by Pops » Wed 04 Mar 2009, 15:06:40
Look, I was a partner in a very small ad/production agency back in the bad old days of the '90s before the Great Tax Giveaway to the rich. We employed +/- 12 people for a dozen years and my partner and I made about 2.5x what our least well paid employee made - around $125k in the best years, much less in the bad.
We provided health insurance to our people because the way the system is set up in this country we felt it was our responsibility. Now $75k ain't a bad income for a guy like me (in the location we were) with no degree, raised by a couple of janitors and I'll be frank, I felt I had more at stake to loose so paying a larger portion in tax than our employees did seemed fair.
Even under that "onerous" tax burden, which seems set to resume in a couple of years and so many are ranting about, we had little problem keeping that many people employed and there is one reason; we weren't looking to be millionaires taking home 20,50,200 times what our employees took home.
Sure, we took the risk so were entitled to a bigger take in the good times but we also took the hit when the books went red - a strange concept it seems lately.
So I reject the idea "Small" businesses will simply sit on their money. "Small" businesses owners are those who care about their people and share the work as well as the rewards in a fair way.
BTW, our biggest burden in the late '90s was not taxes but the escalating cost of health insurance, I know we should have just thrown our employees under the bus like everyone else to keep that profit margin up - I guess we weren't very good businessmen...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)