Would you like to be my partner?...

I’d like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can’t turn me down, as you’ll come to understand in a moment…

Here’s the deal. You’re going to start a business or expand the one you’ve got now. It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you’re going to do. I’ll partner with you no matter what business you’re in – as long as it’s legal. But I can’t give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won’t give you any labor – that’s definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you’re allowed to operate your business. That’s my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I’m going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business, each year. Half seems fair, doesn’t it? I think so. Of course, that’s half of your profits. You’re also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you’ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you’re my partner. It’s only “fair.”

Now… after you’ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business and after you’ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you’d like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is “fair” – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I’m happy for you to sell whenever you’d like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That’s all true. But I’ve done my part, too. I’ve collected 50% of the profits each year. And I’ve always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business. Oh… and one more thing…

Even after you’ve sold the business and paid all of my fees… I’d recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you’ve been retired for years, when you die, you’ll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is worth. After all, I’ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don’t think it’s “fair” for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children. All in all, if you’re a very successful entrepreneur… if you’re one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you’ll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I’m sure you’ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me… but it doesn’t really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I’ll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail. That’s how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn’t it?

That’s the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

ummm. simplistic answer… but who will build the roads (and with what money) that you are happy to drive on?  (it was a simplistic question though).

no doubt you are all happy amerika sends troops here and there… again who pays for this? who pays for the police the fire department and so on an d so on and so on.

Stop whining amerika and just get on with it…..

Corp. tax rates in USA are among the highest in the world, and this imbalance makes us less competitive.  However, there’s a decent chance to see reduced rates on “C” Corps., from 35% to 28%.  “S” Corps don’t pay tax, but the flow-through nature of the income to the shareholders gets you to 50%, as follows:  With old tax rates to scheduled to sunset 12/31/10, top rates for individuals revert to 39.6%.  Add another 4-5% in effective tax rate from the phase-out of personal exemptions and deductions for high income earners PLUS a House-proposed 5.4% kicker for high income individuals for health care.  Whew!

Guys, we’re doing our best to help the recovery. Within the last week my next door neighbor bought a snowmobile and a new flat screen. Another neighbor bought 80 acres of land. My brother bought a huge new flat screen. I bought a new entry door and a pile of tools and over Skype I heard Chartguy doing his level best to help justify Amazon’s noise bleeding PE ratio.

Okay Artman et.al, the US government is in serious debt $12.017T and rising near $4B per day. Supposing corporate tax rates are slashed in the US. Who then picks up the debt.
At present corporate tax rates are irrelevant when it comes to exporting from the US. The US dollar is weak which means the rest of us are more inclined to buy US products (Apple prices abroad reflect this fact). It you impose the tax burden back on to the average US consumer through increased taxes (road, property, income, health etc etc) then the domestic prospects for Apple and other US corps becomes bleak as the average consumer is the one that takes on the burden.
So the US government needs money - where does it come from? You cannot look at corporate tax rates in isolation. The fiscal issues in the US are really complicated. I mean you lot (the US) get the imposition of being the reserve currency for the world - that really complicates things.

benoir - 21 November 2009 03:01 AM

Okay Artman et.al, the US government is in serious debt

So the US government needs money - where does it come from? You cannot look at corporate tax rates in isolation. The fiscal issues in the US are really complicated. I mean you lot (the US) get the imposition of being the reserve currency for the world - that really complicates things.

Needs?

No, more like COVETS ALL.

Reduce the size of Gub’ment and FREE productive juices and LOWER the confiscatory nature of taxation, and you will get MORE productivity.

The MORE you penalize the work and creativity via taxation, the LESS of both you will have. That is just simple human nature in economic terms.

If you want MORE of something, REWARD IT, not penalize it.

The US government now has over 30 “CZARS”

—>> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

Pardon me, but WHERE in our Constitution are CZARS found? Oh, yeah, sorry, CZAR is a transliteration and transmigration of CAESAR, or Roman ABSOLUTE DICTATOR AND EMPEROR.

Yeah, THAT sure is “Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave” stuff, isn’t it? [/sarcasm]

Glenn Beck?  I guess I’ll remove myself from THIS discussion then.

I agree with the premise of the article, however I don’t agree that is why the economy will take time to recover slowly.

Gov. intervention takes a long time.  In-spite of high taxes on its citizens and corporations Americans are still the most successful and productive in the world.  We don’t have a perfect system but it is better then any other place in the world for many reasons.  A strong , fair, and stable government goes a long way towards keeping the millions here happy and encouraging millions more to come to this country.

The recovery will take a long time because we the private sector spend too much in the last 20 years.  We will continue to spend, but that will only happen when our houses start to appreciate and we are working again. Those two factors will keep the recovery in slow mode.

I recall reading in 2003 that housing market would crash in 2007 and continue to go down until 2011 after which we will be in flatline until 2015 with a slow gradual uptick.  Recent reports suggest we won’t see the same value in housing until 2030 to match that of 2007.

Despite such pessimistic projections, the economy can still grow.  More importantly good companies will be rewarded with strong revenue and profits.  So most of us can still do OK by investing in Apple.

TanToday - 21 November 2009 10:25 AM

Needs?

No, more like COVETS ALL.

No the US Government has serious spiraling debt that has built up over some time. $12 Trillion dollars…. who is going to pay for that? One day China will will have sufficient economic clout and will be able to rely on internal consumption for economic growth. It will no longer need the US consumer to be in consumptive mode. And with the US dollar being devalued there will be less incentive to hold dollars as a reserve currency. It is loosing its fiscal value. The fact that the US government owes so much money is a concern not only for the US population it has far greater implications in terms of its potential to destabilize other economies as other currencies take on the status of reserve.

