Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Donnernv (< 20)

Taxes: Who pays and who gets? This will piss a lot of people off.



June 07, 2009 – Comments (30)

It is commonly repeated that the tax code is slanted toward the rich, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.  This is demonstrably erroneous.

To get a true picture, we must expand our common definition of "taxes".  The individual Federal income tax totaled $935 billion in 2007 (latest year details are available).  Federal, state, county and local taxes of all types totaled $3,425 billion.  The large additions are Federal social taxes (FICA) ($841), corporate ($518), sales taxes ($436), property ($397) and state income taxes ($298).

But another balancing component must enter the analysis.  Washington, Sacramento, and Boca Raton don't burn the receipts.  They are spent for a variety of purposes: Social security, defense, misc/other, Medicare, interest payments, welfare, Medicaid and Federal pensions.  There are also state expenditures (accounted for as state benefits).

Who pays these taxes (by income class) and who gets these benefits (by income class)?  I have to make a set of gross generalizations for the purposes of this blog.  The details of the analysis are available by emailing me at AOL.  Much more definitive.

Some simplified examples:  we are all served prorata by the military, roads and bridges, police, fire department, the FBI, Homeland Security, Interior, Medicare, Federal pensions...regardless of what we pay in taxes.

We are served progressively (more obtained than taxes paid) by Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, aid for kids, county emergency rooms, et al.

Attempting to add it all all up on the paying side and the receiving side by income class is a formidable task.  I have never seen it done.  I have done it.  My methodology is set out in my white paper.

The results (in billions):  (percentages are of taxes paid)


Top 1% income:  taxes paid $593.1//benefits received $36.2//taxes going to others needs 93.9% 

Bottom 99%:  taxes paid $2,831.8//benefits received  $3,714.9//taxes received from others 131.2%


Top 10%: taxes paid $1,306.6//benefits received $362.5//taxes going to others needs 72.3%

Bottom 90%: taxes paid $2118.2//benefits received $3,388.7//taxes received from others 160.0%


Top 25%:  taxes paid $1,832.0//benefits received $872.9//taxes going to others needs 52.4%

Bottom 75%:  taxes paid $1,592.9//benefits received $2,878.3//taxes received from others 180.7%


Top 50%:  taxes paid $2,386.3//benefits received $1,705.7//taxes going to others needs 28.5%

Bottom 50%:  taxes paid $1,038.7//benefits received $2,045.4//taxes received from others 196.9%


If this analysis is even remotely accurate, the notion that "the rich don't pay their share" is absurd and chaps me off.  I do know I paid 41% of my gross income in various taxes in 2008.  Did you?

30 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 07, 2009 at 1:24 AM, starbucks4ever (90.83) wrote:

An interesting topic, and I'm sure the that order of the numbers seems right even without me checking them. I don't think however that these numbers tell the whole story. I strongly disagree with your argument, but a rec from me anyway for calling me out on that one. 

Report this comment
#2) On June 07, 2009 at 1:54 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

Let's see....if you own WalMart's stock and receive dividends.....much of Walmart's revenues AND profits came from its share of the $40 Billion of food add in welfare recipients, and unemployment checks.... WalMart is indirectly a government subsidized business and so are those that own WalMart stock.

If you own GE, a material portion of GE's sales and profits comes from government with any defense stock.

If you own any health care related stock...over half of health care revenues comes from government entitlements in one form or another........

We could go on and ask yourself,  how much of your income comes from sources directly or indirectly that benefits from government spending????

As far as you paying your fair share.....I have no doubt.....but as far as you getting your fair share from government.....Alstry doesn't think you have a clue.

Report this comment
#3) On June 07, 2009 at 2:08 AM, lordmorgul (37.32) wrote:

I pay roughly 41% of my income (28% fed bracket) to various taxes.  The benefits I receive for this I believe to be far below the value of my losses.

Report this comment
#4) On June 07, 2009 at 2:13 AM, starbucks4ever (90.83) wrote:

Thanks, alstry, that's just what I meant. Too many millionnaires fail to understand the reason why places like Nigeria don't produce too many rich people even though they have no social programs in place and tax everyone "fairly".

