I amended my post, because at first I just read the copy. When I listened I got it. That points out two things to me. 1) $200,000 is still quite a lot of personal profit, jackass. 2) I did really take it out of context, even when I read the article without listening, and it was definitely presented so that I would.

I hate having to be so careful.

And WHY, again, do people living below the poverty level continue to vote for these assholes? WHY?!? Because they DO. They just. keep. voting. for assholes who literally don't care if their constituents starve to death. WHY?

(Which is a version of my "Why do gay people vote for politicians who would rather see them DEAD?" question.)

I think we're getting to the pitchfork and torches point.

I'm not questioning the stupidity of the statement, but I'm hella surprised that he mashes together his personal take-home with the ongoing costs of running the business.

Yeah, I hope he's just oversimplifying to make his point, and he probably is.

And WHY, again, do people living below the poverty level continue to vote for these assholes? WHY?!? Because they DO. They just. keep. voting. for assholes who literally don't care if their constituents starve to death. WHY?

Because of the babies, Steph. It's because of the unborn babies.

BECAUSE IT COSTS $200K TO FEED HIS FAMILY.

OK, but to be fair, he might have been using "feed my family" to mean "feed, house, clothe, and educate my family," don't you think? Not that $200K isn't a lot of money even for all that, but one or two kids in college, say, would take up a significant chunk of that cash.

And WHY, again, do people living below the poverty level continue to vote for these assholes? WHY?!? Because they DO. They just. keep. voting. for assholes who literally don't care if their constituents starve to death. WHY?

Because of the babies, Steph. It's because of the unborn babies.

Oh, yeah! Who can starve to death once they make it out of the birth canal.

OK, but to be fair, he might have been using "feed my family" to mean "feed, house, clothe, and educate my family," don't you think? Not that $200K isn't a lot of money even for all that, but one or two kids in college, say, would take up a significant chunk of that cash.

Of course. Mostly I just think he was stupid for talking about all of it. When she started with "your businesses brought in $6.3m last year," he should have just said that was gross not net, and shut it down.

Yeah, Kate, I agree (edited to take out the part where I decided your rigthness, which I'm pretty sure you didn't need me to do). I think his point about $6.3M actually ending up as $200K for him is one maybe worth making in terms of understanding what owning a business really means. I think not understanding how it would sound and be reported was his mistake here. I mean, dude, you make 4x median(?) income just from your businesses -- understand that it will be hard for most people to sympathize. But, maybe the reporter was asking about him specifically.

What I want to know, really, is how much does he pay in business taxes, and how much would an increase of x% really affect his bottom line -- how much would it actually affect that final number? Would he really have to lay off people? Sure, his business decisions might be affected, but does that just mean you don't replace some equipment as soon as you'd like?