• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economists: raise the top tax rate

do you know what the implications would be if the top one percent had not become wealthier?

I will tell you why I get wealthier-I don't spend as much as I make and I invest what I don't spend. IF I were not getting wealthier it would mean either

1) my costs of living dramatically increased

2) investments were losing money

so tell us what would that mean for the middle classes

your constant class envy nonsense is worthless. The guys who started google or someone like Jerry Bruckheimer are making what they have. they are creating wealth for others as well

3) You are paying enough in taxes to create a wealth equalibrium.

What does this mean to the middle class? Well if you stopped getting wealther, then they would have a shot at acquring the wealth that you used to acqure (like maybe they could get your high paying job), or at least they could pay less in taxes. don't take this personal, but you really arn't that special just because you were raised with a silver spoon. Now stop your class hatrid for those who you feel are less worthy than yourself. You could take the average middle class joe, give him the lifetime advantages that you had (the fancy private boarding school, Ivey League College, financial inheritance, social inheritance, etc) and he would likely be just as successful as you are.

It would actually be an interesting experiment. You could adopt a newborn child, and raise him as you were raised (including the inheritance), and see if he ends of being like the slackers that he was born from, or successful like yourself.
 
Last edited:
3) You are paying enough in taxes to create a wealth equalibrium.

What does this mean to the middle class? Well if you stopped getting wealther, then they would have a shot at acquring the wealth that you used to acqure (like maybe they could get your high paying job), or at least they could pay less in taxes. don't take this personal, but you really arn't that special just because you were raised with a silver spoon. Now stop your class hatrid for those who you feel are less worthy than yourself. You could take the average middle class joe, give him the lifetime advantages that you had (the fancy private boarding school, Ivey League College, financial inheritance, social inheritance, etc) and he would likely be just as successful as you are.

It would actually be an interesting experiment. You could adopt a newborn child, and raise him as you were raised (including the inheritance), and see if he ends of being like the slackers that he was born from, or successful like yourself.

if you are unwilling to address the point I made just say so.
 
For anyone interested, a piece regarding the income inequality issue:

Forget About Income Inequality - Reason Magazine

Eh, I don't think the income mobility question is as black and white as the author is attempting to make it out to be.

From wikipedia:

According to Thomas A. Garrett,[22] a US Treasury study of income mobility from 1996 to 2005 found that less than half (between 40-43%) "of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005." The study reassured Americans concerned about the "long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the U.S. economy" (after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent from 1979 to 2007 while it grew only 9% for the lowest 20%) of "the opportunity for upward mobility" in America: "There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period"; 80 percent of taxpayers had incomes in quintiles as high or higher in 2005 than they did in 1996, and 45 percent of taxpayers not in the highest income quintile moved up at least one quintile[23]

However others found mobility less than significant. A 2007 inequality and mobility study (by Kopczuk, Saez and Song) found the pattern of annual and long-term earnings inequality "very close", and the population at top income levels in America "very stable" and "not mitigated the dramatic increase in annual earnings concentration since the 1970s."[24]
A 2011 CBO study on "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007" also found multi-year household income distribution in America "only modestly" more equal than annual income.

Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multi-year income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.[25]

More worrying is the trend that the United States is lagging behind Europe when it comes to socioeconomic mobility in general, making the "American Dream" more achievable in Europe than its namesake.
 
3) You are paying enough in taxes to create a wealth equalibrium.

What does this mean to the middle class? Well if you stopped getting wealther, then they would have a shot at acquring the wealth that you used to acqure (like maybe they could get your high paying job), or at least they could pay less in taxes. don't take this personal, but you really arn't that special just because you were raised with a silver spoon. Now stop your class hatrid for those who you feel are less worthy than yourself. You could take the average middle class joe, give him the lifetime advantages that you had (the fancy private boarding school, Ivey League College, financial inheritance, social inheritance, etc) and he would likely be just as successful as you are.

It would actually be an interesting experiment. You could adopt a newborn child, and raise him as you were raised (including the inheritance), and see if he ends of being like the slackers that he was born from, or successful like yourself.
You assume that most people who are rich were born to rich famillies, which simply isn't the case.
 
