The Simplicity Test: A Simple Policy Guide for Job Growth

The simplest way to create more jobs is to allow small business and entrepreneurs  to  spend less time and money on lawyers and accountants and redirect that intellectual and financial capital to the core competencies of their business.

Any new government policy that requires the hiring of lawyers and accountants will not lead to new jobs, it will lead to time and money being wasted and fewer jobs being created.

Like the administration before it, the current administration seems to have no concept of what it takes to start, run and grow a small business. None.

Here is a hint. If you want to see more jobs created by Small Businesses and entrepreneurs REDUCE the amount of paperwork required. Dramatically simplify the tax code. In other words, if you REDUCE THE OVERHEAD of small business, you effectively create capital for them through reduced costs. Not only do you improve their financial position, but you reduce that great big time suck known as dealing with your accountants and lawyers. The more time wasted with “professional services”, the less time spent doing your job. This seems to be a concept lost on government.

One last thing. It appears to be a goal of the administration to free up loans to small businesses. For the sake of this comment, let me re-define Small Business as those companies with fewer than 20 employees. There are exceptions, but more often than not, the stupidest thing a business of this size can do is borrow money. Its stressful enough for a small business in these times to be profitable. Add to that stress the need to repay a loan and success becomes far more difficult.

If we want to accelerate the formation and growth of these small businesses we need to first reduce the costs imposed on them by the government (at all levels) and then  simplify and reduce the costs of raising capital.  Forget government loan guarantees.  Make capital gains on investments up to $1mm in small companies tax free. Make this process paperwork free for the small business and a 1 page form for the investor.

Thats how we will see economic and job growth in this country

59 thoughts on “The Simplicity Test: A Simple Policy Guide for Job Growth

  1. Thank You Mark from the bottom of my heart,
    You Have inspired me.Please Read
    Imagine waking up one morning with the only one goal, and that goal is do anything possible to get enough money to feed yourself and buy blood pressure medicine so you won’t have a stroke and make things worse. I would say that this is the average goal of every older citizen of these United States of America. What a crock of poo. You Republicans and you Democrats with your high and mighty political connections to the rich and famous will burn in Hell for casting us older Citizens away to die. You guys are going to at least hear from me. I am Bill D. Lavoie and I am the Inventor of U.S. Patent 5077788 System and method for processing telephone communication – US . Before you guys just turn to the next page and pass me by, listen very carefully. In 1979 I developed an Idea to put personal computers and telephone systems together so we could communicate with each other. I actually made a working model out of a 2 commodore 64 computers and designed a modem that I could wire the phone line and phone into and process digital voice and data through the telephone system. In brief I had a working design of the very thing I’m using today to send this information out, “in 1979“. But alas, I was ridiculed, scorned, and made to believe that I was living in a fantasy world. I tucked my tale and tried to come up with something useful to society. In 1985 I came up with a way to change 911 into E911 and make the phone company process the digital signals from a desk top computer from “Best Buy”, making it affordable for small communities to purchase and implement Enhanced 911. 1989 I applied for a Patent. The original “Best Buy” Computer and all of it’s components, software included, which I wrote and it turns out was the first windowed based operating program EVER and I called it Window Frames. In other words you could say my patent open the door wide open for the internet age as we see it today” and YES this is exactly what I intended. Now, this is where you political active “World Savers” need to step up and make the big World Change, just like you promised you would do. Shortly after I demonstrated this in Houston, Texas in 1990, to a large group of High ranking ATT, ITT, Bell Companies, Texas county officials, I was called away to do work else where. I was pushed aside and told they would call me if anything came of it. I ended up in a coma and lost all my mental and physical abilities for many, many years. I did not even know about it until about 2 months ago when Mark Cuban Started writing on his Mavericks Blog about great Inventors who changed the world with their Intellectual Property Patents “Had to look that one up” and did not get their just rewards out of it. I challenge you Politically active people to not take my word for it. LOOK IT U, It is real Easy, just Google my Name, Bill D. Lavoie and you will find with ease 51 other inventors that have patents that they had to reference my Patent to make their patent work. Other Published Inventors say that every one of these guys should have paid me royalties, but the US Patent office could not get in touch with me…..Really!!!! The IRS, bill collectors, law enforcement, and The Attorney General Of Texas ”Child Support” NEVER HAD a problem finding me. Mark Cuban did not know what he started down deep in my soul and sprit. The only way you Politically Active persons can keep me quite now is to KILL ME. NOW Here is where YOU CAN DO SOMETHING. If you find that I did have a revolutionary Idea. I have A HOLY CRAP Method that WILL fix everything and all of our Energy and Pollution problems. If we could convince the Public and Political majority to except a federal mandate to make Bio Diesel the only fuel expectable by 2011 and price cap it at 3.50 a gallon, we as Americans and Industrialist would be out of Debt in no time at all. The BY Product of this would feed the world. I also Have a design to build your home and make it pay for itself in 10 years no mater how big or small you build it, by selling power back to the LARGE POWER GRIDS. THESE 2 Ideas WILL work and not cost a fortune. ALL YOU HAVE to do is CALL ME and I will show you step by step how to implement this. BUT I AM Sure as I am sitting here looking at the PAST you will
    ridicule, scorn, and believe that I am living in a fantasy world. I have already heard this from family, so called friends, ex wives and girl friends, even though I can make a working model on both of these. I GURANTEE THIS TIME If someone wakes UP and decides to make money out of one of these Ideas I WILL GET MY PART THIS TIME.

