In the political discourse of the day, the arguments about equal pay for equal work are annoying.   No two jobs are the same, likewise no two employees are the same.  Sure some are very close, however never the same.  The differences matter.

When you go to work, your pay is one of many factors that keep you at your job.  Many would LOVE to work in a job where they saw their favorite pop star or athlete on a daily basis.  A young man would really enjoy a job assisting with a photo shoot for the sports Illustrated bikini edition.  The same pay as an assistant to a septic tank cleaner is not the same.
Nobody has the same coworkers as you do.  You do not have ‘you’ as a coworker, for the good or the bad.  Your coworkers and the general morale of your workplace can have you pleased or looking for other job opportunities.  This is all to say that no two jobs are the same.  Employers have long understood that bad morale requires higher pay to keep good employees.  Employees with higher morale are more productive, thus bring greater worth to the company.  
Understanding that no two employees are the same should be easy.  Everyone’s productivity is different.  Their contribution to morale, while subjective, is different.  Each employee brings a wealth of knowledge and experience that is different from others.  Knowledge and experience on issue outside of their current job could bring better ideas on improvements of their current jobs.  
Some people naturally are leaders and others followers.  Some are willing to go the extra mile and others are not.  Everyone has different lives outside of work that could affect work schedule flexibility.  Some are willing and able to train others and others are not.  Some are eager to be trained and others stuck in their ways.  

One could like one sports team while the workplace is overwhelmingly in favor of another, thus animosity can enter.  Some have strong personalities and others meek.  Some need to be managed and others, self-governing.  Some have greater aptitude for the job and others struggle.  
All this to state that no two employees are the same.  Government regulations that try to demonstrate discrimination misses the massive subjective determination necessary for a business owner to use the role of ‘price of labor’ to attract and retain better employees.    
Most employers find it helpful to have a pay structure that most will fall into, however often they find ways to promote or benefit those that bring more value to the business.  Often government labor law restricts beneficial trades of labor for currency.  Businesses often negotiate with employees to work around restrictions.   
A dollar represents service (anything of worth) you did for another.  You can use that dollar to request services from others.  Whoever owns that dollar is due the other half of a trade of service for service.  You have that dollar because you already did your service.  When someone does service for you, you give up that dollar and the trade is complete.  
Both sides of a trade, the buyer and seller, must decide if the trade for the currency is WORTH IT, meaning, is your service worth the currency you are getting or is the currency you are giving up worth the service you want. 
If you earned a million dollars, does that mean that you serviced your fellow man more than the man making $50,000.  Yes, as defined by all those that decided to trade their service/currency for the millionaires’ service.  As long as both sides agree to the trade, the dollars ‘earned’, does demonstrate the value of your worth to others. 
Often times, to make millions, your services need to be bought by millions.  Also, to make millions, others in business make tens of millions.  As a million-dollar athlete, the others include many in the TV industry, those businesses that buy ads, those that build a stadium, those that maintain the arena among millions of dollars for others. 
A million-dollar CEO, of a multi-billion-dollar corporation, has the jobs of thousands directly and indirectly affected by his decisions.  Often, billions of dollars of the common man’s investments, are also greatly affected by the CEO’s decisions.  The skill, talent, experience, wisdom, humbleness and incredibly hard work of a CEO is SERVICE to millions.  The worth of a CEO is defined by the board of directors.     
Too often, people begrudge a millionaire’s wealth.  They don’t ‘think’ they earned it and covet the millionaires’ possessions and lifestyle.  If done in the free enterprise system and without fraud, the millions represent service done for millions and a business that produces hundreds of millions for others.

