Over at Think Progress, the quote is:
Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you “pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food,” his profits “a mere fraction of that” — “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.”
You see that period at the end of their quote? It's not actually there if you listen to what he said.
What he actually said was:
"Yeah, that's before you pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment and food. The actual net income of that was only a mere fraction of that amount....I would say that since my net income, and again, that's the individual rate that I told you about, the amount that I have to re-invest in my business, and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million, and so by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment, all of that."
He points out, "Class warfare has never created a job and that's people that will not get jobs...".
So after Fleming takes care of his family (house note, insurance, taxes, bills, car notes, etc.) he has $400,000 to re-invest in his business.
That's $400,000 to re-invest in new jobs by theoretically upgrading his locations, as he says, or buying new locations, hiring more people, upgrading equipment, paying health care costs that are soon to increase...well, $400,000 won't go terribly far.
And he's right. Obama's decision to raise taxes on the millionaires is a job killer.
I think Fleming's comments illustrate that perfectly.
Unless you're a liberal who interprets his remarks to mean that he walks around with $400,000 in his pocket and lights his cigars with $100 dollar bills.
(H/T: Memeorandum)
12 comments:
I'm a little confused.
His businesses gross $6.3 million. That's fine. Naturally the business have expenses. That's understood. Businesses, if I'm not mistaken, are taxed on net income, allowing for deductions for large purchases for equipment etc....
Of that $6.3 million that the business makes, how much is he drawing out as his personal income to pay his rent, feed his family, pay his other expenses? If he's taking $1 mil in salary, spends $600,000 on lifestyle expenses, do you honestly believe he's going to reinvest that excess funds into the company if the company continues to be profitable? How many jobs did the executives of the bailed-out banks who made millions in salary create with their earnings?
If you want to get down to it, Obama's plan is the opposite of a class war. It's recommending that all classes pay the same percentage of their income, i.e equal treatment. The current system of millionaires paying 4% of their income opposed to the middle class 30+% is class warfare.
I'm not saying Obama's plan is the best solution, but it's not class warfare. Republicans should probably get their rhetoric under control before they start pissing of their voters, you know, that middle class that is apparently waging war on those poor millionaires demanding that they pay their proportional share of wealth.
It is his money- he made it, he earned it, he put his labor into it. Obama, the Democrats, and the federal government have no claim on it, especially if they simply mean to loot him to reward political supporters or go around showering bread on the masses. Our nation was built on the opposite of Obama's proposal- anonymous can go back to Russia and China and he'd fit right in with his ideas.
Or, as the frequently made observation goes, "a poor man never gave me a job".
Clark: "Swimming waitress - you understand that Rus?"
Rusty: "Yeah I understand. You think mum will buy it?"
Republicans should probably get their rhetoric under control before they start pissing of their voters, you know, that middle class that is apparently waging war on those poor millionaires demanding that they pay their proportional share of wealth
I see the Obama For America shill didn't even have the temerity to leave a name...even a bogus handle to go with their comment.
You should probably keep your strawmen away from open flames. Tell me- why is it that the Dems and progressives feel entitled to help themselves to somebody else's money?
After all that money being thrown at failed enterprises like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, I'm supposed to believe that the Obama Administration would somehow magically become fiscally responsible if only they could throw away more of other people's money at even more failed ventures and pet projects?
Actually, Flemming is lying--there's no other way to put it.
If you take a look at his Congressional financial disclosure forms (they're available on the 'net)--his annual income is somewhere between $6.25-10M. That's income. If he claims that, after taxes, he takes home $600K--that means he's being taxed at over 90%.
Which either isn't true or his accountant is stealing from him.
Note this doesn't include his Congressional salary (~$175k) that includes some pretty bennies like healthcare and a retirement plan.
This alos doesn't include the fact that his businesses are tangible assets that are appreciating--while he reaps all manner of tax breaks and write-offs.