    Bill D. Lavoie
    Inventor Patent 5077788.

    PS FCC Mandated My Method of Processing as the Standard to Process an E911 Call in September 1991. LOOK IT UP.

    Comment by billdlav -

  2. Quite simply put, complicated laws and regulations promote job growth in the accounting, legal, consulting and government sectors.

    Comment by sugarmtnfarm -

  3. I wonder why the government likes to make things complicated? I mean really, what’s in it for them?

    Comment by beevok -

  4. If a company of less than 20 employees is not supposed to borrow money, how do they get operating cash in the first few years?

    Comment by pspaeth -

  5. Pingback: AJAX – Beginner AJAX Tutorial – Creating a simple AJAX website … | AJAX WebDev Insider

  6. @ sugarmtnfarm

    Here’s a little “reasonable” logic for you ..

    1) Ayn Rand espoused the theories at the heart of Libertarian / Republican Party ideology (and, the Tea Baggers, btw). The gist of that theory “…is that the government keeps creating bureaucracies through legislation and regulation, in the process destroying private enterprise.” Ms. Rand’s philosophy. Your words, her ideas.

    2) Alan Greenspan was not only a close friend and confidante of Ms. Rand, he was the foremost authority and proponent of her philosophy. This lead him to incorporate those ideas into his guidance during his tenure at the Fed that resulted in the financial collapse of 2008 .

    3) Mr. Greenspan, in testimony before Congress in 2008 stated, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders.”

    Now, you assert your conclusion is reasonable, so ..

    rea·son·able – being in accordance with reason ,


    rea·son – the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways

    I don’t know how they define “reasonable” or “rational” in Vermont, but I doubt it includes adhering to a discredited theory that has been disavowed by its leading proponent.

    Please, wow me with some more baseless, stoic commentary on reasonable ideas you just dreamed up on the farm.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  7. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican nor do I watch FoxNews. You make too much in the way of assumptions. Add three more strikes to your batting average. And no, I’m not a baseball fan either just to clear that one up before you go off tangent again.

    Comment by sugarmtnfarm -

  8. Actually, you’re wrong. I’ve never ready anything by either of them. I simply came to the same reasonable conclusions independently. That makes twice you’re wrong. At least.

    Comment by sugarmtnfarm -

  9. @sugarmtnfarm,

    One more thing. Let’s remove this from the “opinion” category for just a minute. Here are some facts:

    Average annual job gain over the last 100 years under Republican presidents – .57%

    Average annual job gain over the last 100 years under Democrat presidents – 3.24%

    Again, the entire concept of sound Republican economic theory is a myth. Explain whatever way you want, it simply doesn’t alter the facts on the ground.

    I’ll restate it, regulation is always done in response to various corporate transgressions. You need to get your history from something other than Fox News.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  10. @sugarmtnfarm

    True, but your view is based on a discredited theory of government regulation espoused by Ayn Rand, and now abandoned by her biggest supporter, Alan Greenspan. Fooled once, shame on you, fooled twice, shame on me.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  11. “a worker in a federal bureaucracy is no more a bureaucrat than an employee working to protect their turf in a Fortune 100 company.”


