The Myth That Businesses Don't Hire Because of ObamaCare or Obama Might Raise Taxes

I imagine that the kids and social left wingers who write for the blog site ironically known as "the independent's view" ain't got a clue about what it means to run a small business. The statement "if it means hiring more people so be it" is so incredibly simplistic and wrong that it defies understanding. Small businesses might take a chance and hire people "off the books" if they need to cover an unexpected temporary increase in business but nobody wants to hire people with all the benefits mandated by the administration and Obamacare looming. Unemployment insurance, taxes, a hundred federal regulations, OSHA stuff, union interference and the unknown future of a quirky and unpredictable socialist democrat administration. If a small business has more work they work harder rather than hire anyone.
 
And to further validate this wisdom, raising the minimum wage doesnt negatively effect hiring or the prospects of unqualified seekers of entry level work.

really...........lol
 
indeed................

uncertainty about increased regultory burdens, higher fees, and increased taxes would never enter the minds of business people in their planning

liberal, utopian, clueless "businesspeople" that is..............

Its not going to cause them to pass up profits, idiot.

Nope. Just prevent them from making them in the first place. Which is the problem.

If I can make a $3 profit selling a $5 item and then the government regulation increases the production from $2 per item to $7 per item, my potential profits have been eliminated. The only option I have is to increase the price, which decreases potential profits. Especially if a competitor can keep their product at the $5 range.

Please use realistic examples. We're talking about CURRENT REALITY - not hypothetical reality. There is no tax that has gone up from $2 to $7.

There shouldn't even be a need for you to make up a hypothetical example - if its really happening then real reality should be littered with real examples that actually happen.


Those with more flexibility to eat costs, such as a large corporation, will have a better chance at surviving than a small business on a tight budget.


The latter statement is generally true, it has nothing to do with taxes or regulatory costs in particular. Large businesses can - in general - survive ANY obstacle better than small ones.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Really!!! its even more important to a small business!! Fees, regulatory costs,taxes insurance costs are on the rise and effect companies of all sizes all the time.

Which taxes on small businesses have risen?

Property taxes ,they go up every year.
property taxes come from the state and county, not the fed. which state are you referring to? how does this apply to companies that dont own their buildings?
 
Oh so right.

No business peson wants higher costs.

No one know how much more that clusterfuck Obamacare is gonna cost them per employee.

How bout new regs coming their way. I'm sure they will also increase costs.

All in all I can see why business isn't hiring. Hell. I wouldn't either.
 
Oh so right.

No business peson wants higher costs.

Business pesons probably do want higher profit.

No one know how much more that clusterfuck Obamacare is gonna cost them per employee.
If employees are a liability to a company they should lay them off regardless of Obama.

You seem to be stupid.

How bout new regs coming their way. I'm sure they will also increase costs.
Which ones?

All in all I can see why business isn't hiring. Hell. I wouldn't either.

Any business you own would fail miserably as you'd be more concerned with the cost of an employee than whether or not the additional revenue brought by that employee would exceed their cost.
 
Which taxes on small businesses have risen?

Property taxes ,they go up every year.
property taxes come from the state and county, not the fed. which state are you referring to? how does this apply to companies that dont own their buildings?

Chickewing will respond by informing you that its really the leaseholder that pays the tax.

This is the way of right wing thinking.

If I am a renter, and my landlord pays $500 a year in property taxes on the property they rent to me - then for the purposes of arguing that property taxes hurt business owners, the right winger would say its the landlord paying the taxes - but for the purposes of arguing that the property taxes hurt the little guy - they'd say the tenant is really the one paying the taxes. In fact, they argue that BOTH parties are paying the tax - so in rightwingerland, a $500 property tax on a rental unit really adds up to $1000 in taxes.
 
I imagine that the kids and social left wingers who write for the blog site ironically known as "the independent's view" ain't got a clue about what it means to run a small business. The statement "if it means hiring more people so be it" is so incredibly simplistic and wrong that it defies understanding. Small businesses might take a chance and hire people "off the books" if they need to cover an unexpected temporary increase in business but nobody wants to hire people with all the benefits mandated by the administration and Obamacare looming. Unemployment insurance, taxes, a hundred federal regulations, OSHA stuff, union interference and the unknown future of a quirky and unpredictable socialist democrat administration. If a small business has more work they work harder rather than hire anyone.

