This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Let's take carbon emissions quotas. How are you saving the envirinment by pushing factories from cleaner factories in the US to third world countries which don't care. The net result is more CO2 emissions and more global warming.
You and I are nearly on the same page when it comes to climate change. Whatever the real threat CO2 poses I believe that encouraging the switch to renewable energy has national security benefits. I don't think there's a need to go overboard in implementing radical change but setting a long-term goal of reducing CO2 emissions accomplishes two things - making the U.S. more energy independent and reducing pollutants that are much worse than CO2 (which I don't consider a true pollutant).
jon hasn't denied it, only questioned the degree (as I have).
so now man made global warming is a thing. interesting
I started a new business back in February, and the regulations are a pain in the ###. As an employer, I have to comply with a dozen or so different local, state and federal offices, which of course all require their own forms to be submitted quarterly. Doing the math, I've found that for every six to eight full time employees I need one full time employee just to handle all the regulations.
I'm on board with that. However, I have not heard of Republicans advocating for it. That's the kind of common sense solutions I expect from Republicans but they don't offer them.
If you have to hire extra employees to comply with the regulations, then it seems like the regulations are job creators.
You should read more. I have not denied any link between the two. I have denied the excessive fear-mongering and arbitrary limits they throw out. The point is, if you buy into the fear-mongering many of the policies promoted do the exact opposite of what the goal is.
so now man made global warming is a thing. interesting
Pretty much wipes out the profit margins of most businesses. Successful business rely on a model where they can produce goods and services in an efficient manner for a price people are willing to pay.
It means each job I create costs me 12 to 17% more than the job I need done.
I wouldn't say most businesses. Large businesses can comply to the regulations efficiently. It's small businesses that spend a larger chunk of their resources to comply. Combine that with the fact that small businesses don't get the volume discounts larger businesses get, and the small business cost model sucks compared to the large business cost model. If small businesses are the creator of jobs, then regulations shouldn't be a bigger burden on small businesses than it is on larger businesses.
Yes, and if we made sure via regulation that all construction jobs requiring digging had to be done with spoons, we would have jobs as far as the eye could see.
Federal Forms:
Restaurant.
Lots of people if the government didn't have food stamps, SS, unemployment benefits and other liberal freebies that keep them from having to take jobs for pennies.
In my opinion, my employees' income tax burdens should have nothing to do with me. IRS regulation says otherwise.
Those people are more likely to rob stores than to work full time for you for $200 a week. How would you expect a person to live on $800 a month minus taxes?
You don't think you should have to check whether they are legally able to work in this country?
If we went to a flat tax and cut way back on reporting the bank I work for could lay off 3,000 people tomorrow including myself. We could cut way back on technology spend having to support all of it. Free up capital for other ventures.
If the government does not check people, why should it be up to business to police them. The government allows illegals access to schools and other services, and access to driving licenses. Why is it business burden to deny them work when the government does very little to keep them out.
I've looked at the numbers and they don't consider that drivers use their car for personal use (which they don't claim) and can write off a ton of expenses on taxes (i.e. gas for personal use). Illegal of course but that's what most are doing to net a decent hourly wage. Also, they don't factor in the freedom drivers have - even if they net $10 an hour then that's better than making $10 an hour working a 9-5 job with a boss breathing down your neck (see Ren Hoek's thread).
hfs.
Once they get in they treat illegals almost like real citizens. Police are not allowed to ask for ID. They are allowed into our schools. Hospitals must provide care. If we are not gonna deport them, it seem ridiculous we only crack down on allowing them to work. The way the policy is enforced their only option is criminal activity. Given that there are 15-20 million here, it is just stupid that the point many leftists think we need to crack down is allowing them to work and come down hard on businesses when it was the giveenment's failure for allowing them to be here in the first place.
I would build my own apartments and stores that they can cheaply live in and shop in. I would probably ban them from procreation, dating and recreation (assuming the current job killing regulations preventing me from doing so are also removed).
How do the masses of bald eagles hold back job creation?
Sorry, I missed the "job creation part". However, if you drill down I guess it could be tied to job creation. If a developer is spending a bunch of resources on environmental regulations, maybe they could be building more with that money. Then again, the ecologist have jobs because of these things, so who knows... What's better job wise? A few ecologist & agency officials, or a bunch of contractors?
Seems like the world would be a better place without any of these people. Put them on an island together to build sanctuary homes for eagles
That's a different form, not from the IRS. I think it's from HSA.the moops said:
