Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Entrepreneurs Prefer Spending Cuts Over Tax Increases, Survey Finds

October 5, 2010 by  

Entrepreneurs prefer spending cuts over tax increases, survey findsIt looks like yet another group of Americans is joining fiscal conservatives in their call on the government to reduce deficit by cutting its spending. A new KPMG study has found that most business executives believe this is a better way to reduce public debt, as opposed to raising taxes in the midst of a weak economy. 

In fact, some 60 percent of American business leaders expressed this opinion in the survey called "Paying the Bill," which was released by KPMG International, a global network of audit and tax firms. Most of the respondents suggested a reduction in defense spending and some of the welfare programs, but 33 percent also mentioned public sector pay and infrastructure projects.

P. Scott Ozanus, vice chair of KPMG, stated that these results are not surprising, but added that given the sluggish pace of economic recovery, the Federal and local governments will most likely opt for boosting tax enforcement as a means of raising revenue.

As for the main driving force behind the economic growth that has been registered since the recession officially ended last summer, approximately 41 percent of executives credit the stimulus package. However, as much as 77 percent believe consumer spending has been a key factor and 45 percent point to lower interest rates.

That said, nearly 65 percent of the nation's business leaders would prefer to see the stimulus measures stop immediately. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Entrepreneurs Prefer Spending Cuts Over Tax Increases, Survey Finds”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    It’s no wonder that our government [Uncle Scam] has such a poor reputation among entrepreneurs. Uncle Scam LOVES to tax, and he LOVES to collect TRIBUTE and SPEND it. People like the current prez want to be seen as a Robin Hood, yet the approach used is straight out of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s tech manual. It is a twisted, schizoid way to dealing with reality.
    Entrepreneurs have first-hand experience in being successful. Uncle Scam demands to be seen as a great expert without having to earn that reputation. An entrepreneur knows how to be successful because he has both feet in the real world. Uncle Scam hasn’t a clue, and couldn’t buy one at a fire sale at WalMart.
    Entrepreneurs know that tax cuts WORK. Uncle Scam theorizes and never gets it right. An entrepreneur deserves our trust and respect. Uncle Scam deserves swift ass kicks and NO respect (and he never learned what trust means).

    • dan az

      sc so he is robbing of the hood!

      • Dr. Mabuse

        Good one Dan !!!!!

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      SC… Taking money out of the pockets of those who can expand business and jobs is ludicrous. Health premiums have gone up considerably since Obamacare… I am paying almost $3000.00 more this year for health care benefits. Money I could have spent elsewhere. If taxes go up too, how will the average person make it?

      • s c

        Robin, Herr Obummer doesn’t give a damn about Americans “making it.” YOU know that from experience. Obummer is a plant. His allegiance is to those who want to rule America and the world.
        If he cared about anyone, he’d move to Cuba and show Fidel how healthcare should be run. Good luck with that.
        Did people forget that this healthcrap CRAP would be FREE? You can tell people what really happened. All Herr Obummer can do is spew the bilge that got him into office. I get the impression that he thinks GB is still in the White House. So much for that frickin’ Haavid education, eh?

    • 45caliber

      Reminds me of all the young hoods in prison. “You must RESPECT me!”

      They can’t seem to realize that respect must be earned, not given just because you exist. And you don’t earn it by mugging your victims.

    • Carole Howell

      I am sure everyone wants tax cuts, but how will these wars get paid for?

      • http://naver samurai

        Take the trillion dollars out of Obamacare.

  • Howard Roark

    Real wealth is created three basic ways. AGRICULTURE, MINING (includes oil) and MANUFACTURING. Government DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH, GOVERNMENT CONSUMES WEALTH.


    Small business needs customers, not loans through Government spending.To get customers the real wealth producing activities in the private sector have got to be nurtured and this in turn producing jobs.

    I hate to be the one to break it to the Libs but government jobs are not real jobs. they are if you will; make work.

    The definition of a real job is: a work activity that brings in more money for the employer than the employer pays the worker in wages, salary and benefits combined. Example: the employer pays the worker 160 dollars a day (Total wages salary and benefits). the worker earns 190 dollars a day for the company. the employer sees a profit of 30 dollars a day. Even Liberals should be able to grasp this concept. Its doubtful though.

    • 45caliber

      But it isn’t FAIR for a company to make profits! If there are any profits at all, the government should get them!

  • Howard Roark

    I also hate to be the one to break it to the Liberals but PROFIT is the driving force behind all work and business. The pharmacutical company’s do not expend millions of dollars to create new medications to help the poor. it is done for profit.

