Who pays their fair share of Federal taxes?

[Truth2Know]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

 

[Treeshepherd]

What if you don't use the health care system, you don't call the cops on anyone, and you don't plan on ever collecting social security? Couldn't you then get your fair share close to zero, especially since the roads are paid for with gas taxes?

 

[blastoff]

I pay what I consider more than my "fair" share, quarterly.

Although my tax guy usually buys me a drink or two afterwards to help calm me back down.

 

[chikenwing]

At this point,it looks as if a fair share is what is required

 

[PoliticalChic]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities.

Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up?

Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

 

[Oddball]

 

[Slyhunter]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

Not Bernie, he doesn't practice what he preaches. He could've paid his 52% but chose to only pay 26%. He could've given more to charity too, but only gave 3.6%, his car cost more than that.

 

[imawhosure]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

I would ask this---------> are corporations are person?

I would also ask, if a corporations operating costs are 500 billion, and they make 7 billion in return, is that/is that NOT, a fair return on their investment?

I would also ask----------------->if a corporation has to pay MORE in taxes that lower the threshold below what a fair return for their outlay is, if they decide to stay in business instead of just investing the money, how would they raise the additional revenue needed to balance the books, and who REALLY then, is paying the tax!

 

[Oddball]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

I would ask this---------> are corporations are person?

I would also ask, if a corporations operating costs are 500 billion, and they make 7 billion in return, is that/is that NOT, a fair return on their investment?

I would also ask----------------->if a corporation has to pay MORE in taxes that lower the threshold below what a fair return for their outlay is, if they decide to stay in business instead of just investing the money, how would they raise the additional revenue needed to balance the books, and who REALLY then, is paying the tax!

Blowing smoke and not answering the question....What is YOUR fair share of what SOMEONE ELSE earned?

 

[Darkwind]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

I have a better idea.

Instead of discussing who should pay what, how about we determine what should be spent and why?

 

[Truth2Know]

I would also ask----------------->if a corporation has to pay MORE in taxes that lower the threshold below what a fair return for their outlay is, if they decide to stay in business instead of just investing the money, how would they raise the additional revenue needed to balance the books, and who REALLY then, is paying the tax!

I don't follow your argument, but let me say this: Corporations should not be taxed at all. Here is the breakdown of where the Federal government gets its tax revenue. Understanding the Budget: Revenue

Individual income taxes: 51.3%
Payroll taxes: 38.5%
Corporate taxes: 6.4%
Excise taxes: 3.2%
Estate and gift taxes: 0.6%

By far, most taxes come from people working. Why not put more people to work instead of exacting a paltry 6.4% from the "big, bad corporations?" This would make US corporations more competitive, allowing more employment, which would jack up receipts from income taxes and payroll taxes. I bet net total tax revenue would increase.

Plus, putting people to work removes them from the welfare rolls, reducing government expenses. Can you say winning?

 

[Slyhunter]

To answer this question, “fair share” must be defined. For this analysis, I propose that “fair share” is an equal contribution by all people that benefit from government services. The notion of having to pay a higher portion in taxes because you earn more isn’t “fair” and it does disservice to the word “share.”

While all Americans benefit (hopefully) from what our Federal government does, it is not realistic to include all 319 million people (per the 2014 census) as equal sharers in the cost of these benefits. Children, the elderly, the infirm, etc. should be excluded. So how many people should be included in the calculation?

Data from 2012 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/) indicate 85 million tax paying units (a “unit” is one single or one joint filer) paid Federal income tax; 44% of the 85 million were assumed to be joint filers. Data from 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9) indicate that 43% of households paid no Federal income tax in 2013. Assuming that 44% of these were also joint filers, the total number of individual tax payers is about 215 million. I know, lots of assumptions, but it’s just an estimate. When you consider that there were about 200 million people between 18 and 65 in the 2014 census, using 215 million as the number of individual taxpayers isn’t too bad.

Now, on to revenue. For 2013, $1.316T in individual income tax was collected; the total for Social Insurance Taxes was $0.948T (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44711). Dividing these revenues by 215 million gives the “fair share” for each individual tax payer:

Federal Income Tax: $6,121 Social Insurance Taxes: $4,409

Total fair share of Federal taxes for single filers: $10,530

Total fair share of Federal taxes for joint filers: $21,060

So, are you paying your fair share of these taxes? Check boxes 4 and 6 on your W-2s to determine your Social Insurance taxes and line 63 on your 1040 for your Federal Income tax.

After going through this calculation, I realize that some people are paying much more than their fair share of Federal taxes. Thank you for doing this, because it surely isn’t me.

I have a better idea.

Instead of discussing who should pay what, how about we determine what should be spent and why?