Every person has the right to offer their services for $1 million to take the place of a CEO that is making $10 million.  You could offer your Quarterback services to the Cowboys for $1 million instead of the $10 million star.  There are very good reasons why the board of directors or the owner of the team does not save $9 million on hiring you.  Unless you have profound talent in these areas, hiring you could lose billions of dollars for millions of people.    
Let’s say that there are two apple farmers in town.  One has a lot of education and experience.  He also is married; thus he can commit more responsibility to his apple business because the wife is taking on much of the other responsibilities.  This experienced and skilled farmer trims, fertilizes, harvests, plants, markets, stores among other business related duties with great skill.  
The other apple farmer makes many mistakes because of his inexperience, lack of education and he is a single dad that has major responsibilities outside his business.  The better farmer yields a larger harvest and far better looking and tasting apples.  His apples last longer and are generally preferred by the consumer.  
Let’s say they both set up shop every Saturday at the farmer’s market and both price their apples at $1 an apple.  At first, the skilled farmer’s apples sold much better, taking on $500 verses $50 for the other farmer.  The second Saturday, the less experienced farmer dropped his price to $0.80 so he did not have to take most of his apples back home. This time the better farmers sold $350 compared $150 for the other farmer.  The third week he dropped it to $0.70 per apple and this week the better farmer sold only $300 and the other farmer $200.      
The less experienced farmer did not like making less money than the skilled farmer, however he realized the other apples were better.  He could barely make it on $200 a week, however he knew he could learn better business practices, better growing skills and in time, increase his prices up, because his apples would be more valuable when he became better at trimming, fertilizing, harvesting, planting, marketing, storing among other skills.  
The forth week, the cop showed up at the farmer’s market and told the less skilled farmer that he needed to increase his prices to a minimum of $1 an apple.  The farmer said, "but I will only sell just a few apples that way, the other farmers apples are better than mine and all the shopper will just buy his."  He further stated that he needed to use price to compete for the customers.  He stated that over time he will be able to increase that price because his apple will be just as good as the skilled farmers’ apples, but at this time, he needed the lower price.  
The cop stated that the government needed to ‘protect him’ from low wages and therefore he needed to price his apples at $1 an apple.  The less skilled farmer stated that my income will only be about $50 a week instead of $200, so PLEASE STOP protecting me! Trial and error as I make only $200 a week is much better for me then for me not to make any and pay to go to school to learn the apple business.  Over time this is my best option.  The cop stated, that any apple he sold under $1, he would have an $100 fine.  
The next week the farmer stood before very ignorant, yet high and mightily arrogant politicians to plea for them to alow him to trade with consumers that would make both the consumer and he, the farmer, better off.   The politician stated that the more experienced farmer stood before them a few weeks back and told of your very hard life.  They stated that the experienced farmer claimed you were not making a living wage and felt very sorry for you.  
The politicians stated that they were convinced that you needed to make at least $1 per apple, so you could support your family, therefore we passed a law and you need to be grateful to us because we increased your income.  The less skilled farmer stated, that since I had to increase my price up to a $1 and apple, the skilled farmer sells out of his apples by noon and takes home over $500 where before he worked until 5 pm and took in only $300. 
 I, on the other hand, went from taking in $200 to barely $50 a week and now throwing away over half my apples.  The politicians now just realized why they received that campaign donation by the skilled farmer and comprehended that one of the best apple farming skills is politics.    
This is a simple concept, yet is misconstrued constantly by government.  Government passes a law that gives everyone money.  What they fail to understand is that they first must take that money from that person to give them that money.  Often the politicians try to portray that they are taking money from corporations or the rich, however that tax is always passed on to the consumer or others in a variety of ways.       
Debt held by government is claimed by some liberals to not be a big deal because 'we owe it to ourselves'.  First, it is owed to individuals, not the government.  There is a major difference.  Government must TAX everyone to give it back to us individually. 
US debt per taxpayer is $161,000 (May 2016).  This is how much government has to tax us in order to give it back to those of us holding US debt.   State and local bonds are also a heavy burden on our system.  All of this debt is not balanced with real assets, it is mostly backed with just the promise to tax citizens.
Laffer Curve: the act of taxing an economic transaction, reduces the number of economic transactions due to the perception among some that the trade is not worth it.  If the government is taking (TAXING) a large percentage of the trade, often times the trade is borderline ‘worth it’, and the tax rate makes it not ‘worth it’, thus the trade does not happen.  

Since ALL trades make people on both sides of the trade better off; trades that do not happen because of the tax, stops both sides of being better off.  The Laffer Curve deals mostly with tax revenue dropping off as the rates go up, however the more important lesson is economic activity drops off because the tax makes the trade not ‘worth it’. 

