Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

[.blank cd]

File a 1099. Don't authorize anyone to take you're money.

How is that possible when all of those things came decades after the 16th Amendment?

16th Amendment - ratified Feb. 1913
Social Security - 1935
Medicare - 1965
Welfare programs (part of Johnson Great Society initiatives) - 1960's.

Tell me again how an Amendment ratified in 1913 was meant for these programs.

im talking about all of these.

Not given, taken. Remember, if I dont give, I face jail time.

Very much given. In fact, I look at it as a cost of being a citizen. Even at the amount I pay, it really has no effect on me. I don't complain about it. I still make enough to survive and maintain a decent quality of life. The little I give to them wouldn't change much if they stopped taking it or if they took less. Where I'm at, I would just save what they stopped taking and it wouldn't help anyone.....

Yes, taxes for things like police and fire protection and the US military are a necessary evil. Welfare, foreign aid, money to foreign labor unions, money to the UN, etc are not necessary evils. The US could cut funding to the UN today and use that to pay down more debt than we will from Obama's proposed tax increases.

Sure, you could. They could also cut the military budget in half and still spend more than every other country in the world and use those billions for something else, but the debt isn't necessarily out of control, and we could lose the economic benefit of the military or the UN. Don't look at the debt and deficit as a negative bank account number because that's not really what it is. It doesn't work like your bank account.

[BanginJimmy]

im talking about all of these.

You didnt explain how an Amendment passed decades before any of the programs were even conceived was meant to pay for them.

Very much given. In fact, I look at it as a cost of being a citizen. Even at the amount I pay, it really has no effect on me. I don't complain about it. I still make enough to survive and maintain a decent quality of life. The little I give to them wouldn't change much if they stopped taking it or if they took less. Where I'm at, I would just save what they stopped taking and it wouldn't help anyone.....

I am not really complaining about the amount of taxes. The amount I pay is neither small nor insignificant so I would notice a sizable rise in quality of life with that money.

Sure, you could. They could also cut the military budget in half and still spend more than every other country in the world and use those billions for something else, but the debt isn't necessarily out of control, and we could lose the economic benefit of the military or the UN. Don't look at the debt and deficit as a negative bank account number because that's not really what it is. It doesn't work like your bank account.

Look again at our military budget and compare it on a line by line basis to other countries. The largest difference you will see is in personnel costs. If you reduced pay and quality of life programs to that of China or even England, you would find that our military budget is not nearly as far out of balance as it is by just looking at the final numbers.

I do agree we need to reduce military spending. IMO, we should leave Europe completely. Maybe we could keep a division or so worth of equipment there and a small contingent, maybe a company, for security and maintenance, but close our bases and bring a few thousand troops back to the US. Still too much going on in Asia for me to have the same opinion about there. We are probably looking at ~50B in savings on a yearly basis by doing this.

If the debt is not big deal, why not just stop paying it? That alone would be 200B more a year we could use for any number of programs or just to reduce the deficit.

[.blank cd]

You didnt explain how an Amendment passed decades before any of the programs were even conceived was meant to pay for them.

Cause I'm not distinguishing them. I'm talking about income taxes along with all the other stuff.

I am not really complaining about the amount of taxes. The amount I pay is neither small nor insignificant so I would notice a sizable rise in quality of life with that money.

Hmmm....

Look again at our military budget and compare it on a line by line basis to other countries. The largest difference you will see is in personnel costs. If you reduced pay and quality of life programs to that of China or even England, you would find that our military budget is not nearly as far out of balance as it is by just looking at the final numbers.

I do agree we need to reduce military spending. IMO, we should leave Europe completely. Maybe we could keep a division or so worth of equipment there and a small contingent, maybe a company, for security and maintenance, but close our bases and bring a few thousand troops back to the US. Still too much going on in Asia for me to have the same opinion about there. We are probably looking at ~50B in savings on a yearly basis by doing this.

however you want to look at it, it could be cut significantly and still be effective at "defending our interests". But the more you look at what you're paying for, the more you understand the economic benefit of such a large military. The only thing Id suggest cutting is all active engagements, and this stupid war on an idea. It's a war we'd be fighting for centuries if we let them. We might as well be fighting a war on violence.

If the debt is not big deal, why not just stop paying it? That alone would be 200B more a year we could use for any number of programs or just to reduce the deficit.

