Joe The Plumber vs Joe Six Pack

[The Ugly Thief]

one of my co-workers is now the proud owner of www.joe-the-plumber.net

:D

v

[Slar]

Gotta go with Joe Six Pack. Maybe he'll offer me a beer.

[dannyboy]

Modern civilization could not exist without plumbing.

[euro60]

Surprised it took this long for someone to post this rather obvious (but clearly very necessary) poll :p

[drougan]

Gotta go with Joe Six Pack. Maybe he'll offer me a beer.

Cannot disagree with this logic..... :cool:

[WalterSobchak]

This poll needs another option:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/blogs/media/joecool.jpg

[C. Doves]

I will also go with Joe Sixpack. After all, he has beer, and beer makes things fun.

OTOH, after all that beer, we will be in sad shape without plumbing.

Oh well, there's always the ground out behind the shed. :D

[Sovrana]

This poll needs another option:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/blogs/media/joecool.jpg

With Obama at the top of a ticket, this option would be redundant. :cool:

[Measure Up!]

I prefer Joe Mama myself.

[Sovrana]

Just realized with the introduction of Joe The Plumber, Palin has effectively been removed from the campaign. At least for now, both have running mates named Joe now.

[Unrequited]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp

"Turns out that “Joe the Plumber,” as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber. His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes a bit in back taxes.

The premise of his question to Mr. Obama about taxes may also be flawed, according to tax analysts.


An official at Local 50 of the plumber’s union, based in Toledo, said Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a license. He also has never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union. (The national plumber’s union, the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics, endorsed Mr. Obama, it should be noted.)

“He’s basically playing games with the world,” Thomas Joseph, the local’s business manager, said in a telephone interview Thursday morning."

[euro60]

I prefer Joe Mama myself.

Speak for yourself. I prefer this Joe:

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Joe-Montana---21-Photograph-C12188502.jpeg

[frizgolf]

http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/lg/1/3/Retro-Series-Cup-pa-Joe-Best-in-Town-134434.jpg

[slmpickens]

This poll needs another option:

how about joe cabernet sauvignon (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_clinches_joe_cabernet)?

[Arkansas]

I'm going with.........

http://www.netplugged.com/photos/clash_joe_strummer.jpg

[silentpaul]

Back when I started smoking this was the Joe for me:

http://www.mygtv.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/joecamel.jpg

[drougan]

I will also go with Joe Sixpack. After all, he has beer, and beer makes things fun.

OTOH, after all that beer, we will be in sad shape without plumbing.

Oh well, there's always the ground out behind the shed. :D

Now now...lets be clear, this is not a referendum on plumbing itself, but those fellows with the infamous display of their bodily contours.

Rigging up some servicable plumbing is probably an easier task than brewing your own beer.

[Yale Delay]

Which one is a maverick?

[Duemellon]

I'm going to go for Joebama

[Arkansas]

Which one is a maverick?

I think Joe Strummer was pretty mavericky in the pop world. So, if it's true that more people watch American Idol than vote, then wouldn't that make a pop music maverick more relevant than this plumber or beer drinker that these politicians keep referencing?

http://www.netplugged.com/photos/clash_joe_strummer.jpg

[Fourthisto]

Still, the plumber wouldn't say who he was voting for and brushed off a question about whether he could influence the election or other voters.

"I don't have a lot of pull. It's not like I'm Matt Damon," Wurzelbacher said.From Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber&printer=1;_ylt=An_WiwVJITobUYrFLqWPF7Zh24cA)

Man, I'm liking this guy more and more. Can you say "Cabinet Position"? :cool:

[dannyboy]

As to Lucas County licensing requirements and codes (which are pretty typical for most local municipalities in Ohio)...

http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/br/BuildingCode.pdf

SECTION 111 - PERMITS
111.1 When Required. It shall be unlawful to commence construction, enlargement, alteration, repair- other than ordinary repairs, removal or demolition of a building or structure, or the installation of any electrical, plumbing, heating, refrigeration, and air conditioning equipment without first filing with the Building Official an application in writing and obtaining a formal permit therefor.
111.2 When Not Required. No permit will be required for the following work:
1. Ordinary repairs are non structural repairs and do not include addition to,
alteration of, or replacement or relocation of water supply, sewer, drainage,
drain leader, gas, soil, waste, vent or similar piping, electrical wiring, or
mechanical or other work for which a permit is required by the building
official.
2. The construction of a detached residential structure 200 square feet or less.


If he's just doing straight repair work, no permit and thus no inspection is required.

SECTION 117 – REGISTRATION OF SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS.
117.1 General. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to display a sign stating or implying that he, she, they or it are Electrical, Heating and Air Conditioning, Plumbing, Refrigeration or Hydronics Contractors, or to advertise by means of business cards, stationary, advertisement or trade or telephone listing or otherwise indicate or represent, orally or in writing that he, she, they or it are in the Electrical, Heating and Air Conditioning, Plumbing, Refrigeration or Hydronics business or trade, unless he, she, they or it first register with the Building Regulations Department as provided by this
Section.

117.2 Subcontract. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a general contractor not registered as herein provided from bidding upon or soliciting Electrical, Heating and Air Conditioning, Plumbing, Refrigeration or Hydronics work in connection with the construction, remodeling, alteration or repair of a building or premises; provided however, all such work is done by or under the supervision or direction of a person registered to do such work as provided by this Section.

If he is working as an employee of a particular plumbing business, as an employee he is technically considered a subcontractor and thus not required to be licensed.

[akip]

joe the bullshitter (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp)

;)

[The Ugly Thief]

From Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber&printer=1;_ylt=An_WiwVJITobUYrFLqWPF7Zh24cA)

Man, I'm liking this guy more and more. Can you say "Cabinet Position"? :cool:

where did he come up with "Matt Damon" ? I didn't realize people thought of Matt Damon as being somebody who was so influential in D.C.

v

[Fourthisto]

where did he come up with "Matt Damon" ? I didn't realize people thought of Matt Damon as being somebody who was so influential in D.C.Exactly, that's what makes it so hilarious. Like he's a bigtime political mover and shaker.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/Fourthisto/matt_damon.jpg

[BigSugar]

I guess none of you disciples found this comment the least unnerving:

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

I personally find that statement gratifying.

Sincerely,
K. Marx

[drougan]

I guess none of you disciples found this comment the least unnerving:



Actually I did find it unnerving. Mostly in that it was a stupid response to a stupid question.

Then again, it's not exacly like this sentiment is anything new within the democratic/liberal philosophy.

[berzerker]

From Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber&printer=1;_ylt=An_WiwVJITobUYrFLqWPF7Zh24cA)

Man, I'm liking this guy more and more. Can you say "Cabinet Position"? :cool:

He's ALREADY got a cabinet position... a kitchen cabinet position.

http://images.inmagine.com/img/juiceimages/juis005/juis005026.jpg

[Lonestar]

Joe the plumber is a real guy from Ohio, but who the hell is Joe sixpack? Is it some representation of average joe's who drink a 6-pack a day?

[jcarwash31]

I guess none of you disciples found this comment the least unnerving:

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

I personally find that statement gratifying.

Sincerely,
K. Marx

Actually I did find it unnerving. Mostly in that it was a stupid response to a stupid question.

Then again, it's not exacly like this sentiment is anything new within the democratic/liberal philosophy.
Did anyone actually watch the video of Obama talking to this guy? He spends about 5 minutes answering this guy's question, describing the changes under his tax plan. Instead, the focus has become 1 sentence he said about 4 and a half minutes into his response. He wasn't exactly describing a socialist or communist state under his plan. :rolleyes:


He went on, “You know, I’ve always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question,” he said, “for once instead of tap dancing around it, and unfortunately I asked the question, but I still got a tap dance.”

He added, “Almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr.”


There's nothing like a direct answer to tap dance around a question, Joe.

[Lonestar]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/ckuempel/6pack.jpg

[ICONOCLAST420]

http://forums.the-dispatch.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/7221013217/inlineimg/Y/joedirt2ay.jpg


“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

It's just that the government has to collect the wealth before they can spread it.

[Yale Delay]

Joe the plumber is a real guy from Ohio, but who the hell is Joe sixpack? Is it some representation of average joe's who drink a 6-pack a day?



I can be Joe Six Pack, I am from Milwaukee.

[berzerker]

It's hilarious - or disgusting, depending on one's perspective - how this whole thing completely encapsulates the American political process:

1) Guy asks candidate a question.

2) Candidate answers question as best he can.

3) Opposing candidate pulls phrase out of context to turn into a damaging talking point.

4) Candidates acolytes trash the guy who asks the question as a moronic shitstirrer who's not even a 'real' plumber because he doesn't have a license.


The focus shifts away from an uninformed voter asking a direct question to slapping a condescending everyman moniker on a guy whose name they're all too lazy to learn to even pronounce let alone give a shit about what he was concerned about to digging through his skeleton closet for dirt to discredit him- all in 48 hours.