Retirement planning SHOULD be, that you build up assets during your working years to allow you to retire and live off those assets in your elderly years.  The important part here is that you build up assets.  Government created a system where you pay in to the Social Security system, however they do not build up assets.  They have to tax people at the time you need to collect your retirement, in order to give you your money back.     
In 2007-2008 the government tried to ‘give’ everyone $300 through the tax code as a stimulus.  This was mostly playing with timing.  The taxes did not change; they just gave a lump sum one time and deducted a little extra in paychecks the rest of the year.  This ‘giving’ of $300 was taken from them a little per paycheck.        
In conclusion, government should only be taxing us for the things only government can do.  The Haley2024 plan is roughly 10% total for all three levels.  The tax code should just raise money, not redistribute money.  Government should only go in debt to protect freedom in a war and that should mostly be planned ahead.  Retirement planning should not be run through government but the point here is that assets should be accumulated, not a pay as you go system.   
There is an economic theory out there that way too many people buy into.  Nobel prize winner in economics, Paul Krugman thinks that it is a great idea.  The congress passed the 2009 stimulus, with this theory. In the 1930’s, government killed many cattle to rot and burned crops, on this theory.   The point here is that, it is winning the day in government and needs to be completely debunked.  
The theory goes like this: if you destroy something that people want, then they will have to do work to get back to the status-quo.  That work will add to the GDP and make it appear that our economy is growing.  It is a simple first grade understanding, that this is a horrible idea.  
I feel like I am talking down to the reader to explain this, however since these economists are getting politicians to ‘break windows’, it is imperative that they learn this simple lesson.  Work is not the goal; the result of the work is the goal.  It is always a good idea to get the product or service with the least amount of labor, so that other labor hours are freed up, to make other items.  
One also has to look at what other uses that money to repair the window, could be spent on.  That new item or service does not happen because the window owner needs to use the funds for the window repair.  Not having the other good or service reduces the window owner’s standard of living.      
Just restoring back to the status-quo reduces the standard of living.  Everyone knows a time when they would have liked to have been enjoying their leisure hours, however needed to stay after to fix a 'broken window'.  Certainly, normal repairs due to wear and tear is understood and budgeted in your expenses and time, however, purposely breaking things to ‘create’ more labor is beyond stupid.
Going to war is certainly better than being enslaved or otherwise oppressed.  It is worth laboring on making weapons and laboring on being a soldiers for the goal of staying free.  Going to war does bring more economic activity, however this economic activity does not make us better off, outside the goal of staying free.  This extra economic activity only brings us back to the normal, of being free.  
In WW-2, millions of men went over to fight, thus they were not back home starting businesses or working for one.  Millions back home went to work in factories supplying our men with supplies, weapons and equipment to better fight, thus they were not using their labor to make products that others could enjoy.  Many went to work for the first time for the war effort, thus losing leisure hours.  
Many worked long hours and sacrificed leisure hours to do their part in the war effort.  They were dedicated to their jobs so their sons, fathers, brothers and friends had what they needed to come back alive.  Their motivation to work was much different than in peace time.  While economic activity increased, people had a much lower standard of living. 