    When was the last time that you have seen a new life saving drug come out of one of the socialist countrys. YOU DONT. the socialist countrys wait for the United States to expend the money to develop a new drug and the socialist countrys then simply copy the new drug. Thats why drugs in Canada are cheaper. they do not have to recover the money expended on research and development.

    General medicine is a for profit business. it is not a charity.

    • 45caliber

      Actually, Canada is where most of these drugs are made. So most of what we use come from there in the first place. But the US is good about allowing them to collect the price for those new drugs from us and other countries aren’t. So they can get the drugs cheaper. Further, since other countries like Russia would copy the drugs if the drugs were more expensive, they let us pay the price while they charge the other countries far less to make sure they buy them from them.

      But we aren’t supposed to get our drugs from there! Heavens NO! That means we aren’t paying what we should to the pharmacutical companies. The amount the government says we should pay them!

    • Carole Howell

      You know nothing Howard Roark, many new drugs have come from other countries. You should check your facts before you speak.

      My question is who is going to pay for these wars? If taxes get reduced how will the wars be paid for?

      • http://naver samurai

        Take the money from Obama bin Laden care!

  • alpha-lemming

    Breaks my heart that I didn’t see a 15-20 year plan to SERIOUSLY pare Social Security or attack the ~33% waste, abuse, fraud, redundancy, and theft that is government spending mentioned.

    • 45caliber


      You must be dreaming! A 15-20 year plan? They don’t plan anything for next year, much less 15 down the way! In most cases they don’t even plan anything for tomorrow!

      • alpha-lemming

        It’s the only option I see available to 1) Meet obligations/promises to people close to retirement and 2) Give the people farther out time to adjust (more saving, increased contribution to IRA/401K etc.).

        • 45caliber

          I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying that American politicians simply can’t plan that far down the line … it interfers with their “donations” to their campaign funds.

      • Carole Howell

        OH! yes 45caliber they plan for war way ahead of time. Bush was planning for war even before he was elected.

        • s c

          Yikes! What we got here, America, is a left-wing conspiracy theorist. When Hillary gets wind of this, you’ll have to shred your ‘Dem’-lib-progressive membership card.
          Do you see conservatives behind every tree and shrub? Spoooooky!

        • http://naver samurai

          Way too much kool aid. How do you know if Bush planned to go to war before he was elected? Cite your sources. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Vigilant

    What scares me are the 40+% of “entrepreneurs” who (1) DON’T believe this is a better way to reduce public debt, as opposed to raising taxes in the midst of a weak economy, and (2) executives who credit the stimulus package as the main force in stimulating the economy!

    That’s a lot of idiots running “businesses” in the USA.

    • 45caliber

      Actually, I suspect that many of those people are actually worried about competitors. And one of the easiest ways to eliminate competitors is to prevent them from competing in the first place. Simply take away what start-up funds they have and they can’t start their business.

  • Betty

    I believe that first we need to stop sending trillions of dollars overseas to oil rich countries that hate us. They take our money with one hand , and hold up signs saying “we hate America” with the other hand. Enough already. Most of our debt is borrowing to send that money out of our country. It needs to stay here to try to get us out of debt. Another problem is trade deficit. The largest deficit is with China..Why is America letting China get away with the largest trade deficit in history?

    Pakistan is a great example of our trying to buy friends. Not long before their flood, congress had voted to spend over 750 billion dollars over a 5 year period, rebuilding their country. Did we tear it down? NO. A short time later, they had the flood. I sympathize greatly with all those people, but congress first said they were donating 50 million dollars, then changed it to 350 million for flood relief. We watched as many of our helicopters filled with food, water and other necessary items were sent in to Pakistan. We also saw our helicopters airlifting a lot of people out of danger. Yet we are told they didn’t even know that America was doing all that. Why didn’t they know it? Even as the helicopters were delivering all those goods ..people in unflooded areas were burning our flag, and holding signs saying Death to Americans..We hate America. Yet we still gave money. Now they closed their border so our armies cannot get the supplies they need . Then to add insult to injury, they allowed those trucks and tankers to be burned.
    We have people here out of jobs. Some of that is because of the large number of jobs that moved overseas. That wasn’t bad enough, we also gave those companies that moved a tax break for taking jobs away from our country. Go figure that one out.

    • 45caliber

      I agree. Buying friends never works. All it does is interest them in getting even more.

      I saw a list of countries we gave money to one time some years ago. Every country in the world got at least $10 million except for two (2). Of the top ten who received money, India was the only one that was not Communist. Of the top 25 countries, all of Europe (which supposedly has a good economy) was listed – and many of them were Communist such as Yogoslavia.

      We could have easily have balanced our budget at that time by not giving any of that money away – and none of that money made our friends or our enemies like us any better.

