Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[Ava]

I don't know about you, but EVERY person I've ever worked for, at raise time, TOLD me they were POOR.
I suspect you've never had a job.

I have employed 45+ people and can assure you that many people making minimum wage are being overpaid. The ones that earned more, had educated themselves in their field of interest and qualified for more.

And "yes" I was just breaking even. Most small businesses are. The reward comes after you build equity and sell, and can sustain your own retirement. No dependence upon government. I was looking forward to that day.

So then do you admit that it is the POOR small businessman who provides the majority of American jobs, as opposed to the RICH businessman who can afford to establish his business overseas and take advantage of cheap foreign labor?

The small business person can provide jobs because of the healthy economic conditions, the rich and middle class, used to provide. Not so these days. Business owners are forced to move to other countries so they can survive under a tax system that allows for that dreaded word profit thereby continuing to work for a living and provide others a living. The super rich that expand to other countries are also creating jobs. I don't know of any business owner who employed a person who didn't ask for a job, as they needed the things a paycheck provides. If they want more money, they should better educate themselves and these days those jobs will likely be for the.... government! You will be enslaved as per the new nanny state provisions.

 

[Ava]

The Poor Business person has aspirations of being Rich.

Obamanomics is destroying that opportunity.

With all due respect Ms. boedicca, there are many people who do not work 80 hours a week to become rich. We do it because we love it and would rather be in control of our own destiny, than be an employee and work under another's conditions.

We work hard--not for material riches, but because we love what we do, and enjoy contributing in a civic manner as well, to our community. By putting in all those hours, we save money, so that we can meet our enormous overhead. But to get rich...no...not the plan. Our riches are inside us. Our goal is for eventual self-reliance when we retire.

Thank you for your comment boe, and of course you are completely correct: "Obamanomics is destroying that opportunity" .

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know about you, but EVERY person I've ever worked for, at raise time, TOLD me they were POOR.
I suspect you've never had a job.

I have employed 45+ people and can assure you that many people making minimum wage are being overpaid. The ones that earned more, had educated themselves in their field of interest and qualified for more.

And "yes" I was just breaking even. Most small businesses are. The reward comes after you build equity and sell, and can sustain your own retirement. No dependence upon government. I was looking forward to that day.

So then do you admit that it is the POOR small businessman who provides the majority of American jobs, as opposed to the RICH businessman who can afford to establish his business overseas and take advantage of cheap foreign labor?

Depends on your definition of 'poor'. My hubby and I are also self employed and have been for much of the last 2-1/2 decades. We drive Subarus instead of a Cadillac or Lexus or Land Rover because we cannot easily afford a more expensive vehicle. Do we feel the least bit 'poor' or deprived because we can't afford a luxury car? No.

We have employed people to help us who, because they worked on commission, sometimes made quite a bit more adjusted gross income than we made. Do we feel 'poor' because some of our employees outearned us? No.

We live in a pleasant neighborhood with pleasant neighbors but our house is valued at less than the median home in our city. Do we feel 'poor' because we don't have a big fancy house? No.

When we go on vacation it is usually to visit friends or relatives or occasionally a low budget trip to a nearby attraction or maybe a low budget cruise. (Cruises have become one of the very cheapest ways to vacation any more.) Do we feel 'poor' because we can't afford to go to exotic places or enjoy luxurious accommodations or travel the world? No.

We have been able to earn a living, provide meaningful employment for others along the way, we have kept food in the pantry, a roof over our heads, got our kids through college, and for the most part have enjoyed a mostly satisfying life.

I can't see how somebody else being much less rich would have improved on that in any way.

 

[Ava]

I have employed 45+ people and can assure you that many people making minimum wage are being overpaid. The ones that earned more, had educated themselves in their field of interest and qualified for more.

And "yes" I was just breaking even. Most small businesses are. The reward comes after you build equity and sell, and can sustain your own retirement. No dependence upon government. I was looking forward to that day.

So then do you admit that it is the POOR small businessman who provides the majority of American jobs, as opposed to the RICH businessman who can afford to establish his business overseas and take advantage of cheap foreign labor?

