Posted by Tina
Every enterprise expects to have a certain amount of paperwork but keeping the cost of such work to a minimum is smart business. When it reaches the point where it is a drag on profitability something must be done to streamline operations and efficiency. When government imposes too much regulation this burden, red tape, acts as a discouragement to business because it cannot be streamlined for efficiency. It is also an added expense for taxpayers who must pay government workers to process the paperwork. It is also costly to consumers who are charged higher prices on products. Everyone loses!
The threat of higher taxes and even more regulation is looming as a new year approaches. Unless Congress acts taxes will go up for everyone and for business next year. Investment taxes will go up putting even more strain on job creators. Is it any wonder business is reluctant to expand or hire? They have no idea what new regulations and taxes will cost. They don’t want to hire and train people only to be forced to let them go a few months later. This uncertainty means that Americans without jobs have little hope of finding a job in the near future.
Consider the plight of this American the next time someone says that Barack Obama deserves another term as president:
Since abruptly losing her $312 weekly unemployment check in June, Laurie Cullinan has depleted her savings, sought food from the Salvation Army and lit candles to save electricity.
If she can’t find a job this month, the Royal Oak, Mich., resident worries she’ll be evicted from her apartment, an unthinkable prospect for the 52-year-old, who enjoyed a solidly middle-class lifestyle until she lost her office-manager job two years ago.
“What am I going to do if I’m homeless?” says Cullinan, who collected unemployment for 1 years. “My mind won’t let me comprehend that.”
Cullinan is among about 1 million long-term unemployed Americans whose jobless benefits are phasing out this year as the federal government reels in Great Recession lifelines that provided unemployment checks for as long as 99 weeks in many states. By year’s end, another 2 million will see their checks cut off sooner than Cullinan’s were, because extended unemployment benefits will end beyond the standard 26 weeks that states pay for.
This woman is suffering so that Obama and his socialist buddies can play a Marxist game called spread the wealth. So far that spreading game isn’t spreading toward the millions of Americans that find themselves in Laurie Cullinan’s position.
This administration is a failure…and a disgrace.
Nice try, but wrong. Laurie Cullinan is suffering because so many jobs have been outsourced, many to China. People like Romney are the ones who have profited from outsourcing, while people like Laurie have been hurt. The “job creators” should only get a tax break, when they actually create jobs.
The solution is exactly the opposite of what Romney proposes, we need to increase taxes on the upper income earners, keep taxes on the middle class low and as I’ve said before, impose tariffs on imported products. This will bring jobs back to the USA and help people like Laurie get back to work.
Laurie Cullin is not out of a job because of outsourcing. Her job was lost because of this stagnant and dying economy. But many jobs have been lost to outsourcing and for many reasons. American companies face an unfair advantage in the global economy. Their taxes are the highest in the world and their employment costs are higher. But these aren’t the only reasons. We have lost jobs to other countries where the people have sought education and training and have a strong work ethic. Too many Americans are lacking in job skills and education. People in India and China welcome the opportunity to earn and, having come from lands with little opportunity, have the incentive to produce. We have also lost jobs in this country because of the government failure to pass trade agreements. This means that emerging countries are buying their goods from Canada, India, China…even Brazil instead of America.
Romney did not outsource jobs Jim. Romney was involved with companies that ALSO do business in other countries. Romney’s record of success saving businesses that were already failing is 85%. He helped those businesses to save and create jobs in America as the companies survived and grew. He also saved the Salt Lake Olympics when it was economically in the dumper and badly managed. His leadership gave the games $100 million in surplus funds.
Please explain to me how taking money in the form of taxes from people who have extra money will help to create jobs in the private sector. Tell me please how taxing the small business owner, the people responsible for most jobs in America, will help to create jobs.
I want the full explanation…how will raising taxes on job creators help them create jobs?
