Luxury buying on rise, as jobless not spending

[Joeychgo]

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Consumers are buying more luxury items but spending remains tight for everyday essentials such as food and dental care, a USA TODAY analysis finds, suggesting a growing divide between haves and have-nots.
Purchases of TVs, jewelry, recreational vehicles and pet supplies are growing robustly, government data show. At the same time, spending on medical care, day care and education is down in the dumps.

"The rising tide isn't lifting all boats," says Carl Steidtmann, chief economist at the Deloitte accounting and consulting firm and author of an index tracking consumer spending.

He says higher-income and older households, helped by a strong stock market, are experiencing increased wealth and spending more. However, high unemployment is pulling in the other direction, depressing spending among people without jobs and those anxious about job security.
Consumer spending accounts for about 70% of the nation's economy and is crucial to any recovery. Spending rose 1.4% in the first eight months of this year compared with the same period a year earlier, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. Consumers are on track to increase spending for the first time since 2007.

Yet more than one-third of the 350 spending categories tracked by the government remain in decline, as if the recession that technically ended in June 2009 was still underway. Spending on new cars has fallen another 8.2% this year, on top of disastrous drops in 2008 and 2009. Consumers are spending less on prescription drugs, life insurance and a wide range of everyday essentials while spending more on watches, wine and toys. Part of the jump in luxury items is a rebound from deep lows in the recession. What's hot now:

•Televisions. Spending is up 34.7% this year, tops among consumer items. "There is a lot of excitement" because of 3-D TVs, bigger panels and high definition, says Best Buy's Scott Morris.

•Recreational vehicles. Winnebago sales have doubled. The company added 350 workers. Buyers — typically 55 or older — are purchasing somewhat less expensive RVs, says Winnebago spokeswoman Sheila Davis.

•Pet supplies. Organic dog food, timed cat food dispensers and other high-end pet items are driving healthy increases in spending, says Bob Vetere, president of the American Pet Products Association. "People are cutting back on themselves more than they're cutting back on pets," he says.

Pet products illustrate how some consumers are going high end and others low end. Cheap pet food is selling briskly, reflecting the weak economy, at the same time costly items are thriving, he says. It's the middle of the market that's shrinking, he says.

Entertainment that depends on mass appeal is still hurting. Spending at concerts, movie theaters and casinos is down.

The revenue decline at casinos is starting to stabilize, says Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., president of the American Gaming Association. "We're not going to see a dramatic turnaround until employment picks up," he says. "We're still packing people in. They're just spending less."

And some of you want the tax cut for the wealthy?

 

[shagdrum]

And some of you want the tax cut for the wealthy?

Yep...at least if by "wealthy" you mean "higher income earners".

Why shouldn't we have a tax cut for the "wealthy?" To punish them?

Is envy the standard of judgment used to determine policy?

YouTube - What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

 

[fossten]

And some of you want the tax cut for the wealthy?

For the 1 billionth time, Joey...

The wealthy don't pay taxes. They don't earn income.

You didn't even read your own article. The article doesn't use the word 'wealthy.' It says 'higher income.' Can you define that for us, please?

Furthermore:

Won't buying luxury items employ the people who make, sell, and distribute those items? That's job creation.

Won't buying luxury items allow the manufacturers to achieve economies of scale, thus lowering prices so the middle class can afford said luxury items?

In both cases, NEW tax revenue is generated.

Economics 101 - try it.

 

[Calabrio]

And some of you want the tax cut for the wealthy?

To be more precise, we don't want to see anyone get a TAX INCREASE in 2011.

But can you define "wealthy" for us.
And how much should the "wealthy" pay in income tax?
What exactly would be accomplished by taking any wealth out of the private sector?

With this said, I'm firmly convinced there's some massive market manipulation taking place amongst the super-elite right now. Like the highest stakes game of poker, it's only a matter of time before they pull all the chips off the table after they've built up the pot.

But, even on principle, tax policy should not be punitive.
And those aren't families or small business that make $250k a year.

 

[Joeychgo]

We can argue over the defination of wealthy and higher income all day long. Its semantics and irrelevant.

But yes, we should raise their tax before we raise the tax of the income group that is having their homes foreclosed on and are unable to find a job.