Depends on your definition of 'poor'. My hubby and I are also self employed and have been for much of the last 2-1/2 decades. We drive Subarus instead of a Cadillac or Lexus or Land Rover because we cannot easily afford a more expensive vehicle. Do we feel the least bit 'poor' or deprived because we can't afford a luxury car? No.

We have employed people to help us who, because they worked on commission, sometimes made quite a bit more adjusted gross income than we made. Do we feel 'poor' because some of our employees outearned us? No.

We live in a pleasant neighborhood with pleasant neighbors but our house is valued at less than the median home in our city. Do we feel 'poor' because we don't have a big fancy house? No.

When we go on vacation it is usually to visit friends or relatives or occasionally a low budget trip to a nearby attraction or maybe a low budget cruise. (Cruises have become one of the very cheapest ways to vacation any more.) Do we feel 'poor' because we can't afford to go to exotic places or enjoy luxurious accommodations or travel the world? No.

We have been able to earn a living, provide meaningful employment for others along the way, we have kept food in the pantry, a roof over our heads, got our kids through college, and for the most part have enjoyed a mostly satisfying life.

I can't see how somebody else being much less rich would have improved on that in any way.

Very well stated. And that is usually the case for the self-employed, that others see as "rich." Many of my employees have taken home as much or more than I have profited. My profit, is in the satisfaction of *living my dreams* my way. Designing my life.

 

[Kex]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Exxon included.

 

[Intense]

Same here. I am self employed. I pay for licensing, insurance, self employment taxes, new MCTMT. Between the Federal and State, and City taxes, the deck is quickly stacked against you before you earn your first dollar. There is no unemployment safety net here either, being self employed. My back goes out and I looser three weeks, I loose three weeks.

Imagine employed workers having to pay all these extra fee's deducted out of their salaries. Not just the real costs, but all the added fee's that go with it. Like you need permission and consent to earn the bread that you put on your own table. Thank You Big Brother.
Whoop De Do!

 

[Intense]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Exxon included.

Try Google, and say high to Al while you are there.

 

[Kex]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Exxon included.

Try Google, and say high to Al while you are there.

Said Exxon was tax exempted in 09, who's Al?

 

[Foxfyre]

Very well stated. And that is usually the case for the self-employed, that others see as "rich." Many of my employees have taken home as much or more than I have profited. My profit, is in the satisfaction of *living my dreams* my way. Designing my life.

Absolutely and kudos to the others here who also have chimed in with their experiences. Being free to organize time, resources, and opportunities in the most satisfying way is a real blessing for us and why we chose that path. We almost certainly could have made more money and received more in benefits by working for the other fellow, but the price was too high for us.

Evenso, if there had not been a lot of folks with a lot of money who threw business our way, we would not have prospered as much as we did.

And if those who think the rich need to pay a whole lot more in taxes than what they do and/or need to become a whole lot less rich had gotten their way, I am reasonably certain that my hubby and I would not have prospered as we did and would either have had to give up a lot of our freedom or we would have been much poorer.

 

[Intense]

Exxon included.

Try Google, and say high to Al while you are there.

Said Exxon was tax exempted in 09, who's Al?

AL Gore. From 7/2007

In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.
Al Gore's $100 Million Makeover - Current TV - Generation Investment Management - An Inconvenient Truth | Fast Company

Google is trading at $550.31 a share.

Exxon is at $67.93 a share.

Hmmmm.....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Try Google, and say high to Al while you are there.

Said Exxon was tax exempted in 09, who's Al?

AL Gore. From 7/2007

In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.
Al Gore's $100 Million Makeover - Current TV - Generation Investment Management - An Inconvenient Truth | Fast Company

Google is trading at $550.31 a share.

Exxon is at $67.93 a share.

Hmmmm.....

I'm not sure what your point is here....

Yes, Al Gore is rich. He invested well. Why do you hate rich people?

 

[Intense]

Said Exxon was tax exempted in 09, who's Al?

AL Gore. From 7/2007

In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.
Al Gore's $100 Million Makeover - Current TV - Generation Investment Management - An Inconvenient Truth | Fast Company

Google is trading at $550.31 a share.

Exxon is at $67.93 a share.

Hmmmm.....

I'm not sure what your point is here....

