A little from column D (healthcare not tied to employment, sensible immigration policies), a little from column R (simplifying taxes, relaxing certain SEC regulations, corporate tax amnesty), and a little from column 'completely neglected' (patent reform, internet freedom).
What would be a sensible, simplified tax code even look like? The GOP plan looks disastrous. I'd like us to take a look around the world and see which types of tax codes seem to foster the best business atmosphere.
I recall reading somewhere (no time to find a source, unfortunately - waiting for a train) that the biggest predictor of economic success is not tax policy, but effective application of law instead of arbitrary application of law (lookin' at you here, SEC).
The "application of law > tax policy" seems like a true observation but may not be causal (just look at the massive amounts of corruption in India... and, come to think of it, pretty much every developing country)
That said, I suspect that it is causal on the macro scale. Corruption is rampant in those countries and it turns entrepreneurs off because it's too hard to get anything done without being buddy-buddy with the fat cats. America isn't anywhere near that bad -- it's kind of the opposite, where entrepreneurs fear regulation, more than they fear corruption. From what I've seen, anyway.
You mean that big, international corporations would bring more cash back into the US, which they could potentially spend more to acquire smaller companies? Seems like a long shot.
It doesn't. It's a fantasy held by those with large amounts of stock in companies with lots of spare cash lying around in their foreign subsidiaries.
The last corporate tax amnesty on repatriated earnings did absolutely nothing to benefit the economy; it actually resulted in a net loss to the U.S. economy b/c the corporations repatrited the money without paying taxes on the repatriated...and did not pay the income out as (taxable) dividends. Many corporations still have this cash lying around.
> it actually resulted in a net loss to the U.S. economy b/c the corporations repatrited the money without paying taxes on the repatriated and did not pay the income out as (taxable) dividends. Many corporations still have this cash lying around.
In other words, you think that money that isn't paid in taxes has no benefit to the economy. You're wrong.
Even the "cash" still lying around isn't doing nothing, it's being loaned out. Money that was spent (even on salaries) contributed to the economy.
Sorry for the late reply, but my point was that this money wasn't put back into the U.S. economy in any form, including loans to other companies. They simply moved this money to their U.S. bank acounts, where it remains to this day.
Universal single payer health care would cause an explosion of entrepreneurship the likes of which the USA has not seen in a long, long time. In the current situation, anyone with a family or a chronic condition is pretty much restricted to working a BigCorp job unless / until this happens.
The important figure is on page twenty. 5.5% of Canadians are self-employed with incorporated businesses compared to only 3.6% for the USA. Assuming this figure corresponds to entrepreneurship then there is definitely significant correlation.
Still, as a Canadian I am 95% confident that universal health care is worth it even without an entrepreneurship boost.
> The important figure is on page twenty. 5.5% of Canadians are self-employed with incorporated businesses compared to only 3.6% for the USA. Assuming this figure corresponds to entrepreneurship then there is definitely significant correlation.
That's not the only bogus assumption in your argument. You're also assuming that all other things are equal and that they're measuring the same thing.
I can look at two adjacent blocks in San Jose and find a much larger difference in entreprenurship measured the same way. Yet, healthcare is exactly the same....
Right but on a sample size of countries such regional differences will be ironed out. Neighborhood trends within a country are not the same as national trends being referred to. The larger point remains - a fifty percent higher level of self-employed with incorporated businesses (which is a fairly good marker for entrepreneurship unless you can suggest a better one) in the country with the safety net of health insurance.
> The larger point remains - a fifty percent higher level of self-employed with incorporated businesses (which is a fairly good marker for entrepreneurship unless you can suggest a better one)
"fairly good" doesn't imply that it has enough precision to support your 50% claim.
Canadian biz law is different, so I'd expect incorporation rates to be different.
> in the country with the safety net of health insurance.
Nope - the difference is due to hockey and average temperature. After all, if you look at neighboring states, which have those things, the difference goes away.
Or, it's due to the ethnic makeup. Asians in San Jose start biz far more whites, and whites far more than Hispanics and AAs. That alone explains a lot of the difference that you're observing. (Canada is white with some asian. The US is far more diverse.)
> Universal single payer health care would cause an explosion of entrepreneurship
No, it wouldn't.
The fraction of folks with chronic conditions isn't high enough to support your argument. Morever, the vast majority of them aren't shackled if they pay attention. (Staying married and/or staying covered is adequate in most cases and there are other ways to solve the problem.)
Do you really believe that there are a lot of good potential entrepreneurs with chronic conditions who can't handle this?
1) It's just not for entrepreneurs without coverage. Though that's not trivial - healthcare costs are non-trivial even for relatively healthy people, and the risks are very high particularly during a period where you're perhaps earning less money because you're starting a business.