The reason the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of total taxes is that they have a much higher percentage of the total income than they used to (and an even higher percentage of total net worth). Their effective tax rates are much lower than they have historically been. So when 1% of the population is gobbling up more than 20% of the income -- no, I don't think it's unfair to ask them to pay more. It the end it will not benefit the wealthy to have a government in default and a vanishing middle class.

I paid more in federal taxes than the average family makes in a year, and I think my rate should be higher.
Re: Bold
This is false, think about it. Whenever the total number of people who pays taxes shrink, everyone who pays taxes is paying at a higher rate of the total than they used to. Math 101.
 
I disagree but I can follow your train of thought. However, I see 500k as an arbitrarily selected value by you.

Thanks. But my 500K estimate isn't totally arbitrary. I set that value because it is a little more than our most highly trained and skilled and educated workers make: the MD specialist. The average salary for them is about $400k, so I figure many of them make more than that, so $500k makes sense. Also the top 1% starts at about $400k, I'd rather err on the high side, so I picked $500k. Now if someone can pick a figure that makes more sense, that has more logic behind it, I am certainly willing to compromise. Maybe it should be a million bucks. Maybe doctor MD's are all ripping us off so maybe it should be less than $400k. Regardless of the exact amount, there should be an amount above which income is taxed at a much higher rate.

I probably haven't made the best argument tonight. It's really not about punishing the very rich, it's about establishing an income level that would create a very nice lifestyle and promote a productive society, while reducing the gap between the ultra rich and the working poor. A definative "maximum wage" would likely be considered "unAmerican", but by having a top income bracket with a much higher tax rate, we set a defacto maximum wage. Sure, under my system, people could make as much money as they wanted to. The guy who makes $10 million would end up with more net after tax money that the guy who only makes $1 million, but no one would make grossly (as in thousands of times) more than the average worker (only tens of times more). I believe that this defacto maximum wage would create a disincentive for people to be greedy and demand more and more money, and thus others would be able to have higher incomes.

It's a matter of if one truely believes that the rich guy earns everything his is paid. I can't imagine someone earning tens of millions of dollars, let alone a billion dollars. I understand that they acquire that money, and that someone had to create that wealth, but I believe that there is a limit to humans ability to produce and that such limit is far below a billion dollars. I recognise that when one person gets paid more than they produce, then someone else gets shafted. Now for someone who truely believes that everyone earns every penny that they make, no more and no less (including con-artists, bankrobbers, etc), then I understand why they would not understand that those at lower wage levels get shafted when those at upper wage levels make more and more money. But surely deep down in peoples heart, they know that Bernie Madoff didn't create any wealth that wouldn't have existed if he didn't exist, and they know that the facebook kid just got lucky with the right idea at the right time with the right name and he happened to have just the right skill set. He didn't actually do billions of dollars worth of work. No one can. Not in 7 years, not in a lifetime.
 
Eh, I don't think the income mobility question is as black and white as the author is attempting to make it out to be.

From wikipedia:



More worrying is the trend that the United States is lagging behind Europe when it comes to socioeconomic mobility in general, making the "American Dream" more achievable in Europe than its namesake.

Frankly, I suspect that is because we have an increasing number of Americans who don't really want to work for a living anymore, and are satisfied with a subsistence living which requires no input.
 
You assume that most people who are rich were born to rich famillies, which simply isn't the case.

No, I am not making that case at all. I know that TD was born to a rich family because he has told me so.

People become rich from a large variety of ways. But I don't think I have to tell you that, I suspect you already know that.
 
Thanks. But my 500K estimate isn't totally arbitrary. I set that value because it is a little more than our most highly trained and skilled and educated workers make: the MD specialist. The average salary for them is about $400k, so I figure many of them make more than that, so $500k makes sense. Also the top 1% starts at about $400k, I'd rather err on the high side, so I picked $500k. Now if someone can pick a figure that makes more sense, that has more logic behind it, I am certainly willing to compromise. Maybe it should be a million bucks. Maybe doctor MD's are all ripping us off so maybe it should be less than $400k. Regardless of the exact amount, there should be an amount above which income is taxed at a much higher rate.

