If you go out and make $20 million, i don't want to penalize that. I'm more talking about the CEO who got $20 million from Home Depot when he retired. He didn't earn that. That money should have gone to the employees and sharholders.
Yes, i do see how parts of me are libertarian and the other parts don't like their every man for themselves approach.
And we already do what you are saying. We tax the rich more and don't tax the poor at all. You do realize that we already do that, right?
And I just think that from Reagan to Bush they took too much away from us and gave too much to the rich.
For the record the Bush tax cuts were across the board tax cuts. EVERYBODY got them. So what are you really complaining about?
This is based on a faulty assumption. You are essentially complaining about the reverse that we are. Do the math for god's sake bobo. taking from the poor and giving to the rich? What miniscule dent is that going to make for the rich? Whatever money you think got taken from the poor and given to the rich is going to be pretty minimal. It's pretty hard to take something from almost nothing. It certainly wouldn't be enough to make a difference to the rich.
You would also have to actually show this perceived transfer of wealth in some measureable. Other then the poor buying goods from the rich of course.
And I called you Joe the Plumber because it seemed like you were painting a perfect picture for me. Like Joe just happened to be making $250, and he just happened to be on the edge of who would get penalized if Obama won.
But I do beleive you are a business owner and you sound like a great business owner. If they were all like you, I don't think we'd be having this discussion to be honest with you.
And if you can show he is the exception rather than the rule you might have the semblance of a case.
My boss at New Horizons used to say, "you aren't going to find many companies that pay as well as we do", and he was right. 16% commission, STRAIGHT commission.
By the way, I worked there back in the 90's. They have since cut down on how much they pay too. Increased quotas, asking more and paying less. No one buying like they used to.
One of the guys I worked with back then now works here at the company I'm with now. He made over $500K a year at New Horizons. Now I make more than him. But, he's in a new department and if it takes off, he started at the ground level, so he is hoping to make it back to where he use to be. Our company just started a payroll service to compete with ADP & Paychecks.
Listen to yourself bobo. There isn't a more quintessential example of the type of people that piss people like me and skull of then you. We look at the tone of your posts and just as I said 99% percent of the reasons you give for where you are external to you. Your boss this, your boss that, my friends comapny. And that is the big differentiator between the haves and have nots. It all boils down to the fact that you are letting someone else dictate your future and use it as the excuse for where you are in the present.
To have a real discussion about this we obviously have to determine what is accurate or not. Some of what I'm getting from you is that you don't really have a problem with Skull or his views
if you believed the majority of business owners were like him. Well what makes you think they aren't? Our wonderfully biased media?
The real differences between the haves and have nots isn't government policies or corporate policies. It is the behavior of individuals. Most of the rich figured out that, one, they probably weren't going to get rich working for someone else. Most of the rich take proactive measures to insulate themselves from haveing their futures dictated to them. Read some books on the rich sometime. You will find most of them are completely void of any political perspective at all and focus mainly on the behaviors of people.
And at the end of the day whether you are actually right or not about people being somehow held down by this mysterious force, it makes no difference to the argument that your position is based on your behavior, because quite clearly even if some barrier does exist many, many people have overcome it. Those people essentially decided to say fuck this system, i'm doing it my way, I'm taking the risk. When that's the case is it any wonder what the real reason is for the few haves and many have nots? Do you think risk like that is something many people would want to take on or few?