This country has had and continues to impose tariffs on goods imported to America from countries with a distinct advantage. New tariffs were recently imposed on China:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/u-s-imposes-dumping-tariffs-on-chinese-vietnamese-wind-towers
Trade agreements have always included tariffs and quite often they hurt American consumers:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094d.asp
On the other hand, eliminating tariffs between our country, Canada and Mexico has had a positive effect in all three countries:
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/archives/2002/january/nafta-partners-speed-elimination-tariffs-
Protectionists on the far right and globalists on the far left do not understand or support principles that create job opportunity and business. American business can compete and create jobs but to do so they have to be able to compete. High taxation and expensive complex regulation are the biggest job killers, Jim. American’s also need to realize that competition means they have to sharpen their skills and work ethic.
Find information about tariffs and trade here:
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/prepared_reports.asp
http://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2010/index.htm
More food for thought.
=========
The U.S. Economy By The Numbers: 70 Facts That Barack Obama Does Not Want You To See
Why is the economy going to collapse? Have you ever been asked that question? If so, what did you say? Sometimes it is difficult to communicate dozens of complicated economic and financial concepts in a package that the average person on the street can easily digest. It can be very frustrating to know that something is true but not be able to explain it clearly to someone else. Hopefully many of you out there will find the list below useful. It is a list of 70 numbers that show why we are headed for a national economic nightmare. So why does the title of the article single out Barack Obama? Well, it is because right now he is the biggest cheerleader for the economy. He is attempting to convince all of us that everything is just fine and that the economy is heading in a positive direction. Well, the truth is that everything is not fine and things are about to get a whole lot worse. Certainly others should share in the blame as well. Congress has been steering the economy in the wrong direction for decades, the “too big to fail” banks have turned
Wall Street into a pyramid of risk, leverage and debt, and the Federal Reserve has more power over the financial system than anyone else does. Our economy has been in decline for quite a while now, and soon we are going to smash directly into an economic brick wall. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are in denial about this. A lot of people out there doubt that an economic collapse is coming. Well, if you know someone that believes that the U.S. economy is going to be “just fine”, just show them the list below.
The following are 70 facts that Barack Obama does not want you to see….
Full list here:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-u-s-economy-by-the-numbers-70-facts-that-barack-obama-does-not-want-you-to-see
Senator Coburns Wastebook guide to government spending:
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365
Tina: “Their taxes are the highest in the world”
Why do you continue to repeat this after I have already shown you it isn’t true, especially when you consider the extremely low *effective* tax rate that most corporations actually pay?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/02/worlds-highest-corporate-tax-rate-hurts-us-economically
World’s Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically
By Joseph Mason
April 2, 2012
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-04/markets/31567901_1_corporate-tax-rate-tax-code-special-tax-provisions
America’s High Corporate Tax Rate Hurts Everyone
Laura Tyson|May 04, 2012|
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/02/morning-bell-the-highest-taxes-in-the-world/
Morning Bell: The Highest Taxes in the World
http://www.tax-rates.org/california/corporate-income-tax
In short, Chris, because it is absolutely true.
Ray Steven’s Obama Nation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaCytKXOSQ
“Romney did not outsource jobs Jim.”
Well, yeah he did. You should read up on the Burlington Coat factory, which imported clothing from China, some of which was made of Dog and Cat fur. Yes, Romney was selling us Dog and Cat fur from China.
“Please explain to me how taking money in the form of taxes from people who have extra money will help to create jobs in the private sector. Tell me please how taxing the small business owner, the people responsible for most jobs in America, will help to create jobs.’
Ok, lets go over this again. Businesses and business owners (like Romney) should only get a tax break, when they actually create jobs. Reinvest in your business, hire new people, then you get a tax break, otherwise you pay a higher tax rate.
Romney is the poster boy of why tax cuts don’t create jobs. Romney pays a very very low tax rate, and then takes his profits and invests them overseas. This doesn’t help American workers one bit. Now I’m not saying that he doesn’t have the right to do what he wants with his money, however if he is going to turn his back on America, he should pay a much higher tax before he moves it to a offshore bank.
Think back to the 1950’s, back when the tax rate was much, much higher. American was very prosperous back then.
I feel we should go back to the Reagan tax rates. We need more investment in America, which will create more jobs.