I probably haven't made the best argument tonight. It's really not about punishing the very rich, it's about establishing an income level that would create a very nice lifestyle and promote a productive society, while reducing the gap between the ultra rich and the working poor. A definative "maximum wage" would likely be considered "unAmerican", but by having a top income bracket with a much higher tax rate, we set a defacto maximum wage. Sure, under my system, people could make as much money as they wanted to. The guy who makes $10 million would end up with more net after tax money that the guy who only makes $1 million, but no one would make grossly (as in thousands of times) more than the average worker (only tens of times more). I believe that this defacto maximum wage would create a disincentive for people to be greedy and demand more and more money, and thus others would be able to have higher incomes.

It's a matter of if one truely believes that the rich guy earns everything his is paid. I can't imagine someone earning tens of millions of dollars, let alone a billion dollars. I understand that they acquire that money, and that someone had to create that wealth, but I believe that there is a limit to humans ability to produce and that such limit is far below a billion dollars. I recognise that when one person gets paid more than they produce, then someone else gets shafted. Now for someone who truely believes that everyone earns every penny that they make, no more and no less (including con-artists, bankrobbers, etc), then I understand why they would not understand that those at lower wage levels get shafted when those at upper wage levels make more and more money. But surely deep down in peoples heart, they know that Bernie Madoff didn't create any wealth that wouldn't have existed if he didn't exist, and they know that the facebook kid just got lucky with the right idea at the right time with the right name and he happened to have just the right skill set. He didn't actually do billions of dollars worth of work. No one can. Not in 7 years, not in a lifetime.

its idiotic to constantly use a crook like Madoff unless you really believe that anyone who makes lots of money is a crook

and based on your posts that seems to be your belief.
 
Re: Bold
This is false, think about it. Whenever the total number of people who pays taxes shrink, everyone who pays taxes is paying at a higher rate of the total than they used to. Math 101.


1970, a rich dude made $1,000,000 in todays dollars. The effective tax rate was 43%, so he payed $430k in taxes
In 2012 he now makes $3,000,000 in todays dollars and the effective tax rate has dropped to 20%, so he now pays $600k in taxes.

He used to have $570k after taxes, now he has $2.4 million after taxes. So although he now pays 50% more in taxes, he has nearly 5 times as much after tax income.

This is a fictional example, created from rates that I estimated (pulled out my arse) but I think it is a fairly accurate representation of how the finances of the top 1% have changed over the past few decades.

This example proves that Adam's math is quite possible.
 
Doesn't matter. I didn't generate someone else's money unwillingly, and it's not mine to take.
"It's not mine to take." What a perfectly succinct way to put it. I wish there were more people like you in this world.
 
its idiotic to constantly use a crook like Madoff unless you really believe that anyone who makes lots of money is a crook

and based on your posts that seems to be your belief.

No, it's not idiotic at all. I use Madoff for several reasons, not the least of which is that everyone knows who he is. But the sweetest reason that I use him is because five years ago he would have been the idol of many right wingers. If I would have said "That Maddoff fellow is a scoundrel and he his running a scam" I would have been laughed at by the establishment. Right wingers would have told me that I was jeolous of him and would have accused me of doing some sort of class warefare stuff by pointing out that he was a crook. Heck, two different people reported him to the SEC years before he was caught and the SEC basically told them to jump off a cliff.

But if I am making too good of a case by using Madoff as an example, there are plenty of other good con artists zillionairs that I can use as an example. And no, I don't really believe that everyone who makes a lot of money is a crook. Some people would say that I make a lot of money (I really don't) but I am not (that) crooked. And right wingers frequently like to mock me and make an example of how their doctor would quit practicing medicine if we taxed him at a higher rate. I use Madoff as an example because he's not a doctor, he was a "business man". Of course few doctors fall into the catagory of rich (the way I define rich). I'm not complaining about people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, I am complaining about those who make millions.

Obviously people get rich a lot of ways. But rarely does someone have a multimillion dollar salary that doesn't involved at least one of the following: corruption, inheritance, power, or luck. I don't find any of those methods of making millions that impressive.
 
