal engineering advice, and you can be held accountable for its consequences. E.g. Advising your neighbor that'd he'd need a 5" support column for his deck, and if you're wrong, he can sue you for damages.
The difference is that non-software engineering is routinely life-or-death, and there are enough considerations in your average engineering task that you really don't want someone who hasn't been comprehensively educated doing the job.
To clarify, in Canada:
- You cannot call yourself an engineer unless you're a graduate of a CEAB accredited program.
- You can perform engineering without being a certified engineer.
- You cannot approve final designs without being a licensed professional engineer, which involves graduating from an accredited program (or recognized foreign equivalent), as well as passing technical competency and ethical integrity exams.
- Engineers are held personally liable for the consequences of their work. No passing the buck to your employer, and no "just following orders" Nuremburg excuses.
- Engineering advice you give, on duty or off, just like doctors and lawyers, unless otherwise indicated, are legal engineering advice, and you can be held accountable for its consequences. E.g. Advising your neighbor that'd he'd need a 5" support column for his deck, and if you're wrong, he can sue you for damages.
The difference is that non-software engineering is routinely life-or-death, and there are enough considerations in your average engineering task that you really don't want someone who hasn't been comprehensively educated doing the job.
First half of the article - good & inspirational. Second half - horrible.
[deleted]
A guy like Zed Shaw to reply to his posts. The CEO is a jerk, and the information he presents is skewed anyways. We don't know how many people he screwed along all the way to the top.
[deleted]
I've seen this letter reprinted everywhere and every time I see it, it irks the hell out of me.
He throws around a lot of gravitas and some big numbers and then goes, "Oh poor me, these taxes are crushing me." without providing any real objective proof of it.
So you paid $288k of taxes for that quarter. That was out of how much revenue? how much profit? hm?
He throws around a lot of gravitas and some big numbers and then goes, "Oh poor me, these taxes are crushing me." without providing any real objective proof of it.
So you paid $288k of taxes for that quarter. That was out of how much revenue? how much profit? hm?
The other half of it is what he got from paying taxes.
* He could hire his employees because they were educated (paid and/or subsidized by taxes.)
* He could take on loans and other debt because the financial system is regulated to ensure investor confidence.
* Companies can get their products to customers efficiently because of roads/bridges/etc.
I'm not saying taxes are too low, or even just right, or even sensible at all, but they have to be considered in context. He pays quite a bit in taxes, but how does that relate to what he puts into the economy and what he takes from the "commons" of the economy?
* He could hire his employees because they were educated (paid and/or subsidized by taxes.)
* He could take on loans and other debt because the financial system is regulated to ensure investor confidence.
* Companies can get their products to customers efficiently because of roads/bridges/etc.
I'm not saying taxes are too low, or even just right, or even sensible at all, but they have to be considered in context. He pays quite a bit in taxes, but how does that relate to what he puts into the economy and what he takes from the "commons" of the economy?
He could hire educated employees because they paid for education; it is a engineering company, not McDonalds. While it is true that the government pays for most primary education, the vast majority of these funds do not come from federal or state taxes, but rather property tax.
If the government really wanted to create "security" in the financial system they would increase the reserve limit for banks to 25% and print bills to the difference in the money supply.
Roads, bridges, etc... do allow companies to move products - most employers are very happy to pay for these developments. Most of these, however, are paid with gas taxes and tolls (at least here in Canada).
The three points you mention cost money, but make up a tiny percent of the American budget. The main money leaches are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and the military. The author of that letter mentions welfare, but this minor in the scheme of things.
Don't get me wrong, I think that sending a letter like that is completely unwise, but I agree with the spirit of his letter.
If the government really wanted to create "security" in the financial system they would increase the reserve limit for banks to 25% and print bills to the difference in the money supply.
Roads, bridges, etc... do allow companies to move products - most employers are very happy to pay for these developments. Most of these, however, are paid with gas taxes and tolls (at least here in Canada).
