- This topic is empty.
-
Smitty, I do not share the view of my colleague Carson to the effect that you are a inveterate fabricator. Moreover, I believe that you believe many employers were just making “necessary adjustments to off-set increased regulation, healthcare costs, taxes, etc.” in the months immediately after Obama won the presidency.
Be that as it may, do you realize how it sounds to an ordinary person when somebody makes claims like these?
Let’s imagine some boss actually doing the things you’re attributing to them . . .
Boss 1:
I had to lay people off when I found out that I might have to help pay for their health insurance three years from now.
Boss 2:
I hear Obama’s thinking about raising my taxes . . . Pearson! Gimpleman! Get over here! You’re fired!
I mean, that just doesn’t sound like a nice way to act. It reminds me of that old National Lampoon cover that showed a gun pointed at a dog’s head with the caption, “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll shoot this dog.”
If you’re a business owner and business takes a downturn because of the recession or whatever, then sure, lay people off if you have to. But to let people go simply because you might be hurt by some regulation or new tax that’s coming down the pike . . . Now that strikes me as mean and immoral. In fact, it looks more like blackmail than free enterprise.
I think this is an important point, because we’re seeing the same argument crop up in the 1098 debate, where some people opposed to 1098 are saying, “If you raise my taxes, I’m outta here,”—and justifying this in terms of all the job-creating investment opportunities they’ll be missing if their taxes are raised.
Does the “Defeat 1098” campaign really expect us to believe that all of Washington’s $200,000-a-year people are living in shacks and plowing every spare dollar of income back into their businesses?
My oh my! That’s quite a . . .
Â
(Stretch)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.