In a perfect world nobody would go hungry. Everyone would make a livable wage. Nobody would go without healthcare. And we each would achieve the limits of our ability without regard to wealth including educational opportunity. In a Star Trek Universe everything you needed to succeed and/or live was free. Some things were rationed, like military service and you had to earn your way in. But none of it cost money.

We don't live in a perfect world.

 

[tycho1572]

Like Bernie, I pay what the tax laws say I owe. Nothing more!

 

[Slyhunter]

Like Bernie, I pay what the tax laws say I owe. Nothing more!

Bernie releasing his taxes proves he's a hypocrite. It was stupid of him to release them. Now we know.

 

[initforme]

The middle class, which has been shrinking little by little, carries the nation taxwise. Their tax cut should have been higher than it was.

 

[imawhosure]

I would also ask----------------->if a corporation has to pay MORE in taxes that lower the threshold below what a fair return for their outlay is, if they decide to stay in business instead of just investing the money, how would they raise the additional revenue needed to balance the books, and who REALLY then, is paying the tax!

I don't follow your argument, but let me say this: Corporations should not be taxed at all. Here is the breakdown of where the Federal government gets its tax revenue. Understanding the Budget: Revenue

Individual income taxes: 51.3%
Payroll taxes: 38.5%
Corporate taxes: 6.4%
Excise taxes: 3.2%
Estate and gift taxes: 0.6%

By far, most taxes come from people working. Why not put more people to work instead of exacting a paltry 6.4% from the "big, bad corporations?" This would make US corporations more competitive, allowing more employment, which would jack up receipts from income taxes and payroll taxes. I bet net total tax revenue would increase.

Plus, putting people to work removes them from the welfare rolls, reducing government expenses. Can you say winning?

My position is simple--------------------->corporations on earnings, should pay 0 taxes, because any tax they pay, is passed on to consumers.

Also, if you buy their stock, you also enjoy their benefit. I don't want to hear the poor people can't buy stock! That is a fallacy! What they really mean is--------->they can't buy as MUCH stock! They can band together and buy stock, but Leftists don't want them to.

Why?

Because once they figure out what is really going on, they won't have Leftists anymore, lol. The more Leftists can isolate certain people from reality, the more Leftists they create, it is pure and simple!

 

[Slyhunter]

I would also ask----------------->if a corporation has to pay MORE in taxes that lower the threshold below what a fair return for their outlay is, if they decide to stay in business instead of just investing the money, how would they raise the additional revenue needed to balance the books, and who REALLY then, is paying the tax!

I don't follow your argument, but let me say this: Corporations should not be taxed at all. Here is the breakdown of where the Federal government gets its tax revenue. Understanding the Budget: Revenue

Individual income taxes: 51.3%
Payroll taxes: 38.5%
Corporate taxes: 6.4%
Excise taxes: 3.2%
Estate and gift taxes: 0.6%

By far, most taxes come from people working. Why not put more people to work instead of exacting a paltry 6.4% from the "big, bad corporations?" This would make US corporations more competitive, allowing more employment, which would jack up receipts from income taxes and payroll taxes. I bet net total tax revenue would increase.

Plus, putting people to work removes them from the welfare rolls, reducing government expenses. Can you say winning?

My position is simple--------------------->corporations on earnings, should pay 0 taxes, because any tax they pay, is passed on to consumers.

Also, if you buy their stock, you also enjoy their benefit. I don't want to hear the poor people can't buy stock! That is a fallacy! What they really mean is--------->they can't buy as MUCH stock! They can band together and buy stock, but Leftists don't want them to.

Why?

Because once they figure out what is really going on, they won't have Leftists anymore, lol. The more Leftists can isolate certain people from reality, the more Leftists they create, it is pure and simple!

I saved up $2,000 and invested in K-mart right after they came out of their first bankruptcy. I knew they were land rich. They sold all their loosing stores and made a killing as soon as the court took off the reigns and I sold my stock for $6,000. If I held on to it another month I would've made $12,000. But I got scared and got out while ahead. Then they filed bankruptcy again. but my money was already banked.

I thought I was rich. I made a little here and there until I cam up against the Sirius/XM stock merger. Because I didn't have enough to invest normally and make a decent profit after the merger. I figured it was a sure thing. I put it all in Stock Options. If they had merged I would've made over 1,000% profit. But Clinton's SEC chairman wouldn't approve the deal until a year later. By then my options were worthless. If I had just bought the stock I would've been able to ride it out. But I didn't and I was broke again.

Rich people save more money than poor people because they can take advantage of better deals than poor people have the opportunity to take advantage of. They can buy in bulk and pay less per item than a poor person can. And they can settle for a 5% profit margin on the stock market where I needed at least 100% or more per year to make a living at it. A part time living at it. Rich folks can afford to be wrong and not sell at a loss to hold for the next upswing. Poor people need to sell stock to pay the rent even if it means taking a loss.