Because paying it down doesn't do much for the economy. Not paying it would just ruin our credit rating. Clearing the debt without significant growth would probably do a lot worse, and wiping out the deficit without growth would probably do the same thing. We do a pretty good job keeping it in check. The incredibly intricate balancing act we call expansionary fiscal and monetary policy is working.

[BanginJimmy]

Because paying it down doesn't do much for the economy. Not paying it would just ruin our credit rating. Clearing the debt without significant growth would probably do a lot worse, and wiping out the deficit without growth would probably do the same thing. We do a pretty good job keeping it in check. The incredibly intricate balancing act we call expansionary fiscal and monetary policy is working.

This is laughable.

Our fiscal and monetary policy is creating a new bubble and will eventually burst and lead to massive inflation and a massive rise in interest rates. On top of that, all the govt spending and all the money the fed is dumping into the system, we can still only manage sub 2% growth?

[.blank cd]

This is laughable.

Our fiscal and monetary policy is creating a new bubble and will eventually burst and lead to massive inflation and a massive rise in interest rates.

What kind of bubble are you talking about and how do you figure it does that?

[Sinfix_15]

File a 1099. Don't authorize anyone to take you're money.

[.blank cd]

The phone autocorrected that one.

[bu villain]

If that was the case, why do so man in the country think the rich are the cause of all wrongs? Those greedy evil rich people are working to keep people down. blah blah blah.

I wasn't implying that all people feel that rich = better, but many do as evidenced by Vteck's statement. My main point is that people want to use their personal value system, whether it is rich = better or rich = worse, and impose it on others. Holding too strongly on to any of these ideologies is dangerous because it doesn't leave room for all the subtleties and variance in what a good life can look like.

Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Its not that making more money means a better person. Its that we see people who make little money consistently doing the wrong things.

But people should be judged by their actions, not their bank accounts. A good person can be rich or poor.

What if it was a gallon of milk and not a ferrari? My point being is you arbitrarily decide what is "too much" and what is "not enough" based upon what you think is a level of wealth. You pass judgement on others that you know nothing about.

All you see is a Ferrari, I see a guy who worked his ass off to make a ton of money, and its his right to spend his money how he wants. Now, should their business decline and he has to sell a Ferrari, then I have no problem with that. But, if a group of people are going to say "YOU CANT HAVE THAT, ITS TOO MUCH" because they dont know any better and their motives are to fleece the wealthy because they are not wealthy themselves.............

well then i draw the line there.

I don't think blank is drawing such a strict line as you say, nor is it based on envy. Your argument that a decline in business that results in less money is acceptable but a change in legislation that results in less money is not acceptable seems to ignore the fact that currently doctor's pay is already heavily influenced by of a lot of regulation. What makes the status quo correct and any possible legislation that could result in a decrease in salary, wrong? Keep in mind the medical system is not anything like a free market system now, so that can't be your whole justification.

[Sinfix_15]

My place of employment has cut a lot of it's workforce because of this.

[.blank cd]

Workplace fires employees to circumvent laws...

....blame Obama. Got it.

Poor employers. They should be able to circumvent laws if they want. I mean, you and I can circumvent laws...right?

[Sinfix_15]

Workplace fires employees to circumvent laws...

....blame Obama. Got it.

Poor employers. They should be able to circumvent laws if they want. I mean, you and I can circumvent laws...right?

Here's some irony for you.....

This guy i know who isnt me, that works at this place that i dont work.....

had to fire all of the temp employees when the minimum wage went up. Company pays the temp agency $10-12hr, then the temp agency pays it's workers 7-8 or whatever they pay, so now that min wage went up to $9, that doesnt mean the company is going to pay them $12-14 to adjust for their cut.

That in addition to obamacare cuts..... lot of people being told to kick rocks.

[Vteckidd]

What they are doing is totally legal.

Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.

Not circumventing, just being smart.

You do it every year when you do your taxes.

[Sinfix_15]

What they are doing is totally legal.

Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.

Not circumventing, just being smart.

You do it every year when you do your taxes.

You can only trust a business to do what is profitable.... the government needs to quit fighting that and work with it. Make it profitable for business' to do what's in everyone's best interest rather than thinking you can stomp your foot and get your way.

[.blank cd]

What they are doing is totally legal.

Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.

Not circumventing, just being smart.

