Menu Bar
Joe the Plumber
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Joe Wurzelbacher, or "Joe the Plumber" (made famous in the final presidential debate.) asks Senator Obama about his tax plans.
Oct 16, 2008 2:23 PM
Re: Joe the Plumber
dudes about to make 250 grand a year and he's bitching about a couple percent increase.
This isn't some struggling working class guy.
I make less then 20k a year and it's enough for me to live on, and even buy a new guitar once in a while.
This isn't some struggling working class guy.
I make less then 20k a year and it's enough for me to live on, and even buy a new guitar once in a while.
Re: Joe the Plumber
Actually, "Joe" apparently hasn't heard of this thing called "the internets."
He's an unlicensed plumber who works in an area that requires a license. Nice. And the company he works for (which in "the real world" is just another dude like him but older) is also not licensed.
Oh, and speaking of the real world, Joe makes about $40K/year - which means he'll actually benefit from Obama's plan and pay lower taxes.
Plus Joe has no nowhere near the money or even a business plan to buy this unlicensed "company."
Wait. People check these things? Huh... And McCain mentioned Joe over 20 times in a nationally televised debate as an honest example to try to pin down Obama? So...McCain didn't check Joe out? ("I'm totally shocked by his lack of judgment and vetting," states Palin in between bottle-feeding her daugher's baby.)
Wow. Guess that didn't work out how they planned.
He's an unlicensed plumber who works in an area that requires a license. Nice. And the company he works for (which in "the real world" is just another dude like him but older) is also not licensed.
Oh, and speaking of the real world, Joe makes about $40K/year - which means he'll actually benefit from Obama's plan and pay lower taxes.
Plus Joe has no nowhere near the money or even a business plan to buy this unlicensed "company."
Wait. People check these things? Huh... And McCain mentioned Joe over 20 times in a nationally televised debate as an honest example to try to pin down Obama? So...McCain didn't check Joe out? ("I'm totally shocked by his lack of judgment and vetting," states Palin in between bottle-feeding her daugher's baby.)
Wow. Guess that didn't work out how they planned.
Re: Joe the Plumber
Oh, Joe the Plant gets even better:
* It doesn't matter what he thinks about taxes because he doesn't actually pay them. Seems there is an $1100 tax lien against him.
* The unlicensed business that he 'wants to buy' grossed just under $100,000 in 2007. Looks like he doesn't have to pay that higher marginal rate in his little mind anyway.
But of course, the best proof that he's a McCain plant is saved for last. Listen to this logic:
"I buy from a lot of suppliers who make far more than that $250,000 and if they have to pay higher taxes then I have to pay higher prices. It's all about the top-down, not the bottom-up."
It's a shame we're going to have to wait until 2009 when his star has long lost its shine to find out on his income taxes how much the RNC or McCain campaign actually paid him for this political stunt.
* It doesn't matter what he thinks about taxes because he doesn't actually pay them. Seems there is an $1100 tax lien against him.
* The unlicensed business that he 'wants to buy' grossed just under $100,000 in 2007. Looks like he doesn't have to pay that higher marginal rate in his little mind anyway.
But of course, the best proof that he's a McCain plant is saved for last. Listen to this logic:
"I buy from a lot of suppliers who make far more than that $250,000 and if they have to pay higher taxes then I have to pay higher prices. It's all about the top-down, not the bottom-up."
It's a shame we're going to have to wait until 2009 when his star has long lost its shine to find out on his income taxes how much the RNC or McCain campaign actually paid him for this political stunt.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Joe the Plumber
I think you are all missing the point on this.
It doesn't matter who this joe guy is. What matters is the point that he brings up. Honestly, the guy could be an actor, but that doesn't change the fact that he is asking a pretty decent question.
Now, I think that Obama does an excellent job answering his question. And I was rather impressed.
It doesn't matter who this joe guy is. What matters is the point that he brings up. Honestly, the guy could be an actor, but that doesn't change the fact that he is asking a pretty decent question.
Now, I think that Obama does an excellent job answering his question. And I was rather impressed.
By: C_munkie
Re: Joe the Plumber
Sorry, man. I didn't realize there was only *one single point* to take away from this. We somehow saw this as a launchpad for sharing additional information and debate and hadn't realized that we were only supposed to see your viewpoint. :)
So wait, which was "the point" that we should all take away again?
Was it that this question demonstrates uninformed Americans such as Joe the Plumber who defend the wealthy while not realizing they themselves will personally benefit?
