Obamacare and rate increases - report your results here

[JohnRoberts]

Hudgens probably took pleasure in saying that, whether you do or not.  He came straight out and said he would do everything in his power to obstruct implementation of the ACA (and yes, he did use the word "obstruct."  It was not subtle.)  He's a sleazebag, & I frankly don't trust anything he might say on the matter.

He was interviewed on one of the fox cable shows so no doubt a sympathetic audience if he is anti-ACA, but it's a little late to obstruct the ACA. I only watched a few minutes of his segment and he sounded more like a matter of fact presentation than promoting a partisan position. While his facts were one sided the wrong way for the administration. He was one of the very few I've seen to date offering hard statistics on the back end fulfillment side of these healthcare exchanges.

There is a lot of speculation about how solid these top line numbers are with leadership taking victory laps and declaring it a success. Even if his numbers are somewhat soft, I doubt they are a complete fabrication. One subtle choice of wording that I noticed when he offered the stats was saying that some part of the initial participants "selected" rather than "signed-up" for health care, as if the top line number includes people that may have not finished perfecting the sign-up. 

As has been observed since early on, the success of this program depends on getting high participation rates from the young invincibles and implicit in that participation is that they actually pay the premiums going forward. It is one thing to spin this group up to vote or attend a single pep rally, another thing to stick with the program and pay out of pocket over years.

This (GA) data may be an isolated outlier but I kind of doubt that. The federal government should be reviewing this closely, but if they are, they aren't sharing data with the public.  Perhaps they don't consider this an important detail.

JR

 

[hodad]

He was interviewed on one of the fox cable shows so no doubt a sympathetic audience if he is anti-ACA, but it's a little late to obstruct the ACA.

He's on fox, which is both right-wing and happy to sacrifice the truth in the interest of advancing its agenda, and the speaker is unabashedly and openly opposed to the ACA.  Now, I don't doubt for a second that Hudgens and Fox would be tremendously eager to jump on any failures of the ACA, but forgive me if I'm skeptical of both Hudgens and the network he was speaking on.  I'll wait to pass judgment until I hear from sources less antagonistic toward Obamacare. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

He was interviewed on one of the fox cable shows so no doubt a sympathetic audience if he is anti-ACA, but it's a little late to obstruct the ACA.

He's on fox, which is both right-wing and happy to sacrifice the truth in the interest of advancing its agenda, and the speaker is unabashedly and openly opposed to the ACA.  Now, I don't doubt for a second that Hudgens and Fox would be tremendously eager to jump on any failures of the ACA, but forgive me if I'm skeptical of both Hudgens and the network he was speaking on.  I'll wait to pass judgment until I hear from sources less antagonistic toward Obamacare.

I don't expect to get a straight answer about this before Nov, and maybe not then.

The position according to the administration and some insurance companies is that some 90% of enrollees have paid the premiums, but the insurance companies waffle some saying those figures do not include the late crush of enrollees. The house energy and commerce committee (R so unfriendly toward Obamacare) reports that 67% of enrollees paid premiums as of april 15th.  (only 59% in Louisiana). The house committee claims they polled all the insurance companies involved, while HHS says the  committee only polled about half the companies.

So both sides say the other side is lying. Since there is supposed to be a fine for not signing up (and paying) there should be closer to 100%, but fining people because they can't afford to pay for health insurance seems unproductive.

The GA report of 50%  http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2014/04/georgia-exchange-applications-hit-220000/  seems a lot worse than even LA 59% as reported by the House committee.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  8)

