Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another political caricature identified. "Small businesses" are actually franchises of larger corporations. Only 1.3 percent of "small businesses" are of these franchises that hire people. The great majority of "small businesses" are free lancers that are family ran. They don't hire anybody.
Quote:
Back in the 1980s, researchers suggested that firms with less than 100 employees were responsible for creating 80 percent of net new jobs each year. But over time, economists have cut some gaping holes in the methodology responsible for those findings. For instance, the original study used data from establishments, or places of business, rather than individual companies. As the Joint Committee on Taxation noted, that meant jobs from a Walmart location could have been attributed to small businesses.
More recent research using improved data has suggested that, when it comes to which businesses create jobs, size doesn't really matter. What's important is growth. As a 2010 study by the Kauffman Foundation showed, a relatively slim number of quickly expanding companies drive much of the new job growth in this country. These so-called "gazelles" are often start-ups, which tend to begin small before expanding. But they also often include companies with more than 10,000 employees. Below is a breakdown of the top 1 percent of growing firms, which contribute roughly 40 percent of new jobs in a year.
Another political caricature identified. "Small businesses" are actually franchises of larger corporations. Only 1.3 percent of "small businesses" are of these franchises that hire people. The great majority of "small businesses" are free lancers that are family ran. They don't hire anybody.
Total BS.
THESE are the small businesses that hire. Raising taxes on these business owners will absolutely kill jobs and any chance of economic growth.
Another political caricature identified. "Small businesses" are actually franchises of larger corporations. Only 1.3 percent of "small businesses" are of these franchises that hire people. The great majority of "small businesses" are free lancers that are family ran. They don't hire anybody.
So size doesn't really matter when it comes to which companies create jobs. What does? The ability to attract investors, for one. And, as Kauffman foundation director of research Dane Stangler noted to me, investors generally don't like putting their money into the kinds of businesses where profits are taxed as personal income. Instead, they prefer what are called C Corporations -- which are what General Motors, Apple, and pretty much every other giant company you've heard of with shareholders and a board of directors are.
In short, the kinds of companies that Romney's worrying about when he says we shouldn't raise income taxes aren't likely going to generate many jobs to begin with. Yes, they are capable of scaling up and adding lots of workers, like in the case of large law firms, but they're probably not going to be the backbone of new employment.
You didn't read the NY Times article I linked. 54% of Americans are hired by and work for businesses that are taxed at the individual rates via pass-through accounting. Raise their taxes and you kill jobs AND the economy.
You didn't read the NY Times article I linked. 54% of Americans are hired by and work for businesses that are taxed at the individual rates via pass-through accounting. Raise their taxes and you kill jobs AND the economy.
The article is pro-liberal. It's actually in support of Obama.
You didn't read the NY Times article I linked. 54% of Americans are hired by and work for businesses that are taxed at the individual rates via pass-through accounting. Raise their taxes and you kill jobs AND the economy.
Your post doesn't support that conclusion. The topic is about hiring, but you're vaguely discussing employers whom are maintaining their workforces rather than expanding. That's number one. Number two is that you're suggesting that companies with established workforces will shrink as a result of raising taxes. That would require a leap in taxes sufficient to make the established workforce unprofitable. You haven't offered any support that a tax increase would create such a scenario.
In any event, recent studies have challenged the notion that small businesses are a key engine of job creation. Older small businesses, it seems, cut more jobs than they create. Research by the economist John C. Haltiwanger and others showed that the only small businesses that create more jobs than they destroy are those less than five years old — in other words, start-ups.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