Yes, Al Gore is rich. He invested well. Why do you hate rich people?

I don't hate people for what they have or don't have Doc. That's a pretty big leap, even for you Doc. I don't even hate Al, Google, or Exxon. I think Al's greatest moment was kissing his wife on SNL. I advertise with Google, I buy Exxon gas. I would like to see the Fed's treat Exxon as good as they do Google. What part do you think the drilling moratorium played in the recession over the last 30 years, Stevie Wonder?

I do support fair taxation, loose the hidden fee's and surcharges, lose the preferential treatment, in relation to Government regulation.

You might want to consider healing humans rather than manipulating response. Get it ... Got it... Good. Think Malpractice.

 

[Stainmaster]

I'm not sure what your point is here....

I am new here, and I like your avatar. Mine is the only pic I have at this time, and I am getting heat for it, so I think I'll keep it on. Kuddos for your strong communication skills!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

AL Gore. From 7/2007

In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.
Al Gore's $100 Million Makeover - Current TV - Generation Investment Management - An Inconvenient Truth | Fast Company

Google is trading at $550.31 a share.

Exxon is at $67.93 a share.

Hmmmm.....

I'm not sure what your point is here....

Yes, Al Gore is rich. He invested well. Why do you hate rich people?

I don't hate people for what they have or don't have Doc. That's a pretty big leap, even for you Doc. I don't even hate Al, Google, or Exxon. I think Al's greatest moment was kissing his wife on SNL. I advertise with Google, I buy Exxon gas. I would like to see the Fed's treat Exxon as good as they do Google. What part do you think the drilling moratorium played in the recession over the last 30 years, Stevie Wonder?

I do support fair taxation, loose the hidden fee's and surcharges, lose the preferential treatment, in relation to Government regulation.

You might want to consider healing humans rather than manipulating response. Get it ... Got it... Good. Think Malpractice.

First of all, it was a joke. It's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

Second, what was your point in posting how much money Al Gore has? What did that have to do with the fact that Exxon didn't pay taxes in 2009?

And I feel that the drilling moratorium had NO part to play in the recession - the recession started from bad business practices on Wall Street - and there is no "shortage" of oil - it's an artificial shortage. If drilling had been opened up back when gas was $4 a gallon, it wouldn't have lowered gas prices.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm not sure what your point is here....

I am new here, and I like your avatar. Mine is the only pic I have at this time, and I am getting heat for it, so I think I'll keep it on. Kuddos for your strong communication skills!

Thank you.

 

[Hum Dinger]

When did any of them ask for all that "benevolent patronage" of Big Daddy Big Gubmint?

Never. That's what they pay their lobbyists for.

 

[Intense]

Who wrote the Tax Laws? Who is the authority behind what is being done? If these companies are in compliance with tax law, the problem isn't the companies but the law makers.



HOUSTON -- As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.



Yahoo! BuzzAvoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

In Pictures: What The 25 Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year--some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.

Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else--maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like--would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.


Read All Comments (27)Post a CommentIt's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.

As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's ( MSFT - news - people ) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com



"Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Shackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."

Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ) likewise recorded similarly high effective tax rates. The oil companies are oddities among the multinationals because many of the oil-rich countries where they do business levy even higher taxes than the U.S.



Yahoo! BuzzExxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

Naturally the Obama administration wants to put an end to this. It has proposed doing away with tax deferrals on overseas income. If the plan passes, a U.S. company that pays a 25% tax on profits in China would have to pay an additional 10% income tax to Uncle Sam to bring it up to the 35% corporate rate. "Eliminating deferrals would put U.S. companies on an unlevel playing field," says the Tax Foundation's Hodge, "especially if competing with the likes of Germany, which only taxes companies on domestic operations."

Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ - news - people ) and others among the top 25 state in their annual reports that if Obama's tax measures pass it would mean a certain tax hike, probably amounting to billions of dollars.


Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. "The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes," says Hodge, "because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments."

In the same vein, JPMorgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," said Dimon. "All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers."

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com

 

[Intense]

Recently we published the story "What the Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes," and a related blog post, "Big Oil's Tax Bill." What's received the most attention from readers and bloggers was our assertion that ExxonMobil, despite recording more than $15 billion in income taxes, "paid none of its 2009 income taxes in the U.S."