17 days and the circus can shutter for another 4 years. Please.

Certain people salivate when they hear those out of context soundbites - that way they can climb on their soapboxes, and display their pony who knows just the one trick... and some other people listen to them.

[Lonestar]

Anyone think 'Ol Joe was planted there by the McCain campaign??

[markalot]

Anyone think 'Ol Joe was planted there by the McCain campaign??

If he was it's a pretty bad plant, considering he's not a licensed plumber and he owes back taxes. I bet they discover there's no way in hell he can buy the company.

Wait, sorry, they already have.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27221645/

[juggles]

If he was it's a pretty bad plant, considering he's not a licensed plumber and he owes back taxes. I bet they discover there's no way in hell he can buy the company.

And it would be completely unlike the McCain campaign to thrust somebody into the national spotlight without properly vetting them first.

[Lonestar]

When you break the story down, it's really ridiculous. Joe says he's worried about buying that company because if Obama gets elected he'll pay higher taxes.. If he makes over 250k a year his taxes would go from 36% to 39%.. So, Joe's options are to continue being an unlicensed plumber making 40k or buy your own company and (if you're lucky) make over 250k and pay 3% higher taxes.. hmmm.. I wonder what sounds better..

[Duemellon]

In the debate, the poll said Obama won heavily in the eyes of the independents.

In the aftermath, with almost a week spent (still to come) on Joe, the plummer, it's a win for McCain.

[jps]

And it would be completely unlike the McCain campaign to thrust somebody into the national spotlight without properly vetting them first.

oh wait... oops... that's fantastic stuff right there.

[justa bill]

i thought it was joe vs. teh volcano?

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/38/MPW-19232

[classicgrrl]

When you break the story down, it's really ridiculous. Joe says he's worried about buying that company because if Obama gets elected he'll pay higher taxes.. If he makes over 250k a year his taxes would go from 36% to 39%.. So, Joe's options are to continue being an unlicensed plumber making 40k or buy your own company and (if you're lucky) make over 250k and pay 3% higher taxes.. hmmm.. I wonder what sounds better..

he owes back taxes. um...and yes he does need a license. so says the county that his company operates in....who are also not licensed.

oopsy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber

HOLLAND, Ohio – Joe the Plumber said Thursday he doesn't have a license and doesn't need one. Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, the nickname Republican John McCain bestowed on him during Wednesday's presidential debate, said he works for a small plumbing company that does residential work. Because he works for someone else, he doesn't need a license, he said.

But the county Wurzelbacher and his employer live in, Lucas County, requires plumbers to have licenses. Neither Wurzelbacher nor his employer are licensed there, said Cheryl Schimming of Lucas County Building Regulations, which handles plumber licenses in parts of the county outside Toledo.

Wurzelbacher, who voted in the Republican primary and indicated he backed McCain, was cited by the GOP presidential candidate as an example of someone who wants to buy a plumbing business but would be hurt by Democrat Barack Obama's tax plans. Wurzelbacher said he was surprised that his name was mentioned so many other times.

"That bothered me. I wished that they had talked more about issues

[Sushi]

When you break the story down, it's really ridiculous. Joe says he's worried about buying that company because if Obama gets elected he'll pay higher taxes.. If he makes over 250k a year his taxes would go from 36% to 39%.. So, Joe's options are to continue being an unlicensed plumber making 40k or buy your own company and (if you're lucky) make over 250k and pay 3% higher taxes.. hmmm.. I wonder what sounds better..
It was a ridiculous question to begin with. If Joe is too stupid to realize that a business that does $250,000 a year does not equate to the owner of that business earning $250,000 a year, then I don't want him messing around with my plumbing.

[the happy prole]

um...and yes he does need a license. so says the county that his company operates in....who are also not licensed.

Yeah, but see I would flip that around and argue that licensing requirements are stupid in the first place.

The requirement of a license is why plumbers charge $100 an hour for the simplest of tasks, and still suck at it. And why people wade through unbelievable amounts of bureaucratic BS and have remodeling jobs or construction projects delayed for months waiting for some lazy asshat inspector to get off his/her ass and certify that yes, it was okay to replace this crappy corroded copper pipe with a much better PVC pipe.

Beyond that, it's a silly game of attacking the messenger. So what if fake Joe Plumber doesn't actually own a $250k/year business? He's a poor spokesman for the problem, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
Many people making $280k a year would in fact be taxed higher under Obama's plan. And while I'm perfectly fine with the minor additional tax burden, I'm not going to deny it exists.

TBF, Obama didn't deny it either. I think he gave a pretty straight-up and detailed answer to the guy, but dude didn't want to hear it. And McCain was still stupid for using the guy as an example without checking him out first. Especially if it turns out that he is in fact a close relative of someone convicted in the Keating 5 scandal in addition to the tax dodge.

[The Ugly Thief]

If he was it's a pretty bad plant, considering he's not a licensed plumber and he owes back taxes.

hey, they did a bad job vetting Palin. They could also do a bad job vetting their Ultra Secret Shit-stirring Campaign Plant.

v

[The Ugly Thief]

i'm surprised nobody has mentioned this Joe :


http://fitsnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/joe-biden.jpg

v

[the happy prole]

I doubt it's a plant by the GOP. It would require an impressive amount of strategy and foresight... and if you were that good, you wouldn't be dumb enough to put a non-plumber and tax dodge on the front lines.

But I also doubt that "Joe Plumber" simply happened to be outside playing catch with his son, and had no ulterior motive at all other than just seeing Obama and wanting to ask a perfectly innocent question that he'd been curious about.

[dannyboy]

he owes back taxes. um...and yes he does need a license. so says the county that his company operates in....who are also not licensed.

oopsy.



Did you not see my earlier post in this thread? According to the actual Lucas County, Ohio code and not hearsay in a news story, he does not need to be licensed as a plumber if he is working as an employee of a plumbing company.

It's the same reason I didn't need to have a license when I was a HVAC service technician. The company that employed me had one or more licensed technicians that were in supervisory positions.

[the happy prole]

I read the Code samples you posted. Section 111 pertains to when a permit is needed from the city for repairs/remodeling/construction jobs. It's for when a guy like me, as a non-plumber wants to get some new pipes. I have to apply for a permit, the city has to come and inspect it. I'm not doing any of the work myself. Thus, it has nothing to do with professional licensure.

Section 117.1 states "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to... represent, orally or in writing that he, she, they or it are in the Electrical, Heating and Air Conditioning, Plumbing, Refrigeration or Hydronics business or trade, unless he, she, they or it first register with the Building Regulations Department as provided by this Section."

Joe Plumber orally represented that he was a plumber. Otherwise, he'd still be Joe Sixpack. Do I care? Not really. But that's the way the law reads.

[Duemellon]

i'm surprised nobody has mentioned this Joe :
http://fitsnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/joe-biden.jpg
vI'm going to go for JoebamaI guess you just missed it.

[dannyboy]

I read the Code samples you posted. Section 111 pertains to when a permit is needed from the city for repairs/remodeling/construction jobs. It's for when a guy like me, as a non-plumber wants to get some new pipes. I have to apply for a permit, the city has to come and inspect it. I'm not doing any of the work myself. Thus, it has nothing to do with professional licensure.

Section 117.1 states "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to... represent, orally or in writing that he, she, they or it are in the Electrical, Heating and Air Conditioning, Plumbing, Refrigeration or Hydronics business or trade, unless he, she, they or it first register with the Building Regulations Department as provided by this Section."

Joe Plumber orally represented that he was a plumber. Otherwise, he'd still be Joe Sixpack. Do I care? Not really. But that's the way the law reads.

I repaired furnaces and air conditioners in the state of Ohio too. I referred to myself as a HVAC service technician. I was not licensed.

The plumber that we use where I work is licensed. The two guys that work for him are not. They make plumbing repairs. Are they not plumbers?

Section 117.2 covers this and most local codes concerning the licensing of trades are very similarly written throughout the state of Ohio. Also, one of the requirements for a license is a minimum of 5 years working experience in that field as an apprentice.

All it means to be licensed is that you may legally be allowed to be a contractor, and thus enter into contracts to perform work in that trade with paying customers. If you are an employee of a company in that trade, the company is entering into those contracts and not you individually. Where it would be illegal is if an unlicensed plumber picked up work to do on the side, outside of the work that was contracted by his/her employer.

There are both union and non-union shops. It sounds like Joe's is non-union. I wouldn't expect a plumbing union to have very nice things to say about a non-union shop and it's employees.

[shaggyscotsman]

Check out todays Tee-Fury shirt!:D

http://www.teefury.com/

[UbiquitousBaby]

Just a couple things that I want to mention

I guess none of you disciples found this comment the least unnerving:

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

I personally find that statement gratifying.