Its not about punitive. Its about affordability. A guy making $250k+ can afford taxes a whole lot more then someone making $40k. Those people should get the tax cuts.

 

[shagdrum]

We can argue over the defination of wealthy and higher income all day long. Its semantics and irrelevant.

"Wealthy" and "high income earners" are two different things and WE DO NOT TAX WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY.There is very good reason for that.

Did you watch that video I posted? What would be the effect of increased taxation on the wealthy on the mechanism of wealth creation?

But yes, we should raise their tax before we raise the tax of the income group that is having their homes foreclosed on and are unable to find a job.

Its not about punitive. Its about affordability.

These two points contradict one another.

If there is another reason to tax high income earners more besides envy; besides an attempt to punish them, lets hear it. I have yet to see such an argument, unless it is assumed that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate leads to higher tax revenue (considering the current "progressive" tax structure, any appeal to "fairness" only undercuts your entire argument).

It all comes back to that static vs. dynamic analysis. The argument you are promoting is rooted completely in envy unless the static analysis makes sense. But it has been shown countless times (on this forum alone) to be utterly worthless. It is the height of foolishness to assume that increasing taxes does not alter incentive structures and does not change the behavior of the person being taxed.

A guy making $250k+ can afford taxes a whole lot more then someone making $40k. Those people should get the tax cuts.

That is a gross generalization.

But ignoring that point, the guy making $250k can also do a lot more for the economy then someone making $40k. Also, the guy making $250k will use that money more efficiently and and effectively in regards to the economy then ever could be done by any government program.

The individual utilizing his money will create wealth while the government utilizing that same money only steals, redistributes and (in the long run) destroys wealth.

What is your focus here? Is it to stimulate the economy or to "get back" at those who make more then you? It sure seems like the latter.

There is a reason that John Stuart Mill famously called envy, "[the] most anti-social and odious of all passions".

 

[fossten]

We can argue over the defination of wealthy and higher income all day long. Its semantics and irrelevant.

But yes, we should raise their tax before we raise the tax of the income group that is having their homes foreclosed on and are unable to find a job.

Its not about punitive. Its about affordability. A guy making $250k+ can afford taxes a whole lot more then someone making $40k. Those people should get the tax cuts.

How do you know that, Joey? Do you understand how the IRS treats a Sub-S corporation's earnings at the end of the year? A typical small business that earns $250k has to retain cash at the end of each month to meet expenses such as payroll and purchasing. At the end of December all that cash is taxed as REGULAR INCOME by the IRS. So this 'rich' guy who's just trying to meet his expenses and probably isn't taking a salary over $60k just had his expense money RAPED by the IRS. And you think this guy should pay more? Brilliant, Joey.

And by the way, Joey, your boy Obama is poised to raise taxes SIGNIFICANTLY ON THE MIDDLE CLASS starting this year and continuing through the activation of Obamacare with the TAX PENALTY for not purchasing health insurance.

How do you like them apples?

 

[Calabrio]

Those people should get the tax cuts.

Why not refrain from raising ANY taxes right now.

Is your goal to prevent spending and investment? Or merely to drive all industry overseas? Because those are the consequences of punitive, class-envy driven tax policy.

The problems this country face aren't because the government can't spend enough money.

We need radical tax reform.
The system in place is corrupt, inefficient, and designed in a way that it gives power to the political class. The tax structure shouldn't penalize success, it should apply to everyone (no free rides), and it should be standardized and universally applied to avoid fraud and political manipulation.

And in doing so, we need to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government. If you want socialized programs, they should be voted on, approved, and paid for by the local or state governments- not the federal government. That's one of the benefits of federalism.

If a city like San Fransisco, or a State like Maine want to be socialist, then they can- without having to be imposed upon the rest of the country, or financed by us.

 

[fossten]

Why not refrain from raising ANY taxes right now.

Is your goal to prevent spending and investment? Or merely to drive all industry overseas? Because those are the consequences of punitive, class-envy driven tax policy.

The problems this country face aren't because the government can't spend enough money.

We need radical tax reform.
The system in place is corrupt, inefficient, and designed in a way that it gives power to the political class. The tax structure shouldn't penalize success, it should apply to everyone (no free rides), and it should be standardized and universally applied to avoid fraud and political manipulation.