JR

PS: it is intellectually sloppy or lazy to dismiss reports from news organizations you do not sympathize with. I find the biggest distortions from partisan leaning news organizations is lies of omission or news stories they simply ignore because it hurts their side. Many accuse Fox of being overly critical of the current administration's handling of several events, like IRS targeting of  conservative groups, and the Benghazi talking points., etc. While this may fall under the category of "I'm shocked that politics was involved" weeks before the election, a cover up of the cover up, smells really bad. The evidence of this motivation was redacted from the emails when they were originally released to congress, and only made public after a lawsuit from Judicial watch (a conservative group). I likewise expect there to be more than smoke behind Lois Lerner's taking the 5th amendment over her behavior at the IRS. Call me crazy but I am disturbed by the possibility that the administration is using government force against political opponents (IRS and other regulatory groups), or distorting the truth for political advantage. Just to refresh everybody's memory, the administration line before the election was that alkeida and terrorism was beaten down and in retreat. Tell that to Iraq where security forces are having a hard time keeping up on the ground, and syria which is a free for all.  The only reasonably positive development in that area is that the Afghanistan election is down two two leading candidates who are both western leaning technocrats, so that run-off should leave us with a more friendly government. In an odd development in Egypt a court has sentenced some 600+ Muslim Brotherhood followers to death for their participation in deadly riots. That just sound bizarre, Apparently the sentences are not final and have been referred to the grand mufti (Egypt's highest religious authority) to review. Since elections in Egypt are only weeks away, this sounds messy.  Interesting times. 

 

[hodad]

John,  I will always look with skepticism upon the words of those who have a history of being untrustworthy.  Fox and Hudgens both fit in the "untrustworthy" category.  Your comments about the IRS mess shows your own bias, or possibly your reliance on biased media.  The fact is, the IRS targeted left-leaning groups as well.  It target medical marijuana advocacy groups too.  While its tactics were not appropriate, the IRS was simply trying to do its job--the  501c3 and c4 designations aren't supposed to be used for political advocacy groups.  Period.  The IRS employees took a shortcut, which they shouldn't have done.  But this right-wing lunacy about it being an attack on the Tea Party is idiotic and has no basis in reality. 


It's really that simple. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

John,  I will always look with skepticism upon the words of those who have a history of being untrustworthy.  Fox and Hudgens both fit in the "untrustworthy" category.  Your comments about the IRS mess shows your own bias, or possibly your reliance on biased media.  The fact is, the IRS targeted left-leaning groups as well.  It target medical marijuana advocacy groups too.  While its tactics were not appropriate, the IRS was simply trying to do its job--the  501c3 and c4 designations aren't supposed to be used for political advocacy groups.  Period.  The IRS employees took a shortcut, which they shouldn't have done.  But this right-wing lunacy about it being an attack on the Tea Party is idiotic and has no basis in reality. 


It's really that simple.

I guess I'm drinking a different flavor kool-aid than you. 

If Lois Lerner was not breaking any law, she would have no reason to plead her 5th amendment right to not incriminate herself.

The story that this was just low level employees in Cincinnati has already been discredited. This appears to have been directed from DC, not unlike Nixon's enemy list.

Another elephant in the room that media has ignored is that Sen Schumer and other Powerful democrats openly wrote letters to the IRS and called for investigations of conservative political groups he doesn't like.

The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups — a finding that seems to confirm a political bias was at play.
In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/?page=all

caveat I am not familiar with washington times, just came up in google. Maybe they're lying too...

JR  (right wing lunatic?)

 

[SSLtech]

Another elephant in the room that media has ignored is that Sen Schumer and other Powerful democrats openly wrote letters to the IRS and called for investigations of conservative political groups he doesn't like.

Simply playing Devil's advocate here... and because I genuinely don't know either way.

Is it not legal to 'drop the dime' to the IRS on anyone or any group whom you may suspect of tax avoidance or similar abuse? -Surely writing openly would be preferable to doing so in a clandestine manner?

There may be more to this that I don't know, and some of it may indeed stink, but I'd be surprised if he/they are not permitted to do exactly that?

Mind you, I understand that the "if they're not breaking the law then they shouldn't plead the fifth" aspect is something which NOBODY is ever permitted to say in law... Judges are in fact specifically required to point this out each and every time that this is invoked. -Jury instructions are always at pains to repeat that anyone's decision not to testify not should, but *MUST* never be regarded as suggestion of incrimination.