Sincerely,
K. Marx

Actually I did find it unnerving. Mostly in that it was a stupid response to a stupid question.

Then again, it's not exacly like this sentiment is anything new within the democratic/liberal philosophy.

Why is this statement supposed to be unnerving? Everyone agrees that we need to redistribute wealth through the tax code. It's what Obama's plan does, it's what McCain's plan does, it's what our current system does. The arguments are generally over the degree and levels of redistribution. Unless you are a flat-tax proponent, I don't think that you can really see anything wrong with that statement.

When you break the story down, it's really ridiculous. Joe says he's worried about buying that company because if Obama gets elected he'll pay higher taxes.. If he makes over 250k a year his taxes would go from 36% to 39%.. So, Joe's options are to continue being an unlicensed plumber making 40k or buy your own company and (if you're lucky) make over 250k and pay 3% higher taxes.. hmmm.. I wonder what sounds better..

It was a ridiculous question to begin with. If Joe is too stupid to realize that a business that does $250,000 a year does not equate to the owner of that business earning $250,000 a year, then I don't want him messing around with my plumbing.

Additionally it is important to mention that it would be the marginal tax rate that increases 3%. Which means that it's only income over 250k that is taxed at the extra 3%. I read somewhere that Joe thought his income would be 270k after he buys the business. If this is the case [assuming this is somehow his personal net business income], he still pays 36% on the first $250,000 that he makes, but pays 39% on the extra $20,000. So his tax increase would be 3% * $20,000 = $600.

Call me crazy, but I can't get too concerned about somebody that makes over a quarter million dollars paying an extra $600 in taxes.



One of the best responses I've heard about this was on CNN International where a viewer from India sent in a comment that was essentially "Plumbers in America make a quarter million dollars a year?"

[frizgolf]

It's just that the government has to collect the wealth before they can skim off their cut and spread what little is left of it.

Fixed.

So now we're down to pretty much who's gonna be better trusted to skim the take before it trickles down to the small guy.
Reaganomics were bad, right? Look at the financial crisis. Bad, old Capitalism caused all this mess we're in.
Now I'm supposed to trust the government to spread that money around instead?
Gimme greedy corporate bastards any day. At least Wall Street slaps 'em around when they fuck up.
We gotta wait to elect a new government.

[akip]

Additionally it is important to mention that it would be the marginal tax rate that increases 3%. Which means that it's only income over 250k that is taxed at the extra 3%. I read somewhere that Joe thought his income would be 270k after he buys the business. If this is the case [assuming this is somehow his personal net business income], he still pays 36% on the first $250,000 that he makes, but pays 39% on the extra $20,000. So his tax increase would be 3% * $20,000 = $600.

Call me crazy, but I can't get too concerned about somebody that makes over a quarter million dollars paying an extra $600 in taxes.


do you ever feel like you're making this perfectly reasonable point, but you're constantly being drowned out by a hysterical, screaming mob? ;)

[drougan]

Why is this statement supposed to be unnerving? Everyone agrees that we need to redistribute wealth through the tax code. It's what Obama's plan does, it's what McCain's plan does, it's what our current system does. The arguments are generally over the degree and levels of redistribution. Unless you are a flat-tax proponent, I don't think that you can really see anything wrong with that statement.

I find it unnerving that that was his answer (in my understanding at the time, I haven't seen the video). When his answer should have been "Well, if your business is bringing in a quarter million per year, I'm going to assume you're not going to have over 250k in household income. So you shouldn't see an increase. In fact your personal income taxes should go down. See my tax plan online at yadda yadda yadda.com"

Justifying a progressive tax system wasn't part of the deal, to my understanding.

[berzerker]

It was a ridiculous question to begin with. If Joe is too stupid to realize that a business that does $250,000 a year does not equate to the owner of that business earning $250,000 a year, then I don't want him messing around with my plumbing.

On the one hand, exactly... if a company is worth $250,000, that ain't yearly income.

On the other hand, if the guy knows plumbing, he can be my plumber. I don't expect him to be a financial expert, though. That shit's for accountants.

[Macpherson]

i cannot believe how overhyped this story has become. why mccain chose this to attempt to demonstrate his strengths is beyond me. he couldn't tie it together, especially when the fact checks backed obama's plan.

it's not even a compelling story. the guy has a job and all he wants to do is buy some theoretical $250,000 business. he seems to have a home and looks to be doing just fine (except for the back taxes).

[WalterSobchak]

That shit's for accountants.

So what do you hire a plumber for?

[frizgolf]

So what do you hire a plumber for?

When your accountant has the shits.

[Sovrana]

I doubt it's a plant by the GOP. It would require an impressive amount of strategy and foresight... and if you were that good, you wouldn't be dumb enough to put a non-plumber and tax dodge on the front lines.

But I also doubt that "Joe Plumber" simply happened to be outside playing catch with his son, and had no ulterior motive at all other than just seeing Obama and wanting to ask a perfectly innocent question that he'd been curious about.

Funny, I think he is a perfect plant. Like all the other non-vetted people affiliated with this campaign. They are like smoke bombs that slowly consume the room. Just as with Palin, the public is vetting him and all of these problems unfold as distractions.

For over 24hrs, people having been talking about plumbing, license, and Joe. Haven't heard much about Palin in the past day let alone any critique of McCain's economic policy he presented, both of which may have been deemed disasters.

[markalot]

Why is this statement supposed to be unnerving? Everyone agrees that we need to redistribute wealth through the tax code.

No no no no no no no no no NO. :)

I don't agree the government and taxes should be redistributing wealth. I do agree that if the income gap gets too large the economy will suffer, but redistribution needs to be handled by a healthy economy, not by the government. Money in -> ............

[jcarwash31]

I find it unnerving that that was his answer (in my understanding at the time, I haven't seen the video).
But that wasn't his answer. It's not like the encounter went like this:

Joe: I'm getting ready to buy a business that makes $250,000 to $270,000. Under your plan, I would be paying higher taxes, wouldn't I?

Barak: I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. Ha ha ha. *moves on to next person

When his answer should have been "Well, if your business is bringing in a quarter million per year, I'm going to assume you're not going to have over 250k in household income. So you shouldn't see an increase. In fact your personal income taxes should go down. See my tax plan online at yadda yadda yadda.com"

Justifying a progressive tax system wasn't part of the deal, to my understanding.
He answered the question assuming the taxable income was above 250 because that was the crux of the question. He explained how the marginal income over 250 would be taxed at 39% instead of 36%. He explained that Joe would get a tax credit for his small business. He explained that Joe wouldn't have to pay a capital gains tax. He explained that 95% of small businesses don't make that kind of money. He explained that he believed that giving a tax cut for those making under 250 would allow those small businesses to save more while they build their business and that he believed it would be better for Joe's business if more people could afford to hire him. That's all in the 5 minute video.

[drougan]

But that wasn't his answer. It's not like the encounter went like this:

Joe: I'm getting ready to buy a business that makes $250,000 to $270,000. Under your plan, I would be paying higher taxes, wouldn't I?

Barak: I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. Ha ha ha. *moves on to next person


Yes...I'm aware of that. Now.

But if that had been his response (as the article was written to imply), then I would have found it unnerving.

[akip]

this idea that the free market can take care of every problem is as big a myth as the idea that a govt program can take care of every problem. we always find out the limits of either political agenda the hard way. right now we're finding out that the unfettered free market gives plenty of opportunities for clever investment banker crooks to abscond with the public's money, as we also found out the unregulated free flow of credit enabled mortgage bankers to lure a lot of undisciplined and/or ignorant people into screwing themselves financially. there will always be sharks and plenty of stupid people for them to take advantage of, but don't forget that the stupid people are also all of us who put our money into retirement funds. if you've got nothing to lose, i guess you can sit back and pontificate. but if you've been down this road before---late 80s-early 90s, early 00s---you see the same old patterns. yeah, the market eventually shakes it out, but then another bubble forms on its heels. the bandits generally go free to reinvent themselves in la jolla or santa fe, while the rest of us take our hits, recover to some extent, but probably not entirely.

[akip]

i just had the redistribution via tax code argument with my furnace guy who thinks we're going to turn into russia if obama's elected. what i realized is that it just burns him up that he (like joe the non-plumber) is partially subsidizing some welfare chiselers. personally, i'd rather pay for the welfare chiselers than for the third and fourth homes of the wall street raiders. though either way, we're supporting some aspect of the economy with our dollars.

so take your pick.

[the happy prole]

No no no no no no no no no NO. :)

I don't agree the government and taxes should be redistributing wealth. I do agree that if the income gap gets too large the economy will suffer, but redistribution needs to be handled by a healthy economy, not by the government. Money in -> ............

Honestly, that's the one thing the government probably *should* do, if you value equity either for moral reasons or political stability. There's two reasons:

1) There's nothing in the free market mechanism that will lead to equitable distribution of income. If anything, the reverse. The free-market prizes efficiency and pays no attention to equity.