You do it every year when you do your taxes.

Except when I do my taxes, I don't put anyone out of a job. Lol

Not saying its illegal. My problem is that the practice is acceptable.

Late 60s "Hey rich people, we're gonna cut the shit out of your taxes and deregulate the system a little bit so you can invest and this and that and make this country the wealthiest nation ever"

"FUCK YEA that's awesome!"

Late 2000s "Hey rich people, now that you've amassed unimaginable wealth, we're gonna bump your taxes back up a little bit because we kinda marginalized the middle class some and we want to strengthen that sector now and give those guys some better healthcare"

"FUCK NO. IT'S MY MONEY, Y U DEMONIZE THE RICH, PULL YOURSELVES UP, MOOCHERS, WELFARE QUEENS"

" -_______- "

[Vteckidd]

The problem is, and always has been, that your side ignores what wealth does.

If i give you a free $100, you either save it which creates wealth, or spend it which creates more wealth (it employs someone, buys materials, allows a business to turn a profit, etc).

When you TAKE $100 from someone, that $100 as our govt has shown over the vast amount of years, doesnt do 1/10th of what the private $100 does. It goes to kickbacks, it goes to waste, it goes to red tape, etc.

your argument is also flawed because you are 10000% wrong. When you "do it on your taxes" you do cost jobs. The money you pay in taxes doesnt go into the private economy. It doesnt create anything. Youre also arguing that its perfectly ok for you to game the system, but its not ok for someone else based upon the only assumption that they are richer than you are.

Again, this is your wealth envy complex. YOu are ok with rules for 1 class of people , but not another. You vehemently deny it, but it surfaces in almost every argument you make.

Hey man let me teach you something, sometimes, businesses lay workers off for.....................PROFIT.......*GASP* its part of the cycle.

[.blank cd]

The problem is, and always has been, that your side ignores what wealth does.

I don't have a side, I just follow what the principles of economics says.

If i give you a free $100, you either save it which creates wealth, or spend it which creates more wealth (it employs someone, buys materials, allows a business to turn a profit, etc).

When you TAKE $100 from someone, that $100 as our govt has shown over the vast amount of years, doesnt do 1/10th of what the private $100 does. It goes to kickbacks, it goes to waste, it goes to red tape, etc.

your argument is also flawed because you are 10000% wrong. When you "do it on your taxes" you do cost jobs. The money you pay in taxes doesnt go into the private economy. It doesnt create anything. Youre also arguing that its perfectly ok for you to game the system, but its not ok for someone else based upon the only assumption that they are richer than you are.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or if there's a breakdown in your understanding of economics or taxation here, but you've just contradicted yourself. If I file for a return and get $1000 back, that means I've overpaid what I've been obligated to pay. For someone like me, most of that will get spent. If I itemize and got $2000 back, most of that money will also get spent. So since my MPC is higher than someone who makes 200k a year, my refund is likely to build more wealth than the guy who makes 200k.

Again, this is your wealth envy complex. YOu are ok with rules for 1 class of people , but not another. You vehemently deny it, but it surfaces in almost every argument you make.

Sorry if you misunderstand my criticism of an unbalanced system as an attack on rich people. It's not in the least. It's just possible to quantify the benefit of taxes on the rich and express them mathematically. That's all.

Hey man let me teach you something, sometimes, businesses lay workers off for.....................PROFIT.......*GASP* its part of the cycle.

as a business owner myself, if you have to lay off someone to make a profit, you're probably doing something wrong. LOL.

[Vteckidd]

Ok mr Prof.

Explain to me how the rule of production happens. Production and investment cannot happen without saving. Saving cannot happen without income surplus. Income surplus comes from a job/wage.

1) If you get money back, you are giving the govt an interest free loan and you have no idea how to predict your tax liability. Get a new accountant.
2) The fact you compare "getting taxes back" to a business having to "pay more in taxes" is crude, laughable, and just distorted.
3) businesses operate along 2 curves, the SRAC and LRAC curves. Costs are divided into 2 categories , can you name them? Explicit and implicit.
4) A dollar that increases cost, is a dollar that cannot be invested unless that cost is related to investment. Meaning, you like to act like a businesses PROFIT is some guy with a ferrari shitting on poor people. Its not. MOST businesses REINVEST and expand as they gain more in profit. That leads to hiring. that leads to growth. That leads to more tax revenues.