If something is even slightly at risk of becoming distorted or imbalanced, or even faintly whiffs of the risk of partisan battleground, the less on record the better. -The fifth MUST be invoked immediately, since one cannot selectively testify. Given the charged and rancorous atmosphere, I'd hope that I could plead the fifth... Certainly the less said on record the better.

I'm not convinced either way, and I don't know enough (I'm not even convinced that we ever will!) to make a determination. I'm not convinced of spotless innocence, however, nor am I convinced of persecution.

 

[sodderboy]

C'mon!  Keeping the topic scraping the guard rail here, any government employee or office giving a questionnaire asking how someone running a 503c PRAYS is certainly tipping things away from innocence and towards Prayercrimes persecution.  Is it really that grey here?!?  Have they found IRS asking the rope-smokers the same question?  "I pray for good bud, dood!"  The docs are coming slow from the IRS. . .
Mike

 

[hodad]

caveat I am not familiar with washington times, just came up in google. Maybe they're lying too...

JR  (right wing lunatic?)

The Washington Times is well-known for its right wing bias.  Formerly owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.  Not sure who owns it now. 

 

[hodad]

A little balance from the left wing media (with supporting IRS documents):

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

 

[JohnRoberts]

A little balance from the left wing media (with supporting IRS documents):

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

They seem to be answering a different question to obfuscate rather than inform. 

Rev sun young moon quoted the IRS IG... He seems credible, unless he was misquoted.

The amount of money sloshing around in politics is obscene, but like a huge lump of dirt under the rug, every attempt to tamp it down, just allows it to pop us some where else, often with less visibility and transparency.

Maybe term limits where the career politicians do not spend every waking hour trying to raise money to help get re-elected might help. or not...

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Another elephant in the room that media has ignored is that Sen Schumer and other Powerful democrats openly wrote letters to the IRS and called for investigations of conservative political groups he doesn't like.

Simply playing Devil's advocate here... and because I genuinely don't know either way.

Is it not legal to 'drop the dime' to the IRS on anyone or any group whom you may suspect of tax avoidance or similar abuse? -Surely writing openly would be preferable to doing so in a clandestine manner?

Legal and quite profitable... Multi-million dollar rewards have been won for diming on off-shore banking tax cheats.

There may be more to this that I don't know, and some of it may indeed stink, but I'd be surprised if he/they are not permitted to do exactly that?

It seems wildly inappropriate for a politician to target opposition political groups. Politicians are not supposed to use political force for political ends. I somehow do not see Sen Schumer as a concerned citizen, he is overtly partisan. Yes it is better that he does it openly, but how come nobody notices, or cares?

Mind you, I understand that the "if they're not breaking the law then they shouldn't plead the fifth" aspect is something which NOBODY is ever permitted to say in law... Judges are in fact specifically required to point this out each and every time that this is invoked. -Jury instructions are always at pains to repeat that anyone's decision not to testify not should, but *MUST* never be regarded as suggestion of incrimination.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... must be a duck. I am not a judge.

In fact Lerner had it both ways, she first made testimony declaring her innocence, then refused to answer any questions from congress. I always thought you could selectively take the 5th on a per question basis, but testimony before congress seems to be all about the sound bites. So she got in her sound bite "I'm innocent", but denied them any answers to hard questions.. Probably pretty smart politics on her part, but they are contemplating declaring her in contempt of congress for that maneuver.

If something is even slightly at risk of becoming distorted or imbalanced, or even faintly whiffs of the risk of partisan battleground, the less on record the better. -The fifth MUST be invoked immediately, since one cannot selectively testify. Given the charged and rancorous atmosphere, I'd hope that I could plead the fifth... Certainly the less said on record the better.

When in doubt say nothing... Lying to the feds is criminal. Ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby, etc. They spent time in the gray bar hotel, not for some crime but for statements they made to the feds that turned out to not be true.

I'm not convinced either way, and I don't know enough (I'm not even convinced that we ever will!) to make a determination. I'm not convinced of spotless innocence, however, nor am I convinced of persecution.