The three points you mention cost money, but make up a tiny percent of the American budget. The main money leaches are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and the military. The author of that letter mentions welfare, but this minor in the scheme of things.
Don't get me wrong, I think that sending a letter like that is completely unwise, but I agree with the spirit of his letter.
He could hire educated employees because they paid for education; it is a engineering company, not McDonalds.
And where did these engineers go to school? Did they attend a public or private university? Was the school subsidized by land grants from the government? Did the students benefit from government-guaranteed student loans? Was the school able to attract professors because of government-sponsored research? Etc., etc.
And where did these engineers go to school? Did they attend a public or private university? Was the school subsidized by land grants from the government? Did the students benefit from government-guaranteed student loans? Was the school able to attract professors because of government-sponsored research? Etc., etc.
If your family could have afforded to send you to college, It is reasonable to presuppose that they could have afforded a private school, the one is generally far more expensive than the other. If there were no public school system, then they would cost even less. - not to say we shouldn't have schools.
Then why didn't doesn't he start the company in a country with lower taxes? Last I checked, Russia has a significantly lower corporate tax than the US, and yet you don't see businesses thriving there as they do in the US...
"The spirit" of his letter is a naive oversimplification - the idea that "lower taxes always increase innovation" is simple to justify, but has little evidence in the real world.
"The spirit" of his letter is a naive oversimplification - the idea that "lower taxes always increase innovation" is simple to justify, but has little evidence in the real world.
I've read his letter, I see nothing about any of the things you note. In fact, I see criticism of the financial bailout and people who lived beyond their means. Are you supporting that behavior?
His major complaint, to quote the article is this:
"Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?"
What he apparently doesn't know is that 75% of the (American) economy falls under "Consumer Spending". That is, if you and I don't blow our paycheck buying clothes and cars, we don't have an economy.
So really, the government is doing The Right Thing(tm) by stimulating the economy. It just upsets this guy because he feels that "Trickle Down" is better, because then the economy is sitting around waiting for this guy to buy/lease another Mercedes.
"Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?"
What he apparently doesn't know is that 75% of the (American) economy falls under "Consumer Spending". That is, if you and I don't blow our paycheck buying clothes and cars, we don't have an economy.
So really, the government is doing The Right Thing(tm) by stimulating the economy. It just upsets this guy because he feels that "Trickle Down" is better, because then the economy is sitting around waiting for this guy to buy/lease another Mercedes.
Capital spending, contributes just as much to the economy as consumer spending. More so in fact, as capital can be used to produce more goods an consumer goods cannot. This fellow spends a hell of a lot more than most of us, and on goods which will contribute to the economy in more substantial ways than anyone purchasing a television would.
---
That said, I totally disagree with the tone of the letter, which betrays a level of pride and arrogance. The fact that he's threatening his employees rather than attempting to earn their loyalty, says a lot about the man.
But consumer spending is easy to stimulate. Just give consumers more money to spend.
Economists still argue what works best to stimulate businesses. There's no one right way to do it. Some believe in deregulation. Some believe in low business taxes. Some believe in business-ownership tax incentives. Some think lax credit laws or "high liquid markets" make it happen.
Others, like the letter writer, believe in trickle down and low taxes for business. An aside, anyone with a functioning brain that lived through the Reagan era knows this to be a complete falsehood. Second, its been observed (again, this is like some people say, so take with a grain of salt) that many pro-low tax people cannot control their lifestyle spending.
Therefore, the only way to increase their ability to repay on their debt/save money is to reduce their tax burden.
I've worked for a small business owner like this. They're small minded and arrogant beyond belief. They don't respect the people who work for them. "Penny smart, but pound foolish" as the expression went. He was sure to talk to us, off company time, in 2004 to remind us how dangerous it would be to vote for John Kerry because of his plan to force businesses to offer health care. At the time, none of us working there had health care, except the owner. He had a private policy which he could afford because he paid himself such a high salary. We would make $20/hr (with no benefits) and he would pocket $60/hr from our labors.