    <a href="⋅reau⋅crat  %5Bbyoor-uh-krat%5D Show IPA –noun
    1. an official of a bureaucracy.
    2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

    “The reason we have government bureaucracies is because private business, with no motive other than profit, has repeatedly proven they cannot regulate themselves”

    Hmm… Your opinion. Another explanation is that the government keeps creating bureaucracies through legislation and regulation, in the process destroying private enterprise. Different views.

    Comment by sugarmtnfarm -

  12. @dcangelo

    Please explain to me who has appointed you, or John Boehner, for that matter, to determine what is a “real” job? For what it’s worth, working in government is a “real” job, too. Having worked in both the corporate world and in small businesses (and in a small business that grew into a Fortune 100 company), a worker in a federal bureaucracy is no more a bureaucrat than an employee working to protect their turf in a Fortune 100 company.

    The conservatives’ arbitrary assignation of private-industry jobs to the “real” category is a gross generalization that erroneously asserts an outdated assumption in a world of super powerful multi-national corporations.

    The reason we have government bureaucracies is because private business, with no motive other than profit, has repeatedly proven they cannot regulate themselves. One needs not look any further than the Bush presidency and the havoc his lack of regulatory emphasis had on the devastation of our economy.

    And, as to the overall complaint from Mark Cuban, there is no doubt that Mr. Cuban has not done any accounting or legal work in the last 15 years himself, nor has the presence of a capital gains tax stopped him from following his desire to invest in any venture he felt could make him huge gains.

    The number of people this solution would benefit is fairly limited. It seems like the point is just more right-wing bitching about big government.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  13. Pingback: Job Growth: I agree with Mark Cuban « Always 2nd in charge…until now.

  14. The time wasting and expensive paperwork generation rubbish of which you speak is a universal problem. In Australia many small businesses with less than 20 employees are preparing and lodging monthly statements with the Federal tax authority about sales, expenses, capital expenses, good and services tax, and tax deductions from people’s wages.

    They then also have to prepare and lodge quarterly superannuation statements, and make quarterly superannuation payments to comply with a federal superannuation law.
    Australian companies also need to lodge annual income tax statements, so the government can start taking out monthly amounts for your next year’s tax.

    This completely ignores State based taxes which is applied to land, property transfers, cigarettes, alcohol and petrol (gas).
    These differnt levels of government are onto you like a hawk if you are late with one of these forms, or payments yet it generally takes around 40 minutes to reach a person at the federal tax agency.

    The time that is wasted is large. The cost for bookkeeping, clerical, filing and accounting is large. When you combine this with the time and cost of dealing with phone companies, energy companies and local government some small Australian businesses biggest challenge is surviving the time, cost and anxiety of dealing with idiotic bureaucracies.

    Comment by jasonbresnehan -

  15. Mark: Others here have pointed this out—but I’ll say it again—many politicians in Washington have never had a “real” job or at least they’ve never run a business. What has the current President (or the man who preceeded him) done in his past that in any way, shape or form equates to understanding how to build an economy? Same for many U.S. Senators and Congress. Many of them have never built anything, have never employed anyone or dealt with the red tape of running a company. I totally agree with your proposals to stimulate job growth—though keep in mind, simplifying the tax code would put some accountants out of work and your other initiatives would put some lawyers out of work. Lawyers are the backbone of politics—so I doubt we’ll see their mission trimmed. This explains why tort reform was not even discussed by the people who were trying to force healthcare reform on the electorate.

    Comment by dcangelo -

  16. Pingback: Top Posts —

  17. Pingback: Guide to literature on textile engineering & textile science | Textile Engineering Addict

  18. Thanks Mark,

    Just wish you would have thought of this in 1991 when my patent was comming out, cause it would have saved me alot of sleepless nights. I am one of the listed Inventors on Patent 5077788. I,m sure you know what I mean.

    Call me If I can Help.
    Bill D Lavoie
    Inventor Patrent 5077788
    P.S. Got a “Holy Crap” Idea that would change the way we watch TV.

    Comment by billdlav -

  19. @dxkraus

    Your point about a 40% ownership stake in a private company being impaired is a good one. Actually, I can’t really argue with any of your points as I think our points of reference are different.