In short, when a business is TAXED, it passes that cost ONTO the consumer, it NEVER absorbs it because it CANNOT. A business is designed to run FOR PROFIT. They dont just ABSORB costs and say "oh well we will just pay an extra 1 million in taxes this year no big deal, thats 12 less yachts for us". It doesnt work that way. It may work like that for .00000001% of some businesses out there, but not the majority. Not even close.

So, like i have always said, youll get your healthcare at the expense of a job. Businesses are just doing what they always do, they pass costs onto the consumer, and yes they will lay people off.

IF i came into your business and tol you that your rent is now DOUBLE what it was last month, you would have 2 choices: A) shed costs (layoffs, materials) B) close up shop. If your answer is C) just pay that added rent and not change anything, that points more to the ineptitude of you running a business vs my knowledge of economics

remember, I run million dollar businesses daily, i ran my own company for 5 years, I have direct knowledge of this.

P.S. Thats not to say that if you are making $100k a month in profit and your rent is $100 and goes to $200 you have to lay someone off. Im talking in general normal terms because market rent is a reflection of local sq/footage and in most cases doubling of rent would severely cripple a local business.

[.blank cd]

2) The fact you compare "getting taxes back" to a business having to "pay more in taxes" is crude, laughable, and just distorted.

I didnt, at all really. You were just talking about doing taxes and spending and saving so I went with that.

3) businesses operate along 2 curves, the SRAC and LRAC curves. Costs are divided into 2 categories , can you name them? Explicit and implicit.

whats the point?

4) A dollar that increases cost, is a dollar that cannot be invested unless that cost is related to investment. Meaning, you like to act like a businesses PROFIT is some guy with a ferrari shitting on poor people. Its not. MOST businesses REINVEST and expand as they gain more in profit. That leads to hiring. that leads to growth. That leads to more tax revenues.

Facepalm. I've never acted like business profit is some some guy with a Ferrari shitting on poor people. Ever.

In short, when a business is TAXED, it passes that cost ONTO the consumer, it NEVER absorbs it because it CANNOT. A business is designed to run FOR PROFIT. They dont just ABSORB costs and say "oh well we will just pay an extra 1 million in taxes this year no big deal, thats 12 less yachts for us". It doesnt work that way. It may work like that for .00000001% of some businesses out there, but not the majority. Not even close

Never say never.

IF i came into your business and tol you that your rent is now DOUBLE what it was last month, you would have 2 choices: A) shed costs (layoffs, materials) B) close up shop. If your answer is C) just pay that added rent and not change anything, that points more to the ineptitude of you running a business vs my knowledge of economics

I guess then I'm that single outlier who has zero knowledge of economics yet runs a profitable business that can afford to pay his employees more than minimum wage and healthcare it up and not complain about taxes and Obamacare in the process. LOL.

P.S. Thats not to say that if you are making $100k a month in profit and your rent is $100 and goes to $200 you have to lay someone off.

Hmmm. I think you might understand what I'm saying more than you think you do.

[Vteckidd]

ok what type of business do you own.

you cant convince me otherwise, any business owner who gets a COST added to him will pass that cost on, because they have to. Its econ 101. This notion that you operate some business and you can do what others cant is just factually wrong. At some point when your SRAC meet up with your LRAC projections, you WILL have to make a choice. Are you really going to force me to break it down into apples and apples?

Your Cost =X
Your Revenue = Y
Your Profit=y-X=Z

IF, at some point your X=Y you will have no choice, BUT to cut something. benefits, labor, operations, etc.

Youre the business owner, you are the one that took the risk to open a business to employ people. YOU OWN those jobs, not the workers. If your cost rises, you will, at some point in the graph, be forced to make cuts. This is what is happening in Obamacare and you are claiming "oh they are circumventing the law"

LOL for someone who claims to be scientific, you should know this isnt even a debate. Years of economics back this up, i can post charts if you wish.

Im sure youll try to say something about how noble you are and you would refuse to pay your rent so someone can stay employed, but thats just not factually true. Your responsbility is to run your business as a profit, if you do that, job layoffs are not a problem. If your profit gets encroached upon, you make cuts in areas to absorb that cost or you raise prices or you do both.

[.blank cd]

ok what type of business do you own.

Childcare.