  • 45caliber

    It is ALL OF US! When I have debts, I have to reorganize my spending. I MUST spend less since I can’t go rip off someone else to pay them for me. And since I owe a lot, I can’t just go get another loan.

    But government now seems to feel that they don’t need to worry about cutting expenses. This is the first time in a long time that Congress is controlled by the liberal/progressives with enough margin to insure they can pass whatever they wish. So they want to pass every give-away program they have ever imagined – and despite the fact that it means borrowing and the fact that most Americans are against it … they know what we need better than we do ourselves. And besides, all they have to do to pay off those loans is to raise the taxes they take from the American workers. And everyone knows we all make far more money than we need. Besides, if we did get that money we’d just spend it on things like college tuition, braces for our kids, etc. Nothing really important.

  • http://gmail i41

    Entrepreneurs, sure aren’t going to plan to do anything or waste their money. That simple minded marxist jug eared bastard is going to put solar panels the WH. Take Big Mamee off of traveling the world to vacation. For CO2 control break both their jaws and wire them shut, same goes for ongress and the agency wonks running their mouths and creating regulations. It would be a good start.

  • Carole Howell

    Ayn Rand Conservatism at Work — Firefighters Let Family’s House Burn Down Because Owner Didn’t Pay $75 Fee
    Talk of limited government is appealing until you see what it actually means in practice: a society in which it’s every man for himself.
    October 4, 2010 |

    Thanks to 30 years of right-wing demagoguery about the evils of “collectivism” and the perfidy of “big government” — and a bruising recession that’s devastated state and local budgets — we’re getting a peek at a dystopian nightmare that may be in our not-too-distant future. It’s a picture of a society in which “rugged individualism” run amok means every man for himself.

    Call it Ayn Rand’s stark, anti-governmental dream come true, a vision that last week turned into a nightmare for Gene Cranick, a rurual homeowner in Obion County, Tennessee. Cranick hadn’t forked over $75 for the subscription fire protection service offered to the county’s rural residents, so when firefighters came out to the scene, they just stood there, with their equipment on the trucks, while Cranick’s house burned to the ground. According to the local NBC TV affiliate, Cranick “said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning.”

    The fire chief could have made an exception on the spot, but refused to do so. Pressed by the local NBC news team for an explanation, Mayor David Crocker said, “if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck.”

    Ironically, Obion County describes itself as a “progressive community.” In a recent report (PDF), town officials wrote:

    We continue to recruit new industry …. We’re building new roads and new schools and making improvements in health care, law enforcement and tourism. The implementation of a Regional Airport, the construction of the I-69 corridor through Obion County and improvements to our local infrastructure reflect the commitment of our county commissioner and municipal officials.

    But last December, a county commission on which every member is a Republican voted to rescind a resolution passed years earlier that would have established a countywide fire department. Their rationale was, of course, the need to keep taxes low, but according to the county commission report, that decision was penny wise but pound foolish. “Because there is no operational county fire department,” the officials noted, “Obion County has missed the opportunity to actively pursue receipt of FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding.”

    Firefighting is perhaps the most frequently cited example of a good that the private sector simply isn’t suited to provide. We now deem the task of putting out fires a “public good” — something individuals can’t decide to forgo without the potential of hurting others. But as I note in my new book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy, it wasn’t always so. In the early years of our Republic, in cities like Boston and New York, small, privately operated fire brigades vied for property-owners’ business. You’d pay a small fee, and they’d give you a placard to hang on your door identifying you as a client. If a fire did break out, the company would—in theory, anyway—come and douse the flames.

    It was a libertarian wet dream, but it was utterly disastrous. Sometimes, several fires broke out simultaneously. Small, independent fire companies could respond to only one or two at a time—they were constrained by their own limited personnel and equipment. It wasn’t profitable to maintain the capacity to deal with a rare occurrence like multiple fires breaking out at once; if a fire company did devote the resources necessary to maintain that capacity, it would then be at a competitive disadvantage with its rivals. That’s why in the modern world, if a massive fire breaks out, fire companies from across a municipality can respond together, specifically because they’re not in competition.

    And although one can live just fine without consumer goods—nobody ever died for lack of an iPod—society as a whole suffers a lot of damage from less-than-ideal fire control. While hiring, or not being able to hire, a fire brigade was a private matter that accorded nicely with the principles of the free market, it was also a transaction that came with what economists call negative “externalities”: effects that a transaction between two parties can have on a third. In this case, those effects are fairly obvious: a fire that isn’t properly extinguished can spread rapidly to neighboring homes, potentially resulting in a disastrous conflagration that could consume the whole neighborhood. In Obion County, the firefighters who watched Cranick’s house burn down only responded to the fire once it had spread to the property of a neighbor who’d paid the fee.