Jim: “You should read up on the Burlington Coat factory, which imported clothing from China, some of which was made of Dog and Cat fur. Yes, Romney was selling us Dog and Cat fur from China.”
Ooooooh…how terrible. People have been sleeping with pillows and comforters stuffed with goose down and feathers since the beginning of time. People wear clothing made from mink, rabbit, alligator, and snake. Indians and other native tribes always used skins for clothing…whats the big deal?
Unions are the only ones protesting low priced clothing made in China People who want and need clothing at a price that they can afford could care less.
Burlington Coat Factory was going out of business…probably because they couldn’t compete with products made in China…when Bain agreed to save the company. The union was striking at the time and as unwilling to negotiate as the teachers union in Wisconsin recently. Union bosses have been winning more and bigger salaries and benefits for American workers for decades but they were too stupid to realize they were selling their workers down the river. UNION workers HAVE TO COMPETE,,,just like business has to compete. Union workers better figure this out or they will just keep losing jobs to outsourcing and business failure.
Burlington has employees in America:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Burlington-Coat-Factory-EI_IE114.11,34.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Burlington-Coat-Factory-EI_IE114.11,34.htm
“Businesses and business owners (like Romney) should only get a tax break, when they actually create jobs. Reinvest in your business, hire new people, then you get a tax break, otherwise you pay a higher tax rate.”
The tax code has never worked that way. Business is taxed on profits. Business has an incentive to hire in terms of taxes because employees represent a cost which brings down their taxable profits. Your formula would set up a great opportunity to avoid paying taxes…hire a couple of people before tax time and let them go after. Businesses wouldn’t want to do that but if you gave them a way to save on tax expenditure (and the price of their product and profits) they would!
You still haven’t explained how Obamas idea of taxing people who create jobs (those who earn over $200. – $250 K) will create jobs. don’t feel bad Obama can’t answert that either. It’s class warfare not a viable plan to put Americans back to work.
“Romney pays a very very low tax rate…”
Sure…he just arbitrarily decides what he wants to pay. Don’t be an idiot! He pays every penny that is due according to the tax code. He pays at a lower rate because he doesn’t get a salary. He pays tax on interest and dividend income. He pays according to the tax code our legislators designed. The tax rate on investment income is low because our legislators KNOW that jobs come from investments. It’s low because they KNOW that retirement accounts are invested in stocks and retirees (elderly fixed income folks) are paying tax on the returns of these investments.
“(Romney)…then takes his profits and invests them overseas.”
You and I don’t have any idea where Romney has his money invested. He might have some invested overseas but so what. Do you have a personal retirement plan? If so have you ever taken a look at the many companies where your money is invested? You’d probably be surprised to find that you too are invested overseas.
Romney (Bain) saved a number of companies that were going under. That means he took a financial risk to help businesses, and the employees that worked for them, to survive and thrive. His investment of cash and his advice took companies that would probably close and made them viable once more. They went on to open new stores and hire more people. Businesses like Staples and Sports Authority. His success rate was around 80%. He also lost money on the 20% that failed.
“…if he is going to turn his back on America”
Jim…there is no evidence that Romney has “turned his back” on America. That is pure Saul Alinsky political trash talk. Are you aware that Romney gave all of his fathers fortune to charity when he inherited it? Are you aware of their charitable giving?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/
He has also truly served in the community. In the State of Massachusetts he took no salary as governor. He took no salary as president of the Olympics.
The Romney’s have been blessed…maybe it’s because they are also giving people and they believe in charitable service.
“Think back to the 1950’s, back when the tax rate was much, much higher.”
Tax rates were high coming off a devastating world war I wouldn’t recommend that as a way to get America working again.
In the fifties we also didn’t have the big social programs (^)% of the federal budget). We didn’t have complicated regulatory burdens and public sector benefits burdens….both of which are killing state budgets.
You’re right about the Reagan era. Romney is closer to Reagan in terms of tax rates, jobs, and investment in America than Obama. Obama is a classic redistribution machine…a model that when taken to its logical conclusion will make us all moderately poor (With a few elitists running government and living high on the hog).