    I’m in the oil and gas business in Canada where private equity and loss of control is almost manditory to raising the cash necessary to build a company with any sort of value. Taking on debt early in the life of such a company is a huge risk not worth taking (in my opinion anyways).

    I suppose the key is finding the right investor whose interests are aligned with yours and who has a little bit of patience. If you jump in bed with a shark then yes, you are going to get hurt.

    Comment by jonathanjoyce37 -

  20. Pingback: Understanding Short-term Health Insurance | Affordable Individual Health Insurance Information

  21. Pingback: Hot Links: Drunken Sailors, Wall of Junk and the Princelings The Reformed Broker

  22. Pingback: My Experience with a Federal Health Insurance System | Web Health Insurance Punch

  23. Pingback: A Simple Policy Guide for Job Growth « Blog Maverick |

  24. Mark,
    Hi great article this is exactly what my father and I are experiencing right now, if this is truly how you feel will you please check out our website @ we can take a picture of animals and humans and produce a accurate weight in a couple of seconds. WOULD LOVE SOME GUIDANCE FROM YOU.
    Thank you,
    Joey Spicola Jr.

    Comment by joeyspicola -

  25. Pingback: links for 2010-02-01 | Kabam!

  26. @jonathanjoyce37 –

    I appreciate your response, and you make some good points. However, you do reach some faulty conclusions.

    Not only is the scenario I spoke of realistic, I have actually seen it occur. Once your role in management is removed, it’s not easy to get anything out of your investment. There are many instances of 40% being equal to 0%. For example, dividends. If “management” decides there are no dividends, your income can be zero. Further, if we’re talking about private equity here (which we are), the market value of your 40% is very likely zero. After all, who would buy a stock that left them little chance of seeing a return if the 60% owner had no interest in that.

    During the tech bubble, I often had tech people tell me that business was different in these days, that the rules had been re-written. While it is true that most tech companies were able to get large infusions of capital based on flimsy ideas, we all know where that ended up.

    Business is, and always has been, pretty straightforward. You have a good idea, or do something better than others, you put in sound business practices to develop that idea, market it correctly, work hard at it, and adapt to changing conditions, and you can be successful. Further, taking a line of credit to draw on is a very flexible way to fund your business efficiently.

    Intuitively, I would be willing to argue that the model you are promoting has resulted, in the vast majority of instances, in failure for the person who had the idea or created the business. Further, there are more than enough examples of a fat cat (i.e. Mark Cuban) stepping in and dissolving away one’s participation in a venture.

    That’s not to say I don’t love what Mark has done for the Mavericks, and love the intensity he brings to that. I can relate to Mark’s personality blemishes because he and I are very similar in many respects. But, my Daddy warned me about doing business with guys like Mark. If you are looking for someone to step in and give you that kind of money, the idea you have is either a) too unrealistic for your situation, or b) an attempt to shortcut good, solid work.

    Think about it … if you’re an entrepreneur, why would you essentially go to work for someone like Mark Cuban or Bill Gates and give them all the power? Nothing entrepreneurial about that.

    If you think I’m wrong, I’d love to hear exactly why.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  27. @dxkraus

    The capital gains holiday benefits you in that your investors’ required rate of return is going to go down. If their goal is a 100% after tax return in three years, they need 125% return before taxes if I assume a 25% tax rate. If you are raising $500k, that investor might ask for 60% of the business instead of 50% to cover the taxes.

    The reason that debt is such a bad idea is that you increase your chances of going bust. Fail to make your debt payments and you lose control.

    Raise equity and you give away some of the future value in exchange for spreading the risk with out shareholders. The scenario you speak of where an investor would have the ability to take your shares isn’t realistic. If you raise the money and give the investor over 50% then they can force you to make decisions you don’t like, or replace you as management. They don’t get to take away your equity in the business.

    Comment by jonathanjoyce37 -

  28. Hi Mark,

    I am trying to start up a retail clothing store with future plans for my own clothing line. I realize I am a little late for the stimulus plan but wanted to know if I you are still taking submissions? Looking forward to your response.

    Comment by jisaacs -

  29. Pingback: Market Talk » Blog Archive » Links 2/1/2010

  30. “REDUCE the amount of paperwork required. Dramatically simplify the tax code”

    I absolutely 100% agree with you there. The tax system in the UK is nigh on impossible to understand.

