How do liberals guage success?

Am I the only small business owner on A2K?

Edited: uncalled for comment on my part for which I apologize.

Cycloptichorn

No.

(1) In my opinion access or non-access to firearms is in no sense a question that has any bearing whatsoever on 'morality.' Itis a simple legal matter. The only place where considerations of morality enter the eqauation is in the question of how these firearms are used. (Btw, you're dead wrong in your opinion that I would endorse limiting your right to own firearms on moral -- or any other -- grounds whatever. I have owned several firearms from time to time, including pistols, and see no need for any more anti-gun legislation. But for me this is not a question of morality in any sense of the word.)

(2) On the question of the honor killing, you're mixing up a couple of things in the wording of that question. "Death to all infidels" has nothing to do with so-called "honor killings." Those Islamists who preach death to infidels are obviously not really familiar with the ultimate teachings of the Q'uran, which recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" who may not be persecuted and killed merely for their beliefs. The only "infidels" who have no such protection are pagans. As for the morality of actual "honor killings", I agree with you that this a subjective matter but only in a cultural sense. The practice is accepted in the particular society in which the Muslim functions. It would be immoral for you or for me as we were raised with entirely different cultural norms.

(3)I'll answer your smug little third comment only because I don't think you understand what you are saying and almost certainlydon't understand what I have said. So let me see if I can clear this up for you just a tad: Sure, morality can be a subjective matter on a cultural level, i.e. what is considered moral for an ancient Egyptian (brother/sister marriage, for example) may be absolute moral anathema for a neighboring culture. Morality is not, however, a subjective matter for individuals within a given culture. If stealing is considered wrong under the norms of Western society, then it is just as wrong for you to steal as it is for me. Ain't talking about someone brought up in a different culture where absconding with a neighbor's horse might be considered a rite of passage to manhood.

Being a small business owner doesn't make you an expert.

Ok, Lets discuss morality further then. I do admit to blowing off your post as I was heading out the door for dinner and the fact that you were answering CI's post which means I couldn't just ignore it per my personal policy. I also gave some pretty bad examples.

I agree that there are several basic principles of morality. I disagree that everyone shares the same level of morality. Look at the morality from the Catholic Church on gay marriage. They are pretty vocal in saying that gay marriage is immoral. Yet society is saying tough ****, our morality is more important then yours because your morality has a negative effect on some people. Does that make their morality less valid?

Morality is in a constant stat of flux, even today. Look at turn of the 19th century bathing suits compared to today. Society's morality on showing skin has become lax. Porn stars have become mainstream far away from the darkened rooms of the past.

Then there is the criminals morality far outside the societal norms and conventions. Where was Holmes morals when he planned kill a bunch of people at a theater? Is he just an aberration?

So, yes, I agree that there are certain basic principles of morality. Do you agree that not everyone shares all of your principles of morality and neither should they need to?

You're confusing religious morals with bigotry and discrimination. That you are unable to see the difference is our societal problem; people continue to confuse religion and morals on many grounds.

I think your concepts of morality are a bit jumbled and hard to distinguish what you are referring to. Some could say you are giving examples of slipping of morality not necessarily an actual stand point. Just like someone could believe something is wrong and immoral but turn around and do it despite their belief that it is wrong. Does that mean their morality changed? No, it just means they ignored it for some motivation. Morals are not walls to most people, they are just something people strive to maintain for what ever purpose but sometimes they transgress them.

I try to make my morality as simplistic as possible.

1.If my action causes others * against their will, it is immoral.
2.If my action causes myself * against my will, it is immoral.
(number 2 is odd but necessary.)
3.If my action does not cause others * but it is against their will it is still immoral.
(number 3 might seem odd because why would someone not want something harmful done to them? Because it is against their will. It could be pleasurable but since they don't want it, it is wrong, and example of this could be unwanted sexual pleasure.)
4.If my action does not cause myself harm but it is against my will it is still immoral.
(number 4 might seem odd. Why would a person do something against their will to begin with? Especially if it is pleasurable. How could it be immoral? Because the person will feel guilty if it was against their desired morality but they lost will power to abstain against it. Why would failure to uphold a personal precept be immoral? Because it brings self pity or shame to one's self and causes pain, self torment and suffering.)
5. If my action does not cause others * and it is according to their will then it is moral.
6. If my action does not cause myself * and it is according to my will then it is moral.
7. If my action causes another * but it is not against their will, then it is moral. (an example is assisted suicide)
8. If my action causes myself * but it is not against my will, then it is moral.
(an example of number 8 would be drug use. It can cause harm and suffering but since it was not against the will then it is not immoral.)