I think that's true from the perspective of the individual, but when we're talking about policy for 300 million people, capital investment is itself a high hurdle for many. As is often said, the world needs ditch diggers, too -- and ditch diggers need health care.

You pivoted the discussion to the individual and the smaller fixed pies they face.

Both. Some people gain power through political clout, others through personal achievement, others through a combination (human capital investment aided by political circumstance -- i.e. parents paying for prep school). And, by necessity, there are many, many more line workers than CEOs.

Political clout isn't the right word. You're referring to personal networks that are both handed down over generations and developed through an individual's hard work. Social networks are both inherited and the result of human capital investment. Any young, aspiring professional will tell you the value of investing your time ("labor") in the development of your network.

I agree, and that's basically what I was getting at. I just wish there were more smart managers, because such compensation schemes are relatively rare.

From my personal experience (i.e. my firm and industry) it's actually quite prevalent. Any publicly traded company offers employees the ability to invest their income in the equity of their company.

The preventative force is the real world: age limits, geographical limits, IQ limits, physical limits, informational limits, social limits -- all conspire to undermine the perfect competition needed for true meritocracy. But personally, I believe even the "wretched refuse" who may not merit a good living should have his needs met.

If anything I would argue the information age and the prevalence of higher education (and the cheap credit to attain it) have made human capital investment more widely available and easier to attain. Personally, the human capital investment that resulted in my employment came from utilizing the free resources available on the internet. Fortunately, the byproducts of the successes and advancements made by our society have allowed many of the "wretched refuse" to have their most basic needs met. We aren't living in the middle ages where peasants are dying on the street. Still, I acknowledge the role of government to ensure social stability through the use of a prudent safety net.
 
"It's not mine to take." What a perfectly succinct way to put it. I wish there were more people like you in this world.

It wasn't very smart when I specified that I was suggesting that people have a right to demand to be able to keep more of what THEY produce (not what someone else produces).

Lizzie's response to my post did not relate to the context of my post. Her post might have sounded cool, but it was an inappropriate response to the point I was making.
 
It wasn't very smart when I specified that I was suggesting that people have a right to demand to be able to keep more of what THEY produce (not what someone else produces).

Lizzie's response to my post did not relate to the context of my post. Her post might have sounded cool, but it was an inappropriate response to the point I was making.
Thanks for pointing that out. I went back and reviewed the conversation, and I see your point.

I still agree with Lizzie's sentiment that other people's stuff is not mine to take.
 
Why is it speculative?
I said some of their fortunes were beneficial to society, others not as much,
That isn't speculative.
The other part being they wouldn't have kept as much due to the 70%-90% top rates that prevailed before Reagan (vs 28%-38% after)... not to mention the cuts in Cap Gains/Divs/Estate Taxes of Bush/2003.
That's Not really 'speculative' either.

Gates gives much (I believe most) of his money to the third world, not America and doesn't help our economy.

These were your speculative statements:

The only thing I would say about them is they made it in good part because of the lower tax rates prevailing after 1980/1988 Reagan.

Otherwise half their piles might be in the public treasury paying off debt or shifting the tax burden Up the income ladder allowing more, as we say, demand/velocity.

First, you're speculating that their wealth would have been generated had tax rates never changed and that their current wealth wouldn't be markedly different if changes to the tax code hadn't taken place.

Secondly, you speculated that if Reagan hadn't cut taxes that half of their current wealth would have been paid in taxes. The varied sources of their wealth and their resulting financial decisions are too diverse to assume 50% of their current wealth would have ended up in the U.S. treasury.
 
Whatever "great" tasks it was that they accomplished would have been accomplished if they didn't exist. Computer software would have existed even without Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. If Jerry Seinfeld wouldn't have got a lucky break, some other equally talented person would have got his jobs and we might be talking about the "Jones Show" instead of Seinfeld. All Warren Buffet does is identifies solid companies and purchases them, they already existed, all he did was to recognize that he can make a profit from them. If Tiger Woods wasn't the best golf player, someone else would have been, and I really don't know that tiger has added a lot of value to anyones life that didn;t already exist. Mark Zuckerberg was considered a billionare long before his company every made a dime, I personally suspect that facebook could crash and burn the next time someone comes out with a more trending and cool social networking tool - without outside investors he would have fell flat on his face, what he really did (like personally) was he stole someone elses idea.