    Comment by petermcc0807 -

  31. DxKraus, a slightly modified Flat Tax makes it highly simple and progressive.
    Just exclude the first $10,000 earned from taxation per dependent including self.
    Since corps get free speech then they need to also be taxed as individuals, or pass through.

    Comment by sugarmtnfarm -

  32. Pingback: My daily readings 02/01/2010 « Strange Kite

  33. i am a democrat but i have to say.. i havent been real impressed with the obama administration so far. While i do believe generally in investing in energy alternatives and i certainly believe there are massive issues with healthcare. I just really haven’t seen any real smart play’s with the economy overal. For example, he stated he created 2 million jobs.. and acted like that was a ‘big deal’. His new idea of 5000 tax credit for a job.. is crazy !!!. An employer isnt going to hire a 100k person because they get a 5k discount. heck it will cost them 20k in recruiting fees alone !

    btw.. im for a national sales tax.. and an elimination of income taxes.

    one other quick question.. i saw the Dept of defense is asking for more money in this next budget.. What is really the justification? we are moving to just one war instead of two.. why are we increasing our costs?

    just seems like the gov. has gone absolutely NUTS on spending its getting old.. quick.

    Comment by mverinder -

  34. Stop with the flat tax proposals. There’s nothing fair or progressive about it.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  35. start with the Fair Tax. simple.

    Comment by packnic -

  36. I don’t think you need to change the taxation rules at all. I just think that you’re government needs to assist small businesses a bit more. Here in Toronto if you are a small business owner and you mention the words going out of business within ear shot of a government agency help pretty much falls into your lap. I have a friend who started a pool cleaning business through a government assisted summer program for students that featured help from a variety of small and large business owners and financial experts etc. and a few years later he’s living off of that business.

    Your government needs to start assisting it’s people and you all need to start assisting one another, that should be the powermove for the next decade in your country.

    And it’s not SOCIALISM!!! For any Republicans who might be reading this.

    Comment by westtor -

  37. Mark – it’s brain dead easy to start a business. Just register it online, contact ADP/PayChex to do payroll and you’re done.

    Not that hard.

    Comment by vkhare73 -

  38. would you please spend a few minutes of your time and check out my new blog. I am a farmer who has been raising more than 50 breeds of chickens for forty years.

    Comment by roostershamblin -

  39. No capital gains tax on these types of small business investments would be a fantastic boon to independent films!

    Comment by Noah -

  40. I don’t frequently agree with you Mark, but this is certainly an exception.

    Of course, saying we are freeing up money for mid-size businesses so they can finance equipment leases will get fewer votes. Even as a “lefty” many on here would call a “liburuul” with all the sarcasm in the world, I think that the most effective economics this year would be:

    a.) Payroll Tax Holiday until unemployment drops below 8%
    b.) Eliminate taxes on small businesses under 5M in revenue with at least 25 employees (i.e. the kind of small businesses that employ people, not just S-corp passthroughs).

    Comment by Aaron Erickson -

  41. As a small business owner (less than 20) I totally agree. And we actually expanded our full time roster by 2 people in the last 1.5 years. Bue I’m spending more time than ever dealing with the day-to-day crap and not focusing on expanding the business.

    I agree with pycnhros as well. Tax relief doesn’t help me at all. And I don’t care if it mean accountants and lawyers get less. Jobs come/jobs go – new automated systems at the grocery store means less cashiers – no one is lamenting the loss of those jobs. I applaud the jobs created in Tech by the company that makes the auto-checkout system.

    I’d trade my accountant/lawyer for more folks under my roof any day.

    Comment by tvtiguy -

  42. If we are to ever see something like a Flat Tax, it will probably have to be under a Democratic Administration, because the Democrats would never allow a Republican president to pass fundamental tax reform like this.

    The huge advantage of the Flat Tax is that tax is ridiculously easy for businesses to calculate–it’s just a percentage of net cash flow.

    If I could change tax policy, I would go with a Flat Tax for the income tax and completely abolish the highly regressive Social Security/Medicare Payroll Tax and replace it with a tax on energy consumption.

    Comment by texasgeologist -

  43. Mark,

    Will you weight in on Gilbert Arenas too. I’d like to hear your take and the impact on not only other players, but the other employees associated with the club.