I'm no accountant but someone who is pulling down north of $6M per year who claims that he's only seeing $600K net isn't a good businessman.
It is like this, whatever other people make, how they use it, what they spend it own, how they invest it is absolutley, 100% none of anyones business. We don't need to worry about how millionaires are spending or saving their money because it is none of your business. What is our business is that our government is broken. It is spending far too much. It is getting in our way and reducing our wealth and prosperity. If the government is reduced by 75% and they still need money, then they should declare bankruptcy and start over. The rich should pay the same percentage of their income to the govenment as poor and middle income do. In other words, nothing. That is called fair. If we continue with our present govenment, and that is a big if, then we need a constitutional amendment limiting people's exposure to taxation at all levels.
"The rich should pay the same percentage of their income to the govenment as poor and middle income do. In other words, nothing. That is called fair."
No.
First, let's set aside the mistaken notion that the poor and middle class pay no taxes for a moment.
Let's put it in context. If I own a Mercedes and you own a Kia, should we both pay the same amount for insurance? Of course not.
Similarly, the wealthy should pay more because they use far more of the Government's services to generate, maintain, and safeguard their wealth. If we use poor Rep. Flemming as an example, do you believe he (and his various businesses) use services such as highways and roads, educated workers, fire and police protection, subsidized telephone and electrical services, regulatory agency protections (SEC, FDIC, etc) more than some Joe Sixpack?
As for the taxes not being paid by the poor or middle class, that's just a myth. Everyone pays taxes--unless of course one lives in the woods and lives off the land.
jadegold,
Let me reassure you that you have no idea as to what you are talking about. The Wall Street Journal came out with an article a decade ago that researched the concept of the relationship between the "rich" and the government. It turns out that if you make more than $150,000 per year, the government is actually in your way and you really do not receive services from them. In fact, they stand solidly in your way. If you have never owned your own company, which is evident, then you have no idea the taxes, fees, regulations, etc that you face. And I will stand by the statement that poor and middle class do not in any way carry their share of the burden. If you feel otherwise, then you are fooling yourself and are a clear devotee of Obama, in short a fool.
David: You could not be more wrong. Citing an unspecified "article" from the WSJ does nothing to support your case. And it's not too difficult to find wealthy, succesful people who would disagree with you and your "article." Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the late Robert Noyce, Mark Cuban are just a few.
Yes, I've owned a successful business; I realize, firsthand, there are rules and regs that are a pain. But I also understand that I'd have had no chance at starting and growing a business without Government support and services. And that's true of any business. Even yours.
It's always amazing to me that people believe that roads and highways will magically appear, that employees will show up able to read and count, that banks will safeguard your money with no oversight, etc. It's kind of quaint, in a simple way, to believe these things will just happen if Govt. got out of the picture. It's endearing when a child gets wide-eyed about the Easter Bunny; it's less so when adults believe such fairy tales.
You're free the to believe the poor and middle cclass don't pay their share. Being wrong isn't a crime but it's nothing to be poud of.
do you believe he (and his various businesses) use services such as highways and roads, educated workers, fire and police protection, subsidized telephone and electrical services, regulatory agency protections (SEC, FDIC, etc) more than some Joe Sixpack?
Ah....so according to your condescending logic, the 'wealthy' (and having grown up in a dark blue state, that's a VERY malleable definition) Need to pay 'their fair share' in order to finance the government agencies that more often than not obstruct further expansion and development.
Oh....and brilliant ventures like Solyndra and taxpayer funded studies on interpertive dance to boot
David, We should offer folks like you the opportunity to opt out of the tax system. You take your $150K+ per year, and you are on your own.
You get a card that allows you to avoid all property, sales, income and other taxes. But you have to pay for your kid's education, put out your own fires, protect yourself from criminals, dig a well for water, pay full freight for healthcare, etc. But you do have to pay us taxpayer's a license fee to drive on the roads we paid for.
Post a Comment