I doubt that your personal wealth directly influences the welfare of your company.

I am dead serious. My company has created exactly 113 new jobs in the last year, giving 113 new people employment and feeding many families. If taxes were raised, that would not have been possible to do.

My company is privately owned.

What does your company do?

Think about it this way. The money has to come from somewhere. If not the rich, then the poor.

So you pay your workers out of your own pocket?

[Citation Needed]

Or, to put it another way:

I was reading the forum and I was displeased to see people believe [point I disagree with]. What foolishness, why, just this year [anecdote that vaugely suppers my position without any deep understanding of the underlying reasons why anecdotes took place]. In summary, [statement of personal belief, written in a way that is meant to preclude disagreement by putting it forth as undeniable Truth - but calls forth my total ignorance on the subject by recycling a talking point rather than bringing forward logic and facts to support my belief]

Supports, not suppers. Damn you autocorrect

I see you are a liberal Democrat with little idea on how the economy actually works. Why dont you just go join the anarchists at the occupy wall street movements.

Hilarious! I bet TC just created another profile just to fool around, considering half the site has him muted.

Actually, what Stratagos said had nothing to do withhis belief. He was merely restating your thoughs in a general form that exaggerates the weak points of your statement.

Who is this TC of whom you speak? I can assure you I am me and not him.

I see no weak points in my statement. It is completely true and factual.

Then please reread what Stratagos had to say in his first post.

Assuming your company hired people - which I don't take as a given - they did so because they needed additional staff to support operations, not out of the goodness of your CEO's heart. Demonstrate how raising the tax rate on people making more than a million dollars a year reduces or eliminates that need.

Note that a 2% increase on a tax bracket set at a million dollars increases taxes on income above one million dollars - so if someone brought home $1.1 mill, they'd be paying a whopping $2,000 more - color me unimpressed

And now that I've made my point, off to the mud list, trollboy

If higher taxes on the rich mean more unemployment, then why are there countries with higher taxes on the rich and less unemployment than the US?

Mr.V what does your company do?

Interesting thread, I also run my own firm... about 35 staff. I think the key is that higher earners don't pay LESS tax % than lower earners. You seem to get that in the UK with private equity players paying capital gains rather than income tax (18% rather than 50%). There needs to be an incentive to earn more, so tax rates can't be too high (but equally there needs to be good infrastructure & safety net so a reasonable tax is fair). Obviously if the % is fair, the more you earn the more tax you will be paying anyway in absolute terms.

I am the CEO of my own company. And what is the mud list you speak of stratagos? And that 2,000 dollars could be used for employee bonuses.

And the unemployment problem is to be blamed on the Democrats in congress. Not the rich and Wall Street. And I am not one to give out personal details online, for all I know you could be one of those anarchists who wants to vandalize my company.

And TC is Tettleton's Chew, our local radical conservative. Most of the site - even the conservatives and capitalists on the site - have him muted. Again, what does your company do, Mr. V? And what Stratagos was driving at is how many CEO's would actually use that extra money to benefit the company and not themselves?

From a European perspective Obama is MUCH BETTER than Bush ever was. And most of the problems in the US date back to decisions made by Bush & Co.

Then PM me, please.

Why should I entrust you with personal information Goldfinger? And I have read some more of the forums and seen Tettleton's Chew. He is right in general, but some of his points are very improper and incorrect.

@ KingJohnII

How is Obama much better from a European perspective? His foriegn policy is hardly more pro-European, and doesn't really differ from that of Bush in any significant way. The areas where he has arguable superiority over Bush are almost entirely internal and have no impact on us whatsoever.

Mr.V I think it is a little absurd to come onto a free website, push your own morals and ideas onto the people there and then accuse some of them of being "anarchists who wants to vandalize my company". I don't get involved in the economic discussions that take place here, but since the problem with your arguments seems to begin with the fact that you appear to be a suck up jerk I feel obliged to let you know that is how you are coming off.
I am guessing that stratagos auto correct changed the word mute to mud, hence the mud list. Of course I assume you would have already figured that out by now since what kind of imbecilic would offer to buy a site without understanding all of its features.

Oh very well, Mr. V.

Half a million C.A.D., and it's all yours. I'm semi-retired anyway, and I've given over most of the administration to the moderators.

Oops, wrong thread.