Joe the Plumber

[bolverk]

How funny that everyone wants to pile on Joe the Plumber now, or Samuel if you prefer. Oh, he owes $1,200 in back taxes to Ohio. And he has a $1,200 debt with a hospital.

I have been in both places, and I am still paying medical bills.

So, I started thinking. Why is everyone in California making hay over a measely $1,200 in back taxes. You cannot find deliquent taxes owed by person for Ohio, but you can for California. At least for the people owing $100,000 or more.

Right now, 161 people owe California $83,530,515.93 in deliquent taxes of $100,000 or more. California has recieved $1,227,873.93 from seven delinquent taxpayers who paid in full.

If the media really wants to stick it to someone, let them stick it to those who really owe. Joe, or Samuel, which ever you prefer, is a small amount that amounts to nothing. The media is ripping him because he points out the flaws in Obama's tax and spend rhetoric. But, the same media cannot spend equal time going after the 161 people ripping off our state to the tune of $83,530,515.93 in deliquent taxes? That is true hypocrisy in action.

[saunterelle]

The funny thing about Joe the Plumber is that he would actually get a tax CUT under Obama. However, he still supports McCain for reasons beyond my comprehension.

[bolverk]

No one will get a tax cut, period. Especially under Obama's plan. One third of working Americans do not earn enough to pay taxes, so they get no tax cut. Obama will raise the taxes on business making more the $250,000 a year, so our costs will go up to pay those taxes for those corporations. Only an idiot does not comprehend that. If corporations are taxed at a higher rate you get a price increase to pay those taxes, what is so hard to understand? Even Kennedy knew this, which is why he gave the largest tax cut in modern history. And gee, he was a Democrat.

[saunterelle]

Do you know what you're talking about Bolverk? Your typical sky is falling fear tactic argument is simply wrong. Here are the facts:

"Obama's plan would return the top two federal income-tax rates to what they were before Bush lowered them. In addition, Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.

The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. "

See the truth, and how McCain has lied about it, here: www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

[The Big Dog]

So the number is under a million. Why should we affect any of them at all?

Hannity & Colmes did an interview with T. Boone Pickens last night. The transcript is here. Video is also available.

Now Mr. Pickens says very clearly he is not an economics expert. However I think you can make an argument that anyone smart enough to amass a multi-billion dollar fortune largely through leveraging buyouts of larger companies has to know something. Having that in mind I would call your attention to the close of the interview.....

HANNITY: Look at their economic plan. You're a pretty smart businessman. What do you think of the idea of Barack Obama's plan to spend a trillion new dollars in spending — that's his proposal. He's going to raise capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, tax rates, windfall profits tax. Is that something you'd do?

PICKENS: Would I do?

HANNITY: If you were president?

PICKENS: No, I wouldn't do it. That's not the way I would go at it.

HANNITY: Well, how would you go at it?

PICKENS: Well, I wouldn't — this isn't a time to raise taxes.

HANNITY: At all?

PICKENS: No.

HANNITY: For anybody.

PICKENS: I wouldn't — listen, I wouldn't touch raising taxes at this point, because here we are flat on our back.

HANNITY: I agree.

PICKENS: You just don't raise taxes.

HANNITY: Does it get worse before it gets better or do you think we've hit bottom?

PICKENS: I think it's going to get worse.

HANNITY: How much worse?

PICKENS: I don't know. It's — you know, you're not talking to an expert on this. You're just talking to an old man with a gut feeling.

HANNITY: I think — I think you've done pretty good with that gut feeling. Good to see you. T. Boone, thank you very much.

Raising taxes into a weak economy got Jimmy Carter into deep kim chee. Cutting taxes into an economy on it's knees (Ronald Reagan, who you might recall followed Carter) helped launch a nearly twenty run of economic growth and prosperity that was blipped only briefly three times.... by the Bush 41 recession, the dot com bubble bursting and by 9/11.

Contrary to all the Democrat propaganda, we have not experienced a true recession during the Bush 43 presidency, who we might recall did some tax cutting. The economy is currently uncertain thanks to a credit crisis brought on by Democrat driven policy and regulation from the past decade. Any attempt by a President Obama to raise taxes into that situation is only going to have broader and far more negative effects, and thats exactly what Pickens is saying.

But go ahead with the unfettered socialism and the new bureaucracies that will be required to support it.

See what happens.

[saunterelle]

Do you really think a billionaire is the right person's opinion to ask about increasing taxes on the rich?