This notion that you operate some business and you can do what others cant is just factually wrong.

My business model Isn't new or novel at all. Some go down a different path, but there are some big name companies who follow a similar model.

At some point when your SRAC meet up with your LRAC projections, you WILL have to make a choice. Are you really going to force me to break it down into apples and apples?

Your Cost =X
Your Revenue = Y
Your Profit=y-X=Z

IF, at some point your X=Y you will have no choice, BUT to cut something. benefits, labor, operations, etc.

If my X = my Y, I don't have to shift the costs to the customers. I go get more Y by getting more clients, offering more services, whatever. A lot of companies seem to be doing the opposite. Instead of offering more services, or a better product, they just increase the cost on the same product or service. Inflating the market value. All of this helps me in the long term by not inflating the market price of my service. Now I can clear a profit by having the lowest cost to the consumer.

Another problem is greed. And before you say "greed doesn't exist blah blah blah", stop. Greed exists, we're all greedy to some extent, some more than others. Like you mentioned before, some absorb costs that are comparatively small to their profits, like your example of someone clearing 100k a month in profit absorbing a $100 increase in rent like its no big deal. So why then is it a big deal to absorb 100k in healthcare costs to someone who clears millions of dollars in profits? Everyone wants to invest in a quick short term gain, no one it seems can handle the long term. No one wants to invest in any kind of long term stability if it means coming off some of their profits.

I could charge $20/hr for the services we provide. And we could probably clean up pretty quick and get out before the market for it collapses. But I don't. I can charge a percentage of that and undercut the market, get more long term clients and still make about the same in profit over a long term.

Im sure youll try to say something about how noble you are and you would refuse to pay your rent so someone can stay employed, but thats just not factually true. Your responsbility is to run your business as a profit, if you do that, job layoffs are not a problem. If your profit gets encroached upon, you make cuts in areas to absorb that cost or you raise prices or you do both.

It doesn't have anything to do with how noble I am. I know how to use capitalism to my advantage and benefit everyone in the process. My responsibility is to run my business as effectively as I can. When my costs go up, I simply do what any business person should be doing in the first place, offering a better/extra service/product.

I'm not the only one who practices this method. There are quite a few millionaires and business owners out there who think the same way, they're just getting tuned out by the echo chamber because the hivemind thinks its "socialism". Lol.

[Vteckidd]

If my X = my Y, I don't have to shift the costs to the customers. I go get more Y by getting more clients, offering more services, whatever.

this is all i needed to see. You dont know how business works.

You cannot expand without hiring. So now business are magic entities that just "go out and get more profit" like its grown in the back yard. LOL funny

So if you operate at $10,000 in revenue a month to break even, and now your costs go to $15,000 a month, you have to make that up. Right now you are operating at a -$5000 hole.

You are at capacity, so you must hire more resources. Problem is that costs investment aka money. Labor doesnt grow on trees. You cannot take on more work without expansion. A prudent business owner would figure out how to become more efficient and capitalize on the labor you have to see if they can make a difference. But at those numbers you cannot. You will have to lay people off, or cut costs.

Or you are arguing that you are cool with overworking and underpaying your labor force in order for you to make up the extra revenue. Sounds very anti liberal to me.

Remember you are supposed to operate at max profit already. Meaning you cannot just add more work to your labor force because if you can, you were inefficient to begin with.

[.blank cd]

this is all i needed to see. You dont know how business works.

Shit. Fuck me, right? Running a business while keeping people employed with benefits and turning a profit. Must be doing something wrong. LOL

You cannot expand without hiring. So now business are magic entities that just "go out and get more profit" like its grown in the back yard. LOL funny

Sometimes you can expand without hiring. But no, didnt say profit was grown in the backyard.

So if you operate at $10,000 in revenue a month to break even, and now your costs go to $15,000 a month, you have to make that up. Right now you are operating at a -$5000 hole.

...so you must hire more resources. Problem is that costs investment aka money. Labor doesnt grow on trees. You cannot take on more work without expansion. A prudent business owner would figure out how to become more efficient and capitalize on the labor you have to see if they can make a difference. But at those numbers you cannot. You will have to lay people off, or cut costs.

Welcome to the Intro to Deficit Spending 101! There will be a test after this lesson.

This might separate the smart business owners from the SMART business owners.