And in doing so, we need to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government. If you want socialized programs, they should be voted on, approved, and paid for by the local or state governments- not the federal government. That's one of the benefits of federalism.

If a city like San Fransisco, or a State like Maine want to be socialist, then they can- without having to be imposed upon the rest of the country, or financed by us.

You realize you're talking right over Joey's head. He's convinced himself that the evil rich are the problem in this country, and the government is the savior of all and can and should fix everything.

 

[shagdrum]

If a city like San Fransisco, or a State like Maine want to be socialist, then they can- without having to be imposed upon the rest of the country, or financed by us.

Well, it would still have to be financed by the rest of the country to be sustained in the long term

 

[Calabrio]

Well, it would still have to be financed by the rest of the country to be sustained in the long term

Well, economically speaking, it would just fail and the city would go bankrupt.
And it would then suck to be them.
But I wouldn't care. I don't live in San Fransisco nor would I be financially responsible for it.

 

[fossten]

Well, economically speaking, it would just fail and the city would go bankrupt.
And it would then suck to be them.
But I wouldn't care. I don't live in San Fransisco nor would I be financially responsible for it.

See Detroit.

 

[Calabrio]

See Detroit.

Detroit is an incredible story.
Horrifying. The notion of wild animals running through some parts of that ghost town is amazing.

I do find the idea that it might eventually return to being an agricultural city to be fascinating though.

 

[fossten]

As usual, Joey does his drive by attack on capitalism, ignores our replies, and disappears.

 

[lincolnx2]

Detroit is not a "ghost town", please don't believe what the media is saying. Detroit is actually on the rebound, I see it with my own eyes. We had some rough times, but people are overcoming adversity all over Detroit.

Detroit was never Bankrupt, they hit a rough patch when the auto industry fell down, but some people found alternative ways to supplement income, and the ones who didn't are the same ones wanting Obama to extend unemployment benefits (Lazy people)

Now, I do have a question about taxes, why aren't we all taxed a certain percentage of our income, like 10%, so if I made 50K, I pay 5K in taxes, If i made 1m, then I pay 100k in taxes.

 

[Frogman]

We can argue over the defination of wealthy and higher income all day long. Its semantics and irrelevant.

But what if a guy makes 1 million dollars per year and squanders it all by December 31? Is he not poor? High income poor person?

How many celebrities do we know like this? Ones that come to mind are McHammer, some 80's basketball player, and I'm sure others can add to the list. So yes, wealthy and higher income are two different things, Sir.

But yes, we should raise their tax before we raise the tax of the income group that is having their homes foreclosed on and are unable to find a job.

What do you think will happen when taxes get raised on higher income (or wealthy people)? Seeing how most of these people EMPLOY others, they will likely just cut a few people off the employee roll to make up the difference. How is this beneficial to the people working for them?

Its not about punitive. Its about affordability. A guy making $250k+ can afford taxes a whole lot more then someone making $40k. Those people should get the tax cuts.

Those 40K a year people will become $ ZERO per year people when they get laid off by the wealthy people, Joey. This is what "you guys" don't understand, it seems.

I have a fair idea of what you're pulling down off the forumS. Would you be interested in Uncle O taxing your forum income at say, 95%? Ask yourself that and get back to me. And I'll even say, these can be net income taxes, after all, you have to pay for bandwidth, servers, hosting, etc. And you have a lot of people who don't pay membership here (like me). But the Google ads pay something, otherwise you wouldn't have them.

 

[Calabrio]

Detroit is not a "ghost town", please don't believe what the media is saying. Detroit is actually on the rebound, I see it with my own eyes. We had some rough times, but people are overcoming adversity all over Detroit.

I think we're going to talk past each unless we both agree on the language being used.

Hard working individuals might be working to overcome adversity, but the industrial glory of that city is a distant memory. While there may be areas that are improving, there are vast areas that are desolate and abandoned. Inhabited by animals, criminals, and the professional homeless.

Detroit was a testing ground for the Progressive Utopian ideals and we can see what ultimately happened to it. The collapse of manufacturing accelerated it's inevitable outcome. The government and social scientists, with their experimentation and political manipulation, failed Detroit. Individuals represent the salvation for Detroit, NOT government solutions.

When government gets out of the way, they lower taxes and regulation, and stop interfering with the society and social welfare, investors will likely move back in, buy all the depreciated property, and rebuild the once great city and port town.