2) The government can actually make a one-time redistribution of wealth with no loss in efficiency. In fact it's the *only* thing they can do efficiently. Everything else they do-- from subsidies to rule-making is technically inefficient.

Again, this is all mathematically proven. Unfortunately, people have been sold a lot of hogwash and told it's free-market economics.

[markalot]

Honestly, that's the one thing the government probably *should* do, if you value equity either for moral reasons or political stability. There's two reasons:

1) There's nothing in the free market mechanism that will lead to equitable distribution of income. If anything, the reverse. The free-market prizes efficiency and pays no attention to equity.

2) The government can actually make a one-time redistribution of wealth with no loss in efficiency. In fact it's the *only* thing they can do efficiently. Everything else they do-- from subsidies to rule-making is technically inefficient.

Again, this is all mathematically proven. Unfortunately, people have been sold a lot of hogwash and told it's free-market economics.

Nah, you read too much or to little into my complaint.

The government can direct income redistribution through appropriate regulations but it should NOT be the one that does it (through taxes).

I think we have an opportunity here to build a new flavor of capitalism.

We know incentives were all out of wack and that led to this collapse. We know we must regulate to make sure incentives are correct, otherwise this will happen again. I am NOT against regulations that direct companies how they must do business or even how to appropriately compensate employees. We know we need something like this or else we all end up paying anyway.

[Unrequited]

i just had the redistribution via tax code argument with my furnace guy who thinks we're going to turn into russia if obama's elected. what i realized is that it just burns him up that he (like joe the non-plumber) is partially subsidizing some welfare chiselers. personally, i'd rather pay for the welfare chiselers than for the third and fourth homes of the wall street raiders. though either way, we're supporting some aspect of the economy with our dollars.

It's ironic that the ones who complain the most about funding social safety net programs are often the ones who will end up benefitting from it in the future.

[BigSugar]

Everyone agrees that we need to redistribute wealth through the tax code. really?? wrong. taxes should never be used to redistribute wealth to the poor/unfortunate/homeless/whatever by taking from the rich/middle class/whatever. Taxes are there to support the govt in it's key rolls of national defense and infrastructure, and in a minor way to act as a safety net for those totally bereft of ability to care for themselves (invalids, mentally handicapped, elderly, and the like).

Unless you are a flat-tax proponent, I don't think that you can really see anything wrong with that statement. which i do....everybody pays the same taxes. period. in fact, i'd support a consumption tax over a flat tax....similar to the EU's VAT that is added on to whatever you buy....don't apply it to foodstuffs so that you are not disproportionately affecting the poor/lower class, and you have a fair system and you eliminate one more thing these morons can argue over every 4 years. say buh bye to the IRS......but no....instead, we waste untold billions propping up the IRS and increasing the tax code and re-jiggering the numbers every year and for what.....the tax system is broken. someone needs to fix it and pronto.

[dannyboy]

i just had the redistribution via tax code argument with my furnace guy who thinks we're going to turn into russia if obama's elected. what i realized is that it just burns him up that he (like joe the non-plumber) is partially subsidizing some welfare chiselers. personally, i'd rather pay for the welfare chiselers than for the third and fourth homes of the wall street raiders. though either way, we're supporting some aspect of the economy with our dollars.

so take your pick.

While it's easy to comprehend welfare recipients getting something for nothing, I think many hard working, blue-collar, middle to lower middle class Americans fail to recognize that many wealthy Wall Street types are also looking to get as much as they can for little effort.

The blue collar types haven't figured out or had the ability to make their way in life by "working smarter" vs. working harder and I think many of them resent people that don't have to work hard like they do just to make it. It's easy for them to look down at those on welfare and yet be envious of those that have got wealthy from just manipulating money (investing).

[the happy prole]

The government can direct income redistribution through appropriate regulations but it should NOT be the one that does it (through taxes).

I think we have an opportunity here to build a new flavor of capitalism.

We know incentives were all out of wack and that led to this collapse. We know we must regulate to make sure incentives are correct, otherwise this will happen again. I am NOT against regulations that direct companies how they must do business or even how to appropriately compensate employees. We know we need something like this or else we all end up paying anyway.

What I'm saying is that taxes are the only appropriate and efficient way of doing it.

What you're talking about is considerably more anti-free market and big government than taxes. It's the antithesis of capitalism.

Not being that huge a fan of unfettered capitalism, I don't care that much. But if YOU happen to be a fan of capitalism and the free-market... you're picking the wrong solution.

[Macpherson]

Taxes are there to support the govt in it's key rolls of national defense and corporate bailouts.

fixed that for reality.

[BigSugar]

He explained that Joe wouldn't have to pay a capital gains tax.

and this is another thing that is just so ridiculous and the media has given him a pass on.......Obama has no idea what a capital gains tax is under the current code. you pay capital gains on stock/bond/securities sales when gain has been realized from basis. you sometimes pay capital gains as a small business if you sell real estate for gain. but 99.9% of small businesses don't pay capital gains EVER. Obama was talking to Brokaw and made the statement again that he would eliminate capital gains on all small business and start up companies. that's like promising to keep the sun from colliding with the earth or keeping the wind from stopping blowing. it makes no sense when you actually know what the fuck he's allegedly promising to "eliminate". my CPA and i had a great laugh over this very thing yesterday....

so, if he's surrounding himself with advisors on economic/tax issues that gave him this little nugget, then i fear for the future, b/c this moron is going to win........and more and more, it's clear that he's just another dipshit politician with an agenda....and i don't like his clearly socialist agenda.

[frizgolf]

fixed that for reality.

Damn shame. The government is showing the same greed by propping up a failed lending industry in the hopes they'll be able to continue collecting taxes.
Coulda saved the gummint $400 billion by sending a cool billion to every man, woman, and child in the U.S., and charging a flat consumption tax on the new economy this created.

*tongue-in-cheek smiley here*

[grumbachr]

Joe Plumber might need your help and support. Seems he's not a licensed plumber and already has his own tax issues. Seems that his 15 minutes of fame might turn into 15 minutes of shame. Damn liberal media, they ruin everything.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418

[dannyboy]

Coulda saved the gummint $400 billion by sending a cool billion to every man, woman, and child in the U.S., and charging a flat consumption tax on the new economy this created.

*tongue-in-cheek smiley here*

Or they could have spent that money to fix up the nation's ailing infrastructure, including the building of new green energy sources. There would be a lot of new jobs created and economic growth that would follow. It would also leave us something tangible that benefits everyone.

[markalot]

Not being that huge a fan of unfettered capitalism, I don't care that much. But if YOU happen to be a fan of capitalism and the free-market... you're picking the wrong solution.

I disagree.

What is apparent is that the people running the show in the current market did not care about long term gains or did not understand there was even a problem. We have to make sure we build on knowledge learned and not let new teams re-learn old lessons every 75 years.

The fact is that if you provide goods and services but you don't care about the people who buy those good or services you are screwed in the long run. Re-distribution of income is essential in order to maintain wealth, so why does the government have to do it via taxes? I'm really not getting your efficiency argument since you should well know that most of the new tax money coming in will end up building a bridge in Alaska or repairing our highways and will NOT actually redistribute income.

The capitalist system only survives if everyone benefits. This should not be up for debate. In order to make sure that happens the referee of the free market system has to lay down the rules of the game and make sure everyone plays by the same rules. The bigger impact one has on the economy the more the rules need to be followed.

[BigSugar]

Joe Plumber might need your help and support. Seems he's not a licensed plumber and already has his own tax issues. Seems that his 15 minutes of fame might turn into 15 minutes of shame. Damn liberal media, they ruin everything.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418

on that note, i hear that Obama won the Democratic nomination. what? old news you say?

[markalot]

So I caught some Rush during lunch today, the AM dial was tuned to 55KRC. He wants to know how the media can find out so much information on Joe so quickly but can't find anything on Ayers.

As if they don't want to look, is the claim.

I note this in case this relationship comes back to haunt him at a later date. You know, vast right wing conspiracy and all.

[akip]

if there was anything to dig up on obama's 'association' with ayers, the newspapers and cable news outlets would love it----more people would tune in for the scandal, attracting more advertising dollars. in the meantime, since there's nothing to dig up, the GOP can make hay with innuendo AND they can blame the media. a win-win for them.

[the happy prole]

The capitalist system only survives if everyone benefits.

The capitalist system survives based on those who put the most value into the system benefit the most. If you aren't contributing, you don't survive. That's the thinning of the herd you sometimes like to mention.

The result is the biggest NET gain. If I have $10,000,000 and you have $5, and that can be converted to me having $20,000,000 and you having $0, then that's what is going to happen in a free market. You want to expand the ol' PPF. The exact distribution along the same PPF curve is not important.