I'm sorry I can't follow any of this logic. You completely disregard human uniqueness and assume that the market would pay the founder of the "Jones Show" a different value for the same good. All you are saying is that instead of "x" making billions it could have been "y". Nothing indicates that an identical strategy pursued by a different individual would result in a cap on financial gain at $500k.

Hypothetical question. You're a small business owner. Let's say the economy picks up, your sales increase, and your business increases in value. Does the day your income exceeds $500k suddenly make you a "con-artist" who's skimming the wealth of the poor and middle class?
 
It wasn't very smart when I specified that I was suggesting that people have a right to demand to be able to keep more of what THEY produce (not what someone else produces).

Lizzie's response to my post did not relate to the context of my post. Her post might have sounded cool, but it was an inappropriate response to the point I was making.

I responded to your point that people who make XXX amount are not XXX times more productive than those who make XXX. My point is that it doesn't matter, because I'm not willing to demand someone elses pay, just because he makes more than I. That is central to the point you were making. Productivity isn't measured solely in hours put in, or amount made. If someone has a great idea that generates millions of dollars for them, that still doesn't mean that I am entitled to what they generated of their own volition, innovation, or creativity, or even just blind luck.
 
I'm sorry I can't follow any of this logic. You completely disregard human uniqueness and assume that the market would pay the founder of the "Jones Show" a different value for the same good. All you are saying is that instead of "x" making billions it could have been "y". Nothing indicates that an identical strategy pursued by a different individual would result in a cap on financial gain at $500k.

Hypothetical question. You're a small business owner. Let's say the economy picks up, your sales increase, and your business increases in value. Does the day your income exceeds $500k suddenly make you a "con-artist" who's skimming the wealth of the poor and middle class?

I don't think that was his point exactly. The point i got from it was, those kinds of people will always exist for the most part in one form or another, if Tiger Woods had never existed, there would just be some other golfer on the cover of those golf games. also, that some people get to the top, on lucky breaks, not just pure talent and such.
 
I don't think that was his point exactly. The point i got from it was, those kinds of people will always exist for the most part in one form or another, if Tiger Woods had never existed, there would just be some other golfer on the cover of those golf games. also, that some people get to the top, on lucky breaks, not just pure talent and such.

You would have hard time proving that the people on that list got there on lucky breaks. The point that another golfer would be #1 had Tiger Woods never existed doesn't support his claim that Tiger Woods wealth was the result of stealing other people's productivity nor that any income earned over $500k is unearned.
 
I'm sorry I can't follow any of this logic. You completely disregard human uniqueness and assume that the market would pay the founder of the "Jones Show" a different value for the same good. All you are saying is that instead of "x" making billions it could have been "y". Nothing indicates that an identical strategy pursued by a different individual would result in a cap on financial gain at $500k.

Hypothetical question. You're a small business owner. Let's say the economy picks up, your sales increase, and your business increases in value. Does the day your income exceeds $500k suddenly make you a "con-artist" who's skimming the wealth of the poor and middle class?

I like your question, our sales are up 55% year to date over the same period last time so its a very timely question. According to Fox News, only 2% of small business owners have incomes in excess of $250k, so me breaking the half million mark anytime soon isnt that likely. I'd be happy if I could just get a little closer to that top tax bracket. Anyhow, if my income started exceeding $500k it would be due to a lot of factors, luck would certainly be one, underpaying my employees and overcharging my customers would be another. so is that being a conartist? Ya, in a way. But more to the point is that I never said that all rich people were conartists, I said that people don't make over a half million dollars based upon their on personal production. Most everyone who makes over a half million dollars makes that much due to one of several factors, none of them really having anything to do with being very personally productive: luck, inheritance, corruption, and cronieism. If I ever made over a half million, it wouldn't be corruption because i wouldn't do that, and it wouldn't be inheritance because that just aint gonna happen, so it might be croniesm or luck.

