This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America

Oh, boy..here comes the spin :pop

residenttroll wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

Scruffy wrote: The article claims that this guy is doing it all by himself, BUT his partner is taking half. But the partner (the government) is actually providing a lot of resources and services that this guy is using.

The government provides absolutely nothing for a start-up business except forms to fill out. I have started several companies. I risked my capital and time. The government risk nothing yet they get a good chunk of my efforts. Your argument is bogus and it's not an insult....in fact, your comments are insulting to me as an entrepreneur.

Have you ever started, run, or operated a business?

Yes, I have started businesses and still run them.

The claim of this blogger that he is doing this all on his own is false. He is using the infrastructure that we all pay for with taxes. If he was really taking all the risk, then he should dig his own sewers, rather than using the connection to the public sewers. He should build his own roads, rather than use the public highways. He should come up with his own currency, rather than using the public method of money. He should create his own judicial system, rather than using the public laws that we all agree to use, as well as create his own court system when his contracts need to be enforced.

My point is that no person is an island, no businessperson is truly taking all the risk. This blogger is trying to make a point that the government takes taxes and provides nothing in return. That's not true.

Scruffy, let's say I let you borrow my land; however, I tax you 1% for what the land is worth. (let's just say it's worth 50,000, so I tax you $500 per year). This land has septic for your sewage (charge you 1/2 of your water use), water for your use (I charge by the gallon), and roads that leads you to your customers (I charge you $ .30 per gallon of fuel you use).

Then, I say...o.k. you want to use the building on the land? Great! You will need the fire inspector to inspect it ($ 100), a electric inspector ( $ 200), a plumbing inspector ($ 200). By the way, here are all the rules and regs required to install wiring, plumbing, and fire code. Also, don't forget to make your building ADA complaint. You realize that after it's all said and done, you have about $ 10K in compliance issues that need resolving. You run down to my office to get the permits. I require a plan. I don't approve your plan because it requires a public hearing. Why a public hearing? We found a rare bird located on the lands and if you pave the parking lot for the ADA compliance you might disturb this rare bird's habitant. So you wait 60 days for the hearing. The local chapter of the Rare Bird Society files a complaint. They agree to settle for 10K settlement so they can provide an interpretative education display on your land. Finally, it's four months later.

...would you like me to continue?

Your point is not the point that the blogger made. You seem to be stuck on building permits and fees, which you seem to think are unjustified. The blogger was making the point that the government takes tax money and provides nothing in return. I guess that could be your point, too. Building permits and inspections, however inconvenient they may be, are there for the protection of the public. Have you ever been in a house that has been built on the sly, without permits and inspections? I have and the legal battles at the sale were horrendous as the house didn't have a big enough electric service and the floor beams were too small and were sagging. Shall I go on? Have you ever been in a business where it was not ADA compliant? Have you ever tried to enter that business in a wheelchair? You complain about building regulations, but they are there for a purpose - to make sure that people are treated equally and are protected from those that do not know how to build.

Bottom line is that this blogger is telling only a partial truth. The government does provide services, for which they need money in the form of taxes. The business owner reaps the benefit of those services every day.

Of course, I know that you will not see it this way and will think that government provides only overpriced useless services.

outdoor338 wrote: Oh, boy..here comes the spin :pop

Would you kindly, and specifically, point out the spin?

scruffy, how you blatantly point out what the blogger has said, you a mind reader?? How do you know what the blogger was saying, your interpretation of course, spin, spin, spin! :pop

outdoor338 wrote: scruffy, how you blatantly point out what the blogger has said, you a mind reader?? How do you know what the blogger was saying, your interpretation of course, spin, spin, spin! :pop

It's right there, Outdoor. You can read what he wrote.

Its your opinion, the blogger is just putting his views out there..I read it scruffy..not worth getting upset over..IMHO

Scruffy wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

Scruffy wrote: The article claims that this guy is doing it all by himself, BUT his partner is taking half. But the partner (the government) is actually providing a lot of resources and services that this guy is using.

The government provides absolutely nothing for a start-up business except forms to fill out. I have started several companies. I risked my capital and time. The government risk nothing yet they get a good chunk of my efforts. Your argument is bogus and it's not an insult....in fact, your comments are insulting to me as an entrepreneur.

Have you ever started, run, or operated a business?

Yes, I have started businesses and still run them.

The claim of this blogger that he is doing this all on his own is false. He is using the infrastructure that we all pay for with taxes. If he was really taking all the risk, then he should dig his own sewers, rather than using the connection to the public sewers. He should build his own roads, rather than use the public highways. He should come up with his own currency, rather than using the public method of money. He should create his own judicial system, rather than using the public laws that we all agree to use, as well as create his own court system when his contracts need to be enforced.