The latest strategy is for Lerner's attorneys petitioning congress to address them in her behalf... but this is extremely irregular as only dignitaries are invited to address congress...  Sounds like more attempts to manufacture sound bites.
=====

SORRY I am not trying to make a big deal about this one item on a longer list. I just mentioned it in passing 

I am far more concerned about the 1st QTR 2014 GDP growth of a puny 0.1%...  While not recession, about as close as you can come to dead in the water without falling into contraction.. 

I find it telling that Pfizer is trying to buy/merge with Astrazeneca So they can move their headquarters to UK, and save hundreds of millions in US taxes every year. I remember when the Brit rockers would become US citizens to escape onerous income taxes in England. Ah how times change.

We need to stop choking the golden goose so economy and employment will recover. If we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting.

[edit- raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not help the economy, or help employment. just lead to fewer entry level positions and more automation...  /edit]

JR

 

[hodad]

[edit- raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not help the economy, or help employment. just lead to fewer entry level positions and more automation...  /edit]

JR

You have no hard data to back this up.  I can tell you for a fact that lowering taxes on the wealthy doesn't help the economy--we've had a dozen or so years of that, and the only thing that's changed is that the rich are richer.  And the poor, well, they're poorer.  The concentration of wealth at the top has led to a stagnant economy with falling wages.  Cutting the estate taxes will do nothing but lead to a whole bunch more Paris Hiltons.  And we all know what a job creator she is.  Your arguments rest on ideology, not reality.  It's easy to point at a Pfizer-Astra Zeneca merger, but the fact is most of these corporations are already hiding billions in the Caymans and other tax havens.  And at some point they'll sucker another president into giving them a tax amnesty on all that hidden money, and just like last time it'll do nothing to stimulate the US economy. 

Concentrating the wealth in the hands of the few is not working--it is a demonstrable failure, empirically proven.  Your ideas may sound good in your head, but the empire's crumbling as your beloved plutocrats fiddle. 

 

[SSLtech]

I find it telling that Pfizer is trying to buy/merge with Astrazeneca So they can move their headquarters to UK, and save hundreds of millions in US taxes every year. I remember when the Brit rockers would become US citizens to escape onerous income taxes in England. Ah how times change.

Coincidentally, my moving here about 20 years ago resulted from my engineering a recording for just such a well-known Brit Rock group who needed to spend 6 months +1 day outside Britain... I have to say, the arrangement worked out pretty well for me! 

On the subject of the Astrazeneca/Pfizer move, that appears to me to actually be only a small part of quite the shuffle. -I forget exactly who all the players are/were, but I do remember that most of them were name brands that I remember as being established on my route to and from work each day when I lived in the UK; Eli Lilley, Glaxo Smithkline, et al.

In addition, the breathtakingly bold advances in creative accountancy practiced by most multi-national corporations (I'm thinking specifically of Apple and Starbucks, but these I'm sure are a small tip of the arrowhead) have recently found ways to almost entirely avoid paying ANY taxation in the UK, by massaging where profits are actually defined as being generated. -They have successfully claimed that essentially they don't owe any tax whatsoever... Starbucks -for example- FINALLY paid corporation tax in the UK this year, for the first time in SIX years. -A whopping five million. An absurdly laughable figure. -With the insane numbers and profits generated in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, this is a "me too" rush by the mega-corporations to get out of paying their fair share of taxes, to ANYONE.

Every corporate accountant/lawyer is an asshole... sit back and watch the assholes chase the loopholes down the wormhole.

 

[JohnRoberts]

[edit- raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not help the economy, or help employment. just lead to fewer entry level positions and more automation...  /edit]

JR

You have no hard data to back this up.  I can tell you for a fact that lowering taxes on the wealthy doesn't help the economy--we've had a dozen or so years of that, and the only thing that's changed is that the rich are richer.

And how is the current anti-business environment working out?

This whole class warfare is a red herring. While not perfect 1:1 the highest incomes are earned by people creating the most wealth, they also create jobs as consequence of creating this wealth.

