Joe the Plumber: Official Thread

[jimotis4heisman]

Best of the Web Today - WSJ.com

lots of tidbits but this one was interesting.

As for his unpaid taxes, blogger "Patterico" reports that Obama's campaign treasurer has liens for unpaid taxes. That isn't exactly an earth-shattering scandal either, but it is hard to see how it is less relevant than Wurzelbacher's liens.
...

[ORD_Buckeye]

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (damn, I like the sound of that) weighs in how the plumbers of Ohio have really fared under W and how they might fare under Obama and McCain respectively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/op...rugman.html?em

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (damn, I like the sound of that) weighs in how the plumbers of Ohio have really fared under W and how they might fare under Obama and McCain respectively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/op...rugman.html?em

Originally Posted by Krugman

...I don?t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that?s the point. Whatever today?s G.O.P. is, it isn?t the party of working Americans.

exactly.

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

exactly.

Wasn't 250,000 the amount Obama talked about not 182,000?

Plus if the Bush tax cuts expire the rates on someone making 40,000 a year would go up.

[fourteenandoh]

"I don?t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit."

isn't the point that some people don't want other's money? i've heard joe the plummer say this on multiple shows. its a matter of principal. he doesn't care if he personally will be better off under obama's plan if it means that someone who is more successful than him has been taxed more to pay for it. i agree with that. america isn't about spreading the wealth.

[Southpaw Stone]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

"I don?t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit."

isn't the point that some people don't want other's money? i've heard joe the plummer say this on multiple shows. its a matter of principal. he doesn't care if he personally will be better off under obama's plan if it means that someone who is more successful than him has been taxed more to pay for it. i agree with that. america isn't about spreading the wealth.

You make a great point about accepting charity 14-0. I think the entitlement mentality is hurting the country. Couple that with Obama's vision to strengthen unions and you get a recipe for disaster.

[NewYorkBuck]

Originally Posted by Krugman
...I don?t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that?s the point. Whatever today?s G.O.P. is, it isn?t the party of working Americans.


But Billy the Billionaire and Teddy the Trillionaire would do just fine under both plans........still pay nothing.......

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

"I don?t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit."

isn't the point that some people don't want other's money? i've heard joe the plummer say this on multiple shows. its a matter of principal. he doesn't care if he personally will be better off under obama's plan if it means that someone who is more successful than him has been taxed more to pay for it. i agree with that. america isn't about spreading the wealth.

This isn't about spreading any wealth whatsoever. It's about how we, as a a modern democracy and civil society, assign the relative tax burden to our citizens. In other words, who pays what to maintain all those roads, defense contracts, farm subsidies, public universities, medical research and the like.

It isn't about taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Joe the Plumber. It's about making me shoulder a proportion of this country's obligations that I can comfortably handle while maybe removing a little of that burden from people who are really struggling to make ends meat right now.

I do, however, find Joe the Plumber's responses fascinating for one reason: how the American psyche leads so many people to vote against their own economic interests. I am sure that Joe absolutely believes that he's just around the corner from that 250K income, so why would he want to ruin things for when he inevitably gets there. Yet any statistical socio-economic analysis of Joe based upon his current age, profession, social class and education levels would reveal that he has virtually no chance in his lifetime of threading that needle.

[redbenn]

YouTube - Al the Shoesalesman Gets a Tax Cut

Al the shoe salesman

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

This isn't about spreading any wealth whatsoever. It's about how we, as a a modern democracy and civil society, assign the relative tax burden to our citizens. In other words, who pays what to maintain all those roads, defense contracts, farm subsidies, public universities, medical research and the like.

It isn't about taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Joe the Plumber. It's about making me shoulder a proportion of this country's obligations that I can comfortably handle while maybe removing a little of that burden from people who are really struggling to make ends meat right now.

I do, however, find Joe the Plumber's responses fascinating for one reason: how the American psyche leads so many people to vote against their own economic interests. I am sure that Joe absolutely believes that he's just around the corner from that 250K income, so why would he want to ruin things for when he inevitably gets there. Yet any statistical socio-economic analysis of Joe based upon his current age, profession, social class and education levels would reveal that he has virtually no chance in his lifetime of threading that needle.

