Who Pays Taxes

[red states rule]

With Obama foaming at the mouth to jack up everyones taxes, and his Kool Aid drunk followers nodding in agreement - I thought it would be only fair to once again point out who pays the taxes in this country

Dems love to bash the evil "rich" whio do not need or deserve a tax cut. Yet those same Dems igniore how much the evil "rich" are paying in taxes currently


The case for keeping the Bush tax cuts
By DR. MARTIN REGALIA | 6/23/08 4:37 AM EST

snip

But what about the Bush tax cuts? They only favor the wealthy, right? Again, let’s go to the facts. Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased. In 2000, the lowest quintile bore 1.1 percent of total federal tax liabilities compared with 0.9 percent in 2004, the year that all of the Bush tax cuts were in effect. Thus, the federal tax liability of the lowest quintile dropped 18 percent. However, the highest quintile paid 67.2 percent of these liabilities in 2004, an increase of 1 percent in their liability since 2000, when they paid 66.6 percent. Far from favoring the wealthy, these numbers suggest that the wealthy are bearing more of the tax burden

The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: “A four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.”

More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.

The last thing an uncertain U.S. economy needs is a large tax increase. For businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones, a tax increase during a soft economy could push many companies into bankruptcy. Don’t take our word for it. On May 1, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) asked Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), on the House floor, for the rationale behind forgoing House pay-go rules for the stimulus package. In his response Rep. Hoyer said: “ … we felt, in terms of stimulating the economy, you didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same time.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11259.html

[midcan5]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

[red states rule]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Bullshit

Tax cuts worked for JFK, Pres Reagan, and once again for Pres Bush

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not yopur own facts

The tax cuts under Pres Reagan gave the US economy the greatest peace time growth in history

[red states rule]

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

[Joe Steel]

Bullshit

Tax cuts worked for JFK, Pres Reagan, and once again for Pres Bush

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not yopur own facts

The tax cuts under Pres Reagan gave the US economy the greatest peace time growth in history

You have no facts. All you have are a few misunderstood observations and deliberate distortions.

[red states rule]

You have no facts. All you have are a few misunderstood observations and deliberate distortions.

Read post # 4 and read the link

The facts are on my side. All you have is denial

[Hobbit]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Do you ever check your sources? That page was written by a software engineer, not an economist. Check out his resume. A general engineering degree from a little known college somewhere in Washington state hardly qualifies one to make statements of economic policy, especially when those statements go directly against the opinions of those with Ph.D.s in economics.

http://www.huppi.com/resume/resume.pdf

[red states rule]

More on how Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy

snip

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8

Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts

http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/BG1414.cfm

[Silver]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

:lol::lol::lol:
Other than the fact that its happened EVERY time its tryed, I guess midcan's correct........................................... ................................not!
and of course thats not to say the economy tanks EVERY time taxes are raised either....not every time, just most of the time....
:fu:

[red states rule]

:lol::lol::lol:
Other than the fact that its happened EVERY time its tryed, I guess midcan's correct........................................... ................................not!
and of course thats not to say the economy tanks EVERY time taxes are raised either....not every time, just most of the time....
:fu:

To midcan, just because it is our money, why are we entitled to it? In his world, the government can spend much more efficently then we can :laugh2:

[April15]

Bullshit

Tax cuts worked for JFK, Pres Reagan, and once again for Pres Bush

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not yopur own facts

The tax cuts under Pres Reagan gave the US economy the greatest peace time growth in historyRaygun raised taxes. Why the conservatives don't understand this I don't know. And by the way wages went down during rayguns terms.

[red states rule]

Raygun raised taxes. Why the conservatives don't understand this I don't know. And by the way wages went down during rayguns terms.

Pres Reagan made a deal with the Dems in Congress where taxes would go up BUT Dems would have to cut spending by $2 for every $1 of tax increase

As usual, the Dems forgot their promise as soon as the ink dried on the bill

I have to laugh when libs try to rewrite history. They rant how bad Pres Reagan was (but praise the failed 4 years of Peanut Carter) but igniore the fact Pres Reagan won in landslides noit seen since

[Joe Steel]

Read post # 4 and read the link

The facts are on my side. All you have is denial

Prove it.

You can't just post drivel from a rightwing spin tank. Find a respected economist who agrees with your nonsense.

[red states rule]

Prove it.

You can't just post drivel from a rightwing spin tank. Find a respected economist who agrees with your nonsense.

snip

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 -- $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress "wouldn't lie to him when he should have known better."[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to "trust but verify," whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

http://www.reagansheritage.org/html/reagan_edwards12.shtml


It is history and it is a fact

Dems did not cut spending as they promised. When have Dems EVER cut spending?

