Where do you get the idea that he is “hoarding” (snicker) money? In the video he talks about reinvesting it in his businesses. And you think he should “immediately” plow that 400k into creating more jobs. Maybe he is, and it’s just that his “immediately” talks a little longer as he thinks it wise to take the time to figure out HOW to best invest the money in his businesses.
Well, I listened to his comments, and (of course) he does not whine or complain or say anything about making “only $400k”. The interviewer said he makes $6 million, and he said no, the amount he makes is more like $400k. The interviewer of course immediately characterizes his statements as whining (like you people are), when it sounds more like he was just setting the record straight and showing how increased tax rates reduce the amount a business can spend to expand and hire new people.
I disagree. You say that he should forfeit his money? Why? Who has a greater claim to it then he does? He earned it. And this nonsense that he doesn’t want to give back or contribute to the general welfare is just that—nonsense. Unless you can point to a cite indicating that he is opposed to paying taxes generally. This guy is contributing more to society than you or I. He pays more in taxes. AND he creates jobs.
As far as your notion that most Americans would be happy to be taxed at 100% for that income over $250k—you’re nuts. And thank goodness you are. Because if that were true and that is where people topped out this country, nor the world, wouldn’t be as good a place as it is.
Now, I do wish you could go to the school you want to go to, and I hope you find a way to do that. You’re not the first person to find themselves in such a situation. And you wouldn’t be the first to figure out to realize your dreams. I do wish you luck in that. Seriously. But this guy is already doing more than the average person does. We need more people like him. I hope you find a way to work yourself into a position that you can have the problems he does. Then you can write a check to the government for the $400k. Or not. And somehow, I’m gonna bet on “not”.
You are wrong about the “new plant” part (except for a narrow exception you probably weren’t really considering). If a business makes $100 of profit and then spends $60 on a plant, the business is taxed on $100 of profit. It then can depreciate the plant over time. The narrow exception mentioned above is that sometimes it can depreciate the entire plant in the first year it is placed in service, but that’s an unusual gift that only comes around every so often.
Fair enough. I’m no expert on corporate tax law. I was under the impression that profit was calculated after expenses, and that doing something like investing in a new plant would be considered an expense that would be deducted from revenue for the purpose of determining profit.
FWIW, i agree with this, at least in part.
First, the part i agree with:
I think he did have a point about the difference between revenue and profit. The journalist asking the question made it seem like he makes a cool $6 million a year, all for himself, out of the business. But to treat revenue as if it were profit is a stupid and misleading thing to do. Businesses have revenues and they have expenses, and you can’t just count the former while pretending the latter doesn’t exist.
Now, the bits that need some correction:
The “amount he makes” is actually about $600K, not $400K. He said that $400K is what he has left after he’s fed his family. Now, as far as i’m concerned, the money he makes to “feed is family” is still part of the “amount he makes.” You don’t get to dismiss that $200K just because it’s being spent on food and shelter rather than booze and hookers.
You were right that he was “setting the record straight” about his actual income from the business, but i’m afraid you’ll have to point out to me where he showed “how increased tax rates reduce the amount a business can spend to expand and hire new people.” As far as i can tell, he made no argument about that at all, except in the most banal generalization. In fact, he specifically avoided answering the question about whether an increase in taxes would force him, in his own business, to reduce his workforce.
No you are incorrect. He apparently takes home 600k, and then spends 200k on “feeding his family”, which is a really, really stupid way of saying he spends 200k on expenses like food, mortgage, gas, golf club polish, ponies and assorted other “necessities”. This leaves him only 400k to have fun with.
You’re both wrong. He is left with 600k, and after putting aside 200k for living expenses, college funds, etc., he has 400k left to REINVEST IN HIS BUSINESSES. Check the video if you’d like.
Yeah, if there were enough people like him we could all be making $12,000 per year at Subway.
I listened to the clip, and I’d say that’s my take too. I would only add that both the interviewer and the Congresscritter were pretty bad, IMO. She was stupid for implying that he cleared $6M. He avoided her question about whether or not the new tax law would affect his current staffing or future hiring.
The “feed my family” part was pretty stupid. I assume he meant “pay all my bills” or “pay myself a salary”, but that’s a pretty stupid way of talking about what you do with $200K.
At any rate, he wasn’t complaining about having “only” $400K left over, but correcting the interviewer who would have had us think he cleared $6M in profit.
Ahem. The number was an average. It includes summer and other part-time help that might have made $2,000, and managers that might make $100,000+.
You really don’t know how averages work? Wow!
Well, the first part is right, but a new plant isn’t an expense, it’s a capital expenditure (because it’s an acquisition or improvement of property), so it’s not deductible.
I agree that he didn’t lay out a full argument on the part you quote above, but I think that’s where he was going, and you really can’t expect a politician to lay out a full argument for anything in a TV interview. He set the record straight and got out his soundbite about class warfare and then it’s commercial time.
If you insist, I shall rephrase.
I don’t really see how that makes it better. Happy now?
FWIW, i’d still be interested in learning a bit more about the breakdown of his income.
As i said in an earlier post, his financial disclosure form lists “Over $5,000,000” as the “Amount of Income” from Fleming Subway Restaurants, Inc.
On first glance, my assumption upon seeing this would be that “Over $5,000,000” is the actual income he, as an individual, gets from the company, and not simply the company’s revenue before expenses. It is, after all, a category that is specifically called “Income,” and financial disclosure regulations are, in general, designed to ascertain how much money the person has, and where it comes from. As with the journalist, if the form requires members to list income from their businesses without also listing expenses, that would be stupid, IMO.
I do acknowledge, though, that i’m not an expert in the rules regarding financial disclosure for congresscritters.
For whatever random reason, I’d like to note that we have actually had literal class warfare in this country, with bullets and bombs and everything, most notably from about 1890 to 1930.
Despite the victories of the plutocrats in such battles as the Haymarket Massacre, the Ludlow Massacre, and such, it pleases me to note that, by the 1940s, the left had won the war.
The right may like to be careful what they wish for.
Oh, I was happy before. And I’m happy now. And your “point” is still just as meaningless an inane.
Huh? The right is not hoping/wishing for class warfare. They are the side telling the other side—the left—to stop it.
Does this distinction only apply to real property, or does it apply to, say, buying a new deep fat fryer or air conditioning unit for one of your restaurants? Because it seems that just about anything you spend could be called an “improvement of property.”
Also, if he decided to expand by renting (rather than buying) another property and setting up shop in the building, would the rent and the set-up costs be expenses that could be deducted from revenue, or would they be capital expenditure?
I guess what i’m trying to work out here is how much a business can expand using income that is considered profit versus income that is not considered profit. That is, how much expansion can be funded from pre-tax income? Because i assume, given the distinction you’ve noted, that business owners need to consider exactly how they are going to expand, both for the business itself and for reasons of tax liability.
But this begs the very issue that we’re debating here. The complaint is precisely that he has offered little but “soundbite” arguments and “class warfare” rhetoric.
If someone accuses you of offering a shallow and self-serving argument, should it be considered a sufficient rebuttal to simply point out that you were on television and so cannot be held to such lofty standards of rigor and analysis? I agree with you about what how the interview went; the difference seems to be that you believe that the medium somehow excuses the lack of substance.
Gee, I provided exactly the correction you asked for. At this point some of the inanity would have to be your fault, too.
Unfortunately, if there’s a profession in the United States that gives Congress a run for its money in self-serving idiocy, it’s the cable and network news media.
My desk is made of wood. Pine.
Here we have another factually correct statement that is meaningless and inane.