Based on what I've read, actually that's not really true, unless what I have read of Obama's tax plan is wrong. If people are going to get government rebate checks despite not having paid taxes, then it is ABSOLUTELY about spreading wealth, or income redistribution, or whatever your favorite phrase is. If only people who actually PAY taxes get money back, then I agree, it is not.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

Based on what I've read, actually that's not really true, unless what I have read of Obama's tax plan is wrong. If people are going to get government rebate checks despite not having paid taxes, then it is ABSOLUTELY about spreading wealth, or income redistribution, or whatever your favorite phrase is. If only people who actually PAY taxes get money back, then I agree, it is not.

helpful info:

The American Spectator: Getting To 95 Percent

The other issue that is important to clarify is that when the McCain campaign asserts that ?32%? (or 40%) of all workers pay no income taxes, this is misleading. Obama?s Making Work Pay Tax Cut directly offsets the first $500 of payroll tax that a worker pays each year. It is therefore ONLY available to workers who pay payroll taxes, and no worker receives a tax cut that exceeds their payroll tax payments. Since its inception in 2007, this was the design of the Making Work Pay Tax Cut: ?This refundable income tax credit will provide direct relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system. It will offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security. [Factsheet, 9/17/07]. Accordingly, the allegation that the Making Work Pay Tax Cut goes to workers who do not pay income taxes is entirely misleading ? the 95% of workers that Obama claims will benefit are all workers who pay payroll taxes, and none will receive a tax cut from the MWP cut that is greater than their payroll tax liabilities.

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

helpful info:

The American Spectator: Getting To 95 Percent

Thanks for the head's up.

[NewYorkBuck]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

This isn't about spreading any wealth whatsoever. It's about how we, as a a modern democracy and civil society, assign the relative tax burden to our citizens. In other words, who pays what to maintain all those roads, defense contracts, farm subsidies, public universities, medical research and the like.

It isn't about taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Joe the Plumber. It's about making me shoulder a proportion of this country's obligations that I can comfortably handle while maybe removing a little of that burden from people who are really struggling to make ends meat right now.

I do, however, find Joe the Plumber's responses fascinating for one reason: how the American psyche leads so many people to vote against their own economic interests. I am sure that Joe absolutely believes that he's just around the corner from that 250K income, so why would he want to ruin things for when he inevitably gets there. Yet any statistical socio-economic analysis of Joe based upon his current age, profession, social class and education levels would reveal that he has virtually no chance in his lifetime of threading that needle.

Sorry Ord - gotta jump in here.

1) You are correct about not redistributing the wealth. It is about redistrubuting the income, which when done progressively (as we do) does an outstanding job of preserving the class system. Funny thing is, many who endorse the progressive income tax do so because they claim they want to level the class structure. Puzzling.....

2) We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. Just a nit, but pols love to use the "democracy" term with almost the same verve and falsehood as they do the "tax the rich" sound byte.....

3) Shouldering this countries "obligations." Hmmm. Interesting word. Just what are our nations "obligations?" Yes, there is the "general welfare" clause that has been raped by so many tax and spenders, but by any metric this clause was included to provide for little more than a national defense, an enterprise that is now less than 1/5 the entire budget. Truly, there are really few national "obligations," just as there really very few personal "rights." Just two very abused words in our language.

4) I dont think voting again Joe Plumber is "against ones interests," even if it isnt him. Small business are the #1 driver for job creation in this country, and this is where the Obama +250k hike will hit the hardest. Take more from the small business, and they will scale back hiring. Interestingly enough, again, he talks of raising these taxes while at the same time talking about "job creation." Puzzling, once again.......

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by NewYorkBuck

4) I dont think voting again Joe Plumber is "against ones interests," even if it isnt him. Small business are the #1 driver for job creation in this country, and this is where the Obama +250k hike will hit the hardest. Take more from the small business, and they will scale back hiring. Interestingly enough, again, he talks of raising these taxes while at the same time talking about "job creation." Puzzling, once again.......

This just cannot be proven to be true - it remains to be seen if small business owners making over $250k are even a material portion of small business owners (see 'Bus v AKAK re: 2%), let alone American tax payers in general.

[JXC]

Let's just keep everything at the status quo...that seems to be working wonderfully. Why should rich people have to pay more in taxes? Joe is right, they shouldn't have to give more that gets back to the middle class. We need a flat tax...everyone pays the same. That's fair. If you are in the middle class, then you just have to work harder to make more money. I mean...the money you make is proportional to how hard you work. Those CEOs and hedge fund millionaires have worked much harder than your average steelworker, teacher, or social worker. Heck...teachers, they hardly do anything, that's why they are paid so poorly. Why should somebody like a CEO or a large business owner who has worked hard to get where they are have their taxes increased, when somebody like a teacher, who hardly works at all, would be raking in the hundreds of dollars in tax breaks?

It [censored]ed me off when McCain said it wasn't fair that somebody who has worked hard to get to the position to own their own business would have to pay more taxes. Like the people that never get to a level where they make 250,000 a year just didn't work that hard or something.

It isn't socialism...it isn't communism. The rich already pay a higher % in taxes than the poor, so if you think what Obama wants to do is socialist, then government has been socialist for a long time. He just feels the %s need to be changed, and I couldn't agree more. The poor and middle class need help, now more than ever. They are the ones that this recession is hurting the most.