Posted on 09/20/2011 10:06:07 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Rep. John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican who owns a string of Subway and UPS franchises, was on MSNBC this morning to explain how earning $6.3 million a year—which he did in 2010—isn't all it's cracked up to be and to tell Barack Obama to lay off the class warfare. For instance: $200,000 of that goes to food. Being "rich" doesn't sound so great now, does it? Here's how Fleming put it:
I would say that...my net income—[t]he amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family—is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million. And so by the time I feed my family I have maybe $400,000 left over.
See? This guy's barely keeping his chin above water! He can even hold onto a lousy 600 grand without his enormous family of ravenous truffle addicts whittling it down to just $400,000. So how many kids does it take to consume four times the U.S. median household income in food each year?
None. According to his bio, Fleming is "married to his wife Cindy for 30 years and the father of four adult children." Maybe he sends them each like 12 gourmet fruit baskets a day, every day.
He is ill advised to start defending his individual expenditures. That plays into the hands of the socialists.
His real argument is that he earns his money honestly and pays more than his fair share of taxes and fees to the government.
But under the current government model when you go bankrupt you simply walk away and the government picks up the tab...no harm, no foul.
Well, he’s living high on the hog, but his hog is not big. His point is that he is not as rich as some people might think. The same is true of many small businessmen. I know a fellow who is paying more than 8 million in taxes each year. He lives pretty high but from looking at his kids, my guess is the shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations is going to hold true.
maybe if he was more efficient about handling his money he wouldn’t have to work so hard
I can see that as just a misspoken phrase, I’m sure he meant the total support of himself and his family, house, cars, food, gas....
you sound very bitter and jealous of a successful person.
You walk away, losing everything you put into your venture, you face foreclosure and depending upon the judge, may have a settlement to pay after you have lost everything. What else would you suggest? Debtor's Prison? No one sets out to declare bankrupcy, it's not a good business plan nor is a feasible retirement policy.
Ed Rendell spent more than that as Governor of Pennsylvania, and put it all on our dime.
“But under the current government model when you go bankrupt you simply walk away and the government picks up the tab...no harm, no foul.”
No, that is only handed out to Obama cronies who kiss his ass. Most small business owners wouldn’t want anything from the Marxist piece of crap!
My point exactly!
“maybe if he was more efficient about handling his money he wouldn’t have to work so hard”
That is the dumbest statement on this thread so far. He ONLY TAKES HOME $200,000 of the $600,000 company profit. He invests back in the company the other $400,000. It’s not rocket science.
He pays his bills which includes FOOD with the $200,000 (& just maybe he SAVES some of that $200,000 also). He was only pointing out to the on air idiot that he didn’t take home the $600,000 that she claimed.
Just because you are falling for the idiocy of a MSNBC ‘reporter’ who doesn’t understand how a business operates doesn’t help either.
He isn't spending $200,000 on FOOD, you NITWIT Small thinkers! Geesh......
Exactly!
I can’t believe people are falling for this.
I want more HONEST MILLIONAIRES not fewer!
“It is none of anyones business how much he spends on food unless the taxpayer’s are paying for it! He can spend whatever the hell he wants on anything he wants as long as he makes it.”
EXACTLY
Which is perfectly true. But having to come back and point that out means that he's playing defense. He slipped and now has to fight for his footing when he could be skipping down the field.
Much better to play offense and stick to something like: "You know, barely 3% of that $6.3 mil ends up coming back to me to take care of my family. The other 97% keeps my businesses afloat and my employees on the job - and now Obama wants to dip into that 3%?!?"
He take 2/3 of his net and puts in back into a business that has risk as any business to earn less than a 10% return. Who's the dumb one. He or you that can see the forest for the trees?
He has a business that employees people. What do you have?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.