One universal truth about taxes is whenever you tax something you get less of it. This has long been applied for sin taxes to get less smoking or less drinking by taxing booze and cigarettes. When you tax people creating wealth you get less wealth creation.

Government taking wealth and giving it to unproductive sectors of the economy will just dissipate that wealth. It may be a fun ride while it lasts but eventually you run out of "other peoples money".

And the poor, well, they're poorer.  The concentration of wealth at the top has led to a stagnant economy with falling wages. 

The stagnation is not caused by the concentration of wealth, but by anti-business policy in taxation and regulation, and even negative messaging. What business leader feels confident about the future and his costs.

You can not get blood from a stone, and forcing a Macdonalds to pay $10+ to menial workers, without the ability to raise the prices of the food enough to cover the extra cost, simply will not work. Instead we will see more automation and elimination of more of those jobs.

When I was a teen I worked for $1.25 /hr minimum wage (yes I'm old). These entry level jobs serve a useful purpose.  Being a greeter at Walmart should not be the primary job of a family's bread winner. It is good job for some kid learning how to work, or some retiree to make a few extra bucks.

The fact that bread winners are working in these menial jobs is just more evidence of the administration's failed economic policy.

Cutting the estate taxes will do nothing but lead to a whole bunch more Paris Hiltons.  And we all know what a job creator she is.

I did not suggest this, and heard an economist recently frame cutting the estate tax as undesirable because it would not change behavior, people would still die and accumulate wealth while alive. I dislike it when people inherit a family business and have to sell it because they can afford the taxes.

I think the government should claw back entitlement largess from estates when people die.

Your arguments rest on ideology, not reality.

Huh...  While I concede economics is a soft science it is very much based on reality. I invite you to read The wealth of nations by Adam Smith, pretty much a catalog of facts that demonstrates how markets work. albeit hundreds of years ago, but the market economics is still the same.

  It's easy to point at a Pfizer-Astra Zeneca merger, but the fact is most of these corporations are already hiding billions in the Caymans and other tax havens.  And at some point they'll sucker another president into giving them a tax amnesty on all that hidden money, and just like last time it'll do nothing to stimulate the US economy. 

No the point is that US corporate taxes are not competitive, even compared to UK, historically a higher tax nation than the US. Yes companies already have piles of money held off shore to avoid onerous tax laws here... We do not need to give business a better deal than other western countries, we just need to be competitive with other nations. It should not be a good use of their time to engineer tax avoidance. Level the playing field between US and other countries so business can spend 100% of their attention on growing their business, and we will see huge capital investment and job growth here.

If you want equality, look at Cuba... no productive business sector, everybody is poor..but equal.

Concentrating the wealth in the hands of the few is not working--it is a demonstrable failure, empirically proven.  Your ideas may sound good in your head, but the empire's crumbling as your beloved plutocrats fiddle.

The irony is that Obama's policy and the current fed has increased the distance between wealthy and poor. The whole fed policy is to inflate assets (to avoid deflation), and the poor do not have assets (duh). Obama is talking the talk to get votes, but if he really cared for the poor he would support business and grow the economy creating more jobs. He is the most divisive leader I can remember.

I will be glad when he retires back to civilian life.

JR

@SSL yes Apple is the poster boy for tax avoidance, I think they are currently based in Ireland or something like that. We need to make all this financial engineering academic with a (more) level playing field. I doubt we can match the deals that Ireland set up when they were hurting, but we just need to match most major western countries to make it not worthwhile to do such deals just to reduce taxes..

 

[hodad]

And how is the current anti-business environment working out?

On what planet?  More unions busted, Bush tax breaks for the rich still largely in place, record corporate profits, Wall St. generally booming.  A Supreme Court that's stretched corporate personhood (and the first amendment rights of $$$$$$$) beyond belief.  The ACA, even, is largely pro-business.

When I was a teen I worked for $1.25 /hr minimum wage (yes I'm old). These entry level jobs serve a useful purpose.  Being a greeter at Walmart should not be the primary job of a family's bread winner. It is good job for some kid learning how to work, or some retiree to make a few extra bucks.