That won't happen until the free-market, liberty loving politicians take office there.

Now, I do have a question about taxes, why aren't we all taxed a certain percentage of our income, like 10%, so if I made 50K, I pay 5K in taxes, If i made 1m, then I pay 100k in taxes.

Because we have a burdensome Progressive Tax in this country right now. What you proposing is usually referred to a "flat-tax."

The progressive tax is defended for a number of reasons. Those who exploit class-rhetoric claim that it's "more fair" because a "rich" person is much better able to pay. Joey references this concept in his earlier post. Politicians like the progressive tax, and all it's regulation, because it gives them an incredible amount of power to buy votes, buy favor, and punish their enemies through the tax code and prosecution of it.

We should adopt a uniform flat tax, or something like the "Fair Tax" which would replaced the income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax.

 

[fossten]

As I've stated before:

Our tax system and regulations preserve old wealth and make new fortunes impossible. The truly rich fend off the law with lawyers, leaving those below to be picked clean by the IRS. The government is a parasite that taxes half our income, then taxes everything we buy. We struggle to live on a quarter of our productive capacity - an eighth if you count regulation - while the STATE consumes the other seven eighths.

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

We could solve most of the country's poverty and hunger problems if the government would just leave people alone.

 

[dlachance]

We can argue over the defination of wealthy and higher income all day long. Its semantics and irrelevant.

But yes, we should raise their tax before we raise the tax of the income group that is having their homes foreclosed on and are unable to find a job.

Its not about punitive. Its about affordability. A guy making $250k+ can afford taxes a whole lot more then someone making $40k. Those people should get the tax cuts.

You must be a Socialist. Reminds me of when I lived in Canada. You musn't have any idea of how life in a Socialist country is, and let me inform you, it is not pretty. Redistribution of wealth does NOT work.

Explain to me, according to the Constitution, where it is proper and/or just for the Federal Government to impose taxes on people who earn more money and give it away to the lower income earners? People who have a high income have it for a reason. Not because they slacked through school, nor because they drug their knuckles around in life feeling sorry for themselves. They made things work, made sacrifices, and hold jobs that pay that increased amount. In very few cases are people born into wealth. When I moved from Canada with my family, we were considered "less fortunate" in Canada. However, working with the free enterprise system, my parents manage to build a business that is currently grossing $1.4m/year with $400k of payroll. This is job creation, not the entitlement handout crap that Democrats are allowing!


So, that guy making $250k+ should be taxed more why, besides the fact he can afford it. If we cut down the taxes for all the low income earners, what will that do to help the economy? Maybe those low-earners can get three big macs instead of two next time. Or maybe those low-earners can save an extra $12 a paycheck. The bottom line is that the only way to make the economy rebound is the trickle down effect. The only fair income tax system would be a flat-tax rate, and a one time tax on big purchase items, i.e. cars, homes etc.

Otherwise know as Reganomics, if we chop down the tax rate for major corporations and institute incentives that will benefit them to keep jobs on this side of the big pond, that will happen. Trickle down effect will increase available gross, allowing them for expansion, which would in turn create new jobs, which in turn creates new tax-payers. It is as simple as that. Giving out to "poorer" people will do no good for the rebound of the economy.

The fact is that the American people have lost sight of what the American dream is. Pre-entitlements, citizens would grow up, get married and start a business. People would make a name for themselves and turn a profit. However, with as much government intervention as there is now, people would rather let the government pay for their expenses. There is a huge lack of responsibility in some people that it makes me sick.

Does the government waste? Stimulus fun fact. The US government spent $800,000 on teaching uncircumcised African-American men how to clean their genitals. How in the hell is that going to stimulate the economy? This goes to prove that the Feds do not know, at all, how to properly spend our tax dollars. Actually, let me re-phrase that, the Democratic Machine, is purposely wasting our tax dollars on BS. My guess is that all these little entitlements in the stimulus are for repayment of organizations gathering votes for Mr. Obama, but we will never, for sure, know the absolute truth.


You have a lot of learning to do, sir. Doubtfully so, being that you live in the most corrupt city in the country (Chicago, mostly democrats), that you will continue to live in denial and bondage of the left. I pray that you will wake up.