Although I came up with that by reading the company's annual 10-k filing with the SEC, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers assures me that this is wrong, that Exxon did indeed pay substantial income taxes to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, and that it overpaid taxes in 2008. How much? Well, Jeffers says so far he's not at liberty to disclose that information. "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

So what gives? Jeffers explains that what ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and "do not represent our tax bill," which has not yet been filed, let alone settled. The financial results listed in the 10-k "is an accurate reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was," says Jeffers.

What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.

My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil "recorded" no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of "paid." All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.

And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn't paying taxes in the U.S., don't worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it's worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.

There's a lingering issue here. If Exxon's income tax line items don't mean what they say, then what does that imply about other important stuff? Are "earnings after income taxes," really $19.28 billion? Are earnings per share really $3.99? Does it all wash out? We've asked Exxon to explain and will let you know what they say.

Exxon Says It Does Pay U.S. Income Taxes Forbes.com's The Energy Source

 

[Intense]

I'm not sure what your point is here....

Yes, Al Gore is rich. He invested well. Why do you hate rich people?

I don't hate people for what they have or don't have Doc. That's a pretty big leap, even for you Doc. I don't even hate Al, Google, or Exxon. I think Al's greatest moment was kissing his wife on SNL. I advertise with Google, I buy Exxon gas. I would like to see the Fed's treat Exxon as good as they do Google. What part do you think the drilling moratorium played in the recession over the last 30 years, Stevie Wonder?

I do support fair taxation, loose the hidden fee's and surcharges, lose the preferential treatment, in relation to Government regulation.

You might want to consider healing humans rather than manipulating response. Get it ... Got it... Good. Think Malpractice.

First of all, it was a joke. It's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

Second, what was your point in posting how much money Al Gore has? What did that have to do with the fact that Exxon didn't pay taxes in 2009?

And I feel that the drilling moratorium had NO part to play in the recession - the recession started from bad business practices on Wall Street - and there is no "shortage" of oil - it's an artificial shortage. If drilling had been opened up back when gas was $4 a gallon, it wouldn't have lowered gas prices.

LOL!!!

Wow Doc! I sure missed that joke!




Damn near spit up my beer all over the key pad and wet my pants!!! You should be on TV man!!!

Wow! Acording to You, I hate rich people, I have no sense of humor, that's 0 for 2. Want to try for 3? What is your kill count on misdiagnoses man? Now thats funny

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother. That and the fact that we cannot compete with slave labor around the world and refuse to do anything about it. You throw stones at wall street, yet they are a product of bad management, both in the State, the Culture, and the private industry.

You jump on wall street, yet are silent on Andrew Cuomo, Fannie, Freddie, Franks, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, to name a few. House of cards. Built on other peoples money. Buy, Buy, Buy, raise those property taxes and interest. How does credit card interest compare to savings or investment interest. Talk about a smoking gun. Who makes the rules? Who sets the terms. We were close to $4.50 a gallon in NYC, thats when the change hit Doc, the straw that broke the camel's back. Your team wiped out disposable income, pretty much for everyone but Government and Union workers. Systematically prices are raised, packaging becomes smaller, less value for the bang across the board, comrade. Good plan for the select few.

 

[boedicca]

The Poor Business person has aspirations of being Rich.

Obamanomics is destroying that opportunity.

With all due respect Ms. boedicca, there are many people who do not work 80 hours a week to become rich. We do it because we love it and would rather be in control of our own destiny, than be an employee and work under another's conditions.

We work hard--not for material riches, but because we love what we do, and enjoy contributing in a civic manner as well, to our community. By putting in all those hours, we save money, so that we can meet our enormous overhead. But to get rich...no...not the plan. Our riches are inside us. Our goal is for eventual self-reliance when we retire.

Thank you for your comment boe, and of course you are completely correct: "Obamanomics is destroying that opportunity" .

There is nothing wrong with that - we all work for a variety of reasons. The underlying foundation is being free to choose one's own path.

I personally believe that doing good and earning profits are not mutually exclusive. One of the best things I can do is to build a successful business that expands and offers employment to people who would rather work for a living than be on the dole.