Certainly, the soldiers had it very rough.  They lost friends, legs, sanity and lives.  They slept outdoors, the food was bad, and the stress was overwhelming.  War is HELL.  This extra economic activity did not bring a better quality of life to these young men. The loved ones back home were without their loved ones, worked extra hours to make bombs to destroy things, not products to enjoy.  While they may have gotten paid, they the taxpayers, were also the ones doing the paying. 
Contemplate a scenario, where you and a few friends are relaxing at a pool and having a leisurely cookout after a long week of work.  If someone were to come in and drop a lot of garbage in the pool, would you be happy?  After all, you would ‘work’ to clean the pool to get it back to a normal state so you could enjoy the cookout and swim.
  Are you better off because you did more ‘work’, even if it is to restore back to normal.  They added work time and reduced leisure time with NO extra product of service to enjoy.  With this same scenario, let’s add that the people that threw trash in the pool also demanded to fight.  This does not make you better off! 
 Yes, you will do labor in training for the fight, labor making weapons for the fight, labor fighting and pay for labor for the nurse, to nurse you back to health.  All these extra labor hours are counted in the GDP, however all this labor is just to get you back to the point where you were; the leisure around the pool with some friends.
In conclusion, this whole blog might sound simple and it might sound unbelievable that congress ordered millions of cattle killed (1930’s), millions of acres of crops burned (1930’s), millions of cars destroyed (2009-2010) among many others acts. Some argue, roads needs to be repaved just for the jobs, not because it needs it yet. Many still foolishly advocate war to increase our economy.  
An economic lesson: What if all the restaurant tabs were collected and divided by the number of tables and everyone was given an average bill; would you order differently?  If you and your spouse went to a restaurant and they sat all 50 tables at once.  The menu had many items with widely different qualities and prices.  Many different drinks, deserts, appetizers and main dishes were there.  
Some people had plenty of money and wanted to live it up and was willing to pay for the best of everything and would probably end up with a bill of over $100. Others had a very tight budget and had just water and a simple, inexpensive meal.  They could walk out for less than $20.  All 50 tables had different tastes, means, and desires.  Everyone took into consideration the cost on what they ordered.     
After everyone had time to look over the menu and make their choices, but before the order was taken, the manager steps out to make an announcement. The manager stated they were going to take every tables tab and add them up and divide it by the fifty tables.  Everyone was going to get the same bill for their food.  
The question is, are you and others going to order differently.  Are you going to forgo the nice glass of wine?  Is the next table going to add an appetizer?  Is another table going to grab an extra meal to go?   Is someone going to switch from an $8 hamburger to a $28 surf and turf?  How many deserts are added by people that had no previous intention of getting a desert? 
Everyone knows economics when it comes to their own pocket book.  They change their minds very quickly when the circumstances change.  Before the change, everyone realized that a $10 desert would be paid for entirely by them.  After the change, everyone only paid 2% (one fiftieth) of that they received, thus only 20 cents for that $10 piece of pie. 
The restaurant really increased their overall sales that night because everyone knew the extra cost was being split fifty ways.  Some thought: why should that table get an appetizer, and not us, because I am paying part of their food.  The incentive and disincentive structure is completely different.  Now the question arises: are these customers coming back under this arrangement?  What if they were forced to come back for every dinner?
Ask yourselves; is this similar to the states receiving funding from the federal government.  There are a few difference, however the basic incentives structure is the same.   The federal government collects taxes from every citizen from every state.  The federal government offers states funding for many projects.
If the states collected taxes just from their own citizens for the same project, taxpayer of just that state would have to pick up the entire cost of the project.  If the money came in from the federal government, taxpayers from that state would only be taxed for one fiftieth of the cost and all other taxpayers from the nation would be taxed for the rest.   
There is a strong argument often made that if the state does not take the funding, then the funds will go to another state. Many people are rightfully concerned that they were taxed to fund another state’s project and our state did not get any benefit.  The incentive structure is always to wait for the federal government to do it because then taxpayers from around the country will pay verse higher state taxes.
Haley2024 the Movement calls for most government functions to be in the free enterprise system, however whatever does stay in government, be taxed and funded by the same level of government.  Haley2024, also calls for no general budget, instead a very segregated tax for every program.   
A typical business model is often made illegal by the Left in many ways.  Let start with a business that has $2 Million in sales.  The Model is low overhead and high labor cost.  Think lawn care.  The business has expenses of $500,000 in office, equipment, vehicles and assorted other items. The owner takes a salary of $100,000.  
The Company Budget
The business pays 2 managers a total of $100,000.  The business pays $150,000 in taxes and $150,000 in benefits to the employees.  This leaves $1 Million for 100 part time employees averaging 20 hours a week.  The business models is looking for 16 and 17 year olds from the inner city.  The job’s pay is $7.25 to $10 an hour, with the average hourly ‘total’ cost to the company of $10 an hour.
Everyone Is Benefitting
This business puts about $170 a week in each of the pockets of these 100 teenagers and teaches them a skill in a trade and basic work skills.  The teenagers are benefiting! The customers are benefiting!  The 2 managers have a good job!  Governments are getting around $720,000 in ‘all’ taxes.  The owner/ company is serving his fellow citizen enough that they distribute $2 Million to him.    
Fell The BERN !
Bernie Sanders or any on the Left, gets elected and ‘Tries to help’ and make things equal.  First, he raises taxes on the business by $200,000 a year.  This takes the total payroll for labor from $1,000,000 to $800,000.  Labor was already very tight, meaning every hour of labor was very much needed to accomplish the jobs. 
Experiments in raising cost to the consumer led to a heavy loss of customers. Cutting wages for everyone back to $7.25 an hour resulted in losing the best employees. Cutting corners on the work quality resulted in unhappy customers and many refunds. Cutting non labor expenses was very minor and creating long term problems.         
Mandating Health Care
The health care mandate Bernie signed into law that puts an $8,000 per person health care expense on the business almost doubled labor expenses.  Given that this reform would be bringing the cost of the average employee from $10,000 to $18,000 and add $800,000 of extra costs to the business.  Many other business models need to be considered, if any are even possible. 
Doubling the Minimum Wage to $15
Bernie signs into law a new minimum wage.  Given that the employees are 16 and 17 years old, it is fair to say that they do not have a lot of experience or skill that earns the business well over $15 an hour.  This business model barely works at $7.25 to $10 an hour and raising  it to $15, doubles the labor expense to $2 million where only $1 million was available.   
Shutting Down the Businesses
Any one of these changes will harm this and many other business models and all three will overwhelm this business model. All the benefits listed above go away.  Hundreds of inner city teens will be forbidden by law, to sell their labor for $10 and hour and learn important job skills.  
Hundreds of thousands of dollars will not be paid to the government, rather hundreds of thousands would be added to the government assistance programs.  The poor that ‘need’ the product or service provided by these companies will have to pay double or more, creating much harm to the poor.  Many will just do without.   Vendors that supplied, this now out of business company, with goods and services has less business, thus less pay as well.     
Good economics is common sense and the role of prices is just your reaction to offers of trade.  First, your money represents work that you do to earn that money.  When you buy something, you instinctively know you are trading a certain amount of your time at your work for the goods or services you are buying.  The more work you have to do to buy an item, the less willing you are to make that purchase, or the greater the price, the less attractive the trade.  