-Dylan, your fellow 17yr. old American :Beer

 

[cammerfe]

Detroit

Detroit is not a "ghost town", please don't believe what the media is saying. Detroit is actually on the rebound, I see it with my own eyes.

And Mayor Bing has just been holding a series of town meetings to float the idea of turning some of the 'bombed-out' parts of the city back into farm land.

Areas that bustled when I was a kid are now emptied and, if not torn down, look like a set from a WW II movie.

What was a city of almost two million is now somewhere just north of 800 thousand.

The former train station is a wreck mostly used as a place to go exploring. Some months ago the rotted corpse of a homeless someone was discovered at the bottom of what had been an elevator shaft. It was concluded that the body had been there for several months.

There's more than a murder a day within the city limits and the metro area is the most violent in the country.

Renaissance---I don't think so.

KS

 

[Marcus]

If someone could show a historical correlation between tax rates and the economy, I'd sure like to see it. All I hear is theory.

Here's some stuff to get you started:

Historical top marginal tax rates 1913 - 2003 (simple - only shows top marginal rate)
Historical tax rates (detailed - shows all rates and marks the dates of major tax law changes)

Unemployment rate 1948 - Present - in easy to read bar graph

Real GDP growth 1930 - 2009

Historical Budget tables 1940 - 2009 (PDF) Page 26 has the most concise and "apples to apples" comparison of tax revenues, although feel free to cite any other table.

While I'm at it, there's something I'd like to point out on that last link. The right loves to claim that "tax revenues doubled under Reagan". This is a myth. The only way you can arrive at that conclusion is by counting the entire decade of 1980 to 1990 and use real (non-constant) dollars. Yet, no matter how you count it, the decade of the 80s was behind every other decade in terms of revenues. Even the 70s beat the it in terms of real, constant, and percent of GDP.

Consider this: Despite what you call the "punitive" tax rates of the 1940s through to Reagan, the economy ticked along quite nicely for 40 years. It had its normal ups and downs, yet employment, investment, and GDP stayed fairly steady. It's also fair to say that we can thank the reforms of the 30s for the lack of any further gigantic bubbles or collapses. I'm sure you'll disagree, but then, you'd be wrong. ;-)

On a side note, bear in mind that not one person actually paid those crazy rates. I get the feeling some people mistakenly believe that if you go up to the next tax bracket, then suddenly all your income is taxed at the higher rate. I assume everyone here knows that's false, but just in case... If you earn $249,000 this year and you make $255,000 next year, you'll only pay the higher rate on $5000. The rest is still taxed at the lower rates. I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone, but it's really frustrating to hear people talk about how the "small business owner making $250,000" is going to be decimated if the tax cuts expire.

Sorry to get off track but that's another pet peeve of mine.

Taxes are currently at the lowest levels since 1992, yet we've had several booms and busts since then. And right now we're in the worst bust in 80 years. Yet if all it takes is lower taxes to boost an economy, then we should be seeing the best times since... wait... weren't the 90s our last big boom? Back in the day after Clinton raised taxes and Republicans told us the sky would collapse (I can provide quotes if needed)?

So it would seem that lowering taxes gets diminishing returns at some point. In other words, looking back at history, it appears that we're currently way over on the left side of the mythical Laffer Curve. If the tax cuts expire, we go back to the rates we had during the Clinton years. Ah, if only we could have it so good.

So I ask again: show me, historically, where the correlation between tax rates and the health of the economy is.

It should be transparently clear to anyone: Taxes aren't the problem. Companies aren't shipping jobs overseas because of taxes. They're shipping them overseas because they can. There is no tax break that can possibly make an American worker competitive against a Chinese or Indian worker making $5 a day.

 

[Marcus]

By the way, when I ask for a correlation, I don't mean one isolated era. You can't say, "look at the unemployment rate in the 80s" and leave out the fact that the early to mid 50s had an even lower unemployment rate (when the top rate was highest).

 

[fossten]

While I'm at it, there's something I'd like to point out on that last link. The right loves to claim that "tax revenues doubled under Reagan". This is a myth.

Nice straw man. Try to address the posts that are currently in this thread, k?