Report this comment
#5) On June 07, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

Reductio ad absurdum.  Save for the approx. $131 billion the Federal government pays to off-shore Treasury instrument holders (of our 2007 Federal budget), every cent collected in taxes re-enters the economy, by definition.

Every business and individual benefits, more or less, from these purchases/payments.

What exactly is your point?

Report this comment
#6) On June 07, 2009 at 2:25 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

Quantifying the income benefits if living in America are relatively easy but takes effort and some creativity.  However, there are a lot of intangible benefits that money simply can't quantify easily.

For example......comfort to a rich person is worth a whole lot more TO THAT PERSON than comfort to a poor person.....for one, the rich person can afford to pay the more......

The fact that we have a strong social welfare system generally keeps much of America's elite comfortable without being forced to hire body guards and live in constant view of beggars like other countries....however, as government tax receipts evaporate because the "rich" are not making as much anymore.....we may have to cut back on welfare and the societal dynamics may change dramatically in America.

How much is that worth to a person?????  There is no easy answer.....

For some, having the comfort of their own yacht is worth about $10 million per year including crew and maintenance........certain comforts are simply tough to place a dollar value on as they vary from person to person but can be easily quantified.

How much is it worth to live in the USA.....for those that wish to stay....just look at your tax returns.



Report this comment
#7) On June 07, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:


Not so fast, weedhopper.  While I'd be the last to stand in defense of Nigeria as a model economy, I think you'll find they have a significantly progressive individual and corporate tax rate and a significant social relief program.

Facts, damned facts.

Report this comment
#8) On June 07, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:


That's mushy, non-quantitative in a quantitative blog, and just generally fuzzy minded.

If you don't have toilet paper when you really, really need it, you'd probably pay $10 for ten sheets.  Today's newspaper is worth 75 cents.  A second one is worth nothing.  The shell of a walnut (75% of the gross weight) is worth nothing.  The 25% meat is worth 100% of the price.

What's your point?

Report this comment
#9) On June 07, 2009 at 5:42 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Owners of Wal-Mart stock are the beneficiaries of government largess?  That is so friggin' stupid it made my brain hurt to read it.

Report this comment
#10) On June 07, 2009 at 9:42 AM, jddubya (< 20) wrote:

Good blog.  It's hard to agree with you, but definitely harder to deny/debunk your research. 

#2 "...much of Walmart's revenues AND profits came from its share of the $40 Billion of food stamps......."

This is absurd.  You should be submitting this stuff to the National Enquirer or a similar rag. 

I hope the so called Alstry[nomics] isn't actually using this kind of statement to define the (claimed) upcoming one and only solution to this country's economic woes.

Report this comment
#11) On June 07, 2009 at 10:01 AM, devoish (71.47) wrote:

Alstry is right on about the owners of Wal Mart stock benefitting from Gov't subsidies.

Also right on about defense contracts.

The benefits of being a US citizen do not come equally to us all.

The benefits of having a USA flag on a ship benefits Sam Walton far more than the store greeter.

As measured by income I believe Sam's (representing corporate ceo's in general) benefits have grown to 400x his greeters benefits, from 50x in 1970.

To throw that difference away as "all served pro-rata by the military, etc" is far more "mushy" or "fuzzy minded" than anything Alstry posted.

 Save for the approx. $131 billion the Federal government pays to off-shore Treasury instrument holders (of our 2007 Federal budget), every cent collected in taxes re-enters the economy, by definition.

Thank you for pointing out for all those who insist otherwise that Government does not destroy wealth.

If you don't have toilet paper when you really, really need it, you'd probably pay $10 for ten sheets. 

Or waste an old tee shirt.

Today's newspaper is worth 75 cents.  A second one is worth nothing.  They are each worth the value of the coupons inside them.

The shell of a walnut (75% of the gross weight) is worth nothing.  The 25% meat is worth 100% of the price.

Walnut shells are used for removing carbon from engine valves like sand blasting, because they burn out of the combustion chamber.


Report this comment
#12) On June 07, 2009 at 10:05 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


My point is if you think you are paying a lot of taxes ain't seen nothing yet as revenues to government evaporate.

