5 ms·

I believe state & federal taxes existed 3-4 years ago when unemployment was at 5% so I'm not sure how it's relevant to the current unemployment situation. Also

by jsz0 16y ago

I believe state & federal taxes existed 3-4 years ago when unemployment was at 5% so I'm not sure how it's relevant to the current unemployment situation. Also as a rule anyone who uses the term "ObamaCare" has an agenda so I just assume he's either lying or misrepresenting the situation with a 28% increase in health care costs. I wouldn't expect anything less from WSJ -- taxes bad, Obama bad. Maybe we'll start hiring again when you elect some Republicans.

CapitalistCartr 16y ago
The problem isn't that taxes exist; it's the uncertainty in their change. Uncertainty is an economic killer. Most business people use the term "ObamaCare"; that has no bearing on the rise in medical insurance this year. I've seen the same rise.
roc 16y ago
I bet you a dollar the 28% increase was the opening bid from his health care provider and not that far off the opening bid those previous years they ended up paying 10+%. Because that's almost exactly what I've seen for the last five years. It's just the way negotiations go. And every now and again, you have to switch providers. It's a horrible hassle, but nothing new. Further, the health insurance reform legislation included a lot of necessary changes to make it viable to sever the employer/health insurance connection. I have a hard time reconciling his clear dislike of the changes with his claimed desire to reduce his own overhead.
- Retric 16y ago
  Your post is insightful, on topic, informative, and clear. However, I wish it had been posted somewhere else. In the larger context: We spend 22% of the GDP at the state and local level, 25% at the federal level and transfer 3.5% of the GDP though taxes and have a ridicules debt. To meet those obligations the government needs to take a little over half of everyone’s paycheck. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=c http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=19... At the same time we have a horribly broken healthcare and education systems, aging infrastructure and little will to build for the future AND an ever growing debt. The problem is many people receive huge subsidies from the current system and nobody wants to give up their slice of the pie. Now, if WE have something constructive to add feel which may be implemented in the real world free to post, until then let’s try and keep politics off of HN. Edit: Not to single your post out, but I agreed with everything you said, and yet I still felt like I was wasting time by reading it. I guess I need to simply avoid clicking on link bait.
  - eru 16y ago
    I agree. Sometimes I think that we should switch civil servants and politicians around between countries from time to time. That would be a good learning exercise--for good and bad examples. E.g. Britain has a socialized health-care system in a broadly capitalist society. It's interesting to see what does and what does not work, instead of spreading all the FUD. Another, much less charged example are the laws about shop closing times in Germany. Until a few years ago shops were only allowed to open until 18.00 on most day. Looking at other countries, it was obvious that relaxing those rules would not make the sky come down. On the other hand, you can also look for other countries to spot bad ideas before you have to try them yourself.
Aaronontheweb 16y ago
Thanks for the Democrat talking points.
- jbooth 16y ago
  It's "democratic". Grammar!
- crystalis 16y ago
  You claim you try to make "substantive contributions", [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1582396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1582396] but really, I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
  - Aaronontheweb 16y ago
    Edit: then perhaps you should look past your own political biases (and mine) and look and what I've contributed in technical, business, and marketing discussions.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - eru 16y ago
    He just said he's doing his best.
tici_88 16y ago
It is relevant because the economy is obviously not where it was 3-4 years ago. The bubble has burst, margins are getting squeezed all across the board and footing the bill on ever-escalating government-induced initiatives is no longer as easily stomachable for many businesses. His exposition contains a lot of interesting facts and numbers. Just because he is not in the same political camp as you doesn't make his point any less valid.
ZachPruckowski 16y ago
Those taxes didn't just exist back then, they were higher 3-4 years ago when unemployment was at 5%.
lionhearted 16y ago
> Also as a rule anyone who uses the term "ObamaCare" has an agenda Everyone stop and think for a second - do you hold yourself to the same standard of debate as you hold the other side to? Would you, jsz0, call out a user of the word "teabagger" as coming from someone with an agenda? It's the same level of discourse. A lot of people get upset when their ideal gets hit with a tacky dismissive label while simultaneously trying to slap one on the other side.
- jsz0 16y ago
  I try to. I don't use the term "teabagger"
- e40 16y ago
  And I don't see where he used the word "teabagger", so your directing this to jsz0 was misdirected.
e40 16y ago
Well said. I agree the 28% was an opening salvo, but in my experience you can't really knock that much off it. You can posture ("hmm, maybe we'll try another broker") and tweak a few things here and there, but it's mostly done. We got a big increase last time, too, though I can't remember what it was. I think it was near 20%, but just under. We have an aging employee base, and if the author of the WSJ does, too, that might explain the difference.