He was eventually forced to offer health care anyway, once most of his top employees (and me!) left to companies that provided benefits and didn't treat you like cattle.
Economists still argue what works best to stimulate businesses. There's no one right way to do it. Some believe in deregulation. Some believe in low business taxes. Some believe in business-ownership tax incentives. Some think lax credit laws or "high liquid markets" make it happen.
Others, like the letter writer, believe in trickle down and low taxes for business. An aside, anyone with a functioning brain that lived through the Reagan era knows this to be a complete falsehood. Second, its been observed (again, this is like some people say, so take with a grain of salt) that many pro-low tax people cannot control their lifestyle spending.
Therefore, the only way to increase their ability to repay on their debt/save money is to reduce their tax burden.
I've worked for a small business owner like this. They're small minded and arrogant beyond belief. They don't respect the people who work for them. "Penny smart, but pound foolish" as the expression went. He was sure to talk to us, off company time, in 2004 to remind us how dangerous it would be to vote for John Kerry because of his plan to force businesses to offer health care. At the time, none of us working there had health care, except the owner. He had a private policy which he could afford because he paid himself such a high salary. We would make $20/hr (with no benefits) and he would pocket $60/hr from our labors.
He was eventually forced to offer health care anyway, once most of his top employees (and me!) left to companies that provided benefits and didn't treat you like cattle.
Except that he states he'd use the tax money to hire more employees - who would be both consumers and producers.
No, he wouldn't.
The fact of the matter is, if he had the business, he'd hire the employees, as they would be making him money.
Just like the myth that he'd "pay his employee's more" if he didn't have to pay their payroll tax. Odds are, he'd pay his employees the going rate for their labor. Or, if he believes his employees deliver an above-the-market quality of labor, he'd pay them at what is an appropriately scaled competitive wage. The rest he would pocket.
You hire someone because you need someone to do a job. You don't have a mythical set of employees doing nothing/odd jobs simply because you have a "tax surplus".
The fact of the matter is, if he had the business, he'd hire the employees, as they would be making him money.
Just like the myth that he'd "pay his employee's more" if he didn't have to pay their payroll tax. Odds are, he'd pay his employees the going rate for their labor. Or, if he believes his employees deliver an above-the-market quality of labor, he'd pay them at what is an appropriately scaled competitive wage. The rest he would pocket.
You hire someone because you need someone to do a job. You don't have a mythical set of employees doing nothing/odd jobs simply because you have a "tax surplus".
That's clearly not a fact at all! There are lots of things that companies do that aren't directly billable to clients. What is a fact is that either you spend the money paying someone to do something, or you spend the money paying someone to do nothing.
>That's clearly not a fact at all! There are lots of things that companies do that aren't directly billable to clients.
Yes. Like I said before, you hire for your business based on need. The idea you'd have "more employees" because of a "tax surplus" is a myth. Especially from business owners that condescend to their employees and coerce their votes. I've worked for people just like this guy, and believe me, the idea he is spouting off is ridiculous.
Yes. Like I said before, you hire for your business based on need. The idea you'd have "more employees" because of a "tax surplus" is a myth. Especially from business owners that condescend to their employees and coerce their votes. I've worked for people just like this guy, and believe me, the idea he is spouting off is ridiculous.
Is it just me? I find the phrase "tax surplus" to be Orwellian.
Do you mean keeping your own money? If so, why not just say so?
People hire based on need. But people also hire based on productivity, available workforce, labor laws, legal considerations, tenure, etc. There are all kinds of modifers to the basic "need" I may need another employee, but the bar might be so high to hire them that I don't do it. In that case, existing employees just have to work harder.
Simply because a company has a need doesn't change their break-even analysis. And taxes hit the break-even analysis directly as overhead. Right? Or am I missing something?
Do you mean keeping your own money? If so, why not just say so?