2) It's not just about chronic illnesses, all healthcare costs money. Most people will have some expenses during any given year. It's a significant additional risk.
3) To grow a company you need to hire people. People need healthcare. You either are restricted to employees who can work without healthcare or you have to pay a lot for it because plans are more expensive at that scale. Healthcare is a challenge hiring older people with more experience.
There are lots of talented people who are discouraged from starting businesses or from joining startups because of the burden and risks associated with our staggeringly expensive, inefficient, employer-based healthcare system.
I have two children. I am divorced. Healthcare is always a concern when I choose to start a company or move to a company. This is not an atypical case.
> It's just not for entrepreneurs without coverage.
That was the claim. If you want to argue that said claim is wrong....
> healthcare costs are non-trivial even for relatively healthy people
Oh really? I've paid out of pocket for high-end healthcare plans while "old". Housing was a much bigger issue.
More to the point, you're going to pay one way or another.
And no, the US govt is not an efficent middle-man. Yes, they can cut a check cheaply, but the fraud admitted to by govt healthcare advoctes dwarfs the administration and profit of private companies. Since the likely numbers are higher....
No, you don't to point to other countries. We're stuck with the govt we've got. Fix existing govt healthcare programs (starting with IHS) and we'll talk.
> 2) It's not just about chronic illnesses, all healthcare costs money
Yes, but it doesn't get any cheaper funneling it the money through third parties.
> 3) To grow a company you need to hire people. People need healthcare.
And you're going to be paying for that, one way or another.
> Healthcare is always a concern when I choose to start a company or move to a company.
As is rent and food. So what?
One of the interesting things about this argument is that I'm arguing against self-interest. The programs that you folks are advocating end up subsidizing old people, even those who are relatively well off, like me. That subsidy is paid for by younger folk who are, on the whole, less well off.
Back when I was young and less well off, I found that absurd and wrong. Now that I'm approaching the other side, I'm beginning to see the error of my ways.
It's like social security. How many of you think that younger-than-you people will be willing to pay the benefits that you've "earned"?
I was pretty sure that your generation wouldn't stand for that wrt mine. I was wrong but are you sure that I just wasn't early?
If you want to rely on "a greater fool", be my guest.
I suppose that I should just take your money and shut up.
Even assuming you've got your own situation handled, you are going to be at a huge recruiting disadvantage if you don't offer health coverage to your employees.
> Even assuming you've got your own situation handled, you are going to be at a huge recruiting disadvantage if you don't offer health coverage to your employees.
So?
You're going to be paying for it one way or another, just as they are.
Where's the disadvantage based on how the payment happens?
This is a big one. The change of bankruptcy laws to benefit huge financial institutions, that then got bailed out by the same tax payers against whom they lobbied to get these draconian changes to bankruptcy laws passed was... well not just shocking... not just a demonstration of how corrupt and off-track our political system has become... not sure what the word is but it goes beyond hypocrisy.
I remember growing up outside of the US learning quite explicitly that one of the geniuses of the American system, a key factor in its dramatic success compared to other countries, and a competitive advantage, was its bankruptcy system that allowed people to try things; put in best efforts; but in the worst case scenario get a fresh start.
Getting rid of that was insane and I worry about its long term consequences. US entrepreneurs already face additional risks versus their overseas counterparts - like lack of a healthcare system not tied to employers - and taking away a major structural advantage they had is almost certainly going to have a detrimental effect.
> That said, I can't help but wonder if public healthcare would unshackle a lot of employees from their employers.
Living in NYC, I know quite a few people who will not leave a job they hate (to be an entrepreneur or to be an employee unless healthcare is provided for and the prospects of remaining employed are just as good) because of the healthcare uncertainty factor.
I had lunch with a friend who is going to freeze (probably close soon after) his startup because his COBRA runs out soon, and he hasn't been able to figure out a reasonable cost healthcare plan.
So, I expect it to unshackle a lot of employees, yes.
However, whether that will cause a surge in entrepreneurship depends more on culture: Austria (and to a lesser extent) Germany have single payer systems with excellent universal care, but little in the way of startup entrepreneurship. Israel has comparable single payer care, and depending on the metric you choose, the entire country either tops the startup/population density list, or is immediately after Silicon Valley (the part of the US where most startups are concentrated), with everything else far behind.
Here in Australia we spend a lot of time fretting about waiting lists
It might be worth pointing out that the waiting lists are typically for elective surgery.
This is mostly because our hospitals are overcrowded. There is no single cause of that, but one big problem is that health systems are mostly administered by the states but funded federally. The tension inherent in that model is pretty unhelpful.
Well, yes. But there's also the curious fact that if you set the upfront cost for something to zero, demand is higher than if you set some other price on it.
I don't think the vertical fiscal imbalance is the causal thing here. People want as much medical help as they think they can get.