Government spends money. (Obama plan)
The private sector makes money grow into wealth and opportunity. (Romney plan)
Under Obama we end up with debt, a stagnant, failing economy, and fewer and fewer job opportunities.
Under Romney we will see the economy grow, slowing of debt to debt reduction, wealth and job creation…and tax revenues flowing to government from a growing tax base and profitable companies.
America NEEDS Romney. He’s the ONLY choice for a prosperous America
Jim there is an element of truth in what you said…
From ABC’s Goodmorning America….
“…a recent investigation by the Humane Society found that what’s labeled and advertised as faux fur isn’t always fake. In testing a sampling of coats, they found that 24 out of 25 samples were mislabeled — most contained the fur of a raccoon dog, a dog that looks like a raccoon.
Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, found the news that fur advertised as fake can actually come from dogs outrageous.
“The images that we have seen in China are truly chilling — animals literally skinned alive for a product where we have an alternative this day in age,” he said.
The Humane Society collected the coats they tested from a variety of major retailers, including Lord and Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy’s, Burlington Coat Factory and JC Penny. They discovered that celebrity clothing lines were also at fault — real fur was found in clothing from Jay-Z’s RocaWear line, P Diddy’s Sean John label and Beyonce Knowles’ House of Deron brand.
“I think what we have found is that the industry at the design level and retail level just isn’t paying attention, they are asleep at the wheel,”
Let us take one more look…all these places got taken by Chinese imports:
Lord and Taylor
Saks Fifth Avenue
Macy’s
Burlington Coat Factory
JC Penny
Jay-Z’s
RocaWear
P Diddy’s
Sean John
Beyonce Knowles’ House of Deron brand.
Which one of the above would not mind their clothing line being associated with dog fur? So why were they so stupid? Why do business with China after all the crap the Chinese have sent us? Why would they not do a simple test on their own to insure the quality of their merchandise?
I hope the women that bought this crap are sickened over it and they burn their coats on the steps where they bought them.
But, trying to make some connection to this scandal and Mitt Romney is too much of a stretch for a reasonable thinking person. He was too far removed from the ordering of dog fur from China, now that part just doesn’t hold up. We have to reasonable here.
“Under Romney we will see the economy grow, slowing of debt to debt reduction, wealth and job creation…and tax revenues flowing to government from a growing tax base and profitable companies.”
Can you tell us how this is going to work? Romney hasn’t.
It’s so odd. All these laissez-faire principles to which you cling, in defiance of hundred of years of proof that they spawn hellish economic insecurities … Romney makes vague, and plauditory references to them, but he (and you) cannot explain how, this time, it’s going to work out good.
Tina, it is absolutely NOT true that the “effective” corporate tax rate is 39.2%. The marginal tax rate is that high, but according to some estimates, most corporations are actually paying less than one third of that. From Time:
“According to the Wall Street Journals recent study of Congressional Budget Office numbers, corporations are paying an effective rate of 12.1%, the lowest in at least 40 years. So why are some of the biggest and most powerful entities in our society getting away with paying so little? The story is complicated, but the biggest factor in the recent collapse in corporate tax receipts appears to be a set of tax breaks built into recent stimulus efforts.
In 2010 and 2011, companies were allowed to deduct the full cost of the purchases of new equipment, while normally these costs would be expensed over several years. In 2012, this deduction will go down to 50% and be eliminated altogether thereafter, causing the effective tax rate to return to roughly the 25.6% average effective tax rate corporations paid since the late 1980s, according to CBO forecasts.
Of course that 25.6% number is still quite a bit lower than the nominal tax rate of 35%, the highest in the world behind only Japan. So why arent corporations paying what the law says they should? Certainly, some are. According to Howard Barnet, a tax attorney with Carter Ledyard & Milburn, it all depends on what kind of corporation you are. He says that large, multinational corporations have many more strategies available to them to reduce tax burdens than smaller, domestic firms do. Pile on top of that all the tax goodies that politicians like to lavish on their favorite industries like tech, manufacturing, and real estate and, its a small subset of domestic companies left holding the bag, Barnet says.