It's cheaper to be rich than to be poor.

 

[Slyhunter]

Owning a home is cheaper than renting.

 

[imawhosure]

I would also ask----------------->if a corporation has to pay MORE in taxes that lower the threshold below what a fair return for their outlay is, if they decide to stay in business instead of just investing the money, how would they raise the additional revenue needed to balance the books, and who REALLY then, is paying the tax!

I don't follow your argument, but let me say this: Corporations should not be taxed at all. Here is the breakdown of where the Federal government gets its tax revenue. Understanding the Budget: Revenue

Individual income taxes: 51.3%
Payroll taxes: 38.5%
Corporate taxes: 6.4%
Excise taxes: 3.2%
Estate and gift taxes: 0.6%

By far, most taxes come from people working. Why not put more people to work instead of exacting a paltry 6.4% from the "big, bad corporations?" This would make US corporations more competitive, allowing more employment, which would jack up receipts from income taxes and payroll taxes. I bet net total tax revenue would increase.

Plus, putting people to work removes them from the welfare rolls, reducing government expenses. Can you say winning?

My position is simple--------------------->corporations on earnings, should pay 0 taxes, because any tax they pay, is passed on to consumers.

Also, if you buy their stock, you also enjoy their benefit. I don't want to hear the poor people can't buy stock! That is a fallacy! What they really mean is--------->they can't buy as MUCH stock! They can band together and buy stock, but Leftists don't want them to.

Why?

Because once they figure out what is really going on, they won't have Leftists anymore, lol. The more Leftists can isolate certain people from reality, the more Leftists they create, it is pure and simple!

I saved up $2,000 and invested in K-mart right after they came out of their first bankruptcy. I knew they were land rich. They sold all their loosing stores and made a killing as soon as the court took off the reigns and I sold my stock for $6,000. If I held on to it another month I would've made $12,000. But I got scared and got out while ahead. Then they filed bankruptcy again. but my money was already banked.

I thought I was rich. I made a little here and there until I cam up against the Sirius/XM stock merger. Because I didn't have enough to invest normally and make a decent profit after the merger. I figured it was a sure thing. I put it all in Stock Options. If they had merged I would've made over 1,000% profit. But Clinton's SEC chairman wouldn't approve the deal until a year later. By then my options were worthless. If I had just bought the stock I would've been able to ride it out. But I didn't and I was broke again.

Rich people save more money than poor people because they can take advantage of better deals than poor people have the opportunity to take advantage of. They can buy in bulk and pay less per item than a poor person can. And they can settle for a 5% profit margin on the stock market where I needed at least 100% or more per year to make a living at it. A part time living at it. Rich folks can afford to be wrong and not sell at a loss to hold for the next upswing. Poor people need to sell stock to pay the rent even if it means taking a loss.

It's cheaper to be rich than to be poor.

I am not going to disagree with you, because to do so would be blowing smoke. But look at your own story! Where else could you have done that? Just because it didn't work out as planned, you still made a killing; and not to preach but----------->never put your eggs in one basket.

Listen to what you said-----------------> I made 3 times the money I invested, I was smart by doing it.

NEXT---------------> I knew what to do, I over reached cause I wanted to make a killing, didn't make it, and now the rich have it to easy because I failed?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

REALLY!

If they didn't inherit their money like the Kennedy's did, ever wonder how they made it? (in fairness, the Waltons inherited their money too) ((Walmart heirs))

I know more than a couple people who I am sure you would consider rich. (multi millionaires who are far wealthier then Bernie) If I did NOT know that I would end up as wealthy as they did when I started their business, I could not have done what they did, nor would have been willing to lose what they did as far as marriages, etc.

So yes, the rich have it easier...……….key word...…..HAVE. But what did they have to do to get it! Just like you, maybe they invested 2000 that turned to 6000, and then maybe unlike you they did something different and ended up with 100,000, putting them on their way.

The point is, just like YOU, they put most or all of their capitol at risk. They TOOK that risk and won. Now we are supposed to punish them? Not to mention, the people I know employ a LOT of people. Those people have a job because my acquaintances took a chance.

Yeah, I am not going to lie...…………..we would all probably consider them arrogant a**holes to put it mildly. Their employees consider them a meal ticket, and the government considers them a win fall.

You carry on trying. The most important thing is to have the gonads to try! You will succeed, trust me, I know-)

 

[Slyhunter]

Not sure if this is related to the topic. I watched an interview between Levin and that MyPillow dude. He didn't say it straight out but if you do the math and check the timing he created his pillow business while he was a crack addict. He grew his business while a crank addict. Then he found God after he found success. Some people will find success no matter what hurdles you put in front of them.