The next response is from Al Negrin, a retired CEO whose career ran the gamut from giant multinationals to startups.

“First of all, to provide a social safety net of the type most European and Scandinavian countries do, it is necessary to increase taxes on both businesses and individuals. This of course is a disincentive for both aggressive managements and aggressive employees. Why work hard to further your company’s prospects or your own prospects when any gains are largely taken away in taxes?

That’s why European companies are large, stable and slow moving, and European employees are satisfied to live a middle class existence without fighting to achieve higher paid positions and prefer to balance work and family by taking 5 weeks vacation every year. Election after election has shown this social position is favored by the electorate all throughout Europe (except in the UK).

The United States has achieved the pre-eminent world economy by taking a contrary social position. I don’t see that we want to give up aggressive business and personal challenge by converting to an all-embracing social safety net. That said, however, the Constitution provides that the government shall be empowered to “promote the general welfare.” Having tens of millions of citizens without access to appropriate health care is not “providing for the general welfare.” Thus I favor some sort of universal health care, without however extending it so far as to impede personal or ” business incentivization.”

Do you think that some form of universal healthcare
is possible in the US?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Time does indeed heal all wounds. Too bad, I’d prefer it to wound all heels. But that doesn’t seem to happen—at least not in the financial sector. A few months in jail, settling without admitting guilt and paying a fine is a great way to deal with lie/cheat/steal actions.

And afterwards? Thanks to short attention spans these folks usually land on their feet in nice, cushy jobs—unlike the rest of us.

Here’s the latest crop, courtesy of Business Week.

What do you think should happen in situations such as these?

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Come join in this week’s discussion of taxes, healthcare and you.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

How adaptable is your corporate culture?

I constantly hear people say that they’d like what Europe has, but don’t want to pay the increased taxes, business or individual, necessary to provide it.I asked a friend who lives there and she says that it’s not that simple.

She explained that in fact, taxation in the US is higher in absolute terms, Healthcare costs are one of the highest costs for a US employer, but are ignored in terms of taxation.

She says that when considering Europe’s taxes you need to consider that in Europe no business pays healthcare.

From an individual perspective, no one pays for health or for education, including higher education.

Of course, many US corporations, such as GE, pay little to no taxes anyway.

“Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003.

In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion (see box). These companies’ “negative tax rates” meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.”

Then, late last night I received the following email. The sender is an executive with a major insurance company. He apologized for requesting anonymity, but said that his comments could cost him his job.

I think what he offers is of vital importance to this discussion.

“Firstly, increasing tax on business is obfuscation of the issue. Providing universal healthcare is a question of prioritizing the enormous tax revenues that the government receives. We can choose to prioritize healthcare and education, or we can prioritize military spending that makes it difficult to do business internationally at the tune of $18 billion per month.

Now, it is clear that the level of taxation in the US is not significantly lower than in countries that have universal healthcare. What differs is that healthcare costs are significantly higher per capita in the US than in all other nations. In addition, the results of healthcare in the US, as measured by infant mortality or life expectancy, is lower than in all comparable nations. Infant mortality and life expectancy is as low as former Soviet republics such as Latvia or Slovenia. It cannot compare with Western Europe, Canada or developed Asian nations. Clearly, since the costs in the US are higher than in any comparable nation and results are lower, it is possible to both improve healthcare for all Americans while reducing the expense. This, however, will affect the profits of very powerful interests.

Rather than focusing the discussion of taxes, maybe we should focus the conversation on why it costs more to deliver less in the US.”

I think that focusing this discussion on who pays may be missing the boat. Maybe along with who pays we need to look at what we’re paying for and why it costs so much. What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

If you read any of the hundreds of how-to books written about good people management, you’ll find great similarities among them. So, what happens during implementation? Why can the de facto difference between managers be so enormous? The answer goes back to one of two basic beliefs that are formed and held long before a person becomes a manager.

A. People are intelligent, motivated, and really care about helping their company achieve its objectives.

B. People are stupid, don’t care, and will screw up if you don’t watch them every minute.

Variations of A are discussed, lauded, and underlay most “good” management practices.

Variations of B are rarely admitted, infrequently discussed, and can be largely unconscious.

Do managers on the B side of the scale always fail while those on the A side are guaranteed success? Unfortunately no.

But what does this mean to you? If you’re a current or future manager, you need to be aware of where you are on the scale and then decide if that’s where you want to be—information that is nobody elses business.

If you like where you are, do nothing, you’re all set, however remember that change rarely happens when undertaken as a result of what “they” say, so if you decide to alter your location on the scale, be sure that it’s you who wants to change.

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

A big part of a good corporate culture is determined by how much attention you pay your workers and colleagues. Do you ever take them for granted—especially the quiet, reliable, unassuming ones? You know, the ones who are always there, who get their work done day in and day out year after year?

Considering this article you might want to amp up your noticing!

Could this happen where you work?

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Healthcare is on everybody’s mind these days. In a recent conversation I had with KG Charles-Harris, CEO of startup Emanio, we touched on the possibility of a tax increase on business to fund health care.

KG said, “It’s clear that the US healthcare situation needs to be improved. However, there are so many different views as to how we may improve healthcare, that the HOW question is completely open. Is increasing taxes the best way of doing it? Or is reforming the system better? America is a great country and we must as a great country do what’s necessary for our people. However, I am unsure that increasing taxes is the best way of doing this.”

In his column, Paul Krugman credits John Edwards for “introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit…Edwards plan…giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition…”

For the rest of this week (or longer) I’m going to post commentary from business people I know. I asked this question, “Should the US increase taxes on businesses in order to provide universal health care for its citizens as other countries have done?”

I suggested that they look at the question broadly—not just the tax issue—and from whatever prospective they chose.

I’m hoping that you will weigh in also. If you feel your response is more a full post than a comment email it to me along with a short introduction and I’ll give it post status—as long as it’s not just a blatant political statement.

Is healthcare an important issue to you?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

After the last two I thought I should lighten up, so my final offering consists of two comments from the same guy predicting sexual attitudes 50 years in the future.“[By 1982] sex will have become much less a theme for either poetry or analysis.”

“Much of the romanticism and all of the hypochondria on the subject will be over.”

—Irwin Edman, Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University, The Forum, 1932

Oops, I think that Irwin dismissed Hollywood a little two quickly.

Your turn:)

The second quote falls strictly in the stupidity category and proves that stupidity is a global event.In a 1998 decision, the Head Judge of the Italian Supreme Court argued that, “because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them…and by removing the jeans…it was no longer rape but consensual sex.”

(The comments caused international fallout resulted in the founding of Denim Day in the US.)

Your turn:)