[retiredman]

snip

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 -- $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress "wouldn't lie to him when he should have known better."[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to "trust but verify," whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

http://www.reagansheritage.org/html/reagan_edwards12.shtml


It is history and it is a fact

Dems did not cut spending as they promised. When have Dems EVER cut spending?


no quotes from respected economists.... still waiting

[Hobbit]

no quotes from respected economists.... still waiting

No, it's from a historian who knows what he's talking about. It doesn't take an economist to tell you a documented fact. If the article later stated that the tax increases caused something, then it would need the word of an economist.

Don't you people ever grow up?

[Hagbard Celine]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Now, now, you know how facts confuse and disorient them midcan5. Don't be mean.

[red states rule]

Now, now, you know how facts confuse and disorient them midcan5. Don't be mean.

The facts do confuse libs who will never admit the Reagan tax cuts pulled the economy out of the tank from Pres Peanut - and that Dems LIED about cutting spending.

Hag, I lived through those years, did you?

[April15]

The facts do confuse libs who will never admit the Reagan tax cuts pulled the economy out of the tank from Pres Peanut - and that Dems LIED about cutting spending.

Hag, I lived through those years, did you?The fact is Raygun screwed up California so bad we still haven't fully recovered and his tax plans cost me so much I had to file for bankruptcy in 85. So you can take your praise of the raygoon and shove it.

[red states rule]

The fact is Raygun screwed up California so bad we still haven't fully recovered and his tax plans cost me so much I had to file for bankruptcy in 85. So you can take your praise of the raygoon and shove it.

So because you can't manage your finances, you blame Pres Reagan?

So typical of a liberal

[April15]

So because you can't manage your finances, you blame Pres Reagan?

So typical of a liberalBlow me fuck face!

[red states rule]

Blow me fuck face!

What an intelligent response from a calm and reasonable liberal

[Hobbit]

The fact is Raygun screwed up California so bad we still haven't fully recovered and his tax plans cost me so much I had to file for bankruptcy in 85. So you can take your praise of the raygoon and shove it.

If you had to file for bankruptcy, it's your own damn fault. That's the problem with you liberals. Nothing is ever your fault. It's always somebody else's fault. 'My bank scammed me!' 'Tax policy was too much strain!' 'But I NEEDED that big screen!' You sound like a little child. Man up and take some responsibility. YOU borrowed more than you could pay back. YOU failed to adjust for changing tax policy. YOU didn't take the necessary steps to get rid of your debt (selling off your stuff, taking a second job, cutting back your spending, etc.) until you were backed into a corner. Unless something catastrophic happened, like a business partner taking all of your money and hitting the road, it's YOUR FAULT you had to file for bankruptcy and nobody else's, so be an adult for once in your miserable life and face the fact that YOUR financial situation is YOUR problem. YOU are the only one who can screw it up, and YOU are the only one who can fix it. Grow up.

[gabosaurus]

One question:
How does the U.S. government obtain the necessary funds to run the government? Fairy dust?

We don't need a tax increase. All we need to do is withdraw all our troops from current combat zones and cut the military budget by 25 percent.
After all, we need to do away with big government. Right?

[manu1959]

The fact is Raygun screwed up California so bad we still haven't fully recovered and his tax plans cost me so much I had to file for bankruptcy in 85. So you can take your praise of the raygoon and shove it.

yes your bankruptcy couldn't possibly be the result of your bad business decisions......

[hjmick]

The biggest burden to ever hit the state of California was not a Governor or a President, it was Proposition 13.

[manu1959]

The biggest burden to ever hit the state of California was not a Governor or a President, it was Proposition 13.

property taxes are bullshit anyway....you don't own your land you rent it from the govt....

[red states rule]

One question:
How does the U.S. government obtain the necessary funds to run the government? Fairy dust?

We don't need a tax increase. All we need to do is withdraw all our troops from current combat zones and cut the military budget by 25 percent.
After all, we need to do away with big government. Right?

Do you know what department gets the biggest share of the Federal budget?

Department of Health & Human Services

Social programs get the most money out of a $3 trillion budget. If we are going to cut, lets start with the department that get the most money

[Hobbit]

Do you know what department gets the biggest share of the Federal budget?

Department of Health & Human Services

Social programs get the most money out of a $3 trillion budget. If we are going to cut, lets start with the department that get the most money

Screw that. Let's just start with stuff we don't need. Get rid of the NEA, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, hell, social security would cut the budget it half by itself.

[red states rule]

Screw that. Let's just start with stuff we don't need. Get rid of the NEA, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, hell, social security would cut the budget it half by itself.

Lets not forget about pork, and such perks as the Congressional gym, Post Office, pensions, car leases, and "junkets"

[Hobbit]

Lets not forget about pork, and such perks as the Congressional gym, Post Office, pensions, car leases, and "junkets"

Not to mention the senate cafeteria, which is currently asking for a $250,000 tax paid bailout and is losing $1-2 million a year, also paid for by us. What's worse is that the food and service are so terrible that most senators eat at the privately run house cafeteria and send out for catering whenever they have guests.

