Hi John,

That's great! I'm happy for you.  I agree with you.  However,     while everyone will not get rich or get to your success with sacrifices & hard work we could all probably ascend higher.  Now many do have physical limitations & that make it a different story. 

I seek to learn from you, if you don't mind.  Without being personal, what type business do you have?  Is this something that would take a whole lot of start up monies or tecnical education?

Is there anything else that you did that you think that really helped you to be so successful (that may help others here)?

Thank you so much for sharing this information with others.

God bless you,

ekikaseven

I worked 2 jobs to put myself through college while starting a business.  I ate cup of noodles for 1 year almost exclusively (bulk at costco), worked on my business with my partners (all classmates) until 3:00AM even if there were exams at 8:00AM the next day (for 3 years), lugged around desktop computers every day to an apartment, had NO weekends, and guess what?  I make over $200,000 / yr now and I employ 6 people, putting food on the their tables.  I deserve every penny that I make, and I deserve every tax cut that I receive.  I lived like a slave for 5 years to build what I have now.  The difference between have and have-nots?  Haves have found the courage to change their situtation even with no guarantees of success, while the have-nots like to play victim and blame everybody else.  If I didn't make what I make now do you know what I would do?  Not complain about the rich people getting tax cuts.  I would figure out a way to become one of those rich people.

 Oh and I'm sure when Warren Buffet decided to donate his WHOLE fortune to charity, all he was thinking about was write offs....

Elections are coming this fall... however, if you think about it... the Democrats are no less stuck with the same single issues (abortion, gay marriage). They cannot really re-frame the major issues - life long access to college level training and education, health care system primarily stimulated by success in preventing illness, restoring the value of people's desires and motivations that are not necessarily "drivers" of the economy in the narrow sense of "consuming" goods and services, quality of life and work versus quantity of "stuff" and money, etc...

I read your post on the poor rich people and I agree. Now the idea of making those tax cuts is in the House and cuts for aid to poor people are pending. This all seems to me immoral. But guess who's got the monopoly on "morality"? Yep, the religious right, neo-con, Republican dominated executive and legistlative branches of our government. Not to mention the single-issue voters who stick with these leaders simply because they agree with them on abortion and gay marriage. Hopefully the pendulum will begin swinging back to the left very soon. The majority of our hard-working citizens' lives depend on it. Best wishes, universitymom07

A colleague found a very interesting article - "The Kindness of Strangers" by Robert V. Levine. Here is a snippet:

"Over and again, New Yorkers told us they cared deeply about the needs of strangers, but that the realities of city living prohibited their reaching out. People spoke with nostalgia for the past, when they would routinely pick up hitchhikers or arrange a meal for a hungry stranger. Many expressed frustration—even anger—that life today deprived them of the satisfaction of feeling like good Samaritans."

I just hope that Aidpage will eventually give those unhappy New Yorkers... and the many like them all over the world... the informal and immediate ways to be good Samaritans again. That's my work now... and the work of our team at Aidpage... Ivan, Tzenko, Boby, Valcho, Pencho, and Stamen.

And then... another good... somewhat philosophical article... from The New York Times...  "In Pursuit of Unhappiness" by Darrin M. McMahon. He writes:

"... the philosopher John Stuart Mill, came to a similar conclusion. His words are all the more worth heeding in that Mill himself was a determined proponent of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. 'Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so,' Mill concluded after recovering from a serious bout of depression. Rather than resign himself to gloom, however, Mill vowed instead to look for happiness in another way.

'Those only are happy,' he came to believe, 'who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.' For our own culture, steeped as it is in the relentless pursuit of personal pleasure and endless cheer, that message is worth heeding.

So in these last days of 2005 I say to you, 'Don't have a happy new year!' Have dinner with your family or walk in the park with friends. If you're so inclined, put in some good hours at the office or at your favorite charity, temple or church. Work on your jump shot or your child's model trains. With luck, you'll find happiness by the by. If not, your time won't be wasted. You may even bring a little joy to the world."