On the consumer side, everyone is different and effected by different circumstances, therefore all people value an item to purchase differently.  To some an item is not desired at all and they buy it at $0.  Others could value it just a little and so on, all way to a few people who will to pay great amounts to buy that item.  Therefore, a low price will attract many buyers and the higher the price becomes, the less people are willing to buy.  This is just common sense, the lower the cost the more people buy.  Stores know this very well and is proven every time a ‘sale’ moves more product.  
When prices markedly rise for a business on a certain expense, the business quickly seeks out new suppliers.  The higher price sends a signal that more supply is needed to bring the price back down.  A business can bring that service ‘in house’ or encourage people with that expertise to start suppling that service again.  These higher prices also cause greater interest in innovation and capital.  Often that expense can be substituted for a different but acceptable alternative which leaves less demand on the original product so the price can drop.  Free enterprise is very dynamic leading to many responses to changing prices.
Let says there are 1,000 identical widgets produced every day by ten producers at 100 widgets each. At $x price, only 900 are sold a day.  No producer wants to be the one not to sell their product so the producer with left over product will lower their price have sell out.  All the producer will eventually drop their price so THEY sell all their product.  As the price decreases, more people decide to buy, thus bring demand up to 1,000 widgets a day.  Let’s say that the price settles at $.90x to achieve the demand of 1,000 widgets.  
All the producers will determine for themselves if that price is profitable enough for their employees and themselves, the employers.  If one producer closes down, the supply is at 900.  If the demand is 1,000 widgets, customers will be deprived of 100 widgets.  Many customers will bid the price back up to $x so that they are not the deprived of their desired widget.  The factors and scenarios are so numerous that no article can address them all but the principal on the production side is that if prices are high, more producers looking for that high profit will produce more product.  The opposite is true; producers that value their labor and time more than the going price will allow them to earn will seek different more profitable products to make.       
If a business is selling $x and their expenses are $1.1x then they are losing $0.01x.  The business owner might be the one making the final call to lay everyone off, but in reality, the customers of that business did not value their product or service enough to pay the needed expenses.   In the end, a business owner cannot just choose to pay out more then what is coming in just to be nice.  The customers are the final deciders of whether a business fails or succeeds.  Thousands of factors go into decisions surrounding attempts to save a failing business that are too numerous for this article.    
On the production side, the businessman looks at the going price and tries to determine their cost per product.  The businessman decides whether the profit achievable at the ‘going price’ is worth his labor of starting that business.  That businessman will often evaluate many products in search for the most profitable enterprise to start.  That search and evaluation is a key component ensuring the ‘correct’ amount of product is produced.  
If a certain sector of the economy, even a very small subsection is requiring x% of the overall labor to fulfill the demand, there are several key lessons surrounding significant changes in that sector.  If new capital meets with ingenious ideas that lead to substantial productivity gains, less labor is needed to achieve the same output.  This leads to two great things happening, the price drops making that item available to a larger group of consumers and labor is freed up to serve people in new ways.  The left, just looks at the lost jobs and those that understand economics look at increased living standards for everyone.     
 The proper price cannot be imposed by government officials, in fact, when they try, things go badly.  If the government prices an item to high, supply would increase and the demand decrease, leaving excess product.  If the government price an item to low, quantity and quality are decreased and demand increases.  Shortages will occur and government would step in and determine rationing.   Government has a long history of distorting the price and then trying to regulate more to ‘fix’ the problem they created, often making the problems worse.  The price mechanism solves problems if government gets out of the way.    
In the banking sector, the price of people borrowing capital for a certain amount of time is called the interest rate.  In the free enterprise system, the higher the price (rate), the less people are willing to buy (take a loan) and alternatively, the lower the price, the greater amount people will be willing to borrow.  Ten percent interest is likely to be paid to keep a business open, however is likely not going to attract many home buyers.  On the supply side, the more a bank is willing to offer to pay someone to deposit their money, the more money (capital) will be saved, thus more will be available to be lent out.  Government through the Federal Reserve highly distorts this market wreaking havoc with the economy.
The higher the tax rate (the price of doing business), the less business will be done.  The greater the opportunity in business, the greater the opportunity for the poor.  When jobs are relatively scarce and hard to find, people will start to bid down their labor rates (pay) to at least have a job.  The simple supply and demand law of economics applies to labor as well. 
This leaves those less experienced and talented out of work or needing to drop their wages to keep their job.  When businesses are plentiful because of lower prices of doing business (tax rates), businesses need to bid up their job offers to attract the better talent.   A few percentage points of jobs available, creates much high pay for everyone and giving those with less talent and experience more opportunities. 
Congress once passed a tax thinking it would only effect the rich.  A large yacht tax was levied.  Many of the rich bought, serviced and lodged their yachts outside the taxing authority and within a very short time, many thousands of yacht related businesses closed or scaled back, thus significant job losses occurred.  
Blog coming soon
On a side note, the new tax brought in very little and overall taxes decreased due to all the businesses and employees losing their earnings, thus paying less income taxes.  YES, the poor were harmed the most.
Blog: The Poor are Harmed the most by the Effects of the Laffer Curve
While this example was clearly seen, most are not as evident, although they are still very real.  There are many businesses that have never been started because they could not get a loan. In many cases, they could not get a loan because of the excessiveness of the existing national debt.
Uncle Sam borrows so much that would otherwise be lent to start businesses. For many good reasons, the poor are on the bottom of the list to get loans to start businesses.  The more capital available, the further down that list has their businesses funded.   The poor are harmed most by greater government debt.  
About 39% of GDP is spent by government, thus meaning roughly 39% effective tax when you combine federal, state and local taxes.   These taxes are spread out over businesses and individuals however they are always ultimately paid for by people through higher prices, lower incomes or direct taxes.  Possibly the biggest tax is the unseen loss of opportunity.  When there is a known price (tax) on an item, whether it is labor or product, higher prices (tax rates) decrease that purchase. 