It would seem, then, that whatever your concept of fairness is with regards to personal tax rates, the corporate tax regime in America is blatantly unfair, with some corporations not paying enough and others shouldering too heavy a burden. Our current system, however, will probably not continue much longer. While 2012 will be a year of gridlock in Washington, tax reform will be on the top of the agenda for the President and Congress after the election, with corporate tax rates and loopholes a major target of reform.
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/#ixzz22nOfJrQ9
The top ten most profitable corporations are paying even less than 12%:
“A recent NerdWallet study found that the top ten most profitable American companies paid an average of 9% of their pre-tax earnings in taxes to the U.S. federal government last year. These same companies reported an average tax provision of 32%.”
http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/markets/2012/corporate-taxes-only-9-percent/#.UCANU01lS2B
And remember, corporate profits are at an all-time high:
“Despite high unemployment and a largely languishing real estate market, U.S. businesses are more profitable than ever, according to federal figures released on Friday.
U.S. corporate profits hit an all-time high at the end of 2010, with financial firms showing some of the biggest gains, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis show. Corporations reported an annualized $1.68 trillion in profit in the fourth quarter. The previous record, without being adjusted for inflation, was $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006.
Many of the nation’s preeminent companies have posted massive increases in profits this year. General Electric posted worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, while profits at JPMorgan Chase were up 47 percent to $4.8 billion.
Corporate profits steadily increased last year as companies continued holding onto record amounts of cash and other liquid assets while cutting costs, laying off workers and wringing more productivity — defined as the amount of output that comes from an hour of work — from remaining staff, even as the recession eased.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/corporate-profits-2011-all-time-high_n_840538.html
I would be in favor of restructuring the tax code so that big corporations don’t get to pay a lower tax rate than smaller ones. Is that a compromise you can get behind, Tina?
Obama has proposed a compromise that is even more generous to the right: lower the marginal tax rate from 35% to 28%, but close loopholes so that corporations actually pay the whole 28%:
“Obama announced a proposal Wednesday to overhaul the country’s corporate tax structure. Under the terms of the new plan, the president will seek to eliminate many of the corporate tax breaks that American companies enjoy. Obama proposes lowering the top marginal corporate tax rate to 28 percent from the current 35 percent…
…The Obama administration hopes closing the loopholes will offset revenue lost from lowering the tax rate.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/obama-corporate-tax-breaks_n_1293512.html
What do you think about these ideas, Tina? I think President Obama’s compromise is a step in the right direction.
I have posted the links to webpages that give the details of Romney’s policy proposals. You’ve had the opportunity to easily satisfy your curiosity on at least two occasions right here at PS.
This is an election cycle. The big ideas will be rolled out in speeches at the convention. But Romney can’t give us much more than broad policy ideas anyway. No candidate can. The fleshing out of policy ideas gets handled in the Congress, as you well know.
Obama wants to raise taxes on those who are most likely to invest their money and create jobs.
Romney doesn’t think raising taxes on these people makes sense in this economy.
Hope and Change wasn’t exactly what I’d call detailed policy but you certainly were prepared to jump on that band wagon. This has resulted in a disastrous worsening of the recession for most Americans that have been hurt.
I have told you how lowering tax rates on job creators would grow the economy and create jobs countless times.
You cannot tell me how raising taxes on “the rich” people will grow the economy and create jobs.
“All these laissez-faire principles to which you cling, in defiance of hundred of years of proof that they spawn hellish economic insecurities…”
And what “hellish” economic insecurities would that be?
Libby it is simple common sense. I know you are not so dense that you cannot get a few very simple concepts.
The Obama administration has been pretty hostile to business and the wealthy…except for those few corporatists that play ball with him (GM, Imelt, Buffet…the guilty rich in Hollywood, certain health care and insurance companies, and AARP). I posted the chart of excessive changes in regulation under Obama. These and the new healthcare mandates and taxes have created great uncertainty. Increased spending, added debt, and monetary policy also add to the uncertainty. None of this has made business people feel comfortable to invest in their companies or to hire.
