This subject surfaced in a recent discussion I had with some friends and clients, in which we addressed the actual context of the entrepreneurs, and we inevitably came to this question: "To what extent does the state respect the entrepreneurs, those members of our society who invest in different businesses, create work places and boost the economy?” We know the state provides consumer’s protection, but who protects the entrepreneurs? Of course, we are mainly talking about small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, large multinational companies have another power of influence (not that they don’t face problems).
Taxes, compulsory contributions or fees are generated as a result of the activities of the individual or collective undertakings. It is very clear that without the money resulting, directly or indirectly, from the economic activities carried out by entrepreneurs, public authorities and institutions could not function and people with rights insured from the state budget (public employees, pensioners, health insured, students, the unemployed, etc.) would be severely affected.
If we imagine that an entrepreneurs’ tax strike could take place, its effects would be catastrophic not only for the state, but also for the citizens. In any market economy, the entrepreneur is the most important actor in the production of added value, he is the protagonist of the economic scene, he is the one who is taking a risk with a part of or even his entire fortune to pursue his dream and develop his business.
Metaphorically speaking, the entrepreneur is the one who energizes the engine of capitalism and economic progress. Without people with ideas, without people who implement economic programs or without people willing to take risks, to put their wealth or image at stake or to assume the consumption of resources regarding the organization of businesses, an economic system cannot be conceived.
Contrary to the general opinion that these people are rich, most entrepreneurs do not have a very good financial situation, the explanation being that they have invested in businesses everything they have accumulated or maybe even more, they have taken out loans and maybe they are still in debt, etc. Unfortunately, there are also entrepreneurs who invest, but without success either for subjective reasons or for objective reasons. Even the successful ones get there after several failures.
Looking ahead, the list of entrepreneurs who, over time, have gone bankrupt or otherwise failed, it is easy to see that business failure affects a significant percentage of business people. Closing or failing a business can have effects on the entire business segment, and not just on the entrepreneur who has failed, although obviously the latter has the most to lose.
It is stated that the entrepreneur assumes high risks, but his earnings are also commensurate with the risks assumed. In addition, he enjoys greater freedom than mere employees or civil servants. Both assumptions may be true, but they are not certain, they are only possible. After success has been achieved, everything seems simple, but until the expected positive results start appearing, it is a long journey facing many challenges, with the abandonment of social facilities and the stress generated by the sword of Damocles over his head. The real entrepreneur is the man who implements ideas, taking risks that many people are not willing to take, without any guarantee that he will succeed.
What do genuine entrepreneurs do for the state (society) is largely known, but what does the state (society) do for these entrepreneurs?
The state, through its competent bodies, should permanently develop programs to encourage and support entrepreneurial people, and we, the civil society, should also develop an attitude of appreciation and encouragement towards these people, of course, making the selection based on the principle of the quality of the product or service offered by them.