My point is that no person is an island, no businessperson is truly taking all the risk. This blogger is trying to make a point that the government takes taxes and provides nothing in return. That's not true.

Scruffy, let's say I let you borrow my land; however, I tax you 1% for what the land is worth. (let's just say it's worth 50,000, so I tax you $500 per year). This land has septic for your sewage (charge you 1/2 of your water use), water for your use (I charge by the gallon), and roads that leads you to your customers (I charge you $ .30 per gallon of fuel you use).

Then, I say...o.k. you want to use the building on the land? Great! You will need the fire inspector to inspect it ($ 100), a electric inspector ( $ 200), a plumbing inspector ($ 200). By the way, here are all the rules and regs required to install wiring, plumbing, and fire code. Also, don't forget to make your building ADA complaint. You realize that after it's all said and done, you have about $ 10K in compliance issues that need resolving. You run down to my office to get the permits. I require a plan. I don't approve your plan because it requires a public hearing. Why a public hearing? We found a rare bird located on the lands and if you pave the parking lot for the ADA compliance you might disturb this rare bird's habitant. So you wait 60 days for the hearing. The local chapter of the Rare Bird Society files a complaint. They agree to settle for 10K settlement so they can provide an interpretative education display on your land. Finally, it's four months later.

...would you like me to continue?

Your point is not the point that the blogger made. You seem to be stuck on building permits and fees, which you seem to think are unjustified. The blogger was making the point that the government takes tax money and provides nothing in return. I guess that could be your point, too. Building permits and inspections, however inconvenient they may be, are there for the protection of the public. Have you ever been in a house that has been built on the sly, without permits and inspections? I have and the legal battles at the sale were horrendous as the house didn't have a big enough electric service and the floor beams were too small and were sagging. Shall I go on? Have you ever been in a business where it was not ADA compliant? Have you ever tried to enter that business in a wheelchair? You complain about building regulations, but they are there for a purpose - to make sure that people are treated equally and are protected from those that do not know how to build.

Bottom line is that this blogger is telling only a partial truth. The government does provide services, for which they need money in the form of taxes. The business owner reaps the benefit of those services every day.

Of course, I know that you will not see it this way and will think that government provides only overpriced useless services.

One quick note, if the building wasn't to "code" why did you buy it? Why didn't you walk from it?

I have not had to enter a business in a wheelchair...what's your point? My point is that it's a cost of doing business. Why do I have to provide access to the handicap? Maybe I don't want them as a customer. But if I did, I would gladly install the equipment...because it has value.

By the way, handicap access to public facilities should be a requirement but not to every building in America - that should be the decision of the owner of the building.

I had a guy in a restroom recently tell me that healthy people should never use the handicap stalls because they should be reserved in the event a handicap person needs them. He shared that he has an aliment that makes him run to the restroom and because he's fat he needs the handicap stall. I told him straight out that the public toilet was an accommodation to handicap and not a reserved open seat whenever they need them. He's fat and needs the bigger space. I told him he needs to lose weight. He told me to mind my own business. Which I gladly did and used his toilet seat.

Yes, government services are overpriced and inefficient. PLEASE!

residenttroll wrote: One quick note, if the building wasn't to "code" why did you buy it? Why didn't you walk from it?

I did walk away. I also have friends that bought houses that weren't up to code and have helped them in their legal battles with the county and the realtor that misrepresented the sale.

residenttroll wrote: I have not had to enter a business in a wheelchair...what's your point? My point is that it's a cost of doing business. Why do I have to provide access to the handicap? Maybe I don't want them as a customer. But if I did, I would gladly install the equipment...because it has value.

By the way, handicap access to public facilities should be a requirement but not to every building in America - that should be the decision of the owner of the building.

It's the law, not an option. If you were handicap, you would see the lack of handicap access for what it is - discrimination.

residenttroll wrote: I had a guy in a restroom recently tell me that healthy people should never use the handicap stalls because they should be reserved in the event a handicap person needs them. He shared that he has an aliment that makes him run to the restroom and because he's fat he needs the handicap stall. I told him straight out that the public toilet was an accommodation to handicap and not a reserved open seat whenever they need them. He's fat and needs the bigger space. I told him he needs to lose weight. He told me to mind my own business. Which I gladly did and used his toilet seat.

Oddly enough, I agree with you.

residenttroll wrote: Yes, government services are overpriced and inefficient. PLEASE!

Some are, some are not.

Scruffy, what government service isn't overpriced and efficient?