    Comment by daruff2 -

  44. The point is that the wealth transfer would never take place to begin with if the transaction costs and current regulatory environment didn’t exist. Thus, by removing bureaucracy you are removing a wealth transfer, not creating one.

    Lower transaction costs are good all around – transaction costs are by their very definition non-productive.

    Small business employ over half of Americans. So yes, it would make sense that helping them out, even with small changes in overhead like this, would help the current unemployment situation. I won’t be silly enough to try and quantify that; I’m sure a reasonable economist could run the numbers.

    Comment by ccamrobertson -

  45. Fair enough ccamrobertson but if it’s only a transfer of wealth, are we really sure it’s more productive on a social basis to shift it to small business that may not even get off the ground from established industries that tend to pay more? How many small business can really get off the ground realistically without borrowing from either an angel investor, VC or bank? Is saving these costs really going to make more of a difference than savings via health care or other means? Enough to stem the unemployment numbers? I doubt it.

    Until the debt overhang is dealt with, this is really all conversation. I’m of the opinion this country needs to go thru a period of serious pain to get out from underneath the debt mountain at a corporate and government level and that will require some very hard choices our politicians dont want to present to us and we as citizens dont want to choose from.

    Comment by smorkingapple -

  46. “Like the administration before it, the current administration seems to have no concept of what it takes to start, run and grow a small business. None.”

    You have connections. Tell them Tell someone important.
    Maybe request a few minutes with the President. You can do it.

    Comment by markwolfinger -

  47. Flawed logic, smorkingapple. Many law firms in the most entrepreneurial of places (i.e. Silicon Valley) will work with startups on delayed payment plans so that they can avoid the initial overhead. This is because if the startup does create value, then they will keep coming back to the law firm for work, thus growing the firm.

    The point here is that legal, accounting and bureaucratic costs are all transactions costs – they don’t, in and of themselves create any value – it is just a wealth transfer. This isn’t to bash those professions. There is simply very little about doing paperwork for small businesses that is entrepreneurial, unless of course you look at lawyers and accountants who see the value of fostering small businesses who might one day be their biggest customers.

    And, that is not to say that we don’t need the safeguards provided by a proper legal framework for investors and entrepreneurs alike. But, reducing these costs goes a long way in helping entrepreneurs “jump in” to starting a business as opposed to sitting on the sidelines.

    Comment by ccamrobertson -

  48. Maybe it is about time accountants and lawyers step up to the plate and volunteer time to provide services for new companies. These services oriented companies can provide a service and the new company can pay the fees to file the paperwork to set up the company. Just providing this small example will go a long way to kick starting new companies!

    Comment by alman32 -

  49. Help me out with this, Mark. On the one hand you argue that “the stupidest thing a business of this size can do is borrow money”, and on the other hand you argue “Make capital gains on investments up to $1mm in small companies tax free.” So, help me out here. If I borrow $500,000 for my small business (not likely, true), and it cost me, in today’s market, let’s say 10%, that’s about $50K/year, right? But, under your scenario, if I sell you half of my idea for $500,000, and it’s capital gains tax free, you’re going to be expecting a significant return above 10%, correct? And, if you feel that I’m not generating enough of a return, you could probably step in, take my $500,000 (1/2 of the total investment), and somehow that’s a better deal for a small business than a small business loan? Add to that the fact that I can deduct the $50K per year from my revenues as an expense, but don’t ever have that advantage with a $500K investment from you – even with YOU getting a capital gains free ride.

    Although, I’m questioning your logic, I know you are infinitely more business smart than I am, so I’m asking sincerely, explain to me where my thinking is misguided? My first take is that a capital gains waiver benefits you, but not necessarily me.

    Comment by dxkraus -

  50. Excellent post,I recently started a small business this year and the paperwork and the taxes were a turnoff but I thought it was just a way of life, and not up for debate, I’m glad people like you are questioning it. One thing I do like that the Obama Adminstration is doing is the business tax-credit for small businesses for new hires. Nevertheless the overhead must be reduced to clear the way of monetary and innovative growth.

    Comment by EJ Prince -

  51. I don’t know about most, but in the small business I worked for, the percentage of our burn rate that went towards accounting and legal was very small, like less than 1%. If you want to help small businesses, provide free healthcare. That was 15-20% of our burn rate and without it, most of us would have had to stay at our day jobs. I bet there are a lot more people that would start their own company if they didn’t have to worry about healthcare, than there are those that on the sidelines due to the paperwork. Not that I would argue with simplifying things, I just don’t think that’s a driver.