Or you are arguing that you are cool with overworking and underpaying your labor force in order for you to make up the extra revenue. Sounds very anti liberal to me.

Not cool with that at all, but my people get paid more than minimum wage, which is more than the market rate, so I'm not worried about that.

[Vteckidd]

Deficit spending applied to govt , not small business.

You just dont know what you are talking about. You double talk yourself into a corner. Deficit spending to a small business would be a short term loan to meet payroll or something while waiting for business or accounts to be settled, it is NOT for operating at a loss.

ONLY THE GOVT can operate at a loss. No private company can do that.

Seriously, go take a Macro Econ class, you are just making stuff up to fit your logic, which is proven through years of theory and research and examples to be wrong.

AND LOL at smart business owners operate at a loss with deficit spending. Thats the last i needed to read. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you never have to deal with what im talking about, but history isnt on your side. There will come a time you will have to make a choice, and a lightbulb will go off )

*unsubscribed

[bu villain]

I'm afraid to get in the middle of this business savvy dick measuring contest but you both seem to be a little rigid in your thinking. You both make valid points. Blank is right that businesses can operate at a loss, a large percentage do when the first start especially. Of course that is not sustainable forever but savings and capital raising can pay bills until profitability can be reached. Vteck is also correct that many companies will choose to reduce workforce as a method of dealing with increased costs. There isn't going to be a single universal response to health care changes by companies. Every company will handle it differently depending on their circumstances. It is pointless to argue as if business is some monolithic entity that will behave as a single company might. These theoretical arguments aren't going anywhere.

[.blank cd]

You just dont know what you are talking about. You double talk yourself into a corner. Deficit spending to a small business would be a short term loan to meet payroll or something while waiting for business or accounts to be settled, it is NOT for operating at a loss.

ONLY THE GOVT can operate at a loss. No private company can do that.

Why do you disagree with what I said, and then confirm what I said. Deficit spending. Governments use it, business use it. Period. This is indisputable. Lol.

Seriously, go take a Macro Econ class, you are just making stuff up to fit your logic, which is proven through years of theory and research and examples to be wrong.

I've taken macro, I've taken micro. All of it backs up what I'm saying.

To say that only governments use deficit spending is demonstrably false. I would venture to say more than half of all businesses use or have used deficit spending at some point, shit, I'd say 90% unless you have some kind of unlimited capital already. I just don't think you fully understand what it is, or maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I feel like you believe the only method to run a successful business is through the profit motive. It works for some, but some of the big ones in the public eye, you see what ends up happening to them.

AND LOL at smart business owners operate at a loss with deficit spending. Thats the last i needed to read. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you never have to deal with what im talking about, but history isnt on your side. There will come a time you will have to make a choice, and a lightbulb will go off )

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both "operated at a loss" when they first started. They seemed to do alright. History and facts are both on my side though. So I think I'll do just fine.

But hey, you can still prove me wrong. Just show me that deficit spending isn't used in businesses AT ALL, and I'll concede. Good luck. Lol.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending

I particularly like the part that says:

"The term may be applied to the budget of a government, private company, or individual"

LOL.

Anyone else want to debate facts?

[.blank cd]

I'm afraid to get in the middle of this business savvy dick measuring contest but you both seem to be a little rigid in your thinking. You both make valid points. Blank is right that businesses can operate at a loss, a large percentage do when the first start especially. Of course that is not sustainable forever but savings and capital raising can pay bills until profitability can be reached. Vteck is also correct that many companies will choose to reduce workforce as a method of dealing with increased costs. There isn't going to be a single universal response to health care changes by companies. Every company will handle it differently depending on their circumstances. It is pointless to argue as if business is some monolithic entity that will behave as a single company might. These theoretical arguments aren't going anywhere.

Yeah. I didn't say companies didnt reduce workforce to cover increased costs. I'm just saying there are other ways of doing it. And I'm saying deficit spending is one of those ways, Vteckidd, it seems to me, is suggesting that only governments use deficit spending, and that's far from accurate.

[bu villain]

Agreed. I don't understand why he said private companies don't use deficit spending because in other statements he seems to acknowledge that they do. Facebook operated at a loss for years. I think they just started turning a profit recently. My point is, you all seem to be trying very hard to find flaws in each others details, insulting each other along the way, and the discussion is getting further and further away from the original topic.