Regardless, if I could have the first half million tax free I'd gladly pay whatever I had to on any income above that. I could live perfectly fine on a half million.
 
I like your question, our sales are up 55% year to date over the same period last time so its a very timely question. According to Fox News, only 2% of small business owners have incomes in excess of $250k, so me breaking the half million mark anytime soon isnt that likely. I'd be happy if I could just get a little closer to that top tax bracket. Anyhow, if my income started exceeding $500k it would be due to a lot of factors, luck would certainly be one, underpaying my employees and overcharging my customers would be another. so is that being a conartist? Ya, in a way. But more to the point is that I never said that all rich people were conartists, I said that people don't make over a half million dollars based upon their on personal production. Most everyone who makes over a half million dollars makes that much due to one of several factors, none of them really having anything to do with being very personally productive: luck, inheritance, corruption, and cronieism. If I ever made over a half million, it wouldn't be corruption because i wouldn't do that, and it wouldn't be inheritance because that just aint gonna happen, so it might be croniesm or luck.

Regardless, if I could have the first half million tax free I'd gladly pay whatever I had to on any income above that. I could live perfectly fine on a half million.


How do you think Jimmy Page earned all his money? Or Roger Federer? If Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, JP Jones and Jason Bonham agreed to tour they could easily charge 200 a ticket. I would pay that in a heartbeat and so would at least 10 million other people. So how are they stealing 200 from me. It is worth 200 dollars to me to see Led Zep reunite and play. I willingly choose to give them 200 dollars for 2 hours of the best rock music known to man.
 
I like your question, our sales are up 55% year to date over the same period last time so its a very timely question. According to Fox News, only 2% of small business owners have incomes in excess of $250k, so me breaking the half million mark anytime soon isnt that likely. I'd be happy if I could just get a little closer to that top tax bracket. Anyhow, if my income started exceeding $500k it would be due to a lot of factors, luck would certainly be one, underpaying my employees and overcharging my customers would be another. so is that being a conartist? Ya, in a way. But more to the point is that I never said that all rich people were conartists, I said that people don't make over a half million dollars based upon their on personal production. Most everyone who makes over a half million dollars makes that much due to one of several factors, none of them really having anything to do with being very personally productive: luck, inheritance, corruption, and cronieism. If I ever made over a half million, it wouldn't be corruption because i wouldn't do that, and it wouldn't be inheritance because that just aint gonna happen, so it might be croniesm or luck.

Are you making the distinction between wealth and income? Let's say you don't pay yourself $500k but your equity in the business passes the $500k threshold. Does some paradigm shift result that changes you from a hard-working business man to someone who is underpaying your employees/ripping off your customers? Let's say your product line expands and your volume picks up so much so that the wages you pay and the prices you charge increase proportionally. What changes are the $500k level? The growth of your business could turn you from a small business owner into a big business owner. How does that changes the ethics/morals of your operating standards?
 
You would have hard time proving that the people on that list got there on lucky breaks. The point that another golfer would be #1 had Tiger Woods never existed doesn't support his claim that Tiger Woods wealth was the result of stealing other people's productivity nor that any income earned over $500k is unearned.

You don't think that the facebook guy got some lucky breaks? bill gates was born to rich parents who were the origional fiancers of Microsoft. Without their financial support and investment I don't think that Gates would have ever quit college. I would suggest that probably all of those people got some lucky breaks, even Tiger.

So how did tiger get a lucky break? he got the right genetics to do what he did. sure, he may have practiced his arse off, but lots of people do that. My neighbor is a pro golfer, he practices all the time (I have the marks on the side of my house to prove it) and from what I have been told he has all of the desire of Tiger, but he's never been as good as Tiger was and probably never will be. he probably just doesn't have the debth perception, or the muscle memory, or the same combination of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibers that tiger was gifted with.

that said, I have no grudge against Tiger. What he did was wonderful for himself. I'm just saying that despite all his hard worked, he still got lucky, and if he had never discovered golf someone else just as deserving would have gladly won a bunch of tournaments and would most likely have been willing to endorse lots of products for a half million dollars a year or less.
 
Back
Top Bottom