It's not that I disagree with you; I'm simply pointing out that what you're actually saying is that capitalism is flawed, government knows better than private industry, and it's okay for government to set incentives. nick would be very disappointed.

[the happy prole]

On "Joe Plumber:" The things the media knows about him are easily obtainable via public records and standard media things.

If there's a lien on your house, or whether you have a professional license, legal residence, voting registration, etc. that stuff is all already public, or at worst publicly available via simple FOIA request. They know all the same stuff about Ayers. Hell, everyone's known his court history for decades. And then on top of that, dude wrote a book.

What is harder to discover is Ayers exact relationship with Obama beyond the fact they were on a board together. And honestly, I don't think there is anything there. But IF there were, that would take interviewing people and a lot of investigative work to uncover.

Same thing with Joe Plumber. You can learn all about him pretty easily. What you don't know is how close he might be to the GOP. Which again, I don't think there's anything there genuinely is anything there as far as him being a plant.

Rush is an idiot.

[Duemellon]

So I caught some Rush during lunch today, the AM dial was tuned to 55KRC. He wants to know how the media can find out so much information on Joe so quickly but can't find anything on Ayers.They're doing the same thing theists do when you "disprove their beliefs". They keep asking for "more facts/truth" even after you've exhausted it all. Simply by suggesting there's more truth they are hoping to create a desire in people to ask unanswerable questions.

Ayers' info has been tapped. There's nothing more to say about him. Why hasn't the media gotten more? There actually isn't more.

[Duemellon]

really?? wrong. taxes should never be used to redistribute wealth to the poor/unfortunate/homeless/whatever by taking from the rich/middle class/whatever.1st, we need to stop using that Republican-coined phrase to describe this. The mere fact you even have some people who support it using that phrase is comical.

To describe the idea that changing the tax rate based on income is somehow "redistributing wealth" is par for the course for the judgmental people. They toss a divisive label on it, regardless of it's inaccuracies, & hope the targets don't catch it right away.

It's simple...
Taxes are taxes. When the rich pay more taxes I'm not getting their money put right in my bank account, I'm getting off the hook from paying more taxes. The $600 they get from the wannabe Joe the Plumber is $600 I don't have to pay. It's not a redistribution of wealth, it's a reevaluation of taxation, k? k.

Of course, the principle behind Obama's plan is that I will miss $600 from my salary A LOT MORE than the rich guy would &, well, it makes sense because it's true.

It's like when McCain called Obama "Pro-Abortion". That polarizing label had been around long enough for Obama to be on the lookout for it so he told McCain that "That's ridiculous, no one is 'Pro' - Abortion!" However, he wasn't prepared for the ridiculous tag he gave the plan of "redistribution of wealth" so he didn't address that gross mischaracterization.

[markalot]

It's not that I disagree with you; I'm simply pointing out that what you're actually saying is that capitalism is flawed, government knows better than private industry, and it's okay for government to set incentives. nick would be very disappointed.

I've always stated that pure capitalism is flawed. I've always stated that the middle ground, regardless of the subject, is almost always the more correct solution.

The government is the people, so yes, the people collective and our gained knowledge may know better than private industry about what's good for the economy. The question you have to ask before slapping regulation on someone, however, is how important are you to the overall economy.

In this instance what we are really talking about is monetary control ... the banks. For a while now banks were able to run like a business, they know best and should be left to do as they see fit. This did not work and will not work again, basically because a failed bank or banks leads to real economic hurt that gets to everyone, not just them.

Strict banking regulation and oversight.

On the other hand let's look at car companies. GM made a lot of money selling SUV's and now they are hurting bad. Boo hoo, why should I care? The loss of General Motors will not bring down the entire economy, BUT GM uses a lot of suppliers and the loss of GM would be felt, so a certain level of government assistance is warranted to help them help themselves. This ability to get help, though, means it's in our best interest to regulate them.

Regulation of greed. GM might have made big bucks on SUV sales but regulation to force them to produce more energy efficient cars would have been appropriate here.

Small business should be the least regulated and the least taxed. A small business lives or dies on ideas and good management. They have the new ideas and regulations just get in the way.

[dannyboy]

I think what the debate in this thread illustrates is that no matter what economic or political system one may be in favor of, it all looks great on paper and in theory until you actually put it into practice and human fears, desires, and other feelings muck it all up. Therefore, any system that fails to take into account the human element will ultimately be doomed to fail.

[classicgrrl]

Did you not see my earlier post in this thread? According to the actual Lucas County, Ohio code and not hearsay in a news story, he does not need to be licensed as a plumber if he is working as an employee of a plumbing company.

It's the same reason I didn't need to have a license when I was a HVAC service technician. The company that employed me had one or more licensed technicians that were in supervisory positions.

I did read it. according to the heresay in the news article, Lucas County requires the company to be licensed. It isn't. and my understanding is that he is NOT working as an employee of the plumbing company - he is a 1099 which makes him a subcontractor and THIS is what excempts him from needing a license. so if I am wrong then he is wrong because this is what he stated himself.

now, if you want to research that, go right ahead. frankly, I'm not that much into it.

long story short = the guy is full of shit and was trying to make a fool with his question. instead, karma bit him in the but.

moral = keep your fucking mouth shut.

PS: duder isn't a GOP plant - he's just a stereotype with a big mouth.

[classicgrrl]

I think what the debate in this thread illustrates is that no matter what economic or political system one may be in favor of, it all looks great on paper and in theory until you actually put it into practice and human fears, desires, and other feelings muck it all up. Therefore, any system that fails to take into account the human element will ultimately be doomed to fail.

OMG - give this man a cookie. :D

[dannyboy]

I did read it. according to the heresay in the news article, Lucas County requires the company to be licensed. It isn't. and my understanding is that he is NOT working as an employee of the plumbing company - he is a 1099 which makes him a subcontractor and THIS is what excempts him from needing a license. so if I am wrong then he is wrong because this is what he stated himself.

now, if you want to research that, go right ahead. frankly, I'm not that much into it.

long story short = the guy is full of shit and was trying to make a fool with his question. instead, karma bit him in the but.

moral = keep your fucking mouth shut.

PS: duder isn't a GOP plant - he's just a stereotype with a big mouth.

According to this article in the Enquirer today, (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081017/NEWS0106/810170425/1055/NEWS) his employer is licensed.

State and local records show Wurzelbacher has no license, although his employer does.

[BigSugar]

1st, we need to stop using that Republican-coined phrase to describe this. The mere fact you even have some people who support it using that phrase is comical.

To describe the idea that changing the tax rate based on income is somehow "redistributing wealth" is par for the course for the judgmental people. They toss a divisive label on it, regardless of it's inaccuracies, & hope the targets don't catch it right away.

It's simple...
Taxes are taxes. When the rich pay more taxes I'm not getting their money put right in my bank account, I'm getting off the hook from paying more taxes. The $600 they get from the wannabe Joe the Plumber is $600 I don't have to pay. It's not a redistribution of wealth, it's a reevaluation of taxation, k? k.

Of course, the principle behind Obama's plan is that I will miss $600 from my salary A LOT MORE than the rich guy would &, well, it makes sense because it's true.

It's like when McCain called Obama "Pro-Abortion". That polarizing label had been around long enough for Obama to be on the lookout for it so he told McCain that "That's ridiculous, no one is 'Pro' - Abortion!" However, he wasn't prepared for the ridiculous tag he gave the plan of "redistribution of wealth" so he didn't address that gross mischaracterization.

right.....the term "redistribution of wealth" is a modern republican invention.

for your consumption: i was responding to the post above mine that said taxes were supposed to be used to redistribute wealth in society. i'm not even the first one to say it in this thread, much less modern republicans being the first to use the term (ie: "coin" as you referred to it).

but in your analogy, the that is exactly what is happening: person A pays 600 more in taxes so that person B pays 600 less in taxes. that is forced redistribution of wealth via the tax code.

this is an idea that has been around since the caveman: you have, i want, me stronger, i take. only today, we do it through unequal taxation, welfare, social programs, monetary policy and the like. deny it all you want in your "Roy-ian" manner, but at the end of the day, you're wrong.

[BigSugar]

According to this article in the Enquirer today, (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081017/NEWS0106/810170425/1055/NEWS) his employer is licensed.

moral = keep your fucking mouth shut. ;)

[berzerker]

really?? wrong. taxes should never be used to redistribute wealth to the poor/unfortunate/homeless/whatever by taking from the rich/middle class/whatever...

Did you watch Letterman last night? McCain showed up, and said that he'd raise taxes, and redistibute the wealth... see for yourself, bottom of the 'script. (http://therebeller.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccain-apologizes-to-david-letterman.html)

Sounds like ol' John's become a commie.

[juggles]

Well, I heard that Joe Six Pack isn't a licensed Six Pack either.

[classicgrrl]

Well, I heard that Joe Six Pack isn't a licensed Six Pack either.

I hear he actually drinks mad dog.