The fact that bread winners are working in these menial jobs is just more evidence of the administration's failed economic policy.

1st:  in 2014 dollars your $1.25 was equal to $9.27.  So what's wrong with folks making what you made as a kid? 

2nd:  How else are folks supposed to make a living?  Unless you want to turn the US into a 3rd world nation, there's no way to compete with labor forces making a tenth of their US  counterparts.  While there are certainly some factory jobs left, the service sector is one thing that by and large can't be shipped overseas.  This shift has been going on for a long time.  I can't say Obama has done much to right this, but it predates him by a lot. 

And you talk about the vaunted job creators:  when they do create jobs, where are they created?  China, Mexico, El Salvador, India.  Fat lot of good that does anyone working at Walmark. 

I dislike it when people inherit a family business and have to sell it because they can afford the taxes.

Which, of course, happens extremely rarely. 

Huh...  While I concede economics is a soft science it is very much based on reality. I invite you to read The wealth of nations by Adam Smith, pretty much a catalog of facts that demonstrates how markets work. albeit hundreds of years ago, but the market economics is still the same.

It's a good thing our physicians are still relying on medical books written hundreds of years ago. 
 

No the point is that US corporate taxes are not competitive....

At what point does this race to the bottom stop?  Just because one country has lower corporate tax rates, it doesn't mean that's the level at which corporations should be taxed.  Just like states offering crazy tax incentives to attract business, there is a point where the cost exceeds the benefit. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

And how is the current anti-business environment working out?

On what planet?  More unions busted, Bush tax breaks for the rich still largely in place, record corporate profits, Wall St. generally booming.  A Supreme Court that's stretched corporate personhood (and the first amendment rights of $$$$$$$) beyond belief.  The ACA, even, is largely pro-business.

The ACA is pro business...??  OK I mean on my planet, not your planet.  ;D ;D

When I was a teen I worked for $1.25 /hr minimum wage (yes I'm old). These entry level jobs serve a useful purpose.  Being a greeter at Walmart should not be the primary job of a family's bread winner. It is good job for some kid learning how to work, or some retiree to make a few extra bucks.

The fact that bread winners are working in these menial jobs is just more evidence of the administration's failed economic policy.

1st:  in 2014 dollars your $1.25 was equal to $9.27.  So what's wrong with folks making what you made as a kid? 

According to BLS website $9.12 so maybe I'm not as old as you think. IIRC A Macdonalds burger back then was like $0.25 so $1.82 in todays dollars. A big mac which didn't exist back then is $3.50+ today. Obama likes to create photo ops by visiting sandwich shops that pay higher than minimum wage... They also sell $10-15 sandwiches, not $3.50 burgers.

I think minimum wages if at all, should be set by states and/or cities... The minimum wage for NYC should not be the same as for Hickory, MS. IMO.

Mandating wage rates is another form of price fixing and will not work...if it did work all we would have to do is raise the minimum wage to $25 and we could all relax... It is very basic economics that if the employee does not create enough value to justify his pay either the company goes out of business, or figures out how to do the task more cheaply.

There are several small areas like SEA-TAC ($15/hr) that have higher minimum wage rates and that will be an interesting real world economic experiment (still in process.. A judge ruled that it didn't apply to the airport, but that was the point so we'll see how it does on appeal).

2nd:  How else are folks supposed to make a living?  Unless you want to turn the US into a 3rd world nation, there's no way to compete with labor forces making a tenth of their US  counterparts.  While there are certainly some factory jobs left, the service sector is one thing that by and large can't be shipped overseas.  This shift has been going on for a long time.  I can't say Obama has done much to right this, but it predates him by a lot. 

For one thing the unemployed need more targeted training/education.

Jobs like welding are in high demand and many go unfilled  (I actually learned how to weld at my $1.25/hr summer job working in a machine shop, but I am not looking for a job these days.