Or, with over 20 references to Joe at the nationally-televised debate, that John McCain has yet again done a poor job vetting the background of the folks he chooses to represent his candidacy?
Or that anyone who earns over $250K will see a tiny bump from 36% to 39% for *only that amount over $250K?* An amount that impacts the smallest percentage of the wealthiest Americans.
Which is "the point?"
I understand where you're coming from. And please feel free to disagree that any other equally valid points are not important to you personally. But I would like to ask that you, I, and anyone here not suggest that there's merely "the point." On anything.
In fact, I'm sure someone else sees a myriad of other issues in play here that I'd love to see rather than have their debate stifled.
Because any kind of limited thinking that there's a single viewpoint on any topic does not encourage the kind of open, honest, outside-the-box thinking that we need these days. And this notion that there's just one point is what has gotten people into trouble for millennia - from the Crusades to the current administration's follies.
And I'm sorry if I'm being a dick. But it's not about you or McCain or the election. Rather with any issue or discussion, there are many points. And it'd be a shame to squelch any discourse simply because the poster of a clip has a personal viewpoint or agenda he/she wants to communicate.
So wait, which was "the point" that we should all take away again?
Was it that this question demonstrates uninformed Americans such as Joe the Plumber who defend the wealthy while not realizing they themselves will personally benefit?
Or, with over 20 references to Joe at the nationally-televised debate, that John McCain has yet again done a poor job vetting the background of the folks he chooses to represent his candidacy?
Or that anyone who earns over $250K will see a tiny bump from 36% to 39% for *only that amount over $250K?* An amount that impacts the smallest percentage of the wealthiest Americans.
Which is "the point?"
I understand where you're coming from. And please feel free to disagree that any other equally valid points are not important to you personally. But I would like to ask that you, I, and anyone here not suggest that there's merely "the point." On anything.
In fact, I'm sure someone else sees a myriad of other issues in play here that I'd love to see rather than have their debate stifled.
Because any kind of limited thinking that there's a single viewpoint on any topic does not encourage the kind of open, honest, outside-the-box thinking that we need these days. And this notion that there's just one point is what has gotten people into trouble for millennia - from the Crusades to the current administration's follies.
And I'm sorry if I'm being a dick. But it's not about you or McCain or the election. Rather with any issue or discussion, there are many points. And it'd be a shame to squelch any discourse simply because the poster of a clip has a personal viewpoint or agenda he/she wants to communicate.
Re: Joe the Plumber
No. I was saying that everyone is making a huge deal about who this guy is. When, quite frankly, it doesn't matter.
He asked a question. It doesn't matter if he made up the senario. It doesn't matter if he didn't pay his taxes. It doesn't matter that he voted in the republican primaries.
What matters is the answer to the question. That is all I am saying.
I do not know why that offends you. I am not saying anything against your opinions on Obama's plans.
I am only saying that you are diminishing the validity of a question based on who asked it.
The man asked a question. Obama answered it. And I am of the opinion that he answered it well. He wasn't thrown for a loop. He didn't try to twist the whole thing to make is sound like he was doing Joe a favor. He stuck to his guns. That in and of its self is commendable.
I wasn't trying to stifle the debate. I was trying to get it back in the right direction. I think it shouldn't matter who asks a question. It would be a sad world if only those with the best credit score, or the right political affiliation could bring up concerns.
Attack the question, not the asker.
He asked a question. It doesn't matter if he made up the senario. It doesn't matter if he didn't pay his taxes. It doesn't matter that he voted in the republican primaries.
What matters is the answer to the question. That is all I am saying.
I do not know why that offends you. I am not saying anything against your opinions on Obama's plans.
I am only saying that you are diminishing the validity of a question based on who asked it.
The man asked a question. Obama answered it. And I am of the opinion that he answered it well. He wasn't thrown for a loop. He didn't try to twist the whole thing to make is sound like he was doing Joe a favor. He stuck to his guns. That in and of its self is commendable.
I wasn't trying to stifle the debate. I was trying to get it back in the right direction. I think it shouldn't matter who asks a question. It would be a sad world if only those with the best credit score, or the right political affiliation could bring up concerns.
Attack the question, not the asker.
By: C_munkie
Re: Joe the Plumber
Hey, thanks for your honest and respectful response.
And I'm sorry you misunderstood my answer and took it as a partisan response. (I know, I know...most folks do these days because we've been so socialized to believe there are only two partisan views to any issue... :)
But the truth is there's no such thing as "two sides" to an issue. Or a "right direction." There is a multitude of viewpoints - many of which work to varying levels of success for different people.