Who do you think will be paying taxes....the growing number of WalMart workers???  The hundreds of thousands of auto related workers that just got fired...especially the dealers????  The millions of government workers who will likely lose their jobs due to tax receipts slowing???  The six million workers who lost their jobs in the past year or the 10 million working part time???  How about the hundreds of thousands of Real Estate Agents and Finance workers that are making a fraction of what they used to???  Then we have the millions of small business people that have seen their sales and profits dry up???  Shopping center and commercial real estate owners???

You see the picture.......IT IS THE HIGHER INCOME BASE THAT IS EVAPORATING IN AMERICA and the lower income/welfare/social security/unemployment side GROWING.

As you astutely pointed out....if the top 20% of Wage Earnings pay 80% of the taxes......what happens when the income to the top 20% gets cut in HALF????

Hopefully you see the problem now......

And when you have to finance a HUGE and growing deficit because you want to keep your people happy..........and there are relatively few high income earners left in will you get anyone to finance your debt unless  you take ALL of the high income earners money (WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH) or stop giving money to the poor and watch your population starve!!!!!!!!!!

Through Factual Blogging....Alstry has been slowly peeling the skin off the onion providing evidence after evidence for you.....things are deteriorating to the point where CA is basically screwed unless they can borrow $25 Billion against a backdrop of shrinking sales and tax receipts....with many of the high income earners no longer high income earners....who do you think is going pay up???

It is not the poor in America that are getting Zombulated....they are doing just fine for now thank is the rich......and pretty soon there will not be many rich because their business folded or the government will need to tax everything they have to support are rapidly expanding government balance sheet.

Why do you think the entire media keeps telling you how good things are when your gut tells you different???

Now what is a sheet of toilet paper worth???.....ask that to the millions of American rich who are seeing their incomes and net worth evaporate.....pretty soon....and I mean soon......Obama will NEED to tax all you have because foreigners will not want to finance a welfare system with little productive output behind it.

By the way.....Alstry's definition of rich are people earning over $60K per year.....those the are jobs that are being eliminated.

Back to the original premise...if the top 20% of the income earners paid 80% of the do you suppose Obama will make up the difference now that the income to the top 20% has evaporated?????????????????????????????

Sorry for making my point a bit opaque............

Report this comment
#13) On June 07, 2009 at 10:10 AM, outoffocus (23.80) wrote:

I think the argument that the rich dont pay their fair share comes from the % of income paid in taxes rather then the actual dollar amount.  I'm sure If I add federal, FICA/FUTA, state, local, and sales taxes it will add up to 40%+.  But I'm Middle class.  I think to include the lower class into the number is unfair because poor people pay way less in taxes than middle class.  As a matter fact if you were to look at taxes paid as a percentage of income and plot it on a chart between showing all income levels you would see more of a bell curve; with the middle class paying the highest taxes as a percentage of income.  However the upper class has the most influence over tax policy and the lower class benefits the most.  How does that sound fair?

Report this comment
#14) On June 07, 2009 at 10:54 AM, rd80 (95.93) wrote:

how will you get anyone to finance your debt unless  you take ALL of the high income earners money

What makes you think the high earners won't just quit if the government is going to take all their money anyway?

A 100% tax rate will produce the same revenue as a 0% tax rate.

Report this comment
#15) On June 07, 2009 at 11:09 AM, LouieJunior (26.68) wrote:

Report this comment
#16) On June 07, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bkeepr100 (< 20) wrote:

you also need to account for all the hidden taxes in the US, not just the income tax.  Goods and services all have taxes added to the prices paid. (Gas, value added, etc.)  Every part for a car is taxed each time a small change is made during each manuacture's final process of making the auto. (strip steel to tubing to cluster assembly to final assembly on car.) 

The state grabs a share of income as well.

the total rate of taxation in USA with the hidden taxes is closer to 81% on the general population.  

Report this comment
#17) On June 07, 2009 at 11:12 AM, LouieJunior (26.68) wrote:

Report this comment
#18) On June 07, 2009 at 11:20 AM, LouieJunior (26.68) wrote:

Report this comment
#19) On June 07, 2009 at 11:36 AM, starbucks4ever (90.83) wrote:

One other thing. Donnernv should adjust his calculation of benefits received. I don't feel I receive any benefits from the military spending such as this stupid war in Irak. Cheney may be receiving something, but not me. Or perhaps Bushama is receiving some intangibles such as talking to God or opportunity to look tough or whatever. My only chance to receive something from it is by buying shares of defence companies.