Actually, I do "have a clue" about running a small business as I have done so for over 15 years. Unlike other "internet experts", I see no need to hide behind anonymity. ObamaCare doesn't even take effect for years. Am I going to turn down an extra $200 - $300K annually until 2014 because of ObamaCare? LOL!


I would rather comment on a thread titled "The Myth That Leftist Shills Have Functioning Brains, Integrity, and Core Values". :eek:

This is only because you can't handle the topics covered so this is all you can comment on.

And to further validate this wisdom, raising the minimum wage doesnt negatively effect hiring or the prospects of unqualified seekers of entry level work.

really...........lol

I never said anything about minimum wage anywhere. So you're lying in order to dodge subjects you are inadequately equipped to address? Not surprising.

There are companies out there, large and small, that are hiring like crazy right now. This nullifies the claims that they won't do so because of magic bogeymen, ObamaCare and taxes that btw, have not been raised. They are hiring because of an increase in demand for their product or service. That's basic business.
 
Last edited:

What happened? Someone come in and point out that there are plenty of businesses that are actually not hiring because of Obamacare, and provided the links to back it up?

No. I used the blog because I'm on several boards and it's just easier that way. Unfortunately CaliGirl had a shit fit went all menstral at the mods and they deleted it. Some people are just small and petty. Waddya gonna do?

No Worries! I'll cut & paste on this board. Here ya go!

"Small and big businesses aren't hiring because of ObamaCare and / or because Obama is so anti-business, they're concerned he'll raise taxes!"
I've seen this foolish propaganda posted by Joe Average on several internet boards, in the comments sections of the Wall Street Journal and CNN and so on. Lord only knows who came up with this nonsense.
Obviously, whoever it was counted on an audience with two qualities:
1. They never owned or ran a small to medium sized business and
2. They never had division level or greater management experience in a large company.
Small Business
If a small business like mine experiences an increase in demand for their products or services, we have to react. If that means hiring more people, so be it. The key advantages of small business are speed and flexibility. If they do not capitalize on market conditions and opportunities, they won't remain in business long.
Additionally, small businesses can realize an immediate increase in revenues of ten to up one thousand percent. Remember, many small businesses realize gross revenues of less than one hundred thousand a year. A sudden surge in demand and in some cases, a single order can launch a small company to the next level.
So the idea that a business owner wouldn't hire the people needed to meet that demand because of a health bill that doesn't even take effect for years, is preposterous. The same goes with a tax increase that may never take place.
Big Business
Big businesses aren't as flexible or nimble as their smaller counterparts but the concept that a large business wouldn't hire to meet demand and increase profits is just as absurd. Managers are responsible for the profitability of their group or division. Executives are responsible to the board and / or shareholders at the quarterly meeting.
If a surge in demand occurs that could net the company millions or hundreds of millions, Executives and managers don't fail to meet the demand because of a few thousand dollars in benefits or a tax increase that may or may not ever occur.
For example, Motorola has been hiring at all levels for over a year. Why? The introduction of their answer to the IPhone (the Droid) exceeded all expectations. There was zero chance that the executives of Motorola would have gone to the shareholders and said "Well, we decided not to make the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased profits, because some day years from now, there might be an increase in one part of the benefits package we offer employees or maybe Obama might raise taxes some day."


Other examples of companies that have been aggressively hiring to meet demand are Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis and Aflac. Demand has increased for their products or services. They have hired to meet that demand. That's just business basics.

Personally, I consider ObamaCare a disaster and one of his biggest mistakes. To me, the bill is 1,800 pages of pure garbage and four pages of good ideas (eliminating pre-existing conditions, covering kids through college). But it has absolutely no impact on my hiring decisions or those of other executives. We view ObamaCare and taxes exactly the same way. If we can realize a gain in profits, we'll figure out how to deal with the other factors. That's why we're in charge. If we can't, then we shouldn't be in charge
 
Y'all just might want to take a peek before posting the Standard ConservaRepub Pat Answer From Page 9 of the Pundit Prep Sheet.