People hire based on need. But people also hire based on productivity, available workforce, labor laws, legal considerations, tenure, etc. There are all kinds of modifers to the basic "need" I may need another employee, but the bar might be so high to hire them that I don't do it. In that case, existing employees just have to work harder.
Simply because a company has a need doesn't change their break-even analysis. And taxes hit the break-even analysis directly as overhead. Right? Or am I missing something?
If you'll allow me to conceed you've got a point, I'd like to offer a rebuttal that takes us in a new direction.
(Again, yes, you're right about the break even analysis).
Aside from the basics (roads, schools, telephone lines) that the taxes on his employees pay for, there is one thing the payroll tax pays for as well: Unemployment insurance. Now, nobody wants their business to fail, but the failure rate for businesses is quite steep. This is a tax that literally protects the employees from the bad business decisions made by the business owner, even if he ends up bankrupt.
Unemployment also keeps the supply of labor at a fairly constant rate. Say I worked for one of this business owner's competitors, who went out business, and have a mortgage. To make ends meet, I immediately take a job in an unrelated field. Now, that business cannot hire me because I've stopped looking for a job. (I know, i'm simplifying here, bear with me.) Unemployment lets me spend more time on the market, looking for offers in my field.
Sort of like FDR's Treasury Secretary said about the New Deal. "People don't eat over the long term. They eat everyday."
(Again, yes, you're right about the break even analysis).
Aside from the basics (roads, schools, telephone lines) that the taxes on his employees pay for, there is one thing the payroll tax pays for as well: Unemployment insurance. Now, nobody wants their business to fail, but the failure rate for businesses is quite steep. This is a tax that literally protects the employees from the bad business decisions made by the business owner, even if he ends up bankrupt.
Unemployment also keeps the supply of labor at a fairly constant rate. Say I worked for one of this business owner's competitors, who went out business, and have a mortgage. To make ends meet, I immediately take a job in an unrelated field. Now, that business cannot hire me because I've stopped looking for a job. (I know, i'm simplifying here, bear with me.) Unemployment lets me spend more time on the market, looking for offers in my field.
Sort of like FDR's Treasury Secretary said about the New Deal. "People don't eat over the long term. They eat everyday."
That's assuming things that aren't fair. There's many people in the US educated by alternative schooling systems. Homeschooling produces excellent students as do private schools. Not everybody needs the government to help them succeed. Indeed, in America you're limited by you and you alone.
I was home schooled and I feel the public school system is horrible.
However, I still think the public education system is one of the few things keeping chaos from breaking out. Consider the 80/20 rule the first 20% of public school money provides the vast majority of the benefit after that it's far more expensive the keep things moving. School could be year round with 3 cycles of children, and each child going every other year and we would spend far less money and still get most of the benefit from teaching reading, writing, basic arithmetic, basic heath etc. Or we could have vouchers and mandatory testing etc. But, removing any from of public school system would be a bad idea.
PS: The real question is always what point do diminishing returns kill the gain. I think we could double the amount of money we spend on education and still come out ahead.
However, I still think the public education system is one of the few things keeping chaos from breaking out. Consider the 80/20 rule the first 20% of public school money provides the vast majority of the benefit after that it's far more expensive the keep things moving. School could be year round with 3 cycles of children, and each child going every other year and we would spend far less money and still get most of the benefit from teaching reading, writing, basic arithmetic, basic heath etc. Or we could have vouchers and mandatory testing etc. But, removing any from of public school system would be a bad idea.
PS: The real question is always what point do diminishing returns kill the gain. I think we could double the amount of money we spend on education and still come out ahead.
Ditto and I agree, it is awful.
I agree that alternative schooling systems produce students that are on par, if not better than their public counterparts, particularly at the lower grades.