* harm, pain and or suffering

Notice that I do not combine myself and others together. Others who object to my own actions on myself or towards others is irrelevant. Just because another person doesn't like the action it should not have any impact or bearing on weather it is immoral or not. Why? Because all cases are covered according to actions done either upon myself or others.

If I am perfectly fine paying for a prostitute who in turn is also fine with selling their body for sexual pleasure then no harm is done if both parties are in agreement and want to be involved. You could try to claim that prostitution is harmful but in my opinion it is no more harmful than any other activity. The important part here is their willingness to be involved. If they don't really want to be involved than it would be immoral.

I know number 8 a lot of people will object to and say it contradicts others but the important aspect is weather or not harm is willful or not. Such as, some people enjoy pain, they receive pleasure from it. To conclude that all pain is undesirable would be false. Some people know the risks of habitual drug use but continue with it even when forced to get help.

You can blame it on addiction being too powerful to overcome and this is why it is bad but no. If a person really wanted to quit they would. Many people don't want to quit because nothing else replaces their feelings while using the drug. You could consider this part of why it is considered bad. But once again, no. If that is true then you could use exercising in the same line of reasoning.

Anything and everything can be a source of addiction that can be unhealthy even if it is positive or helpful. However; people seldom ever acknowledge that these things are bad, because they seem so positive. They can still be just as destructive. Such as adhering to certain religious beliefs.

If your employees are only good for holding out their hands asking for a paycheck, then perhaps you should fire them.

Is there a reason why you don't fire them? Oh, yes. Perhaps they generate the revenue that your business runs on.

Are they aware of the contempt in which you hold them?

You tend to go to extremes a lot.

I did not say that "employees are only good for holding out their hands asking for a paycheck". I also did not realize that most employee's were so altruistic as to only be working for the betterment and success for the company as you seem to imply.

I would never have contempt for a good employee. They are indeed the bread and butter of most businesses. But, how do they have jobs without the owner supplying that job for them? They get paid for the job they do. How many employees do you know that would not move to a new job for better pay and benefits?

I'm sorry, I must've misread this:



Hmm.... maybe I didn't misread it.

I became a free-lance small business manager in the early 1990s, and kept at it until i got a full-time job as a small business manager, on the understanding that i'd give up the free-lance work for a negotiated salary.

Government aid for small businesses is out there, it's free, and it makes a big difference in small business success. OSHA and the state equivalents will give free workshops to the employees on work place safety and safe material handling, and not only does that make one's work place safer, and therefore more efficient in the long run, but it reduces both liability and property insurance rates. All you have to do is get the agency to certify your participation, and ask your insurance agent to show up. Most insurance agents are happy to submit a request for the rate reduction without showing up, as long as you get the certificate.

Workers' Compensation agencies will give you reporting information and certify your days worked without loss to injury and work-place related illness, and every such agency that i've ever dealt with will reduce your rates based on exemplary performance, in conjunction with the OSHA training and certification. Ohio may have been unique, but we got a one-time reduction of our payments of 95% for two years, and a continuing reduction of 25% as long as we stayed in the top 10% of least days lost (which we did).

EOE certified us for compliance, which meant that we qualified for all sorts of Federal, state, county and municipal contracts without further reporting requirements as long as we kept our EOE certification current.