Government needs to make those people feel optimistic to change their behavior. As for history…there is a long trail of success in America and it all happened when government was supportive of business including keeping taxes low:
w.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
Here’s the link to that original publication:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax
Chris I didn’t say the “effective” rate was 39.2% so please don’t imply that I did (or that I was intentionally attempting to fool anyone) by opening with a sentence that suggests I did.
Tax rates are what they are. Individuals also don’t always pay the rate their income demands depending on their legal deductions. Some people have interest and home deductions and deductions for each child. A single guy without a home and no kids will pay a bucket load more than his best friend with a home and kids even if they work the same job. Nobody screams about effective tax rates in his defense because they can’t demonize friends. Corporations have been made targets because the numbers are really big. Nobody thinks about what those profits have to buy so that the next years payroll will be met or new jobs at the new plant in the next state will be possible.
America had better wake up about the role that companies play in their lives. Nobody like cheating and nobody likes employers that treat employees badly but most people are treated pretty decently in their jobs and never give any thought to what it takes to make their paycheck magically appear each payday.
The “efffective rate” argument is meant to confuse or make people think someone is cheating when in fact they are doing what ANYONE would do. Everyone does what they can to keep their tax BILL as low as the law will allow.
US corporate tax rates are still the highest in the world which means that companies have to do whatever they can to level the playing field with competitors that have a smaller tax (and regulatory) burden.
“I would be in favor of restructuring the tax code so that big corporations don’t get to pay a lower tax rate than smaller ones. Is that a compromise you can get behind, Tina?
In general yes. I’m not a tax expert, though, and I’m not an expert in international business. There may be issues related to taxation that would apply and that would help American workers that I’m not qualified to determine. I have always said the tax code should be simple and that tax rates should be kept as low as possible to maximize growth and prosperity. I think a rising tide does lift all boats…at least those that have owners willing to risk putting them in the water.
“Obama has proposed a compromise that is even more generous to the right: lower the marginal tax rate from 35% to 28%, but close loopholes so that corporations actually pay the whole 28%”
That’s interesting. His budget proposal would have been a good place for something like that. If I remember correctly, not a single person in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, voted for his budget proposal. Had he been sincere….his budget would have passed with this proposal in it.
From my perspective his sincerity in the matter is highly suspect. It’s in direct opposition to his core “spread the wealth” principle…take from those who have and give to those that have less (Or his constituents and base).
His record is what it is…he may be just saying this in an election year to get votes. He can also say it and, for now at least, rely on Harry Reid to stop it in the Senate. he also says it without admitting that the Ryan plan, which he and his cohorts demonized without a single hat tip for Ryans proposal of lower tax rates and a simplified code.
And by the way…Obama’s proposal has been a Republican goal for the entire tax code for decades. Dick Army was one of the representatives talking about it in the Bill Clinton years. Paul Ryan included it in his budget proposal that your party laughed at…Paul Ryan on the fiscal year 2013 budget:
http://paulryan.house.gov/Top5Issues/fy2013budgettaxreform.htm
The House has 240: Republicans; 191: Democrats; 0: Independents; 4: Vacancies
The ideas are good…Obama, in my opinion, is blowing smoke to get elected.
I am happy to know that you are in favor of one thing that Republicans and some Democrats through the years have attempted to give the American people for decades, a simplified tax code with lower rates!
“And what “hellish” economic insecurities would that be?”
Well, these market crashes we’ve been having every twenty years or so … before that we had a long stretch (from the one big war through the other) of nascent socialism (no crashes) … and before that, for about two hundred years before that, we had market crashes every twenty, thirty years. And all our founding propoganda notwithstanding, there was no “getting ahead”. The rich were rich, and the poor were poor, and that was it.
Some of us have been paying attention … and some of us HAVE NOT.
“This woman is suffering so that Obama and his socialist buddies can play a Marxist game called spread the wealth.”
Or … our socialist state (such as it is) allowed these people to survive, unemployed, for a year and a half. That’s quite helpful, really. But it can’t go on forever. The office manager is going to have to go back to office work.
And if she had managed an office in the financial services sector, I think she’s going to remember upon whose watch the seeds of her economic demise were sown.
But you keep plugging away, Tina.