By the way, does all your 'data' account for state and local taxes, social security taxes WHICH ARE NOT PUT INTO A TRUST FUND, excise taxes, gas taxes, regulation, fees, corporate taxes, and sin taxes like Obama has enacted on products such as alcohol and tobacco? It's easy to use 'certain' statistics to prove your point. I doubt you have the knowledge to correctly sum up the entire, complicated US economy.

Do I need to dredge up an old Arthur Laffer article to debunk you again?

 

[04SCTLS]

My brother and I made it into the top 1% in the last 6 years aquiring a net worth of about 10 million so far starting with a 100k investment.
We have been at it for 25 years now so we certainly paid our dues.
Other than a couple million my brother and I set aside for retirement
the rest of the money finances my receivables and funds further expansion.
We have managed to do this while paying a combined state and federal tax rate of about 40% six years ago and 45% this year.
We are not plutocrats or Wall st types paying 15% tax rate on capital gains.
Although we have a big line of credit we are almost entirely self funding and hardly ever use the line.
Currently we are an S corp where the company profits are considered personal income.

It is amusing reading speculation here on a 4-5% tax increase being a job killer because the rich won't spend.

It is sophistry from rich people protecting their personal interests and from ideologically motivated people who hate government, have no personal experience and are only speculating about having money while arguing nonsense and engaging in fantasy

If demand is there for sales business will meet it because it makes money and 5% more in taxes though not pleasant is hardly a cause not to invest in the future.

In our roadrunner Acme style we just bought an 11th piece of equipment for 75k that would cost a million new and will be putting it up and making it work over the winter for a total cost of about 200k.

Beyond that we also purchased another million dollar piece of equipment for 115k that makes material that we now buy for our 10 other large pieces of production equipment.

That's another project to get going for an extra 5% in profit.

Why do governments tax the rich more?
Because that's where the money is and we can afford it.
My income is huge because of the S Corp thing but I live on 100k and don't have a mortgage so i have lots left over for anything even at a 45% tax rate.
But it mostly just rides on the street as juice for my company.

It's the plutocrats and Wall St types paying 15% tax rates who are getting away with
things unfairly and not the mere junior millionaires who are suppliers,contractors and/or make product(s) that add value to the economy while paying 40-45% tax rates.

 

[fossten]

My brother and I made it into the top 1% in the last 6 years aquiring a net worth of about 10 million so far starting with a 100k investment.
We have been at it for 25 years now so we certainly paid our dues.
Other than a couple million my brother and I set aside for retirement
the rest of the money finances my receivables and funds further expansion.
We have managed to do this while paying a combined state and federal tax rate of about 40% six years ago and 45% this year.
We are not plutocrats or Wall st types paying 15% tax rate on capital gains.
Although we have a big line of credit we are almost entirely self funding and hardly ever use the line.
Currently we are an S corp where the company profits are considered personal income.

It is amusing reading speculation here on a 4-5% tax increase being a job killer because the rich won't spend.

It is sophistry from rich people protecting their personal interests and from ideologically motivated people who hate government, have no personal experience and are only speculating about having money while arguing nonsense and engaging in fantasy

If demand is there for sales business will meet it because it makes money and 5% more in taxes though not pleasant is hardly a cause not to invest in the future.

In our roadrunner Acme style we just bought an 11th piece of equipment for 75k that would cost a million new and will be putting it up and making it work over the winter for a total cost of about 200k.

Beyond that we also purchased another million dollar piece of equipment for 115k that makes material that we now buy for our 10 other large pieces of production equipment.

That's another project to get going for an extra 5% in profit.

Why do governments tax the rich more?
Because that's where the money is and we can afford it.
My income is huge because of the S Corp thing but I live on 100k and don't have a mortgage so i have lots left over for anything even at a 45% tax rate.
But it mostly just rides on the street as juice for my company.

It's the plutocrats and Wall St types paying 15% tax rates who are getting away with
things unfairly and not the mere junior millionaires who are suppliers,contractors and/or make product(s) that add value to the economy while paying 40-45% tax rates.

Thanks for demonstrating that the rich go to great lengths to avoid taxes. That makes my point for me. The only people hurt by taxes on the so-called wealthy are small business owners and the middle class.

The only thing you're arguing is that you've succeeded DESPITE the government - which plays into my argument. Where would you be if they hadn't been taxing you at those rates? How many more jobs might you have created, taxpayers generated?