Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 10, 2012 By Draginol In Business

This week, the hard hitting reporters from Gawker bring you:

“The CEO Who Built Himself America’s Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama’s Elected” [actual headline]

http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

This bad BAD man also has a LARGE house. What a monster.

[editor’s note: Sure, we could have simply stated that this man sent an email to his employees explaining that if the company’s taxes go up that it will reduce working capital which could result in job cuts but we’re all about the page views]

UPDATE:

Now that everyone has finished writing their hate male to this guy we have the actual email. Unfortunately, it’s long and nuanced so we have taken the liberty of highlighting the parts that should make you very VERY mad.

“Huge mansion. Huge fortune. Profitable company. What could David Siegal have to complain about? Well, the demonization of the 1% by Barack Obama, for one thing. This truly amazing email went out to all Westgate employees yesterday. Bolding is ours.”

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

COMING UP NEXT on “THE BAD BAD CEO”

The BAD BAD CEO who went on a VACATION to a FOREIGN COUNTRY while raising insurance premiums on his employees.

Remember readers: Rich, Successful people are BAD people and we will continue to dig deep to show you just how terrible they are. How dare people start their own businesses and believe they have any rights to express their opinions.  We will continue our hard-hitting reporting that we expect will damage those businesses through ill-informed boycotts by making sensational, irrelevant headlines.


Comments (Page 9)
on Nov 18, 2012

Frogboy
Most people spend nearly everything they earn.

And thanks to a union that wouldn't back down even if it cost them their jobs and put a company out of business,  we wont be spending it on Twinkies, Ho-Ho's or Ding-Dongs.

RIP Hostess.

on Nov 18, 2012

Wizard1956

Quoting Frogboy, reply 120Most people spend nearly everything they earn.

And thanks to a union that wouldn't back down even if it cost them their jobs and put a company out of business,  we wont be spending it on Twinkies, Ho-Ho's or Ding-Dongs.

RIP Hostess.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2012/11/16/bakers-union-releases-statement-on.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&page=all

 

The other side of that story.

 

Why should a union give concessions, when they know that any concessions they make are just going to go straight into the pockets of executives and not help the company out one bit (and the CEO did give himself a 300% raise right before the company went bankrupt.

 

I don't think you can blame the union in this case one bit, and this is why you need heavy regulation of stock-issuing companies, the incentives for owners to raid the companies for short-term gain is very strong.  Bain Capital was notorious for this as well (look what they did to Domino's among other companies)

 

There's a difference between stock-issuing companies and private companies.  As an example, just look at Brad giving away FE for free to so many folks.  A public company would never be farsighted enough to do this, but Brad could because he looks at the future in a way company that are beholden to short-term profit cannot.

 

Frogboy
@Alstein

I'm not sure if understood my point.  I wasn't talking about poor people. I was illustrating the difference between the rich and everyone else.  Everyone else takes their earnings and consumes it. It's not a moral judgement. It's just a fact. Most people spend nearly everything they earn.

 

True, but it's easier to save when your needs are met by a tinier portion of income.  That said, consumption also is a bigger driver of economic growth than investment, because consumption turns the money through more hands before it ends up being invested (the money multiplier impact from economics)- this is one of the core values of my own personal economic beliefs- income inequality hurts consumption (and this is a big cause of why we almost had a great depression in 2008 and why the economy's been in such a huge mess- folks tried to keep up despite declining real incomes and in 2008 they just couldn't anymore).

 

I do have no sympathy for the folks who make significantly more than me and say they live paycheck-to-paycheck.  I've had a few advantages, but those folks just lack common sense.   I have two coworkers like that and it kinda makes me sick sometimes.  Some folks do lack discipline.   My background growing up is kinda similar to Brad's in terms of what I had, so I believe I know where he's coming from, and why I have sympathy for his beliefs even if I think they're bad for society as a whole.  As hard as he's worked, he doesn't want to give it up to something he has no control over for the benefit of those he doesn't believe worked as hard (and in many cases, but not all, he's right that they didn't)   Ultimately, for capitalism to benefit society, some of what is so loathesome to those who worked their way up themselves (and I couldn't do it the way Brad did it) is necessary for society to improve and function.

 

 

on Nov 18, 2012

Thanks for presenting the other side of that coin, Alstein. Much like during the government bail-outs, it seems there are always those who grab any opportunity they can to line their pockets at the expense of others. There needs to be more accountability in corporate America.

Unfortunately, there will be no bail-out for Ho-Ho's and Ding-Dongs. (There just has to be a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going there)

on Nov 18, 2012

True, but it's easier to save when your needs are met by a tinier portion of income.

Sure. And yet, Americans don't do they? Middle class people have plenty of disposable income. Yet they squander it in ways that, to me anyway, are shocking.

That said, consumption also is a bigger driver of economic growth than investment.

Sorry, but that's insane. You're hanging out with the Qt3 loons too much.  That belief is empirically incorrect.  For thousands of years, humans didn't have the option of investment. It was pure consumption. It was the birth of capitalism (which is where the *option* to invest on a mass scale came from) that has generated the amazing changes in living standards over the past 200 years.  

because consumption turns the money through more hands before it ends up being invested

No it doesn't.  You think that when you put money into a CD that it just sits there in a bank? There are lots and lots of transactions in investments. It's simply a different mechanism.  

If more people invested rather than mindlessly consumed (less money for cheese burgers, more capital available to fund new things) we'd probably have our flying cars now.

(the money multiplier impact from economics)- this is one of the core values of my own personal economic beliefs- income inequality hurts consumption (and this is a big cause of why we almost had a great depression in 2008 and why the economy's been in such a huge mess- folks tried to keep up despite declining real incomes and in 2008 they just couldn't anymore).

There's no evidence to back up your beliefs though.  Inequality doesn't really affect anything other than offend statisticians.  It's not as if Americans are living in abject poverty.

My biggest beef is that humans always seem to be looking for someone to blame for their problems rather than taking responsibilities for their actions.

The higher ones income, the LESS excuse they have to complain about "rich people".  I have known so many people who, in their 20s were making good money that they instantly spent on...well crap (dinners out, electronic toys, cars, etc.) that if they had simply put a fraction of that into an investment they'd be incredibly well off now.  

Nearly every 20-something year old male or female I know could be considerably well off by the time they were 40 by simply taking the money they spend monthly on eating out and investing it.  I quite occasionally give economic advice to younger people who want to know what I did. Some of them have let me look at their Quicken reports and what amazes me is how much money people piss away on eating and drinking out.  

But people can't control themselves. They squander their earnings. And then, 20 years later, when they have so little to show for 20 years of labor they get mad at those who made different decisions.

And I'm not talking about "the poor". I'm talking about everyone else who had disposable income that they know, deep down, they shat out.  That was their choice.  I wish they'd quit throwing their bile at those of us who made different decisions.

We all make choices. And I don't begrudge the choices other people make until they start to hate me because I didn't make the choices they did.

I started with nothing.  *Nothing*.  I was the latch key kid who grew up in a 2 bedroom low-end apartment surrounded by welfare mothers and druggies. When I put myself through college (sorry, no pell grants, my mother had foolishly worked and had, by the time I was 18, had bought a house -- an asset).

When I started my little Stardock business, I didn't even qualify for a small business loan. I only had sweat equity.  No rich uncles or angel investors. My "start up" capital came from working as a proof machine operator at a bank (a job that no longer exists thanks to OCR).

And I didn't get "lucky breaks" either (another source of annoyance).  My first serious effort was for an OS/2 game that resulted in $0 for me because our publisher ripped me off and paid no royalties. When I finally was able to start making money self-publishing, the OS/2 market collapsed and I had to start over, with nothing but loans on my home, in the Windows market.

What saved me was delayed gratification. I had assets by the time the OS/2 market died that I could borrow on because I hadn't consumed it on cars, gadgets, eating out, etc.

In other words: I understood something that, deep down, I think most people understand: If I can put off buying "stuff" until later but instead treat my meager earnings as capital to invest, I can, with time, end up with a lot of money.  

I traded living it up in my 20s for being able to REALLY live it up in my 40s and beyond.  And now, we live in a society that villainizes people like me. And that's a sad testament to our society.

And that's why I empathize with the guy in this article. You make these choices. You go without and when you're successful, people who decided to live their lives as consumers feel they're entitled to the fruits of your labor without giving anything in return.  They're in for a rude awakening I think over the next 4 years.

on Nov 18, 2012

Frogboy
There's no evidence to back up your beliefs though.  Inequality doesn't really affect anything other than offend statisticians.  It's not as if Americans are living in abject poverty.

My biggest beef is that humans always seem to be looking for someone to blame for their problems rather than taking responsibilities for their actions.

The higher ones income, the LESS excuse they have to complain about "rich people".  I have known so many people who, in their 20s were making good money that they instantly spent on...well crap (dinners out, electronic toys, cars, etc.) that if they had simply put a fraction of that into an investment they'd be incredibly well off now.  

Nearly every 20-something year old male or female I know could be considerably well off by the time they were 40 by simply taking the money they spend monthly on eating out and investing it.  I quite occasionally give economic advice to younger people who want to know what I did. Some of them have let me look at their Quicken reports and what amazes me is how much money people piss away on eating and drinking out.  

But people can't control themselves. They squander their earnings. And then, 20 years later, when they have so little to show for 20 years of labor they get mad at those who made different decisions.

And I'm not talking about "the poor". I'm talking about everyone else who had disposable income that they know, deep down, they shat out.  That was their choice.  I wish they'd quit throwing their bile at those of us who made different decisions.

We all make choices. And I don't begrudge the choices other people make until they start to hate me because I didn't make the choices they did.

I started with nothing.  *Nothing*.  I was the latch key kid who grew up in a 2 bedroom low-end apartment surrounded by welfare mothers and druggies. When I put myself through college (sorry, no pell grants, my mother had foolishly worked and had, by the time I was 18, had bought a house -- an asset).

When I started my little Stardock business, I didn't even qualify for a small business loan. I only had sweat equity.  No rich uncles or angel investors. My "start up" capital came from working as a proof machine operator at a bank (a job that no longer exists thanks to OCR).

And I didn't get "lucky breaks" either (another source of annoyance).  My first serious effort was for an OS/2 game that resulted in $0 for me because our publisher ripped me off and paid no royalties. When I finally was able to start making money self-publishing, the OS/2 market collapsed and I had to start over, with nothing but loans on my home, in the Windows market.

What saved me was delayed gratification. I had assets by the time the OS/2 market died that I could borrow on because I hadn't consumed it on cars, gadgets, eating out, etc.

In other words: I understood something that, deep down, I think most people understand: If I can put off buying "stuff" until later but instead treat my meager earnings as capital to invest, I can, with time, end up with a lot of money.  

I traded living it up in my 20s for being able to REALLY live it up in my 40s and beyond.  And now, we live in a society that villainizes people like me. And that's a sad testament to our society.

And that's why I empathize with the guy in this article. You make these choices. You go without and when you're successful, people who decided to live their lives as consumers feel they're entitled to the fruits of your labor without giving anything in return.  They're in for a rude awakening I think over the next 4 years.

This very condensed version of your life story is very impressive (no sarcasm meant), and it should be made into a movie. If more people realized the truth instead of buying into the class warfare crap then the world would be a better place.

on Nov 18, 2012

taltamir
This very condensed version of your life story is very impressive (no sarcasm meant), and it should be made into a movie. If more people realized the truth instead of buying into the class warfare crap then the world would be a better place.

Yes, and even within the 'friendly' circles/community that is the Stardock Forums there are still people resentful/envious of Frogboy's success, particularly within the skinning sector which has always been perceived as a Hobby/Hobbyist activity, and yet there are a few who have made a success of it as a business.

A decade ago this 'resentment' was palpable.   The reality was/is that it demonstrates the naivete of so many...

on Nov 19, 2012

You're right on what money does in a bank- the money from a CD doesn't just go into a bank, it goes into loans, at around a 10:1 ratio.   However, a more rapid money multiplier still ends up with the money in the bank, where it then goes into loans.   I'm not a fan of Austrian economics at all, it's about as useful as a Hapsburg is today. 

 

You're absolutely right and I agree with you about the not pissing away money.  Even if you don't have great opportunities- as long as you have some opportunity (I had a really bad time of it in my 20s, every job I had the business closed quickly, led to lots of unemployment, it got so bad I entered the military just to get a stready job- but by 35 I've turned out ok)    That said, my experiences made me appreciate the government safety net (even if it was the military in my case, that's still a government benefit- just one you pay for in other ways).   Without government, I'd be in dire straits today, and I wouldn't be paying taxes today, and my life would not be as good.  I'll admit I piss a bit of money away, but I always pay myself first.  I got a bit of late start (I couldn't save anything for retirement until 26, and it was a pittance until 30) but I do put enough aside that if things go smoothly I'll be in good shape by 50. 

 

Ultimately, society has to be able to afford the products you make in order for you to profit off those products.  The problem with everyone investing is that if no one consumes, then those investments can't become profitable.   One reason why the current economic conditions have been recovering so slowly is folks are effectively investing (paying down debt) instead of consuming, and this has chipped away hard at domestic demand.  (this is a demand-side recession)

 

Not everyone can be successful, but most people can achieve a decent existance.  I think I've managed to do the latter.  That said, I do think investing in society is also an investment - ultimately, you're investing the money in programs for two reasons: first to increase the ability to your citizens to become wealth producers later, and to keep society stable- a large mass of folks who see no hope in the current system is dangerous- just look at where Mubarak is sitting now, or the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, among many historical examples.

 

In my case, it's not that I'm envious of your success, I just feel that successful folks are best off sacrificing some of their short-term success for the ability to have a system that allows them and others to succeed in the long-term.  You can take this too far (see 75% tax idea in France), but we're nowhere close to this point in this country (and much of our problem nationally comes from inefficiencies in some areas like healthcare and an overbloated defense department)

on Nov 19, 2012

Yes, and even within the 'friendly' circles/community that is the Stardock Forums there are still people resentful/envious of Frogboy's success, particularly within the skinning sector which has always been perceived as a Hobby/Hobbyist activity, and yet there are a few who have made a success of it as a business.

A decade ago this 'resentment' was palpable.   The reality was/is that it demonstrates the naivete of so many...

Yea, I have seen people get quite nasty about it too... like this one guy who ripped on him during christmas of all things.

Alstein
pissing away money.

Speaking of, this is not just children. I know adults, parents... of myself and of friends, who had really high income and yet pissed it all away. Money is spent as fast as it is acquired.

Ultimately, society has to be able to afford the products you make in order for you to profit off those products.  The problem with everyone investing is that if no one consumes, then those investments can't become profitable.   One reason why the current economic conditions have been recovering so slowly is folks are effectively investing (paying down debt) instead of consuming, and this has chipped away hard at domestic demand.  (this is a demand-side recession)

1. People don't have to piss off all their income for there to be a market. Its quite possible to have sales when people are spending only a part of their income on fun.

2. Paying off debt is not an investment. Its just paying off debt.

3. This is NOT a recession caused by lack of demand. Its not that people woke up one day and said "I am not spending any more money because I am afraid", this ridiculous theory that the economy runs on mob emotions is nonsense.

Government misappropriation of funds via increased taxation, misuse of funds and printing money (inflation and debt), and a horrendous energy policy (intentionally attempt to bankrupt "evil" energy like coal and nuclear, intentionall halt drilling for gas and oil). This all resulted in businesses failing due to rapidly increased costs. This in turn results in people losing their jobs which means they no longer have discretionary income which means more businesses go under...

Also there was the housing crisis (government FORCED banks to lend to people they weren't willing to; and for other banks, used taxpayer dollars to buy bad loans), and bad solutions to it (bail out with no strings attached and no oversight, and dodd frank).

there is the moratorium on gulf drilling. There is the breakdown of law with the forced seizure and nationalization of the auto industry and healthcare and student loans (all of which done disastrously)

on Nov 19, 2012

One thing I would like to address is the notion that increased taxes will force a business to let existing employees go. The math simply doesn't hold up.

Simply put, if a company's profit is $250K before a tax increase, and $200K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business still has sufficient funds to meet the payroll for it's current employees.

Yes, I agree that increased taxes will slow down new/incremental job growth, and the owner will have less money to reinvest in the business for capital purchases and such, but this in no way hinders the businesses ability to pay its existing staff. Yes, $200k is less than $250K, but it is still a profit.

Cash flow management and the collection of receivables is a seperate issue, but that's what a revolving line of credit is for. Tax rates have nothing to do with cashflow mangement.

In short, the threat of *having to* cut existing jobs when taxes increase is disingenuous.

on Nov 19, 2012

You're looking at profits instead of return on investment, which is what people with that kind of money look at.  What's 200k to them?  They want a percentage return!

on Nov 19, 2012

Also, you're assuming that the tax increase is on the income taxes and not within employer-matched payroll taxes.

on Nov 19, 2012

Borg999
Simply put, if a company's profit is $250K before a tax increase, and $200K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business still has sufficient funds to meet the payroll for it's current employees.

Always pays NOT to be 'simply put', because...

Simply put, if a company's profit is $2K before a tax increase, and -$50K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business will need to cut overheads...and the most common source is - the payroll for it's current employees.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Math can always be bent to one's will....

on Nov 19, 2012

Jythier
Also, you're assuming that the tax increase is on the income taxes and not within employer-matched payroll taxes.

I agree with you on ROI..but that may be an indication that the Owner is trying to grow his business faster than it can sustain that growth. and taxes aren't the only impediment to growth. Market share, over all economic conditions, price elasticity, availability of substitutes, etc can also play a roll in limiting ROI.

However, on your second point, the ER FICA match wouldn't be material to the total tax increase.

on Nov 19, 2012




Quoting Borg999,
reply 129
Simply put, if a company's profit is $250K before a tax increase, and $200K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business still has sufficient funds to meet the payroll for it's current employees.


Simply put, if a company's profit is $2K before a tax increase, and -$50K after the tax increase, all other factors held constant, the business will need to cut overheads...and the most common source is - the payroll for it's current employees.

This is not accurate. If a company has a net loss, then they shouldn't be paying any taxes. Taxes are a percent of accounting profits. There is no way a corp would pay $50K income tax on a net income of $2K.

Also, net income is a function of GAAP, it often has no correlation to cash flow. The most simple example would be depreciation, which is a non-cash charge against income.

Under the current tax laws, it is quite possible for a company to be cash-rich, and still pay no taxes.

To blame a company's financial difficulties soley on taxes...is to not look at the whole picture.

on Nov 19, 2012

The payroll tax holiday was entirely for the employees I believe, the Jan 1st tax hikes will not impact employer SS/Medicare taxes.

 

That said, I think SS taxes should apply on incomes over $128k (where I think it is now), and SS should be means-tested, though back SS pay can be granted if needed.

 

 Increased taxes can force a marginal company to let employees go, you can't raise taxes without some losses in other areas.  The question is whether those losses are greater than the value the increased revenue brings.  Most on here would say no, I'd say it depends on what you do with it.

 

Infrastructure improvements would be worth it, buying more tanks wouldn't be.