Report this comment
#20) On June 07, 2009 at 12:10 PM, louise817 (< 20) wrote:

Wal-Mart, et al get money from people spending their food stamps there. Thanks to we taxpayers.

Wal-Mart uses that money to employ 1.3M people in the US, hire 20,000+more this year (see, contract with thousands of suppliers and pay a multiplicity of local, state and federal taxes for its stores and employees.

If you'd check facts instead of believing every union anti-Wal-Mart ad, you'd also find out that they do offer benefits and contribute to employee health plans (which Congressional Democrats want to tax as income to employees).

On the other hand, exactly what do I get for my tax dollars for ADFC payments to the Octo-Mom?


Report this comment
#21) On June 07, 2009 at 12:43 PM, AllStarPortfolio (22.88) wrote:

A sheet of toilet paper is worth nothing. Worth nothing now, and worth less in a crisis. Toilet paper does nothing that clean water doesn't do, And water does, and always will, cost less than toilet paper, in real value, because it takes more water to make toilet paper than  it does to wash.
    What you pay for is convenience.

   Here is some math that many may not have thought about. The nature of money leaves money in the hands of those that handle it the most.

   All value is either product or production. So the price of a tomato is the same as it was hundreds of years ago (discounting supply/demand). The cost of a screw is one screw.
    But when subdivided some numbers don't equal even numbers. So we round off the number in a way that makes the balance sheet stay in the black.
    So if on screw equals .6 tomatoes, the balance is forced to sell one screw for a whole tomato. This happens at the most minute stage of the game, and sometimes in several layers in each step; for if the screw is worth one tomato, two screws become worth two tomatoes in the next round.

    Taxation gives the handlers another round to pass the money, and assume an ever increasing share.

    This event is intrinsic to the unavoidable use of money, and the closer you are to the flow, the more you benefit from it, and the closer you are to the base of production (food/childcare) the harder it is to get equal fiat fo real value.

    THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE VERY FIRST DOLLAR. The historic cumulation of this process it self evident. This intrinsic sequence occures even without greed, wanton, or immorality being involved. 

   You think you don't want to live without toilet paper? Try doing without tomatoes for a while.


Report this comment
#22) On June 07, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

A couple of posters appear to have missed the point of my analysis.  The effort was to include all taxes: Federal income, state income, property tax, sales tax, social (FICA) tax and allocated corporate taxes.

That's what's different.  All taxes are included.  Then, all expenditures of these taxes are made across income classes.  That is not to argue that all expenditures are wise or useful.  But if the Iraq war is stupid and wasteful, it's meager benefit is the same for Joe Sixpack as it is for William Gotrocks.

Anyone, and I mean this seriously, is invited to debate the methodology and each assumption, which are laid out in detail at the end of the paper.  I'll send a copy to anyone who emails me.

Report this comment
#23) On June 07, 2009 at 1:22 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Now they are talking about a European style VAT tax on top of everything else (like a federal sales tax).  Don't worry though, we have learned from the smart crowd that we can get that money back on appreciation and dividends on shares of Wal-Mart, lol.

Report this comment
#24) On June 07, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Alex1963 (27.86) wrote:


Great post. I would have to agree with those who have posted non partisan (ie not say the Heritage Foundation) stats showing taxes as a percentage of income earned as being the salient point. It sounds to me as if you personally are in that group which is at the greatest point of pain. You need to be much richer so you can take advantage of the many shelters and loopholes available to the upper 1% who control a huge percentage of the wealth in America. I agree that those in the upper middle, midlle and on down pay an unfair portion of their income and that it gets more onerous as you move down in income largely thru sales taxes. 


"On the other hand, exactly what do I get for my tax dollars for ADFC payments to the Octo-Mom?"