    As far as taxes, we would have been happy to pay them because that would mean we were actually profitable. Or to put it another way:

    “Entrepreneurs live to be entrepreneurs. I have never had a discussion with anyone about starting a business that included tax rates. Ever. If anyone that wanted an investment from me made a point of discussing tax rates as an impact on their business, I wouldnt invest in them. Ever.”


    Granted, there is a point where capital gains taxes would be high enough to make some investors put their money into something with less risk, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point. Again, not saying it wouldn’t make any difference, I just don’t think it’s as big a factor as health insurance, the patent system, and competition from large companies (that know now to get their own tax breaks).


    Comment by briande33 -

  52. Mark,

    I really appreciate the time you take to make these posts. I read this article in the NY Times the other day and the first person I thought of was YOU!

    Comment by ursamajorrce -

  53. The US claims to be pro-small business and entrepreneurship, but that is not reflected in the tax code. Between an extra self-employment tax and paying social security upstream and downstream if you’re self employed… there are serious disadvantages. I agree with you here, Mark.

    Comment by andrewk -

  54. I’ve been trying for the last 18 months or so to borrow to help finance the construction of our own on-farm inspected butcher shop. No go. The numbers work. We’ve been raising pastured pigs for six years and are profitable. We have an established market and make weekly deliveries to local stores, restaurants and individuals. We’ve been bootstrapping it so far but that slows down construction – it takes money to buy concrete, insulation, etc. We spend so much on hired processing every week for our pork that we’ll pay for the facility in just a few years. A loan would make it happen faster and make us save money sooner. But the banks keep telling us they’re not making any loans to “new or expanding businesses”. Government agencies like the Vermont Economic Development Agency are also no good. Loans aren’t getting to the small businesses.


    Sugar Mountain Farm
    Pastured Pigs, Sheep & Kids
    in the mountains of Vermont
    Read about our on-farm butcher shop project:

    Comment by sugarmtnfarm -

  55. So we reduce the need for accountants and lawyers, therefore cannibalizing the revenue streams of two established industries for the sake of another one which may not even get off the ground. Of course, no one will argue that the accountants/lawyers probably make more $$ than the new hires that would be brought on by a small business of under 20 people right? And that they’ll wind up spending more in the economy which helps other industries.

    This is yet another suggestion that sounds good on paper but has unintended consequences the country probably doesn’t want to see manifest.

    The reality is there is no simple formula to restart the job growth engine in this country until we get from underneath the debt overhang that is crippling the economy. What we’ve seen over the past 20-30 years was just an illusion for the most part fueled by layering on levels of debt on top of debt, hoping we could grow fast enough to service it. I can’t take seriously any suggestion of restarting job growth that does not deal with that first and foremost.

    Comment by smorkingapple -

  56. your Right Mark… Unfortunately most politicians don’t know anything about how businesses are run or how to make policies that are beneficial for them. If Obama was smart he’d call you and ask you to be his “job growth czar”. You know and understand the cares and concerns of entrepreneur’s and business owners.

    Comment by felixthkat -

  57. i’ve been shaking my heads a lot these days with your ideas about cable & internet synergies but this is one of those moments in which i have to scream PREACH IT!

    all my money goes to paying corporate taxes and accountant/lawyers right now. it totally sucks to be incorporated 😛

    so YAY MARK CUBAN, you totally hit the nail on the head.

    Comment by liza -

  58. If we define small business as less than 20 employees, we should also expect the government to provide assistance to these businesses that does not consist of tax relief. The vast majority of early stage small businesses (at least the ones that have the chance to grow into larger businesses) do not pay taxes and the tax relief offers them nothing.

    Instead of offering unemployment benefit extensions, why doesn’t the government offer to pay the wages of the registered unemployed for six months if they take a position with a small business. The dignity of work and the same cost as paying them to stay unemployed. As a small business owner I could use two new employees right now but can’t afford them. If I have the two people for six months it would transform my business – and then I’d hire them and a couple more.

    Comment by pycnhros -

  59. Pingback: The Simplicity Test: A Simple Policy Guide for Job Growth

Comments are closed.