OhPoo: I name two examples in the OP. My business (I don't hide behind the anonymity of the net) and Motorola - which kinda blows the whole "They're not hiring because of Obama!" thing right out of the water.
Other examples are Sears, Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis, Aflac...


Any competent management will weigh all of the benefits and liabilities of hiring, and will proceed in whatever way they consider beneficial to the overall benefit of the company. What you ignore, is that the uncertainty in the tax and regulatory future, is a large element of the possible future liability, and results in many less jobs than would occur without that uncertainty. The overall difference in the millions of decisions over whether to hire, or not to hire, determine the business environment, not specific entities that make decisions that you like.
 
Y'all just might want to take a peek before posting the Standard ConservaRepub Pat Answer From Page 9 of the Pundit Prep Sheet.

OhPoo: I name two examples in the OP. My business (I don't hide behind the anonymity of the net) and Motorola - which kinda blows the whole "They're not hiring because of Obama!" thing right out of the water.
Other examples are Sears, Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis, Aflac...


Any competent management will weigh all of the benefits and liabilities of hiring, and will proceed in whatever way they consider beneficial to the overall benefit of the company. What you ignore, is that the uncertainty in the tax and regulatory future, is a large element of the possible future liability, and results in many less jobs than would occur without that uncertainty. The overall difference in the millions of decisions over whether to hire, or not to hire, determine the business environment, not specific entities that make decisions that you like.

This is a valid point and I concede that you're correct when you say ObamaCare might be a minor, acnillary factor. What the OP points out is that many people think that ObamaCare (which does indeed, suck) and the mere possibility that Obama might raise taxes someday, are the complete and sole reasons why companies aren't hiring - which is simply ludicrous. Again, if any of those companies were experience a sudden and dramatic increase in demand, they would hire as necessary - just as Motorola has.
 

What happened? Someone come in and point out that there are plenty of businesses that are actually not hiring because of Obamacare, and provided the links to back it up?

No. I used the blog because I'm on several boards and it's just easier that way. Unfortunately CaliGirl had a shit fit went all menstral at the mods and they deleted it. Some people are just small and petty. Waddya gonna do?

No Worries! I'll cut & paste on this board. Here ya go!

"Small and big businesses aren't hiring because of ObamaCare and / or because Obama is so anti-business, they're concerned he'll raise taxes!"
I've seen this foolish propaganda posted by Joe Average on several internet boards, in the comments sections of the Wall Street Journal and CNN and so on. Lord only knows who came up with this nonsense.
Obviously, whoever it was counted on an audience with two qualities:
1. They never owned or ran a small to medium sized business and
2. They never had division level or greater management experience in a large company.
Small Business
If a small business like mine experiences an increase in demand for their products or services, we have to react. If that means hiring more people, so be it. The key advantages of small business are speed and flexibility. If they do not capitalize on market conditions and opportunities, they won't remain in business long.
Additionally, small businesses can realize an immediate increase in revenues of ten to up one thousand percent. Remember, many small businesses realize gross revenues of less than one hundred thousand a year. A sudden surge in demand and in some cases, a single order can launch a small company to the next level.
So the idea that a business owner wouldn't hire the people needed to meet that demand because of a health bill that doesn't even take effect for years, is preposterous. The same goes with a tax increase that may never take place.
Big Business
Big businesses aren't as flexible or nimble as their smaller counterparts but the concept that a large business wouldn't hire to meet demand and increase profits is just as absurd. Managers are responsible for the profitability of their group or division. Executives are responsible to the board and / or shareholders at the quarterly meeting.
If a surge in demand occurs that could net the company millions or hundreds of millions, Executives and managers don't fail to meet the demand because of a few thousand dollars in benefits or a tax increase that may or may not ever occur.
For example, Motorola has been hiring at all levels for over a year. Why? The introduction of their answer to the IPhone (the Droid) exceeded all expectations. There was zero chance that the executives of Motorola would have gone to the shareholders and said "Well, we decided not to make the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased profits, because some day years from now, there might be an increase in one part of the benefits package we offer employees or maybe Obama might raise taxes some day."


Other examples of companies that have been aggressively hiring to meet demand are Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis and Aflac. Demand has increased for their products or services. They have hired to meet that demand. That's just business basics.