[Duemellon]

but in your analogy, the that is exactly what is happening: person A pays 600 more in taxes so that person B pays 600 less in taxes. that is forced redistribution of wealth via the tax code.

this is an idea that has been around since the caveman: you have, i want, me stronger, i take. only today, we do it through unequal taxation, welfare, social programs, monetary policy and the like. deny it all you want in your "Roy-ian" manner, but at the end of the day, you're wrong.Uhm. No. I'm right. Why?

If you pay no taxes, regardless if you're poor or rich, there's no change to you.

It's a redistribution of burden, not wealth. The whole "Pro-Abortion" & "Redistribution of Wealth" crap is as assinine as that "double-taxation" crap about the dividend tax. It's a ridic choice of words to use & completely mischracterizes it. Done just to get ppl's drawes in a bind.

[the happy prole]

I repaired furnaces and air conditioners in the state of Ohio too. I referred to myself as a HVAC service technician. I was not licensed.

The plumber that we use where I work is licensed. The two guys that work for him are not. They make plumbing repairs. Are they not plumbers?

Are you asking me what I think, or what's in the Code?

What I think is that if you snake drains, install toilets, repair and replace broken pipes, move a water line, etc. you're a plumber. And if I ask you what you do, it's much easier for both of us if you just say "plumber."

My Bar status is "associate" right now. Which means that technically it's illegal for me to give professional legal advice or hold myself out as someone who can. If you ask me what I do, I still say "attorney" because I don't want to launch into some long-winded explanation to a guy whose just trying to start polite conversation.

However, what I think is not necessarily what's in the rulebooks.

[dannyboy]

Are you asking me what I think, or what's in the Code?

What I think is that if you snake drains, install toilets, repair and replace broken pipes, move a water line, etc. you're a plumber. And if I ask you what you do, it's much easier for both of us if you just say "plumber."

My Bar status is "associate" right now. Which means that technically it's illegal for me to give professional legal advice or hold myself out as someone who can. If you ask me what I do, I still say "attorney" because I don't want to launch into some long-winded explanation to a guy whose just trying to start polite conversation.

However, what I think is not necessarily what's in the rulebooks.

I agree. I also think that's what Joe did and then everyone (media) started digging and getting all technical. I actually have a lot of respect for plumbers (licensed or not). It's the one construction and maintenance field that I personally HATE doing (I'm pretty much jack of all trades in my current position). Any job that means getting up close and personal with raw sewage is not fun or enjoyable at all.

[classicgrrl]

this guy's motto is: Service with a smile - even on hot days.

http://www.redgreen.com/files/layout/winston.jpg

[Slar]

http://www.boxingdaily.co.uk/wp-content/img/notasixer.JPG

[silentpaul]

this guy's motto is: Service with a smile - even on hot days.

http://www.redgreen.com/files/layout/winston.jpg

"When old acquaintances can't be forgot, Rothschild Sewage and Septic Sucking Services!"

[the happy prole]

I agree. I also think that's what Joe did and then everyone (media) started digging and getting all technical. I actually have a lot of respect for plumbers (licensed or not).

I mean let's face it. How many people even get the proper permits for residential housing projects and how many people demand to see the certifications of the people that do them?

I live in a historic-type district. Houses here are all 100 years old, so something's always going wrong or needs to be modernized. But unless you have an emergency, you're not calling a plumber. You'll call the "handyman" who always works on your house, doing everything from electrical to roofing to plumbing to treework. You call him, he fixes it or he gets one of his buds to fix it. I'm sure they have licenses for some of the things they do, but not all. And I doubt they are bonded.

But look, the dude really did mis-represent himself. He's not the owner of a small $250k a year business, and he's really nowhere near becoming one. He could have simply asked Obama "What does your economic plan mean for small business owners making $250k a year?" Instead he injected himself into the story so as to make it seem like Obama was personally screwing him. If he hadn't done that, he wouldn't have gotten on the news and McCain wouldn't have run with it.

I doubt he foresaw this turning into this big a deal, but I'm sure he was aware the cameras were there and was thinking "Here's my chance to stick it to Obama and make him look bad publicly." You can tell from his demeanor that it's not a real question, and he's not really looking for an answer. He also didn't have to talk to Katie Couric and make some more digs.

He's not a helpless guy under attack from the media, either. He has Rush and the right wing crew backing him up and making all sorts of excuses for him.

The Democrats are making a logical fallacy by attacking the messenger, so that bugs me. But the messenger is kind of an asshole messenger so who volunteered a message based on a deliberate misrepresentation of his situation. So I have little sympathy for him.

[akip]

what i hate is the public falling for this bullshit. joe isn't sincere; the 3% tax hike on income over $250K AFTER business expenses wouldn't be a factor for him if he were.

problem is, in this country a lot of voters can't even do simple math (what's 3% of $25K, or $125K?) let alone understand a basic tax return well enough to see what crap this all is. and i agree with whoever said that there's plenty of small businessmen who are not declaring income---you bet they're cheering for joe the tax-dodger.

but, anyway, who's more anti-american---the voter who wants to pull troops out of iraq and spend some of that money back home, or the voter who "supports" the push for victory in iraq, yet in misdeclaring income is holding back tax dollars that would, in fact, support the troops?

[jneale]

what i hate is the public falling for this bullshit. joe isn't sincere; the 3% tax hike on income over $250K AFTER business expenses wouldn't be a factor for him if he were.

problem is, in this country a lot of voters can't even do simple math (what's 3% of $25K, or $125K?) let alone understand a basic tax return well enough to see what crap this all is. and i agree with whoever said that there's plenty of small businessmen who are not declaring income---you bet they're cheering for joe the tax-dodger.



You know I like you but:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_uk-NIeC1F5g/R_r1P3Vts0I/AAAAAAAAAzo/0i1xSPJFJjQ/s320/charlie-brown-argh.jpg

Yep, that income bracket gets to fork over another 2-5K each year, they can afford it right?

My beef is THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING the vast majority of the tax burden & that is the point - here is a guy making it from a blue color background & he is going to get even more tax.

It is easy to say "we're gone tax that little group over there doing better than you" vs. "we're all going to pay our fair share."

WTF are either of them cutting taxes anyway? The reality is taxes ought to increase to get the US back out of debt. Get everyone in the game of paying taxes & then let's talk about "cuts" or "taxing that guy over there more."

Redistributing wealth just sounds to me like nursemaiding & pandering to advance an agenda.

[akip]

Yep, that income bracket gets to fork over another 2-5K each year, they can afford it right?


i'd have to be making $317K a year to fork over an extra $2K in taxes. not a bad deal. i'll take it.

[akip]

not to mention that if i were making $317K a year, i'd be in a great position to take advantage of all the resources that those in the top 1% of income can tap---private schools, ivy league colleges, investment opportunities that i could sit on long enough for them to pay off. and i could afford some nice vacations to counter my career stress.

again, i'll take that deal. you betcha.:p

[the happy prole]

My beef is THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING the vast majority of the tax burden & that is the point - here is a guy making it from a blue color background & he is going to get even more tax.

No. He's going to get LESS tax. Until he is actually able to buy a business that nets $250k in income, in which case it gets kinda hard hang that blue collar little man tag on him any more. $250k a year puts you in top 5% income bracket, easy.

Maybe the rich shouldn't pay that much in taxes; I'm not gonna argue with you there. But saying that Obama's plan hurts the blue-collar worker is just incorrect. If anything, it helps them too much while sticking it to the rich.

If you really believe in blue-collar workers, allowing this guy to save on his taxes NOW makes it easier for him to save and finally buy that plumbing business. At which point maybe he gets reamed on taxes, but really-- I think Joe the Plumber would be happy to trade his $40k annual salary and a low tax for a $280k annual salary and the higher tax rate.

The other thing is that ANY tax is a redistribution of income. Even a flat tax. Because you have to look at the distribution side, not just the collection side. The tax money goes to government services, which are not doled out precisely according to income.

Unless the government takes $5k from you and turns around and immediately hands you all your tax money back, income is being redistributed. And if they're going to just give you all your money back, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is, or even that there's a tax. There's no point in it at all.

Obama's tax plan make the system considerably more progressive. McCain's slightly more regressive. There's a definite difference there. But they both still collect taxes, and the system will be progressive either way. So the debate between the two plans should be over HOW MUCH redistribution is proper rather than simply dismissing Obama's plan because it redistributes wealth as if McCain's doesn't.

[classicgrrl]

I had this posted elsewhere but i moved it to here.


Originally Posted by Slar
Joe the Plumber has now had more press conferences than Sarah Palin.

Get the full story here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...id-of-the.html

Much like Palin, I don't think Joe is that smart of a guy. Unlike Palin, I don't think he is that rich either.

he probably makes as much or less than me - and I don't believe he will be able to nor want to actually purchase the business he works for; especially if he doesn't get that you cannot purchase a busines and make a salary for the same amount as the purchase.