For example, I'm not offended by anything you could say related to Obama's plans. Nor am I amazed by his answer.
And I realize it's not your job to monitor comments at M&C or else you'd have seen my posts where I've told folks I'm voting for Jesse Ventura. I believe both main parties serve corporate powers rather than the American people.
So let's briefly move back to the real issue of debate. To repeat myself, "It's not about you or McCain or the election. Rather with any issue or discussion, there are many points. And it'd be a shame to squelch any discourse simply because the poster of a clip has a personal viewpoint or agenda he/she wants to communicate."
And we'll repeat your last post where you stated that "I wasn't trying to stifle the debate. I was trying to get it back in the right direction."
:) Uh, you're going to not stifle but get it back to the "right" direction? The "right direction" for you, maybe.
You do see the glaring contradiction in your statement, yeah? "Trying to get it back in the right direction" (aka "your direction") *is* stifling the debate if other folks believe other directions/points/info have equal or greater merit. That's how that works.
Actually, you just explained how stifling debate is done.
Again, don't care about Obama or McCain. We're talking about general discourse at M&C.
So right now maybe we just shared a V8 moment slappin' our foreheads saying, "Oh, right..." Yes? No?
If we didn't, then this is where we have a fundamental difference. I don't believe there's "one right direction" that I need to steer people towards.
Besides the obviously limitation in discourse, I simply would never presuppose that I know the "right direction" on issues for other people. Or that I have to keep people "in the right direction."
I leave that kind of hubris to organized religions and their masses (whether its Scientologists, Christians, Mormons, Corporatists, etc) who truly believe in telling people there's "one point" or one "right direction" while saying they aren't stifling discourse in the same breath and without seeing the irony.
Plus I just figure if my viewpoint is convincing enough then I won't need to "get it back in the right direction." If I had to do so, I'd think my points were lacking. But then I'm a verbose motherf*cker who clearly has way too much time to type on the computer... :)
And since we're talking about fundamental differences, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
Again, man, thanks for the cool, respectful exchange.
And I'm sorry you misunderstood my answer and took it as a partisan response. (I know, I know...most folks do these days because we've been so socialized to believe there are only two partisan views to any issue... :)
But the truth is there's no such thing as "two sides" to an issue. Or a "right direction." There is a multitude of viewpoints - many of which work to varying levels of success for different people.
For example, I'm not offended by anything you could say related to Obama's plans. Nor am I amazed by his answer.
And I realize it's not your job to monitor comments at M&C or else you'd have seen my posts where I've told folks I'm voting for Jesse Ventura. I believe both main parties serve corporate powers rather than the American people.
So let's briefly move back to the real issue of debate. To repeat myself, "It's not about you or McCain or the election. Rather with any issue or discussion, there are many points. And it'd be a shame to squelch any discourse simply because the poster of a clip has a personal viewpoint or agenda he/she wants to communicate."
And we'll repeat your last post where you stated that "I wasn't trying to stifle the debate. I was trying to get it back in the right direction."
:) Uh, you're going to not stifle but get it back to the "right" direction? The "right direction" for you, maybe.
You do see the glaring contradiction in your statement, yeah? "Trying to get it back in the right direction" (aka "your direction") *is* stifling the debate if other folks believe other directions/points/info have equal or greater merit. That's how that works.
Actually, you just explained how stifling debate is done.
Again, don't care about Obama or McCain. We're talking about general discourse at M&C.
So right now maybe we just shared a V8 moment slappin' our foreheads saying, "Oh, right..." Yes? No?
If we didn't, then this is where we have a fundamental difference. I don't believe there's "one right direction" that I need to steer people towards.
Besides the obviously limitation in discourse, I simply would never presuppose that I know the "right direction" on issues for other people. Or that I have to keep people "in the right direction."
I leave that kind of hubris to organized religions and their masses (whether its Scientologists, Christians, Mormons, Corporatists, etc) who truly believe in telling people there's "one point" or one "right direction" while saying they aren't stifling discourse in the same breath and without seeing the irony.
Plus I just figure if my viewpoint is convincing enough then I won't need to "get it back in the right direction." If I had to do so, I'd think my points were lacking. But then I'm a verbose motherf*cker who clearly has way too much time to type on the computer... :)
And since we're talking about fundamental differences, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
Again, man, thanks for the cool, respectful exchange.