Personally, I consider ObamaCare a disaster and one of his biggest mistakes. To me, the bill is 1,800 pages of pure garbage and four pages of good ideas (eliminating pre-existing conditions, covering kids through college). But it has absolutely no impact on my hiring decisions or those of other executives. We view ObamaCare and taxes exactly the same way. If we can realize a gain in profits, we'll figure out how to deal with the other factors. That's why we're in charge. If we can't, then we shouldn't be in charge

Good, you provide one opinion, which means I get to counter it with multiple opinions of people who are actually involved in a business, not writing blogs about business. (I used to be a business consultant, I know the difference between talking about business and running one.)

dqj0jtmioui2ve6r8pnhqq.gif


Gov't Regulations at Top of Small-Business Owners' Problem List

Doesn't look like they think government regulation/taxes/Obamacare is a myth.
 
Y'all just might want to take a peek before posting the Standard ConservaRepub Pat Answer From Page 9 of the Pundit Prep Sheet.

OhPoo: I name two examples in the OP. My business (I don't hide behind the anonymity of the net) and Motorola - which kinda blows the whole "They're not hiring because of Obama!" thing right out of the water.
Other examples are Sears, Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis, Aflac...


Any competent management will weigh all of the benefits and liabilities of hiring, and will proceed in whatever way they consider beneficial to the overall benefit of the company. What you ignore, is that the uncertainty in the tax and regulatory future, is a large element of the possible future liability, and results in many less jobs than would occur without that uncertainty. The overall difference in the millions of decisions over whether to hire, or not to hire, determine the business environment, not specific entities that make decisions that you like.

This is a valid point and I concede that you're correct when you say ObamaCare might be a minor, acnillary factor. What the OP points out is that many people think that ObamaCare (which does indeed, suck) and the mere possibility that Obama might raise taxes someday, are the complete and sole reasons why companies aren't hiring - which is simply ludicrous. Again, if any of those companies were experience a sudden and dramatic increase in demand, they would hire as necessary - just as Motorola has.

And. conversely, if they were not experiencing an increase in demand, they might choose to sit on their money rather than reinvest in new equipment and a new product like they normally would when they weren't concerned about the potential impact of taxes/Obamacare/regulations.
 
Its not going to cause them to pass up profits, idiot.

Nope. Just prevent them from making them in the first place. Which is the problem.

If I can make a $3 profit selling a $5 item and then the government regulation increases the production from $2 per item to $7 per item, my potential profits have been eliminated. The only option I have is to increase the price, which decreases potential profits. Especially if a competitor can keep their product at the $5 range.

Those with more flexibility to eat costs, such as a large corporation, will have a better chance at surviving than a small business on a tight budget.

LOL! Well nothing like going juuust a little EXTREME! So. A tax or regulation that increases cost 350%?!?!?! Yeah, THAT is um, well, yeah okay. Get that analogy from Drudge, did you? :lol:

You're not really familiar with the costs of compliance to government regulations, are you?

Shall I take your response as a concession that if my figures are correct, you would see the big problem at hand?
 
Its not going to cause them to pass up profits, idiot.

Nope. Just prevent them from making them in the first place. Which is the problem.

If I can make a $3 profit selling a $5 item and then the government regulation increases the production from $2 per item to $7 per item, my potential profits have been eliminated. The only option I have is to increase the price, which decreases potential profits. Especially if a competitor can keep their product at the $5 range.

Please use realistic examples. We're talking about CURRENT REALITY - not hypothetical reality. There is no tax that has gone up from $2 to $7.

There shouldn't even be a need for you to make up a hypothetical example - if its really happening then real reality should be littered with real examples that actually happen.


Those with more flexibility to eat costs, such as a large corporation, will have a better chance at surviving than a small business on a tight budget.


The latter statement is generally true, it has nothing to do with taxes or regulatory costs in particular. Large businesses can - in general - survive ANY obstacle better than small ones.

I haven't mentioned taxes whatsoever. I seriously think some of you underestimate how much compliance to government regulations can cost a business.
 
Heck of a lot of fear mongering Pub BS though, not to mention the no compromise "un-American" (TIME) paralysis that led to the credit rating drop, according to S+P.

STILL better than another Pub scandal ridden boom (for the rich) and bust (for the rest)...A DEPRESSION that cost 3 trillion to avert...
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top