I think he is a blue collar - GOP - truck driving dude who's thinking is fairly local. He's never been out of the US unless he served in the military. I doubt he did. He doesn't have a college degree nor does he want one. He watches lots of tv and likes to get his hands dirty. he is also someone who would listen to WEBN and shop at Wal-mart.

he's voting for McCain and was hoping to get one good on Obama so he would have something to brag about with his buddies around the drinking hole. Instead, he made a fool of himself because he doesn't really get economic policy and doesn't undertand how complex it actually is. And he would probably actually do better under Obama but will never in a million years admit to it.

He's a fairly simple dude. I hope he doesn't get laid off. He's prime for it.

stereotyping? Yes
elitist? Maybe
am I right? Probably

[Ambassador V3.0]

not to mention that if i were making $317K a year, i'd be in a great position to take advantage of all the resources that those in the top 1% of income can tap---private schools, ivy league colleges, investment opportunities that i could sit on long enough for them to pay off. and i could afford some nice vacations to counter my career stress.

again, i'll take that deal. you betcha.:p

I concur 100%. In the unlikely event that I ever have children, I don't see any way in the world I could afford to send them to even one of the schools I graduated from. (At least at this point in my life.) Tuition these days is just unreal, especially at private schools. (Plus I myself also have those pesky law school loans to finish paying off, but that is another tragic tale. :cool:)

[jneale]

But saying that Obama's plan hurts the blue-collar worker is just incorrect. If anything, it helps them too much while sticking it to the rich.

my point is - here is a blue collar guy - not some wall street suit - someone who works with his hands - it is one thing to say you are going to tax the rich - but this guy doesn't look like a suit - he looks like the local guy who owns a nice business - so that tax the rich mantra looks silly when you chant it against a plumber.

I want a plan that spreads the tax burden - not one that puts the focus on a few heads, i want a tax plan that isn't "cut taxes" because we can't afford to cut anything.

[classicgrrl]

my point is - here is a blue collar guy - not some wall street suit - someone who works with his hands - it is one thing to say you are going to tax the rich - but this guy doesn't look like a suit - he looks like the local guy who owns a nice business - so that tax the rich mantra looks silly when you chant it against a plumber.

I want a plan that spreads the tax burden - not one that puts the focus on a few heads, i want a tax plan that isn't "cut taxes" because we can't afford to cut anything.

You speak as if Joe the Plumber didn't hurt the McCain campaigne. It did. The idiot doesn't make $250K and owes $1200 in back taxes.

Tax the rich isn't being chanted against a plumber because the plumber isn't rich.

[the-dude]

Oh yeah, well what about ACORN!?!?!?! I mean Obama is the most socialist commie bastard EVER to run for president, look at his friends! This leftist regime will turn us into another ussr. Did I mention ACORN? ;)

[jneale]

You speak as if Joe the Plumber didn't hurt the McCain campaigne. It did. The idiot doesn't make $250K and owes $1200 in back taxes.

Tax the rich isn't being chanted against a plumber because the plumber isn't rich.

cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/joe.plumber/index.html)

In his exchange with Obama, Wurzelbacher asked if the presidential candidate believed in the American Dream. Wurzelbacher said he was about to buy the plumbing company that he works for and was concerned that Obama would tax him more because of it.

Families making more than $250,000 could see taxes go up under Obama's middle-class tax cut plan, while those making less than $250,000 would not see any increase. See debate highlights, analysis »

Obama explained his tax plan in depth to Wurzelbacher, saying it's better to lower taxes for Americans who make less money so they can afford to patronize his business.

"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told Wurzelbacher.


1. it didn't hurt McCain, people hear what they want to hear - Obama people are happy because this guy is "rich" and the McCain people hear "tax people more" another reason NOT to vote for Obama.

2. I find it OBSCENE that a voter asked a legitimate question that highlights a core element between the differences between the two candidates & the media digs into his personal business & reports it. I have 3 EEs who have IRS garnishments of WAY MORE than $1200 & ALL earn WAY LESS than $50k, one person got stuck because of an inheritance - not an idiot because they have an IRS issue

Because the guy is successful he was made a target.

[the happy prole]

my point is - here is a blue collar guy - not some wall street suit - someone who works with his hands - it is one thing to say you are going to tax the rich - but this guy doesn't look like a suit - he looks like the local guy who owns a nice business - so that tax the rich mantra looks silly when you chant it against a plumber.

I'm not following you. This guy is not rich, and he doesn't own a business. He apparently makes $40,000 a year. No one is attacking him for being successful, because to be frank-- he's not all that successful. No one is chanting tax the rich against a plumber, if anything they're doing it FOR this plumber. He's going to pay less taxes under Obama's plan.

Fake iconic "Joe Plumber" would be hurt under Obama's plan, but Joe Wurzelbacher is not that guy. So when you say "look at him" or talk about him personally, it doesn't make any sense.

[Ambassador V3.0]

I'm not following you. This guy is not rich, and he doesn't own a business. He apparently makes $40,000 a year. No one is attacking him for being successful, because to be frank-- he's not all that successful. No one is chanting tax the rich against a plumber, if anything they're doing it FOR this plumber. He's going to pay less taxes under Obama's plan.

Fake iconic "Joe Plumber" would be hurt under Obama's plan, but Joe Wurzelbacher is not that guy. So when you say "look at him" or talk about him personally, it doesn't make any sense.

You are incorrect, my good sir. I knew that God wanted me to have that Ten Million Dollars, and I will stop at nothing to get it. :D

Sincerely,

The Ambassador

[Slar]

Because the guy is successful he was made a target.The guy became a target because McCain wouldn't quit dropping his name during the debate. After watching the whole world was wanting to know who 'Joe the Plumber' was. The world also wanted to know exactly how Obama's proposed tax policy would actually affect him. I personally think it's a ligitimate question. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that people wanted to know and the media was right there to answer that want.

[the happy prole]

The whole conceit about hurting small business doesn't make any sense in the first place. Your business stuff is tied up in your LLC or whatever corporate status. They tax you on what you take home.

If you're the douchebaggiest asshat associate at Skadden and Arps and you make over $250k, then you get taxed. If you're Bill Gates, you get taxed. And if you own a small but successful local business that brings you over $250k in salary, you get taxed.

You are bringing home the same income whether you're wearing $300 Ferragamo wingtips or $30 crocs. Should we really be basing our tax policy on how people dress and look?

[Mantra]

Funny, I think he is a perfect plant. Like all the other non-vetted people affiliated with this campaign. They are like smoke bombs that slowly consume the room. Just as with Palin, the public is vetting him and all of these problems unfold as distractions.

For over 24hrs, people having been talking about plumbing, license, and Joe. Haven't heard much about Palin in the past day let alone any critique of McCain's economic policy he presented, both of which may have been deemed disasters.

Good analogy...more GOP smokescreens to distract "Joe voter" from some real issues.

[Rafe]

I guess none of you disciples found this comment the least unnerving:

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

I personally find that statement gratifying.

Sincerely,
K. Marx

We're singing from the same hymn sheet at last! Good to have you aboard, comrade.

[Phreon]

I think it's a good thing when you spread the pain around. Close the effing loopholes. Don't redistribute wealth down, just even out the pain!

I was flipping TV channels the other day and landed on "The McLaughlin Group". The unbiased topic was something to the effect, "Is Obama a Huge Socialist Who's Going to Ruin Us All"? There, sitting on the panel was good ol' Pat Buchanan, saying with a straight face how Obama was going to ruin rich people and that 30% of Americans don't even pay taxes. It was a packed round table, because only what's-her-name from Newsweek chuckled and began to enumerate the rest of the taxes an average American pays.

I love it when the Republicans (I am/was one, remember) dig into their playbook and try the fresh new strategy of spewing half truths. Yes, 30% of "Adult" Americans don't pay income taxes, but that's because the majority of that 30% makes so little that they aren't required to! The other one I love is, "5% of income tax payers contribute more than 50% of taxes collected. No shit sherlock, it's basic math! Using a flat tax as a simple reference, 10% of $50,000 is less than 10% of $250,000 or $750,000. Additionally, if the gap between the middle class and upper class wasn't so huge, the tax ratio wouldn't be quite as skewed.

I've noticed this is the new tactic used for going after Obama; he's a big, smelly LIBERAL who's going to bloat government and ruin the economy. *BLINK* So Obama is going to stick to the NeoCon playbook? Hopefully this time around, people have heard the same tired talking points and are smart enough to ignore them.