    Fiddling While Your House Burns

    Firefighting is like many other goods that are vital to a healthy society but which the private sector isn’t suited to provide. That’s why the conservative rhetoric about “limited government” is only appealing in the abstract — people really, really like living in a society with adequately funded public services. They like what government does in the specific, even if they have an inherent suspicion of the idea of “big government.”

    Translated into the real world of politics and policy, limited government looks something like Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s response to her state’s fiscal crisis. Earlier this year, Brewer signed a budget that eliminated the Children’s Health Insurance Program, denying health care to 47,000 low-income kids in Arizona. She also proposed a hike in the state sales tax—the most regressive tax, whose burden falls disproportionately on working people.

    Joining Arizona in eliminating health insurance for the poor was Tennessee, which cut 100,000 people from its Medicaid rolls, including 8,000 children. One of those people was Jessica Pipkin, who lost the use of her arms and legs in a car accident in 2005. Pipkin requires round-the-clock care—at $37 per hour—but was told she would lose her benefits because she and her husband earn too much to qualify. Are they rich? Well, her husband makes $19,000 as a satellite television repairman, and Pipkin receives another $14,000 in Social Security benefits.

    In Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty, a contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, submitted a budget that slashed funds from student aid, financial assistance to counties and municipalities, a job program for the blind and the mentally ill, low-income housing programs, mass transit in the Twin Cities, and a state insurance program that helps cover people with costly preexisting medical conditions. It was approved by a Democratically controlled legislature; lawmakers justified their budget by pointing out that they’d rejected Pawlenty’s proposals for deeper, even more painful cuts.

    Clayton County, Georgia, a mostly African American suburb of Atlanta, eliminated its bus service into the city, leaving tens of thousands of Georgia’s working poor without a way of getting to their jobs. “I don’t know what I’m going to do,” a 57-year-old worker told the Los Angeles Times. “So many people here, they’re going to be sure enough messed up. We need this bus bad.” Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, and Maryland are also looking at deep cuts to public transportation systems to make up budget shortfalls.

    Perhaps the most striking vision of the libertarian utopia comes from Ashtabula County, Ohio. It reduced the number of sheriff’s deputies patrolling the 720-square-mile county from 112 to 49 and cut the number of prisoners in detention from 140 to 30. More than 700 people were put “on a waiting list to serve time in the jail.” Some were facing relatively minor charges, but the list also included, according to Sheriff Billy Johnson, violent offenders. When a county judge was asked what citizens should do to protect their families “with the severe cutback in law enforcement,” he responded, “Arm themselves … Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we’re going to have to look after each other.” A gun instructor told the local news station he agreed with the sentiment. “You don’t have any other option,” he said. “We don’t have the law enforcement out here to handle it right now.”

    These are but a few examples of what “limited government” looks like in the real world. They help explain why, as Think Progress noted last week, there’s an ”ever-growing list of Republican candidates and lawmakers” who talk big about “cutting spending” but, when pressed, “can’t provide a single item they would cut from the budget.”

    Limited government only sounds good as an abstraction, but the principles of the free market won’t get you too far when your house is on fire.
    Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.
    submit to reddit

  • s c

    If you want people to believe you’re just another progressive, stop. We believe you. All those words in your feedback, and you still can’t figure it out.
    If you have plans to chase a degree, go to a school where all of your instructors are flaming radicals and progressives. In a school where the instructors are consevatives, you’ll have a tough time managing a C average.
    To quote a dubious source, ‘Talk of unlimited government is appealing until you see what it really means in practice: a society in which only the ruling elite are entitled to be happy. Everyone else is expendable. Such is the law of Lenin’s Darwinian jungle.’

  • hundabuxt

    The socialistic mentality is really a ponzi scheme. They would have us enlarge government to the point we couldn’t sustain it. Think about it. Someone who works 20 years gets full retirement at probably 55 years and if they live to 85 we have 30 years of support, both salary and benifits, which means medical. Medical will break the American bank no matter what your political bent.

  • http:///user/view/893628 Earline Golombek

    I have realized that over the course of creating a relationship with real estate managers, you’ll be able to come to understand that, in every real estate financial transaction, a fee is paid. Eventually, FSBO sellers never “save” the percentage. Rather, they struggle to win the commission simply by doing the agent’s occupation. In accomplishing this, they commit their money plus time to conduct, as best they might, the obligations of an realtor. Those jobs include exposing the home via marketing, showing the home to buyers, constructing a sense of buyer desperation in order to make prompt an offer, booking home inspections, controlling qualification checks with the loan company, supervising maintenance, and aiding the closing of the deal.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.