You usually only pay on one filing of your quarterly 940 (Federal Unemployment), and it's not an onerous burden. In most states, if you comply with all employee disciplanary procedures and employee termination procedures, and can document it, you'll get a reduction in the state unemployment insurance rates you pay. We successfully contested every unemployment claim we got for termination for cause because we were able to document the disciplinary procedure, with the signature of the disciplined employee on all documents in every step of the process. (Typically, this means a warning letter which the employee signs. Refusal of the employee to sign can be witnessed by the small business owner, the business manager if that is a separate employee and the employee's immediate supervisor. Subsequent suspensions can also be documented with the employee signature, or the appropriate signatures if the employee refuses to sign. Follow all the rules, cross all your Ts and dot all your Is, and you'll get rate reductions.)

Keeping all of your Federal and State paperwork up to date, as well as meeting all workplace safety regulations can mean really substantial rate reuction in liability and property insurance rates, and the rates paid to government agencies. The most common reason that small businesses fail, other than stupidity in choosing one's business is failure to properly comply with government reporting requirements. You can even reduce fines and penalties by making sure that you file all of your paperwork on time, and actually talk to those people to let them know what's going on with your business.

Apart from that, the fastest way to go out of business is to fail to sequester employee withholding, FICA and Medicare funds. When you submit your FICA, Medicare and Federal and State withholding payments, you aren't paying some extra, onerous burden. That money already was owed to the employee, and you were just holding it "in trust" until you submitted to the approriate agency. If your business doesn't "smell right" to government agencies, failure to sequester withholding and insurance payments is the easiest way for them to shut you down. It's the most common failing of small businesses, when small business owners act as though it were their money, and an imposition. Miss your 941 payment, and wait for the Socieal Security Administration (to which all such payments are submitted) to contact you, and i guarantee you'll soon be closing your doors.

I've never owned my own small business, but i've kept several small businesses in business, and helped others to succeed. Working closely and in good faith with government is an excellent way to assure your success. It's also a good way to keep all of your insurance rates low.

For which they earned helping to make the owners business a success which was Clycloptichorn point in the first place. An owner of a business, you or any owner deserves credit for his or her success but so do the people and all the systems and infrastructure which helped to make that business a success. Why not just admit that is a correct statement and move on?

I did similar work for several companies during my working career in management. What you say about tax withholdings and payments to the state and federal agencies is correct - in addition to having workers comp insurance based on the company's safety record.

Not sequestering withholding monies will get you shut down in a heart beat. It's best to pay those liabilities just as soon as they are due, even if you have to mortgage the house to do it.

As I understood it, the officers of a company becomes liable for unpaid payroll taxes. Their assets can be seized without much recourse.

They are also liable for charges of larceny. That money is the employees' money, not the employer's money.

I read about this happening a few times a year. We had some businesses here in CA that were recently shut down for exactly this - they had their line of credit from the banks they work with reduced, so they simply quit withholding taxes properly.

Cycloptichorn

I couldn't answer that before knowing what you believe about what it is that constitutes Romney's method.

The political hay about "vulture capitalism"? The layoffs? If so, I haven't heard anything unethical at all about any of that. Sounds like what typically happens when you acquire distressed companies and try to turn them around (if you can't magically increase revenue instantly you can try cutting costs, which layoffs represents). The money overseas? As long as no law is broken I see nothing wrong with that either, most Americans try to pay as little as they have to and it's just healthy self-interest. Americans preach free market capitalism only within American borders and this is silly, if the principles are sound they apply on the global level and there should be nothing wrong with shopping around for where you are going to keep your holdings (it's not a great strategy from a pure risk perspective to keep them in one country these days anyway).

So unless there really is some real perfidy to how he made his fortune what is it that you are asking about? Whether or not he buys the political mudslinging and caricatures of him or not? Do you think it is morally correct? And why not?

http://able2know.org/topic/194466-2#post-5054730

I can expound at length regarding the many business practices that Romney and Bain engaged in which don't quite square with the public persona and picture he'd like to present. It goes far deeper than layoffs and outsourcing. The entire business model of the LBO world revolves around using tax breaks and accounting gimmicks to transfer money from public coffers (in the form of taxes paid by companies) into private hands (in the form of 'management fees' and high debt payments to banks).

The layoffs and outsourcing are just the tip of the iceberg, RG. I can link to several articles discussing the methods Bain used to garner profits, if you like, and the negative externalities generated by the use of these methods.

Cycloptichorn