TanToday - 21 November 2009 10:25 AM

Reduce the size of Gub’ment and FREE productive juices and LOWER the confiscatory nature of taxation, and you will get MORE productivity.

The MORE you penalize the work and creativity via taxation, the LESS of both you will have. That is just simple human nature in economic terms.

If you want MORE of something, REWARD IT, not penalize it.

sure agreed… but the $12T is a problem

TanToday - 21 November 2009 10:25 AM

The US government now has over 30 “CZARS”

—>> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

Pardon me, but WHERE in our Constitution are CZARS found? Oh, yeah, sorry, CZAR is a transliteration and transmigration of CAESAR, or Roman ABSOLUTE DICTATOR AND EMPEROR.

Yeah, THAT sure is “Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave” stuff, isn’t it? [/sarcasm]

TanToday there were 50% more czars under the previous administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
And it looks as though you have to make an argument with Roosevelt for establishing the concept of Czars.
So is the concern with czars a general one or one with the current administration?
I would tend to agree with you being uncomfortable with the concept of Czars. There has to be very unusual circumstances to permit the bypassing of due process, particularly in the US where it’s constitution is so cherished.

One thing that is quite clear is that these so called ‘Czars’ don’t get paid a commensurate wages for playing Caesar.
The other thing is I’m sure that every government in the world whether it be Local, State or Federal/National has a raft of decision makers that make decisions without due regard for the democratic process that elected them. To many governments resort to arguing that they have a mandate to undertake certain policies even when only P.1 percent of the population voted for them.
So yes I share your concern Tan Today about this issue.

Hmmm.  Somebody doesn’t care for the expense of what he feels is a useless and unwanted government.  Might I humbly suggest that Porter Stansberry relocate to someplace without all that bothersome and burdensome government.

Somalia.

Oh, sure, he might have to provide his own infrastructure.  He might need to hire mercenary forces to defend against the bands of nomads, warlords and technicals, and the odd pirate if he goes near the coast.  But he won’t be bothered by any pesky government.

omacvi - 21 November 2009 12:17 PM

I agree with the premise of the article, however I don’t agree that is why the economy will take time to recover slowly.

If my world is illustrative of everywhere else, then you got a point: Today I drove to Fleet Farm to buy some doggy treats but came home in a new Lincoln crossover thingy. Then, while stopping into pickup some take-out, I ran into an old employee of a friend who owns a Chrysler/Jeep dealership and he told me that he sold three cars today.

m_j_paquette - 21 November 2009 07:08 PM

Hmmm.  Somebody doesn’t care for the expense of what he feels is a useless and unwanted government.  Might I humbly suggest that Porter Stansberry relocate to someplace without all that bothersome and burdensome government.

Somalia.

So now it is unpatriotic to want to KEEP your own money?

Sometimes I find this “finance board” is peopled with more socialists than capitalists. Shows the state of edujumakshun here in the USA, when people find it “American” to think that the Gub’ment SHOULD be running everything, and we, the dutiful little droneslaves, should thank God we have such wonderful leaders to make all these decisions for us, given we have been taught that BELIEVING in the American dream, makes one a parasite nowadays?

VERY scary ....

“Watch the Country GET FIRED!”

ANIMATED SHOW ~ CLICK HERE:—>>  http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

One cannot HAVE a recovery, if only those into stocks are benefitting, and so far, that is what I"m observing out there.

TanToday - 22 November 2009 08:32 AM

m_j_paquette - 21 November 2009 07:08 PM

Hmmm.  Somebody doesn’t care for the expense of what he feels is a useless and unwanted government.  Might I humbly suggest that Porter Stansberry relocate to someplace without all that bothersome and burdensome government.

Somalia.

So now it is unpatriotic to want to KEEP your own money?

Sometimes I find this “finance board” is peopled with more socialists than capitalists. Shows the state of edujumakshun here in the USA, when people find it “American” to think that the Gub’ment SHOULD be running everything, and we, the dutiful little droneslaves, should thank God we have such wonderful leaders to make all these decisions for us, given we have been taught that BELIEVING in the American dream, makes one a parasite nowadays?

TT you are being far too emotive….. take a chill pill. No one is saying that wanting to keep you own money is being unpatriotic. m_j_p is merely making a point that there is a balance between an overbearing government and no government at all. Surely any society requires some governance in order to function properly. And I am sure that you appreciate the benefits of laws made through governance. For instance everyone generally drives on the right side of the road because the law dictates it. As a result the roads are much safer than if everyone decided which was the best side to drive on. And while we are on roads, is it great that generally someone else fixes up the roads for us to drive on. That is the result of people agreeing to live in a society and collectively paying for things like roads and agreeing (if we are lucky to live in a democracy) to elect someone to decide all the rules about how to use the roads, which in turn makes them safer and so on.

Now to say that this board is sometimes peopled with more socialist than capitalists is just flame bait. What should it generally matter what people believe in on this board. It is the richness and diversity of opinion that makes this board great. In any case it was you that provoked this discussion and in the context of this board your opinion is not the only one nor is it necessarily the absolute truth. Same goes for your next sentence about ‘edujumakshun’, what ever that is? It is just flame bait, or perhaps it is just a rant, and if so, what is it doing on this board? It does not further anything it does not offer any meaningful solutions or ask any challenging questions. Who does ay for the $12T that the US government owes?

And what is the American dream anyway?