[red states rule]

Not to mention the senate cafeteria, which is currently asking for a $250,000 tax paid bailout and is losing $1-2 million a year, also paid for by us. What's worse is that the food and service are so terrible that most senators eat at the privately run house cafeteria and send out for catering whenever they have guests.

So in a few posts, we have come up with alot of savings of our tax dollars. Meanwhile, we have idiots on both sides that are pissing through our money

And Dems are demanding we fork over more

Obama would have a 60% tax rate on the top producers - which will cripple the economy

[April15]

So in a few posts, we have come up with alot of savings of our tax dollars. Meanwhile, we have idiots on both sides that are pissing through our money

And Dems are demanding we fork over more

Obama would have a 60% tax rate on the top producers - which will cripple the economyIt should be 85%!

[red states rule]

It should be 85%!

Under Peanut Carter the top rate was 70% and we all know how lousy the US economy was

So you want things even worse under your boy Barry?

Why the hell would anyone work hard if 85% of the money would be taken by the governement?

Why would anyone take ricsk by investing if 85% of thieir profit would be taken by the government?

[April15]

Under Peanut Carter the top rate was 70% and we all know how lousy the US economy was

So you want things even worse under your boy Barry?

Why the hell would anyone work hard if 85% of the money would be taken by the governement?

Why would anyone take ricsk by investing if 85% of thieir profit would be taken by the government?Cater inherited inflation from Nixon. The Arab nations were tired of the Shah of Iran being supported by the US. The embargo was to promote that end.
As for working hard, that is what a man does. For living in a great nation like this was 70% of what you can make is peanuts compared to living in some hell hole where you can't make but a buck a day. It is like a stipend for the good work the military does and the FDA. Well used to do anyway. I hope you get the idea.

[red states rule]

Cater inherited inflation from Nixon. The Arab nations were tired of the Shah of Iran being supported by the US. The embargo was to promote that end.
As for working hard, that is what a man does. For living in a great nation like this was 70% of what you can make is peanuts compared to living in some hell hole where you can't make but a buck a day. It is like a stipend for the good work the military does and the FDA. Well used to do anyway. I hope you get the idea.

and to solve the inflation issue, Peanut raised taxes. To lower gas prices, Peanut raised taxesz. To lower unemployment, Peanut raised taxes

Only an idiot would work harder knowing nost of the money would be taken away in taxes. For some reason, tax and spend libs like you think people work for "the common good"

Corporations do not pay taxes, we do. They pass any increase in the cost of doing business to the customer

We work to take care ourselves. Something libs paint as greed when it is common sense

[mundame]

This is zooming around the e-mail circuit today ----

************************************************** ****
URINE TEST

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . .

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though .

Something has to change in this country -- and soon!
************************************************** ****

Excellent. That would be great, if nobody got welfare unless they tested clean of drugs.

I bet it would be a huge tax savings.

[hjmick]

Anyone on any kind of government assistance should have to submit to drug tests in order to receive them. I have advocated this position for several years now. No one is listening.

[midcan5]

"Now let’s look at the incomes of America’s rich and superrich, and ask how much they could reasonably give. The task is made easier by statistics recently provided by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, economists at the École Normale Supérieure, Paris-Jourdan, and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively, based on U.S. tax data for 2004. Their figures are for pretax income, excluding income from capital gains, which for the very rich are nearly always substantial. For simplicity I have rounded the figures, generally downward. Note too that the numbers refer to “tax units,” that is, in many cases, families rather than individuals.

Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

[manu1959]

"Now let’s look at the incomes of America’s rich and superrich, and ask how much they could reasonably give. The task is made easier by statistics recently provided by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, economists at the École Normale Supérieure, Paris-Jourdan, and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively, based on U.S. tax data for 2004. Their figures are for pretax income, excluding income from capital gains, which for the very rich are nearly always substantial. For simplicity I have rounded the figures, generally downward. Note too that the numbers refer to “tax units,” that is, in many cases, families rather than individuals.

Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

why should a dollar earned be taxed at different rates......are we not all equal under the law.....should we all not be treated equally under the law.....why is my persuit of happiness taxed at a higher rate than yours.....

[April15]

why should a dollar earned be taxed at different rates......are we not all equal under the law.....should we all not be treated equally under the law.....why is my persuit of happiness taxed at a higher rate than yours.....Not every one has the ability to support the government equally.

[manu1959]

Not every one has the ability to support the government equally.

i should pay for that why......

[April15]

i should pay for that why......Because you have had the privilege of being in this nation where individuals can make unbelieveble amounts of money off stupid stuff.

[Yurt]

Because you have had the privilege of being in this nation where individuals can make unbelieveble amounts of money off stupid stuff.

actually, according to the constitution, it is his "right" not a privilege