Phreon

[akip]

people are also forgetting that once a household hits $250K in annual income, they have long been phased out of paying social security withholdings. the 2008 income ceiling subject to SS tax (6.2% if shared with your employer, 12.4%, less a tax credit if you're self-emplyed) is $97,500. at an income of $40K, you pay SS withholdings on 100% of your income. if you earn $250K annually, you are paying that tax on 40% of your income. while the ceiling subect to tax rises a little every year, you're still way ahead at $250K.

now, theoretically, that money could come back to the taxpayer eventually BUT at this point we're really paying for current retirees, not for ourselves, and the future of our own SS is pretty nebulous. yet the immediate benefit of making MORE than $97,500 is clear as can be. that's extra money in the high income earners' pockets. they can use that money NOW---to invest, to purchase quality goods that last longer than shitty ones, to fix their homes---in other words, to create more wealth for themselves. the higher the income, the larger the discretionary proportion with which to invest. the lower the income, the less proportion of discretionary income with which to create wealth. so the chips are already stacked.

the reality is that upper income earners in this country have numerous advantages over the middle-to-low income earners, so they are NOT shouldering more of the burden for less of the reward. it bothers me not at all that they put a little more into the kitty so that this country becomes a better place for all. to me, the slight leveling of a still far-from-level playing field that a modestly progressive income tax structure (as under clinton) brings about is the best compromise in my lifetime. it did not undermine jobs and competitiveness, yet the prosperity was more evenly shared----not just through income redistribution, but through job production and better wages for the middle. a win-win.

[the happy prole]

I think it's good to have a discussion about tax burdens and who pays what. One thing is for sure-- the tax code definitely needs to be simplified to make it easier to file taxes and so we know exactly how much (primarily upper-class) taxpayers are paying. Too many loopholes.

Unfortunately, no one wants to have this discussion. Any mention of tax burden and people start throwing around "socialism" and advocating for a flat tax and tossing around words like "working middle class" and "small business," etc. It's stupid. If I make $250,000 a year working for a large company, and you make $250,000 a year working for your own business, economic theory dictates that we are both putting in $250k of value into the economy. We're paid what we're worth. So why should a small business owner get preference?

I'm not against a consumption tax, or a simple progressive rate. I might not even be against a flat tax if I felt that flat tax advocates had any clue what they are talking about. You can have a flat tax, but direct most or even all of the benefits to the poor. Everyone pays 15% of income, poor people get 30% of income back, rich people get 0. Would that make flat tax advocates happy? I doubt it. So it's kind of a stupid red herring even for the rabidly right wing advocates.

Both sides are bad, but right now the Republicans are taking it to ridiculous levels. If 30% is too high for large earners, fine. Let's talk about knocking it down. But it's not going to happen if you refuse to talk about any details and are all "Flat tax!! Unfair!! STFU!!"

[frizgolf]

You're right. Transparency is the key. If everyone can see that everyone else is getting taxed fairly, you'll have fewer upper class loophole-hunters, and fewer poor welfare cheats. Creative accounting has us in this mess we're in.
The only way to close the loopholes, top to bottom, is to simplify the tax system.

[Ambassador V3.0]

I think it's good to have a discussion about tax burdens and who pays what. One thing is for sure-- the tax code definitely needs to be simplified to make it easier to file taxes and so we know exactly how much (primarily upper-class) taxpayers are paying. Too many loopholes.

I am certainly no genius on tax. I audited that class, and only showed up about half the time because it was held at 9:00 a.m. Too damn early for me in those days, especially if I wasn't taking it for a grade! :D

One thing I have noticed in my adult life, however, is how many taxes can be reduced if not avoided significantly via foreign registries and subsidiaries. I deal with many multinational corps. and they all engage in this to some level.

[classicgrrl]

I guess none of you disciples found this comment the least unnerving:

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

I personally find that statement gratifying.

Sincerely,
K. Marx



So you prefer a plutocracy to socialism?

[Ambassador V3.0]

The natural outcome of socialist societies is a whole bunch of poor people and a small amount of rich folks...a complete annihilation of the middle class. Sound familiar?

Nope, I'm already rich. I think you community-minded folks should contribute to the common good. :cool:

[Duemellon]

My beef is THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING the vast majority of the tax burden & that is the pointGood lord. Not again.

The same people who idealize CEOs, who are rich, & shit like that complaining they bear most of the tax load. It's moronic on a repetitively epic scale.

If you were to do the % of the population distribution according to income levels you'll see the ratio of people gets lower as the income increases. However, it's not proportional. It's like, 80% are 30k & under but 5% are in the millions. That's not a slight grading scale, it's a dramatic drop in population.

So, how many 30k people would it take to pay the same taxes that 1 1,000k person would? It would take more than 30. Therefore, 1 millionaire = 30 non-millionaires in taxes. Now take some crazy-ass supamillionaire like a 100,000k. Suddenly it takes 330 normal people to pay the same amount of taxes (if it was a flat rate).

Why the HELL do people like you keep portraying it as if the rich have some undue burden? In reality, even in a flat-tax scheme, they pay more than the average person & would bear the largest total share. Bill Gates pays more in taxes every year than I'll see as total income in my lifetime.

[Duemellon]

The natural outcome of socialist societies is a whole bunch of poor people and a small amount of rich folks...a complete annihilation of the middle class. Sound familiar?But that's what happened under the Repubs since Reagan.

Sounds like whether you have the socialists running things or the deregulators running things you end up with a withering middle class & a small amount of rich folks.

[BigSugar]

So you prefer a plutocracy to socialism?

i'm more a "Goofy" fan.......and can you please tell me why Pluto couldn't talk, and Goofy could? both are dogs, right?

[Buzzstein]

Are you asking me what I think, or what's in the Code?

What I think is that if you snake drains, install toilets, repair and replace broken pipes, move a water line, etc. you're a plumber. And if I ask you what you do, it's much easier for both of us if you just say "plumber."

My Bar status is "associate" right now. Which means that technically it's illegal for me to give professional legal advice or hold myself out as someone who can. If you ask me what I do, I still say "attorney" because I don't want to launch into some long-winded explanation to a guy whose just trying to start polite conversation.

However, what I think is not necessarily what's in the rulebooks.

Wait. You're an attorney??? I thought you posted in ce/p for a living. :confused: :D

[Buzzstein]

WTF are either of them cutting taxes anyway? The reality is taxes ought to increase to get the US back out of debt. Get everyone in the game of paying taxes & then let's talk about "cuts" or "taxing that guy over there more.

I definitely agree that neither Obama or McCain should cut taxes, but Americans of all economic classes love to pay less taxes. Candidates running for office have to tell the people what they want to hear in order to get elected. I'm certainly all for higher taxes for everybody, however, the people need to change the way they perceive taxes before anything changes. It needs be seen as a patriotic duty and responsibility instead of a burden or as theft via government.

[Macpherson]

Where is the new option for Ed the Dairy Man???

[Macpherson]

Joe the Plumber on tour (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d987a4c1-710e-4dc2-aaef-0606fb5cca88&rss=703)

He has become a household name, and now "Joe the Plumber" is taking his message on the road.

Joe Wurzelbacher rose to fame after Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain referred to him several times as an example of a working American in the third presidential debate.

Now the Toledo man is bringing his bus tour to the Tri-State Monday afternoon to campaign for McCain.

The "Joe the Plumber Bus Tour" hosted by Congressman Rob Portman will stop by three Cincinnati business where they will be joined by a group of small business owners to discuss McCain's tax plan.

Monday's "I am Joe the Plumber" stops include:


S&S Pools - 41 Oxford State Road, Middletown, OH 45044 - 2:30 p.m.


Herman's Florist - 435 Main Street, Milford, OH 45150 - 4 p.m.


Hamilton County Victory Center - 8260 Northcreek, Suite 300, Cincinnati, OH 45236 - 5 p.m.

:rolleyes:

[Arkansas]

milking it.

[BigSugar]

milking it.

nope. that's Joe the Dairy Farmer.

[Unrequited]

Joe the Plumber blew off a McCain campaign event this morning. Probably sleeping off a drunk.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Duemellon]

Joe the Plumber blew off a McCain campaign event this morning. Probably sleeping off a drunk.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/"But in what was a slightly awkward moment for McCain, Wurzelbacher was nowhere to be seen when the Arizona senator called out for him."

Aw... that's sawheet!!!

I did that once to my principal at H.S. I ran into him after school going back after skipping to get my stuff & he promptly expelled me. I hope Joe gets expelled like pea soup from a possessed Linda Blair.

[Macpherson]

i wonder if mccain would give this guy a cabinet position. he's a washington outsider and has a history of being a maverick with regards to taxes and licensure.

[ajax]

The Onion predicted it in 1993 (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48940)

[the_birds]

Joe the Plumber gets a recording contract?

http://stereogum.com/archives/joe-the-plumber-getting-record-deal_031711.html

[twentyshots]

Joe the Plumber gets a recording contract?

http://stereogum.com/archives/joe-the-plumber-getting-record-deal_031711.html

no, apparently the plumber is a war correspondent (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/12/joe-the-plumber-ban-media-from-war/).

brilliant idea.