by jsz0 16y ago

CapitalistCartr 16y ago

The problem isn't that taxes exist; it's the uncertainty in their change. Uncertainty is an economic killer. Most business people use the term "ObamaCare"; that has no bearing on the rise in medical insurance this year. I've seen the same rise.

roc 16y ago

I bet you a dollar the 28% increase was the opening bid from his health care provider and not that far off the opening bid those previous years they ended up paying 10+%. Because that's almost exactly what I've seen for the last five years. It's just the way negotiations go. And every now and again, you have to switch providers. It's a horrible hassle, but nothing new. Further, the health insurance reform legislation included a lot of necessary changes to make it viable to sever the employer/health insurance connection. I have a hard time reconciling his clear dislike of the changes with his claimed desire to reduce his own overhead.

Retric 16y ago
Your post is insightful, on topic, informative, and clear. However, I wish it had been posted somewhere else. In the larger context: We spend 22% of the GDP at the state and local level, 25% at the federal level and transfer 3.5% of the GDP though taxes and have a ridicules debt. To meet those obligations the government needs to take a little over half of everyone’s paycheck. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=c http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=19... At the same time we have a horribly broken healthcare and education systems, aging infrastructure and little will to build for the future AND an ever growing debt. The problem is many people receive huge subsidies from the current system and nobody wants to give up their slice of the pie. Now, if WE have something constructive to add feel which may be implemented in the real world free to post, until then let’s try and keep politics off of HN. Edit: Not to single your post out, but I agreed with everything you said, and yet I still felt like I was wasting time by reading it. I guess I need to simply avoid clicking on link bait.
- eru 16y ago
  I agree. Sometimes I think that we should switch civil servants and politicians around between countries from time to time. That would be a good learning exercise--for good and bad examples. E.g. Britain has a socialized health-care system in a broadly capitalist society. It's interesting to see what does and what does not work, instead of spreading all the FUD. Another, much less charged example are the laws about shop closing times in Germany. Until a few years ago shops were only allowed to open until 18.00 on most day. Looking at other countries, it was obvious that relaxing those rules would not make the sky come down. On the other hand, you can also look for other countries to spot bad ideas before you have to try them yourself.

Aaronontheweb 16y ago

Thanks for the Democrat talking points.

jbooth 16y ago
It's "democratic". Grammar!
crystalis 16y ago
You claim you try to make "substantive contributions", [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1582396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1582396] but really, I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
- Aaronontheweb 16y ago
  Edit: then perhaps you should look past your own political biases (and mine) and look and what I've contributed in technical, business, and marketing discussions.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- eru 16y ago
  He just said he's doing his best.

tici_88 16y ago

It is relevant because the economy is obviously not where it was 3-4 years ago. The bubble has burst, margins are getting squeezed all across the board and footing the bill on ever-escalating government-induced initiatives is no longer as easily stomachable for many businesses. His exposition contains a lot of interesting facts and numbers. Just because he is not in the same political camp as you doesn't make his point any less valid.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago

Those taxes didn't just exist back then, they were higher 3-4 years ago when unemployment was at 5%.

lionhearted 16y ago

> Also as a rule anyone who uses the term "ObamaCare" has an agenda Everyone stop and think for a second - do you hold yourself to the same standard of debate as you hold the other side to? Would you, jsz0, call out a user of the word "teabagger" as coming from someone with an agenda? It's the same level of discourse. A lot of people get upset when their ideal gets hit with a tacky dismissive label while simultaneously trying to slap one on the other side.

jsz0 16y ago
I try to. I don't use the term "teabagger"
e40 16y ago
And I don't see where he used the word "teabagger", so your directing this to jsz0 was misdirected.

e40 16y ago

Well said. I agree the 28% was an opening salvo, but in my experience you can't really knock that much off it. You can posture ("hmm, maybe we'll try another broker") and tweak a few things here and there, but it's mostly done. We got a big increase last time, too, though I can't remember what it was. I think it was near 20%, but just under. We have an aging employee base, and if the author of the WSJ does, too, that might explain the difference.