Not many people pay attention to the high priced apple left at the store, in the same way an entrepreneur often will not start a business if prices (business taxes) are too high.  My teaching on the Laffer Curve shows that the higher the price of tax rates, the lower the economic activity, which harms everyone

Capitalism and free enterprise is when everyone competes to see who can serve their fellow citizens the best. It is only possible when everyone chooses how their time, labor, and property is distributed, usually to those who serve them best or pay them the most.
If government gives (unearned) money to everyone, government first has to take it from them. Most people think that the money is coming from someone else, but taxes come from everyone. Collecting taxes creates a disincentive to earn money.  
Conclusion: People as a whole lose wealth when government takes taxes and gives the money back to taxpayers.  Social Security and welfare are examples of this.
A tax on some is a tax on all, though sometimes it is hard to see the connection. 
For example: A business owner has to pay matching social security taxes for each employee. This money is part of the employee's compensation package, thus the employee only receives about 93% of his compensation package. 
Another example would be when a business pays corporate taxes.
Those taxes are collected in a few ways such as increased product costs, increased charges on services, reduced pay for employees and most notably: loss of jobs and a supply of goods and services when a company goes out of business.  The final example of harmful taxes are taxes on the rich. The rich are, by definition, the ones serving their fellow citizens the most. Taxing them creates a disincentive to serve their fellow citizens.
For every dollar a business owner makes, others such as employees, suppliers, and subcontractors make much more.  If a business owner made one million dollars instead of two million because of taxes and related disincentives, tens of millions of dollars are not made by others associated with the business. 

    Bill Haley

      Bill Haley started Haley2024 in the spring of 2013 in an effort to his part in restoring freedom to America.


    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    November 2015
    September 2015
    February 2015
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    September 2013