I scoff at the idea that "in America you're limited by you and you alone". It's an idealized extrapolation of our less regimented society, true, but if you grow up as a poor black boy or girl in the ghetto, the forces that are going to keep you there far outweigh the forces that will allow you to leave. See Hurricane Katrina: most of the poor folk that didn't evacuate were too ridiculously poor to even afford to evacuate. The same goes with someone who grows up in a rural town; if they want to leave town and go to college or otherwise make something of themselves, all of the factors in their environment are working constantly against them. I'm tired of people born into privlege (me included) feeling that growing up in an environment where the only barrier to success is your own motivation somehow applies to everyone else.
I mentioned in another submission about how one of the greatest misconceptions of the past 50 years is that our environment is somehow completely unrelated to our well-being and the choices we feel we have. I'm not about to say people can start blaming their bad judgement on their environment, but the other extreme is no better a way of understanding our country.
I scoff at the idea that "in America you're limited by you and you alone". It's an idealized extrapolation of our less regimented society, true, but if you grow up as a poor black boy or girl in the ghetto, the forces that are going to keep you there far outweigh the forces that will allow you to leave. See Hurricane Katrina: most of the poor folk that didn't evacuate were too ridiculously poor to even afford to evacuate. The same goes with someone who grows up in a rural town; if they want to leave town and go to college or otherwise make something of themselves, all of the factors in their environment are working constantly against them. I'm tired of people born into privlege (me included) feeling that growing up in an environment where the only barrier to success is your own motivation somehow applies to everyone else.
I mentioned in another submission about how one of the greatest misconceptions of the past 50 years is that our environment is somehow completely unrelated to our well-being and the choices we feel we have. I'm not about to say people can start blaming their bad judgement on their environment, but the other extreme is no better a way of understanding our country.
I overcame the extremely poor, rural part and I can raise you being homeschooled, and, in an information-society on-paper at least, relatively uneducated. That's a bigger barrier than being Black to being part of societies norms.
I was exposed to less of society than most people and in a culture much, much further than societies norms than black culture is.
I'm also dark enough to experience prejudices, if any indeed existed. One thing that life has taught me, you're treated the way you expect to be treated and the way you act accordingly. Perception is reality. You hold the key to how people perceive you.
Everything I have in life I earned by myself, I haven't finished college yet but have a decent job. I taught myself enough *nix and networking experience to move through jobs to where I'm making the mean salary for a single person in my city.
The only barrier that has ever held me back is myself. I've also experience big setbacks in life. If you feel sorry for yourself and stop moving, sure, life sucks you in. If you pick yourself and keep on striving, you can do almost anything you desire to.
I was exposed to less of society than most people and in a culture much, much further than societies norms than black culture is.
I'm also dark enough to experience prejudices, if any indeed existed. One thing that life has taught me, you're treated the way you expect to be treated and the way you act accordingly. Perception is reality. You hold the key to how people perceive you.
Everything I have in life I earned by myself, I haven't finished college yet but have a decent job. I taught myself enough *nix and networking experience to move through jobs to where I'm making the mean salary for a single person in my city.
The only barrier that has ever held me back is myself. I've also experience big setbacks in life. If you feel sorry for yourself and stop moving, sure, life sucks you in. If you pick yourself and keep on striving, you can do almost anything you desire to.
This guy is complaining about proposed new taxes, not old taxes. The proper items for you to list are what he would get from proposed new spending (e.g., bailouts for detroit and irresponsible state governments, marginal state construction projects).
that is the perfect rebuttal. thank you for bringing pure, simple logic to the discussion.the rate that we tax people may not be perfect but taxes are necessary. Guys like this seem to live for the glory years of Reagan's trickle down economics but they forget the results of that policy. The first George Bush had to break his main campaign pledge of no new taxes to offset all of the "Trickle down effects" that we were bombarded with.
Let's eliminate both taxation and public sending and we'll know the answer.
Ermm, you only pay taxes on profit. Economics 101.
Actually, you pay payroll tax just for having employees and various business registration fees for continuing to exist and taxes on equipment just for continuing to own it. None of those are dependent on profit. Reality 101.