What do you think you should "get"? For every 1 of the extreme cases of abuse crowed over by those opposed to the welfare system I would argue that there are thousands of those who do not abuse the system as I assume you are implying. I know there are some who feel if you are poor you simply shouldn't have children, buy durable goods like TVs or appliances etc which I guess I don't even no how to respond to . Those folks are simply holding others to a standard that IMO 99% would not want applied to themselves especially if they were in the same circumstances. Until a system is devised whereby the poor don't pay a huge amount of their income in taxes (maybe eliminating sales taxes for the very poor) I'm quite willing to keep them out of total poverty to try & prevent them becoming a 100% drain on the economy by virtue of them not being able to afford to earn anything at all. You take away those subsidies and those people literally cannot afford to work. Or if you want to eliminate those subsidies what about farm subsidies, oil industry and paharmaceuticals, corporate tax loopholes etc which we also all pay for? Then maybe we can have a meaningful dialogue. In the meantime those who focus on the bottom 1% the truly poor are picking the group who literally cost the least IMO. What gives with that? Is it that some feel these people are ALL lazy and shiftless? Thieves and criminals? I believe there are some who do and to them I have no response except maybe pity. How nice it must be to know that they would be so much more industrious and disciplined when facing a future which virtually guarantees no access to the american dream. Satisfied in knowing with 99% certainty that they will always be poor as will their children (if they are "allowed" to have them of course). We need to address the abuses and flaws in the system nio doubt. If that is your point I agree whole heartedly. 

As to Walmart I'm no expert and you sound pretty well informed but I guess I just wonder why, if they already give so many "concessions" they refuse to allow these well taken care of workers to organize? Again I would point out that tho unions can get greedy and short sighted that alone is not sufficient reason to preclude them a collective bargaining voice. Corporations who refuse unionizing are simply arguing for the exact same control of their fates. Shouldn't workers be allowed to have some power? Corporations and businesses too can abuse that power. Especially in a down economy when jobs are scarce. A quick review of labor history shows some pretty awful abuses when there were no unions-coal companies etc. I assume you aren't advocating we return to that era?

I found some Walmart info on line 

I would seem a strong argument can be made that workers have reasonable greivances and that Walmart could easily afford to increase pay w/o affecting it's enormous profitability. Or at least that there is room for compromise. And that we as taxpayers subsidize those profits. 



Report this comment
#25) On June 07, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

Thanks, Alex.  I have a question.  You refer to shelters and tax loopholes only the wealthy have access to.  What are they?  Can you tell me one?

I have enjoyed the services of a fine CPA/tax attorney for many years.  She is as sharp as they come.  But she has never been able to find me a single "loophole" that is not available to everyone.

Between AMT and restrictions on itemized deductions based upon income, the only loopholes I've encountered have been of the negative variety.

Report this comment
#26) On June 07, 2009 at 3:22 PM, russiangambit (28.82) wrote:

> I have a question.  You refer to shelters and tax loopholes only the wealthy have access to.  What are they?  Can you tell me one?

Good one, Donnerv. I am by no means rich but as far as I can see there is no way to avoid AMT, which I have to pay each year.

Over the years I only encountered 2 possibilities to avoid taxes, but  both fall into fraud category, rather than loophole - 1) trading Forex, and the company is incorporated outside of the US. They don't report the income to IRS. 2) have a business overseas and keep profits in a swiss account.

I have a bit of a different take on the tax debate. I think coporations are not paying their fair share. If you look at financial statemnts of multinations you'll see that their affective tax rate is around 10-15%. How is that possible? They use low-tax locations to make their sales from, that helps. There are other things they can do as well, like speed up amortization of assets, take on more debt.

But in the end, as multinationals find more ways to reduce US taxes, the hole has to be filled and it is filled by the burden on individuals and small businesses, which don't have the same options as multinationals.

Report this comment
#27) On June 07, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:


Thanks.  You've verified what I've found in paying taxes for these many decades.  But I have to disagree mildly with you re corporate taxes.

Corporations are employees, operating and capex suppliers, owner/shareholders and customers.  Absent these stakeholders, the corporation performs nothing and earns nothing.

The corporation, per se, does not pay taxes.  It must come from the pockets of the stakeholders: employees via lower salaries, suppliers via lower prices and profits, owners/shareholders through lower dividends and the customers from higher prices.

Some combination of the lower returns to these stakeholders is the source of the taxes paid to some governing body.  If the corporation paid no income taxes, the stakeholders (from their higher returns) would pay higher taxes, making up the "gap".

There would be three benefits.  First, the enormous expenditures paid for tax calculation and filings by corporations would be avoided.

Second, the favorable corporate tax climate would attract domestic and foreign investment, leading to economic growth.