Re: Joe the Plumber
America has the most progressive tax system in the world. The upper 50% of tax payers pay over 97% of the total tax revenue. The richest 1% of tax payers pay over 40% of taxes; this percentage of total taxes paid actually INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. The government got more money from rich people after rates were cut. No other country in the world can boast of such progressive statistics.
Over 40% of the total U.S. population have no tax liability, and if they take advantage of EITC may actually recieve money from the government that they have not earned. Is that not welfare? This will increase dramatically with Obama as president, since all of Obama's proposed "tax cuts for 95% of American families" come in the form of federal tax REBATES not rate cuts.
Over 40% of the total U.S. population have no tax liability, and if they take advantage of EITC may actually recieve money from the government that they have not earned. Is that not welfare? This will increase dramatically with Obama as president, since all of Obama's proposed "tax cuts for 95% of American families" come in the form of federal tax REBATES not rate cuts.
By: poonhound
Re: Joe the Plumber
Well stated!! --Just remember not to question Obama about any of this kind of stuff if he comes to your front yard -- or they may dig op dirt on your divorce or ...who knows
By: Slamo
Re: Joe the Plumber
It's well stated, unless you either want accurate figures or understand statistics.
Let's pretend those numbers are all somewhat plausible. Here's my favorite claim: "this percentage of total taxes paid actually INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts went into effect." Translation: "The total income of the richest 1% of Americans rose so much that their total taxes went up, even as their tax rate went down."
How is it that the Earned Income Tax Credit represents unearned income, but income from ownership of key assets is earned income. How is it even possible to "earn" $5000/hour?
Just remember not to allow John McMaverick to drop another Joe-bomb during a floundering presidential campaign, or people might start to wonder who the hell he's talking about.
Let's pretend those numbers are all somewhat plausible. Here's my favorite claim: "this percentage of total taxes paid actually INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts went into effect." Translation: "The total income of the richest 1% of Americans rose so much that their total taxes went up, even as their tax rate went down."
How is it that the Earned Income Tax Credit represents unearned income, but income from ownership of key assets is earned income. How is it even possible to "earn" $5000/hour?
Just remember not to allow John McMaverick to drop another Joe-bomb during a floundering presidential campaign, or people might start to wonder who the hell he's talking about.
Re: Joe the Plumber
Oh loqi, you trickster... You may just be wasting your time here. I'd bet these folks literally have no idea what you just said. Otherwise they'd be talking about percentages rather than aggregates - since aggregates mean nothing to legit finance/econ types.
Bush's tax cuts increased the incomes of the top 1% of Americans by 10%. (p.s. we didn't see this same increase - like, at all) Bush's "tax cuts" were merely a method to redistribute wealth from the Middle Class to the Rich. Robin Hood in reverse...and it worked. The US has one of its greatest disparities in history between the wealthy elites and the rest of Americans.
Do you know the last time we saw this kind of disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us? The Great Depression. Oh, yeah. But that could never happen today... [insert laugh track]
How does this happen? Let's look.
The top 1% of Richest Americans owns over 50% of all Capital Income. And under Bush, Capital Gains are taxed at a rate of 15%.
15%.
That means over 50% of this capital wealth in the hands of the Top 1% of Americans is taxed at a lower rate than you and I pay.
And families that earn more than $1 Million a year? In the real world, they saw their federal taxes decrease under Bush. Or DECREASE if you prefer ALL CAPS. :)
Their real-world tax rate after accounting for deductions, capital gains, etc (things you and I don't get) means they pay taxes at a rate of about 20%.
20%.
You and I pay a higher tax rate than that.
So how is the "aggregate" amount of taxes rising? You hit it, loqi. The only reason the rich are paying out a greater aggregate of tax dollars is because they're receiving a greater aggregate of dollars - as in more than they've ever made. But their percentage of taxes paid hasn't risen in line with their percent increase in income/wealth.
You have to look at taxes as a percentage of income/wealth and not as a gross aggregate. Otherwise folks with any background in economics/finance/Google won't take you seriously. Then you'll call 'em "liberal elites" and ignore facts. And nobody shares information and Americans stay divided.
As a closer? Taxes are a bullsh!t smokescreen for the punters.
Yep. This is bullsh!t.
We're a punch of pawns quibbling about nothing that largely doesn't even effect us.
We're not addressing the underlying cause of our money woes which is that both the GOP and Dems are spending far too much of our money without having the economic infrastructure to pay for it. And they're paying their cronies in private corporations with no accountability.
