Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedChapmans
Because the incentive is always greater. Your example of Obamacare was apt; there was an extreme fear about businesses closing because of the new policy. But it was quickly realized that if you wanted to keep your business, you'd just eat the added expense and your business would still be great.
However, there were SOME businesses that folded (not many, but some). Imagine that because some folded, the baseline for employees changed from 50 to 40 because the system relied on 100% of the initial count to buy-in. When SOME business folded again because of the new rules we go from 40 to 35. Then 35 to 32. This is how socialism works, it creeps on you slowly so that one day you wake and up all of a sudden if you want a single employee, you gotta pay $20,000 per employee for health care.
The incentive to own a business is now gone. Those that have businesses and can afford it own a monopoly on the space, those that don't have nothing. Two classes. The haves, and have nots.
|
I get the sentiment that’s just not what has ever happened. Even in the Obamacare situation, those that folded were just absorbed by bigger (and in some instances smaller, now growing) companies.
Again, just looking at economic growth charts you can see this. Businesses fold daily in this country for a myriad of reasons. Some get regulated out of existence, some taxed out of existence, some just fail because they suck. The market always absorbs those losses on the micro and adds them to the macro.
Your example above sounds like what would happen in theory, but has never actually occurred and is not anywhere close to what has been proposed nationally.