The letter is a bit too melodramatic, but he has a point: over-taxation kills businesses.
Quoting Sir Winston Churchill:
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
Quoting Sir Winston Churchill:
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
over-taxation kills businesses.
You know what also kills innovation and business? Not investing in public education. Not providing health care to workers. Not providing a legal system to make laws, a judicial system to interpret laws and contracts, etc. Not investing in fundamental research. Not regulating the money supply... one could go on for tomes.
If business taxes "hurt" business, then what you get for them "helps" business. In this trade-off neither extreme is desirable.
You know what also kills innovation and business? Not investing in public education. Not providing health care to workers. Not providing a legal system to make laws, a judicial system to interpret laws and contracts, etc. Not investing in fundamental research. Not regulating the money supply... one could go on for tomes.
If business taxes "hurt" business, then what you get for them "helps" business. In this trade-off neither extreme is desirable.
I did not say there shouldn't be investment in public education and health care, did I? I am not advocating zero taxes, I am advocating tax policies that don't kill start-ups and entrepreneurs in general.
I am European. I worked at two start-ups in two different EU countries before coming to California for grad school. What I experienced is that social welfare has its costs. If you found a start-up and are trying to survive, high-taxes only work against you.
I am European. I worked at two start-ups in two different EU countries before coming to California for grad school. What I experienced is that social welfare has its costs. If you found a start-up and are trying to survive, high-taxes only work against you.
What I experienced [before coming to Cali] is that social welfare has its costs.
Well, then we're definitely just coming from different places, and arguing that we should head in opposite directions, while looking at the same goal. By American standards, California has very high tax rates, as well as an excellent system of public higher education.
I'm also glad we agree that taxation should be about maximizing overall productivity, not about idealistic comfort.
Well, then we're definitely just coming from different places, and arguing that we should head in opposite directions, while looking at the same goal. By American standards, California has very high tax rates, as well as an excellent system of public higher education.
I'm also glad we agree that taxation should be about maximizing overall productivity, not about idealistic comfort.
Compared to Sweden, California's taxes are low ;-)
I don't know why anyone believes this is real.
It's written exactly the way most (literate) chainletters are.
And lots of those use real names / institution names to add legitimacy, too.
It's written exactly the way most (literate) chainletters are.
And lots of those use real names / institution names to add legitimacy, too.
http://www.crowley-crisp.com/Services/WaterWastewaterSystemD...
Looks like they do plenty of work that is funded through taxes of some kind.
Looks like they do plenty of work that is funded through taxes of some kind.
I agree. These words don't sound like the words of an entrepreneur. One becomes an entrepreneur because you every inch in your body desires it; the risks are far too great to make it worthwhile otherwise.
As for tax & politics: businesses prosper in South Africa, but we have insane taxes (most of which goes towards projects that will never benefit any business), mountains of strict regulations and political uncertainty.
As for tax & politics: businesses prosper in South Africa, but we have insane taxes (most of which goes towards projects that will never benefit any business), mountains of strict regulations and political uncertainty.
Agreed. It strikes me the way this one did:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/layoff.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/layoff.asp
Hah! What's hilarious about this one is how obviously illegal that would be.
sigh It's sad that the people that reaffirm their political beliefs using this crap have such primitive understandings of business, law, etc.
sigh It's sad that the people that reaffirm their political beliefs using this crap have such primitive understandings of business, law, etc.
Perhaps someone should contact Michael Crowley and see whether he really wrote this thing. (Of course, he might deny it even if he did.)
And my comment still stands:
-- This guy is a dick. If I were working for him and got this letter, I'd hand in my resignation.
To the author: You're not the navel of the universe. I'm oh so sorry you've had to work hard for your shit. So has everyone else. In your darkest hour of disdain for the hapless employees you've hired to help expand your business, never forget: if it wasn't for all these people, you wouldn't be rich, because you wouldn't be able to hire all those people to make money for you. --