We need to reduce our spending, assist creation of new regional jobs for Americans, and support the development of new technologies for export to reduce our trade deficit. Right now, we're just spending on the credit card...
And it's time to build alternative energy and reduce dependence on the Middle East. We need to stop no-bid Socialist giveaways of our hard-earned tax dollars to Haliburton, Blackwatever, etc. We need to get lean and mean and pay as we go.
Remember this philosophy, so-called Republicans? Remember when you could call yourself a small-government Republican and look yourself in the mirror?
We can do it and work together. Or we can just flail around about how much millionaires pay in taxes...
Bush's tax cuts increased the incomes of the top 1% of Americans by 10%. (p.s. we didn't see this same increase - like, at all) Bush's "tax cuts" were merely a method to redistribute wealth from the Middle Class to the Rich. Robin Hood in reverse...and it worked. The US has one of its greatest disparities in history between the wealthy elites and the rest of Americans.
Do you know the last time we saw this kind of disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us? The Great Depression. Oh, yeah. But that could never happen today... [insert laugh track]
How does this happen? Let's look.
The top 1% of Richest Americans owns over 50% of all Capital Income. And under Bush, Capital Gains are taxed at a rate of 15%.
15%.
That means over 50% of this capital wealth in the hands of the Top 1% of Americans is taxed at a lower rate than you and I pay.
And families that earn more than $1 Million a year? In the real world, they saw their federal taxes decrease under Bush. Or DECREASE if you prefer ALL CAPS. :)
Their real-world tax rate after accounting for deductions, capital gains, etc (things you and I don't get) means they pay taxes at a rate of about 20%.
20%.
You and I pay a higher tax rate than that.
So how is the "aggregate" amount of taxes rising? You hit it, loqi. The only reason the rich are paying out a greater aggregate of tax dollars is because they're receiving a greater aggregate of dollars - as in more than they've ever made. But their percentage of taxes paid hasn't risen in line with their percent increase in income/wealth.
You have to look at taxes as a percentage of income/wealth and not as a gross aggregate. Otherwise folks with any background in economics/finance/Google won't take you seriously. Then you'll call 'em "liberal elites" and ignore facts. And nobody shares information and Americans stay divided.
As a closer? Taxes are a bullsh!t smokescreen for the punters.
Yep. This is bullsh!t.
We're a punch of pawns quibbling about nothing that largely doesn't even effect us.
We're not addressing the underlying cause of our money woes which is that both the GOP and Dems are spending far too much of our money without having the economic infrastructure to pay for it. And they're paying their cronies in private corporations with no accountability.
We need to reduce our spending, assist creation of new regional jobs for Americans, and support the development of new technologies for export to reduce our trade deficit. Right now, we're just spending on the credit card...
And it's time to build alternative energy and reduce dependence on the Middle East. We need to stop no-bid Socialist giveaways of our hard-earned tax dollars to Haliburton, Blackwatever, etc. We need to get lean and mean and pay as we go.
Remember this philosophy, so-called Republicans? Remember when you could call yourself a small-government Republican and look yourself in the mirror?
We can do it and work together. Or we can just flail around about how much millionaires pay in taxes...
Re: Joe the Plumber
"You have to look at taxes as a percentage of income/wealth and not as a gross aggregate."
Then it means that you are more concerned about how much wealth rich individuals get to keep than the actual plight of the poor. When capital gains taxes go up, the total revenue from that tax goes down. Raising that tax is like reaching into someone's portfolio (anyone who has one, not just rich people) and simply burning the money. You don't get any more revenue to spend on social programs or to give to poor people as EITC checks. But you have punished the rich. At least you admit that it is more important to you.
By this logic, as long as the gap between the rich and poor is reduced, then its OK for the poor to maintain their level poverty with no end in sight. If the consequence of upward mobility for the poor is that rich people get richer too, then it is better for the government to step in and stop it altogether.
Then it means that you are more concerned about how much wealth rich individuals get to keep than the actual plight of the poor. When capital gains taxes go up, the total revenue from that tax goes down. Raising that tax is like reaching into someone's portfolio (anyone who has one, not just rich people) and simply burning the money. You don't get any more revenue to spend on social programs or to give to poor people as EITC checks. But you have punished the rich. At least you admit that it is more important to you.
By this logic, as long as the gap between the rich and poor is reduced, then its OK for the poor to maintain their level poverty with no end in sight. If the consequence of upward mobility for the poor is that rich people get richer too, then it is better for the government to step in and stop it altogether.
By: poonhound
Re: Joe the Plumber
Wow, so I guess reducing the capital gains tax rate below zero would cause tax revenues to be even higher than if we had no capital gains taxes at all. Plus it would have the added benefit of widening the gap between rich and poor, causing poor people to have an end to their poverty in sight.
Too bad giving away tax rebates is immoral. Otherwise, we could solve all our problems by giving ever-bigger tax rebates to capital gains winners.
Too bad giving away tax rebates is immoral. Otherwise, we could solve all our problems by giving ever-bigger tax rebates to capital gains winners.
Re: Joe the Plumber
I suppose we should raise the capital gains tax to 100% and expect all af that revenue to pour in, since so many people would be encouraged to invest with zero prospects of a return.
When the capital gains tax was reduced from 28 to 15% revenues went up. Even Barack Obama acknowledges this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8
But like you, he would rather use the capital gains tax to take money out of the hands of the wealthy and essentially burn it, in the name of "fairness."
Tax rebates to individuals who have not paid any taxes are not "cuts," they are welfare checks, which are immoral if the recipient is an able-bodied adult.
When the capital gains tax was reduced from 28 to 15% revenues went up. Even Barack Obama acknowledges this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8
But like you, he would rather use the capital gains tax to take money out of the hands of the wealthy and essentially burn it, in the name of "fairness."
Tax rebates to individuals who have not paid any taxes are not "cuts," they are welfare checks, which are immoral if the recipient is an able-bodied adult.
By: poonhound
Re: Joe the Plumber
Okay, now this is fascinating. Reducing the capital gains tax causes the capital gains tax revenues to fall, so your conclusion is what? It sounds like you're implying that it means falling revenues from capital gains tax somehow causes poor people to be worse off.
Okay, so here are the two principal reasons why the CG taxes fall when the CG tax increase. The 15% capital gains tax rate applies to the rise in value on "investments" that are held for at least one year. Investments held for less than one year are taxed at the regular progressive income rate. So when there's less of a difference between the two rates, there's less incentive to hold on to "investments" until the 365th day of ownership. Second, when U.S. tax rates rise, "investors" look elsewhere to gamble. At no CG rate do we see assets going unowned by somebody -- it's just that the ownership of all the stuff shifts down the income scale. (Which is to say, more people own stuff, and the prices are closer to the values.) And when the CG revenues drop, revenues from other sources (i.e. regular income tax revenues) rise by at least the same amount.
In an alternate universe, where CG taxes are the only taxes in existence, then yes, raising the CG rate would decrease tax revenues. Of course in this universe, we can always hand out money to poor people from the same source we get it for rich people's handouts: from the poor people in the rest of the world, and from our own children.
Frankly, I'd rather have almost no short-term gambling on asset values. If you want gambling, go to the track.
Okay, so here are the two principal reasons why the CG taxes fall when the CG tax increase. The 15% capital gains tax rate applies to the rise in value on "investments" that are held for at least one year. Investments held for less than one year are taxed at the regular progressive income rate. So when there's less of a difference between the two rates, there's less incentive to hold on to "investments" until the 365th day of ownership. Second, when U.S. tax rates rise, "investors" look elsewhere to gamble. At no CG rate do we see assets going unowned by somebody -- it's just that the ownership of all the stuff shifts down the income scale. (Which is to say, more people own stuff, and the prices are closer to the values.) And when the CG revenues drop, revenues from other sources (i.e. regular income tax revenues) rise by at least the same amount.
In an alternate universe, where CG taxes are the only taxes in existence, then yes, raising the CG rate would decrease tax revenues. Of course in this universe, we can always hand out money to poor people from the same source we get it for rich people's handouts: from the poor people in the rest of the world, and from our own children.
Frankly, I'd rather have almost no short-term gambling on asset values. If you want gambling, go to the track.
Re: Joe the Plumber
...
Wow.
Um, yeah... You know, you're totally right. That's exactly why economists use percentages to equate this type of financial analysis between varying groups of disparate levels of wealth.
They don't use equalizing analysis to compare apples to apples. No, no...that'd be crazy talk.
It's because they..."are more concerned about how much wealth rich individuals get to keep than the actual plight of the poor."
(Shrugs) Dude, it seriously gives me no pleasure to see this kind of prideful ignorance in support of a complete lack of understanding. This is "mission accomplished" stuff.
And I know you'll think it's "liberal bias" or whatever, but I honestly wish I could find a nugget or anything to respond in some way. I've actually liked some of your other posts and have commented so. But frankly, I'm not even sure what you're ranting about with social programs to poor people and EITC checks? Were these preprogrammed talk radio partisan answers to a question someone else asked you? Or maybe you need to explain some more? Who was talking about social programs with our taxes? You, um, do know that the majority of our budget goes to the military and private military industries - often via Socialist no-bid contracts outside the free market?
Plus you did read the stuff above, yeah?
Where, after the equalized tax data, it says taxes are just a smokescreen for the punters to get worked up about and take their eyes off the cause of taxes: spending.
And how it seems pathetic for us to argue amongst ourselves about how the rich millionaires pay their taxes?
When instead we could all come together in a unified, non-partisan manner to demand both the GOP and the Dems spend less of our hard-earned tax dollars on their Corporate Bailouts, Corporate Socialism, and Corporate Cronyism.
(Ya did read it, right?)
And I didn't mention it above because it was too long already (I'm so freakin' long-winded :), but taxes are also a smokescreen so we don't keep our eye on the massive amount of debt that the US assumes from nations like China. We spend like drunken sailors and don't even tax enough to pay our bills. Communist China now has over $1 Trillion of our Dollars in Debt - and it's growing at an alarming rate every day. So...keep taxes low on millionaires and get further in debt to China? Sounding good to you?
Oh ho ho...but let's talk about how a guy making $270K will pay an additional $600 dollars a year in taxes...
(Shakes head)
And as an aside, if we're going to spend my hard-earned tax dollars on a Wall Street Bailout or to buy private banks, I want a return on my investment - or let's shut it down.
Well anyway, if you want to take a moment, look at a little finance, maybe compose a third go-'round, I'm game. Whatever's cool.
Wow.
Um, yeah... You know, you're totally right. That's exactly why economists use percentages to equate this type of financial analysis between varying groups of disparate levels of wealth.
They don't use equalizing analysis to compare apples to apples. No, no...that'd be crazy talk.
It's because they..."are more concerned about how much wealth rich individuals get to keep than the actual plight of the poor."
(Shrugs) Dude, it seriously gives me no pleasure to see this kind of prideful ignorance in support of a complete lack of understanding. This is "mission accomplished" stuff.
And I know you'll think it's "liberal bias" or whatever, but I honestly wish I could find a nugget or anything to respond in some way. I've actually liked some of your other posts and have commented so. But frankly, I'm not even sure what you're ranting about with social programs to poor people and EITC checks? Were these preprogrammed talk radio partisan answers to a question someone else asked you? Or maybe you need to explain some more? Who was talking about social programs with our taxes? You, um, do know that the majority of our budget goes to the military and private military industries - often via Socialist no-bid contracts outside the free market?
Plus you did read the stuff above, yeah?
Where, after the equalized tax data, it says taxes are just a smokescreen for the punters to get worked up about and take their eyes off the cause of taxes: spending.
And how it seems pathetic for us to argue amongst ourselves about how the rich millionaires pay their taxes?
When instead we could all come together in a unified, non-partisan manner to demand both the GOP and the Dems spend less of our hard-earned tax dollars on their Corporate Bailouts, Corporate Socialism, and Corporate Cronyism.
(Ya did read it, right?)
And I didn't mention it above because it was too long already (I'm so freakin' long-winded :), but taxes are also a smokescreen so we don't keep our eye on the massive amount of debt that the US assumes from nations like China. We spend like drunken sailors and don't even tax enough to pay our bills. Communist China now has over $1 Trillion of our Dollars in Debt - and it's growing at an alarming rate every day. So...keep taxes low on millionaires and get further in debt to China? Sounding good to you?
Oh ho ho...but let's talk about how a guy making $270K will pay an additional $600 dollars a year in taxes...
(Shakes head)
And as an aside, if we're going to spend my hard-earned tax dollars on a Wall Street Bailout or to buy private banks, I want a return on my investment - or let's shut it down.
Well anyway, if you want to take a moment, look at a little finance, maybe compose a third go-'round, I'm game. Whatever's cool.
Re: Joe the Plumber
""Oh ho ho...but let's talk about how a guy making $270K will pay an additional $600 dollars a year in taxes...""
Ok, assuming I make less money then you do because I am a red-neck inbred retard republican, How much of your money are you willing to give to me, simply because I have not earned as much as you?
50 bucks? 100? If he pays 600$ from 270K, if you make 40K that would be $89 to me, thats fair right?
Do you really need that nice computer you are typing on? Come on, you are a have and I am a have not. How much money do you think is fair for the government to take from you by force under threat of imprisonment in order for them to give a cash payment to me?
Ok, assuming I make less money then you do because I am a red-neck inbred retard republican, How much of your money are you willing to give to me, simply because I have not earned as much as you?
50 bucks? 100? If he pays 600$ from 270K, if you make 40K that would be $89 to me, thats fair right?
Do you really need that nice computer you are typing on? Come on, you are a have and I am a have not. How much money do you think is fair for the government to take from you by force under threat of imprisonment in order for them to give a cash payment to me?
By: poonhound
Re: Joe the Plumber
$270,000-$250,000=$20,000
39%-36%=3%
$20,000*0.03=$600
$600/$270000=0.22%
Goddamn communist liberals,
they're gonna completely ruin the economy.
39%-36%=3%
$20,000*0.03=$600
$600/$270000=0.22%
Goddamn communist liberals,
they're gonna completely ruin the economy.
By: deiviant
Re: Joe the Plumber
How dare you, sir. We need to protect that rich person's $600.
Just because that rich person makes $270K/year (or, 6 times the median income of Americans), we should defend that rich person's $600 to the death.
Or at least defend it with 24/7 news coverage of Joe the Plumber and over 20+ mentions during the final Presidential Debate. (Yep, let's focus on these real issues that impact the average American...)
Just because that rich person makes $270K/year (or, 6 times the median income of Americans), we should defend that rich person's $600 to the death.
Or at least defend it with 24/7 news coverage of Joe the Plumber and over 20+ mentions during the final Presidential Debate. (Yep, let's focus on these real issues that impact the average American...)
Re: Joe the Plumber
fact is after he pay his employees... his income won't be anywhere near 250
By: jetblac
Re: Joe the Plumber
You all do realize that Obama went to Joe's house, taxes come out BEFORE you pay your employees, and who gives a CRAP if he's not licensed. Guess what I'm not certified in any of the jobs I do either, yet I'm sure I rake in about as much as everyone in this thread combined.
By: faxis2k
Re: Joe the Plumber
Plus on top of all of that, OBAMA (not joe) said he wanted to 'Spread the wealth around'. This means he wants to take from some people (who worked for it) and give to others (who did not). That IS socialism. If you can't see it (or don't care) then you deserve the result.
By: faxis2k
Re: Joe the Plumber
Wow. Did you just say, "he wants to take from some people (who worked for it) and give to others (who did not). That IS socialism."
Um. You are talking about Bush and the Fed and the $700 Billion Dollar Wall Street Bailout using our Tax Dollars, yes? :)
"If you can't see it (or don't care) then you deserve the result."
Well put, sir. Well put.
Um. You are talking about Bush and the Fed and the $700 Billion Dollar Wall Street Bailout using our Tax Dollars, yes? :)
"If you can't see it (or don't care) then you deserve the result."
Well put, sir. Well put.
Re: Joe the Plumber
This may come as a shock, but I don't support that stupid bailout. I think they should have let whoever made bad loans get what they deserve.
By: faxis2k
Re: Joe the Plumber
So your answer to people under the poverty line struggling to make ends meat to feed their families (which can't afford health care) is to work harder? I mean, clearly, they're not getting money because they're not working for it.
You're a genius.
You're a genius.
By: Faffy
Re: Joe the Plumber
Yes. That is my answer, get a job. If you're not making enough to support your family, get a divorce, or work harder. That's not my problem. I've been under the poverty line myself, and guess what, I worked hard and am in the position I am now because of it. Do you think people who make a lot of money just wake up one day with a check in their mailbox? Get a clue.
By: faxis2k
Re: Joe the Plumber
Also, you show me someone who can't afford to feed their family and I'll show you squandered resources.
By: faxis2k
Re: Joe the Plumber
You live in a bubble. You have absolutely no idea what the real world is like for many people.
My friend is a teacher at an inner city school, where the graduation rate is around 55%. Why do the kids drop out? Usually, it's not because they get poor grades. Oftentimes, they just can't afford to not get a job.
My friend is a teacher at an inner city school, where the graduation rate is around 55%. Why do the kids drop out? Usually, it's not because they get poor grades. Oftentimes, they just can't afford to not get a job.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Joe the Plumber
What is the result? Are we all going to become faggots, too? Jesus, I'm terrified. Maybe they'll have a pill for the result when I get some goddamned health care.