[.blank cd]

Agreed. I don't understand why he said private companies don't use deficit spending because in other statements he seems to acknowledge that they do. Facebook operated at a loss for years. I think they just started turning a profit recently. My point is, you all seem to be trying very hard to find flaws in each others details, insulting each other along the way, and the discussion is getting further and further away from the original topic.

I would say most businesses operated at some degree of loss unless you already had a great deal of capital to start.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but I'm not trying to pretend like the principles of economics cease exist because I'm not a vulture capitalist. Lol. I operate well outside of the profit motive system, and a lot of other companies do too. That's just how it is sometimes. Lol

[Vteckidd]

They don't operate at deficit spending in LRAC Jesus you guys don't read what I write at all.

Its OK only see what you want to see.

[Vteckidd]

Go to any bank and tell them your business plan is to run at a deficit. They will laugh you out of the building.

You are not seeing my point. This is what you do though when we get in technical debates. You pick out info to prove a point I was never arguing then say something like "because facts"

Or you respond with stuff like "so what" or "your point being ?"

Businesses cannot operate longterm at a loss. Deficit spending doesn't solve your increase in srac or lrac curves.

Therefore no private business can operate with deficit spending

[Vteckidd]

Profit is what businesses run on, not credit. No sustainable business model operates on credit only. Period.

[.blank cd]

Profit is what businesses run on, not credit. No sustainable business model operates on credit only. Period.

Revenue. Revenue is what businesses run on

[.blank cd]

Go to any bank and tell them your business plan is to run at a deficit. They will laugh you out of the building.

A business loan is pretty much deficit spending. I don't even have to get it from a bank

If I get 100 more clients and I need to pay 10 employees before I see the revenue from those extra clients, I can dip into profits I've already made, I can dip into my savings account, or I can get a bank loan to cover the expenses. Deficit spending.

Businesses cannot operate longterm at a loss. Deficit spending doesn't solve your increase in srac or lrac curves.

Who said anything about long term?

Therefore no private business can operate with deficit spending

Now you've confused me. Why are businesses operating with deficit spending, despite you saying they don't?

[David88vert]

I am laughing in this thread. I actually have created and run profitable small businesses, for many years. I also have worked in both mid-size and Fortune 50 companies for years. All employ very different business models. One thing is in common - none stay in business, or attract shareholders, without showing profitability.

If you are operating your small business at a deficit for more than 3 years, the IRS does not consider you a business, but rather a hobby.
Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions

Now, there are some ways that you can get around it, but that generally means that you have an asset that is depreciating at a faster rate than the revenue that you are bringing in. The IRS does not consider normal daily operations to be in the same category as a depreciating asset.

Now, in the case of FB and Amazon, they had high revenue and a substantial number of employees, and they could show gradual reduction of deficit spending with a realistic profit motive. Additionally, they could prove that they had no other source of income, and had venture capitalists backing the corporation. They were/are in a different class than a small business entity.

[.blank cd]

"The concept of deficit spending in economics is not limited to government use. Businesses of all sizes may choose to spend more money up front in hopes of generating funds to pay off the investment at a later date. For example, a manufacturer may choose to purchase new machinery for a factory, with the understanding that the newer equipment will allow the business to produce more units of goods in less time, and possibly at a lower unit cost. Over time, the benefits derived from this strategy pay off the accumulated debt and allow the business owners to enjoy a budget surplus rather than a budget deficit."

wisegeek.org/what-is-deficit-financing.htm

[Sinfix_15]

Blank lives in a fantasy world. Everyone should be aware of this by now.

[.blank cd]

Blank lives in a fantasy world. Everyone should be aware of this by now.

Thank you for this uneducated filler post. We needed that.

[.blank cd]

I am laughing in this thread. I actually have created and run profitable small businesses, for many years. I also have worked in both mid-size and Fortune 50 companies for years. All employ very different business models. One thing is in common - none stay in business, or attract shareholders, without showing profitability.

If you are operating your small business at a deficit for more than 3 years, the IRS does not consider you a business, but rather a hobby.
Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions

Who said anything about long term deficit spending?

[David88vert]

Who said anything about long term deficit spending?

Why bring it up if you are only talking about short term?
Business models tend to be long term, not short term.

[.blank cd]

I was addressing a point about me expanding so I could increase my bottom line, not that my business model was long term deficit spending.