Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

O'Neill's "Price of Loyalty"

Expand Messages
  • Richard Risemberg
    Interesting analysis & proposal, putting forth the concept that encouraging small businesses will be better for the economy than pandering to corporations.
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2004
      Interesting analysis & proposal, putting forth the concept that encouraging small businesses will be better for the economy than pandering to corporations. Since we already know that that is better for communities, this could be useful to us.

      Richard

      http://www.merkinvestments.com/archive-by-date/2004/2004-02-01.en.html
    • dubluth
      I don t see anything proposed in this article. Perhaps those are to be infered from the problems listed for small business creation which include 1) a
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 3, 2004
        I don't see anything proposed in this article. Perhaps those are to
        be infered from the "problems" listed for small business creation
        which include
        1) a negative pshychological environment was created by talk of
        terrorism and by badmouthing the state of the economy
        2) taxation on individuals has risen while corporate taxes have been
        falling
        3) it would be easier for large businesses to budget for compliance
        with uniformly applied regulations than small businesses
        4) consumer debt is high

        The first issue in the list is a matter of data and its effect on
        investment behaviour. Entrepreneurs have the task of evaluating data
        and undertaking new ventures based on their assessments of risks and
        possibilities for profits. The authors are suggesting that the data,
        in the form of hyped terrorism threats and business difficulty, is
        causing potential entrepreneurs to be more conservative than is
        warranted. Telling these people that they are being too wary may
        change some minds, but other people would want new data or analysis
        telling them WHY they are wrong. Even while claiming that there is
        too much caution, the authors say interest rate risks should be a
        matter of much more concern.

        Are we to correct 2) by raising corporate taxes or by lowering
        individual income taxes? Of course, lowering taxes raises the federal
        budget deficit and there are reasons not to do that.

        The tax on personal incomes has risen because of the social security
        tax. The social security tax is paid by workers and isn't a priority
        for tax cutting politicianss who are in the service of wealthier
        Americans. A social security tax cut has little chance of passage
        while the political momentum is for reducing progressive taxes and
        while the deficit is even a minor concern.

        Perhaps the letter is suggesting (in weak, veiled language) that the
        political tide should be reversed. Is raising corporate taxes the way
        to do this? (I think Paul O'Neill might disagree.) In any case, a
        much clearer case needs to be made, along with the evidence that it
        would help local economies.

        Finally on the tax issue, small businesses' special relationship with
        income taxes would be a necessary part of any such analysis. To evade
        taxation, many small business owners and employees don't report all of
        their income. For that reason it is easy to overestimate the stimulus
        that a tax cut would provide to entrepreneurship. There are also tax
        reasons for individuals to claim to be a small business owners. A
        famous example is the tax writeoff one can obtain for a passenger
        truck (SUV).

        There seems to be much agreement that the tax code needs to be
        overhauled and simplified. That might help those small businesses
        that aren't in it for the tax advantages and who's owners aren't
        investors in corporations that move offshore. The authors of the
        letter may not have wanted to dare propose that much, but a tax
        overhaul may be a large part of the solution.

        The harm or danger that a regulation is intended to prevent would
        usually exist in both small and large businesses. The last I heard,
        businesses that can be classified as small are exempt from some
        regulations. The discriminatory application of regulations should
        serve some positive purpose that offsets the harm that arises where
        the regulations don't apply. The presumption is that the good for
        small business competitiveness positively offsets the harm that comes
        with regulatory avoidance. Many of us would prefer to know that this
        conclusion was the result of examination and not lobbying.

        The authors would like to see consumers taking on less debt so that
        interest rates would fall even more. Small business could then afford
        capital to expand. However, both job exporters and local firms
        benefit from lower interest rates.

        If people do follow the advice to save more (or not go so far into
        debt), cutbacks in consumer spending may likely fall more heavily on
        local goods and services - such as restaraunt meals and massages -
        hurting local commerce.

        I'm missing something.

        Bill

        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Richard Risemberg <rickrise@e..
        .> wrote:
        > Interesting analysis & proposal, putting forth the concept that
        encouraging small businesses will be better for the economy than
        pandering to corporations. Since we already know that that is better
        for communities, this could be useful to us.
        >
        > Richard
        >
        > http://www.merkinvestments.com/archive-by-date/2004/2004-02-01.en.
        html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.