Businesses aren’t choked to death by regulations

Regarding a recent commentary by Alfredo Ortiz (“Help small businesses by reducing regulations,” Nov. 25 Opinion): I’d like to offer some more practical opinions based on my 50 years of experience as a small businessman. I’ve been a manager, executive and consultant in several businesses in different industries, as well as an owner, and I currently own a company with 25 employees.

Businesspeople are independent, willing to take risks, and we don’t like to be told what to do. One regulation would be too many for some. Any poll will suggest that we think we are over-taxed and over-regulated.

The notion that regulations are choking business’ ability to start, survive and grow are simply not true.

In my extensive experience, I have yet to meet a regulation that has kept me from running, managing and growing the companies I’ve represented.

I’ve worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local and state health departments – as well as the Internal Revenue Service. I’ve found them to be helpful, sincere, and fair in all cases, rather than restrictive or challenging. They have helped me make sure my employees, customers and the environment are safe.

I’m not suggesting that there are not unnecessary, duplicate and dubious regulations that need review, change and elimination. However, those regulations are not so onerous and numerous as to stifle the economy, or small business.

Regulations are the result of a problem needing a fix, and are created with the hope that it does not occur again. They aren’t just pulled out of the air. Even Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has said that serious, extensive regulations on his own industry were necessary.

Ortiz also addressed the so-called “tax burden” for small businesses. Let me point out that any small businessperson paying a 39 percent federal tax rate is doing quite well, as that is the top rate that pass-through businesses pay – which means that the business is making between $100,000 and $335,000. That’s a nice business.

I would suggest most are paying something more like 20 percent to 25 percent. They are earning less, but are still doing well and are able to grow based on their own skill levels, and can achieve more without hindrance from current regulations.

Then there’s the minimum wage. The minimum wage argument Ortiz put forth is the same one that has been argued forever. I have faced numerous changes in wage laws through my extensive career and have always been able to take them in stride. Each change has had little to no effect on my businesses.

Early on in my career, the employees affected by wage adjustments tended to be marginal. They fell under the category of first job, young students. But higher wages are now much more important because so many employees are supporting families.

I would suggest that if owners and management would do a better job of paying their fair share to those who are working (and making them wealthy), there would be no need for a minimum wage. Workers would like to be able to buy their first home as much as the wealthy want their second, third or fourth house.

As to financing for small business, I can assure you that a good idea that has merit as a business will always find financing. Capital markets run by savvy business people rarely miss the opportunity to make money.

Finally, I would like to make a simple observation. Ortiz is CEO of the Job Creators Network. I have never thought of myself as a “job creator,” and I believe the term to be a misnomer. Jobs are created by demand for goods and services, and nothing else – a concept with which some people seem to struggle.

This story was originally published December 8, 2016 at 5:03 AM with the headline "Businesses aren’t choked to death by regulations."