And then another article from The New York Times... by Stephanie Strom... originally titled "What Is Charity?"... as of now suspiciously archived under the totally meaningless "Aftermaths." What were the "maths" for changing the title... I wonder. Did it sound a bit too much of a "questioning" for the good taste of some influential charity?

Here are snippets from "What is Charity?"...

"... among the many who had been turning away from Americans most in need of charity was the philanthropic sector itself. Last year, the share of giving going to organizations most directly related to helping the poor hit a record low, accounting for less than 10 percent of the $248 billion donated by Americans and their philanthropic institutions...

Other statistics also suggest that the nonprofit sector has drifted from core notions of charity. Nonprofit hospitals provide no more charity care than taxpaying counterparts do. While university assets soar, tuition continues to outpace inflation. Only a sliver of giving to churches is spent on social services...

So what is charity today if it is not aimed primarily at the have-nots? Has its definition been stretched so broadly that it no longer has meaning? If so, are the tax breaks that propel our philanthropy justified? Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California, the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, has raised those questions in a series of hearings examining whether tax exemption is justified for certain types of nonprofits.

The question, in his words, is, 'What is the taxpayer getting in return for the tens of billions of dollars per year in tax subsidy' offered to donors through tax write-offs or to nonprofits through their tax exemptions? According to the Treasury Department, the charitable deduction will amount this year to a $40 billion tax subsidy, mostly to upper-income households - overshadowing the roughly $20 billion the human services sector is likely to raise. No official estimates exist for the cost of the tax exemption covering money that nonprofits spend and for the property they own.

The hearings have received little public notice but have terrified nonprofit leaders, more than a Senate Finance Committee threat to tighten regulation of charities.

'When you start to ask what is the fundamental underlying rationale for tax exemption and the charitable deduction for donors, it leads to questions that are far more difficult to answer than questions about greater disclosure and better governance,' said John D. Colombo, a tax-law professor at the University of Illinois who testified before Rep. Thomas. 'It gets you to questions like, why should an institution with billions in the bank get tax exemption?'"

(more on the "questions about greater disclosure and better governance"...) 

I am tempted to ask my questions though. Does compassion need incentives? If you want to give $10... why would you want a $1 tax break. Why not simply give $9? What's the point of this tax incentivized "giving"...? But I must be too simplistic here... I probably don't know enough about the complex dynamics of the partnership between government and private (some call them "special") interests... bla-bla... bla-bla... whatever...

That's it for today... and may be for this year. Hopefully, I did not break too many laws by doing these extensive quotes.

To all rich Americans - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from President Bush and the Republican Congress!

From The New York Times editorial:

"A surprise awaits the nation's highest earners when they file their 2006 tax returns. Their taxes are going down again... On New Year's Day, two additional tax cuts will kick in, allowing people who earn upward of $200,000 a year to claim bigger write-offs for a spouse, their children and other expenses, like mortgage interest on a vacation home...

Here's where the tale turns absurd: The tax cuts of 2001, followed by those of 2002 and 2003, have busted the budget. The surplus - the original rationale for the tax cuts - is long gone, replaced by a deficit projected to reach $530 billion by 2015, if the cuts are made permanent.

And yet Mr. Bush and Congress persist with tax cuts - for people who don't need the extra help and for purposes that have nothing to do with the country's obvious problems.

It's a heck of a way to begin the new year."

Hey New York Times editors... don't you know that the rich will immediately invest the extra money in job creation... and in donating more for helping the poor. We all will benefit. Or so the Republicans say...

Full article (requires free registration)...

From today's New York Times editorial:

"Impoverished Americans are being set up as targets this week in Congress's desperate attempt to find budget cuts after four straight years of tax cuts for the affluent... The proposals would have the federal government - supposedly the protector of the neediest - give the states broad leeway to restrict current benefits; to require co-payments by the poor for medicine and for care by doctors and emergency rooms; and to cut preventive care for children, who represent half of the Medicaid roll. The food stamp program would probably also be hit with a $1 billion cut, and even welfare payments to elderly people who are sick would be crimped by using federal bookkeeping tricks."

See full article (free registration required)...