Kids are getting too-easy loans to go to college and major in basket weaving.. Then they graduate unemployed with a $50k personal debt and no good jobs to be found in basket weaving. All this supposed government help is just attaching sea anchors to a generation that will have trouble with family creation and buying homes starting out in a hole.  As usual the government manages appearances (a college degree must be good right?) instead of managing results  (gainful employment).

And you talk about the vaunted job creators:  when they do create jobs, where are they created?  China, Mexico, El Salvador, India.  Fat lot of good that does anyone working at Walmark. 

Small businesses create jobs... but small business formation is down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-small-business/post/united-states-new-business-formation-rate-continues-dropping-steadily/2012/05/02/gIQAjKOewT_blog.html  Here's an article from 2012

The recent legislation to make it easier for small companies to go public is intended to help job creation.. I suspect it is helping  angel/venture capitalists cash out. 

I dislike it when people inherit a family business and have to sell it because they can afford the taxes.

Which, of course, happens extremely rarely. 

I do not have statistics on this and I did not raise this subject.

I still do not like it when a family business has to be sold because of this, even if it happens rarely.

Huh...  While I concede economics is a soft science it is very much based on reality. I invite you to read The wealth of nations by Adam Smith, pretty much a catalog of facts that demonstrates how markets work. albeit hundreds of years ago, but the market economics is still the same.

It's a good thing our physicians are still relying on medical books written hundreds of years ago. 
 

I just got a MRI for my injured knee and I really really really appreciate the modern technology that didn't exist hundreds of years ago, Bleeding me with leeches probably wouldn't help my knee. The MRI allows me to slice and dice my knee to see what is going on inside. I still hold the medical profession in relatively low regard... (mechanics who work on self repairing cars). .

No the point is that US corporate taxes are not competitive....

At what point does this race to the bottom stop?  Just because one country has lower corporate tax rates, it doesn't mean that's the level at which corporations should be taxed.  Just like states offering crazy tax incentives to attract business, there is a point where the cost exceeds the benefit.

Not a race to the bottom, but leveling the playing field. If we repatriated all of the $billions in offshore profits because it no longer made business sense to shield it from US taxation it would benefit the economy and job creation.

This is not a zero sum game. Winning does not mean we take wealth from Richy rich (using government force), and then give it to Pauly poor. We need to support a vibrant business community to create more wealth and more jobs. We need to provide people with the opportunity to learn (useful stuff) and not just give then free sh__. 

I guess we will just have to disagree about what the problem is and what the solution is.

JR

 

[sodderboy]

So if the PPACA is pro business, why did 44 delay that cool economy boosting employer mandate?  Another joke!  It drives costs up at every turn. Look at Joel's fitty cent per year plan- how much does it cost to bill and keep up with the collections from all those fitty-centers?  It would be cheaper to give it for free, unless you can explain the mirror angle for the smoke. Add the costs, as I have described here before of an extra page per benefits statement, re-issuing cards to reflect plan coverage of female contraceptives for men. These are two simple examples of up-cost. Then look at the providers eschewing all insurance- if it was pro business they would not be doing this.
Do you run a business?  Do you see it is the opposite of what you say?
Mike

 

[hodad]

Obamacare as pro-business:  First and foremost, it isn't single payer.  There are still private health insurers, and they have more customers due to the ACA. 

I also think that more folks might be willing to take risks starting new businesses (rather than hanging onto a job with good benefits but possibly little else to offer) if they know they can afford health coverage through a lean year or two as they get the business running.  As JR pointed out above, small businesses create jobs.  Though it's not a certainty yet, I think there's potential for Obamacare to contribute to an uptick in small business startups. 

 

[emrr]

I dunno, I've been running nothing but small businesses my entire life, and could always afford insurance.  The 300% increase is enough to wonder if I should get a job with insurance.  I can't be alone on that side of things. 

 

[gltech]

I dunno, I've been running nothing but small businesses my entire life, and could always afford insurance.  The 300% increase is enough to wonder if I should get a job with insurance.  I can't be alone on that side of things.

+1 here $177 to $431.

I wish all of you could walk a mile trying to run a trucking company.