Third, the higher after-tax resources available to the corporation would permit its executives to pursue optimal division of the added funds among capex, higher wages, greater benefits, better supplier prices or larger dividends, as the present economic situation dictates.

Yet net tax revenues would NOT be reduced.  Please don't get started on a tangent about greedy execs, cozy boards of directors, etc.  That rant simply muddies the discussion Russian and I are having.

Report this comment
#28) On June 08, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Alex1963 (27.86) wrote:


I'll admit to popping off w/o hard data at my fingertips. I agree too that "loopholes" are available to anyone assuming you have more cash and resources than you need to live on. Now someone could argue I suppose that most people could incorporate in some way but I would argue that it's impractical for a full time salaried tax payer to do. 1st & foremost it pays to be self employed or incorporated. As a realtor I had this option of setting myself up as an S corp etc but I never did.  What the super wealthy do I don't know. But I would propose that 98% or more of them are business owners of some kind and "hide" income or profits in a varieyt of corporate favorable ways.  Some I have seen personally such as clients owning construction companies and paying the labor to improve their own residences is IMO of questionable legality but fairly common as I observed anyway. Also when you can afford to have teams of tax attorneys at your disposal I imagine they earn their keep. - One way would be to engage in Leveraged buy out of companies with debt. As I understand the tax code you could purchase a company with a loan. The company you bought is responsible for the new debt. You sell the assets and receive "carried interest" of 20% of the proceeds which is a taxed at 15%.

-You could pay key employess with stock options and use the technique described here to reduce your company's taxable income by more than the value of the options 

or here's another not available to those not self employed :

- The owner of a business can successfully use family tax planning techniques to significantly reduce taxes by putting children and a spouse on the payroll.The owner can pay children a reasonable salary for the services they actually perform, which will provide the business with a current tax deduction. Although a child's salary will be taxable to the child, this income will be taxed at the child's own tax rate, perhaps as low as ten percent, and, as earned income, will not be subject to the "Kiddie" tax. I.R.C. [sec] 73(b).Additionally, children under age 18 on the payroll of their sole proprietor parent are not subject to social security taxes; however, the income of the parent subject to social security or self-employment tax is reduced. Moreover, a child of any age can also open an Individual Retirement Account including a Roth IRA. 

Another unavailable to those without the disposable income to even think of buying high ticket items purely for enjoyment:

- charitable contributions, for example, allow a wealthy family to deduct from income the value of a painting they give to a museum. Here's how to play this game, if you're interested: Buy a painting for $10,000, hold it for a year or two, get a friendly appraiser to say it's worth $60,000, and you deduct that from your reported income. That saves you more on taxes than the $10,000 you actually paid. 

And of course

- locate your corp in the Caymans and be sure to keep your profits out of the U.S.  

I hope this gave some value. I am certainly no tax expert but I do feel that the wealthy I have known as clients (developers & stock investors primarily) spend nearly as much time figuring out how to avoid taxes as on making actual money. Which is not illegal or sneaky in any way. But the opportunities availbe to be just that are myriad the more assets and business interests that you have. And the abuse cna be tricky for the IRS to unravel. Again not an option for your average salaried taxpayer where a W-9 or W-2 is also filed by their employer. Sure if you are beyond that point of pain and making 400-500K or more it makes sense to spend 10's of thousands on tax advice before you engage in a new activity or change your practices in a material way. But for most folks this is just not practical, IMO.So in a nutshell you are correct most of the loopholes I know of are available to anyone with the time, know how, or funds to fully educate themselves on the intracies and constant adjustments in the tax codes. And who can then implement and change strategies as needed. That reality alone favors the better of and pretty much precludes anyone too busy making ends meet and or/raising kids to have the available discretionary time.

Your problem is that you only have one advisor-you need a team :)  Here's my criteria for whether someone is truly wealthy-if you've ever thought you might need a food taster-you're definitely very rich!



Report this comment
#29) On June 09, 2009 at 11:32 AM, anchak (99.91) wrote:

Man you did piss a lot of people .......

Good analysis ....I am unsure which way I fall......I guess my actions will speak louder

Report this comment
#30) On June 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM, JonBarleycorn (68.52) wrote:

Good grief Gerty, what a gash.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners