Short answer is that he doesn't get to keep it. There's whatever he gets to keep as a part of his salary, but there's the cost of the paralegals, office, professional literature, time spent interviewing witnesses, time spent researching the case and coming up with a strategy. There's a lot of work that goes into the practice of practicing law. Plus, if the case was taken on contingency, which it looks like it was, he has to worry about the possibility of losing and ending up being paid nothing. Which can and does happen, there's a reason why attorneys work so hard to keep things out of the courts, the jury can be very unpredictable at times.
You didn't explicitly mention it, but it's important to remember -- not everyone working on the case is paid on contingency. Even if the lawyer loses the case and gets
I'm sorry but that's just scary, around here the (horrible horrible tax-funded) fire department will at least make an effort, even if you live out in the middle of nowhere...
Let's say you choose to build your house in Sweden 100KM from the nearest fire department. Your house catches on fire. Will your tax dollars help put out the fire?
Most emergency response workers don't care about the money. They are doing their job to help people. Who else would sign up to run into burning buildings, or any of the other stuff that they do?
I know plenty of emergency response workers. Some of them care about people, some of them don't. But they all care about the money.
Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost.
Tell that to the workers of the Upper Big Branch Mine.
How, precisely, did the union protect the safety of the twenty-nine miners killed?
When did we become a country when it has been decided you have too much, you don't deserve what you earned
When did contributing 5% of the personal income above $200K to the running of a civilized society become too burdensome and greedy? You certainly deserve most of that money, but to say that 1-2% of your total income is too big a price to pay is pretty selfish and counter-productive.
I see your confusion. The tax proposed does not replace the federal income tax, or the state sales tax, or proper tax, or vehicle tax, or gas tax, or any of the myriad other taxes that Washington residents already pay. It is in addition to.
So the most productive Washington State residents are not being asked to pay '"1-2% of total income". They are being asked to pay that much *on top of* the already significant taxes they are already paying.
Perhaps with that context, you'll understand why fighting any additional taxes is a necessary and honorable thing to do. I am a Washington State resident who will not be taxed under this proposal, but I will still vote against it. I moved to Washington State in part because Oregon recently increased taxes on its most productive citizens.
So, let's assume we can cut approximately $200 billion from defense contractors. There goes the balance sheet of Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, etc. and some of their employees get laid off, which means they'll be added to the fed. dole. And that probably knackers any thought of countering China and their claims on Taiwan, the entire S. China Sea, and and other assorted mineral and territorial claims they can think of...and they can think of a lot. And it is only $200 against a deficit this year of $1.3 trillion.
There are plenty of places to cut money from the budget, including defense. Please don't use the argument that cutting defense spending puts defense workers on the 'federal dole'. That is fallacious reasoning. The same reasoning justifies hiring workers to dig holes and then fill them in, simply to take workers off the federal dole. The opportunity cost of spending money on defense needs to be weighed against its other uses, such as returning this money to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