Look, I don't know how well off you are but the reality is that most middle class people in America are struggling right now to make ends meet. They need help. Using a hatchet to freeze spending would be a terrible thing to do. It would lead to further disintegration of our educational system and keep us from being competitive in the future. Obama's plan helps people who need it NOW while McCain's plan basically changes nothing. Who should have the money, the middle class who need it or the oil companies who are already making obscene record profits?

[The Big Dog]

I make $85K a year... squarely in the middle class, with a modest and currently getting hammered investment portfolio. And yeah, I think someone who has started pretty much with nothing and built a fortune in some pretty competetive business environments and situations is a hell of a lot better judge than a bunch of lawyers, many of whom couldn't hold a real job, that went into politics (see Barack, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, Charlie Rangel, etc. etc. etc.) not long out of college and have been in it ever since.

Freezing government spending at current levels and not implementing any new programs without an honest and thorough means testing is just about absolutely the right thing to do. Your hatchet analogy is, I am sure, in reference to Barak's "scalpel" comments about how to go after it. Problem is that him saying he will examine line by line and cut as needed is something he can not do. There is no line item veto authority.

Barack's OMB could propose a budget all it wants. First the House, then the Senate then get their cracks at it, and thats where the fun really begins. What eventually gets to the president's desk for signature is all or nothing, sign the whole thing or veto the whole thing. I'd also point out that there has not been a consilidated federal budget in many, many years. The Congress funds government operations through a series of continuing appropriation resolutions. Or perhaps you weren't aware of any of that?

Your example of education spending is an absolute canard, to the point of being utterly ridiculous. Particularly in California. K-12 education gets, by law, 55% of the state's general fund budget ahead of all other appropriated and entitlement spending. In the current budget thats over $60 billion dollars. Given the number of students that is more money than any school system in the nation. Yet the actual rate of per pupil spending is surprisingly low, and test scores are even lower. Our schools in California are lavishly funded (remember there are grants, lottery money, fees, fundraisers and all kinds of other revenue sources on top of the general fund outlay), so given that fact, why are our schools largely failing to educate our children. Simply throwing more money at it will not solve the problem. Want more proof? Please see the travails of the Oakland Unified School District.

Obama's plan helps government hand out more money, hence accrete more power to itself. You question about "who should have the money" is a pip. The people who earn the money should have first crack at the reward of their own labor. Your rip on the oil companies is pure comedy and pure socialistic class warfare.

I own small positions of stock in a couple of oil companies, amongst the other things in my modest portfolio. I am grateful for the dividends that they pay which help me to grow my retirement fund. But your socialistic argument of equality and helping the middle class ignores some basic facts.

* The oil companies pay far more in taxes already than they make in profit. They have for years. Don't believe me? Look it up.

* Any new taxes assessed against corporations are simply going to passed through to the consumer... to you and me. That is how it works. You can't change that and neither can Barack. You want to price of gas to go back to $5 or more per gallon? Start levying penal taxes on the oil companies and watch what happens.

* The "obscene profits" you harp about endlessly are not as good as you might think. While in raw numbers of dollars they are higher, those dollars are worth far, far less than what they used to be. If you had any insight into international commerce and exchange rates you would understand just how painfully weak and undervalued our dollar is.

In closing, and to close down on your final points, pure socialism has failed, or is failing, in every single instance it has been tried. While the Chinese are still communists, they have embraced capitalsm and are far better at it (at least for the moment) than we are. They are loaning us our own money for heaven's sake.

But more or less pure socialism is what Barack's "plans" promise. Rather than expect middle class folks like me to work hard and step up to the next level, you and Barack want to give away "free money". Remember that Barack's claim of 95% of Americans getting a tax cut is an utter prevarication as 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. He proposes to triple the earned income tax credit for those 40%... that is a give away, pure and simple but for what purpose? Equality?

Here's a clue... in the real world there are winners and there are losers. It is the right and the duty of losers to work harder so that next time they can be the winner. This country, thanks to our piss poor outcome based public education system, and mamby pamby feel good socialist pols like Barack, has largely lost sight of that immuteable fact. If the losers are going to be rewarded for losing, as they are across Europe, they become disincentivized to do anything to try harder. The failed welfare system of the 1950's and 1960's that was reformed by a Republican Congress under Bill Clinton in the 1990's should ring a bell.

You and Barack want to go back to that. Welll thanks but no thanks. It didn't work then, it won't work now, and it sure as hell isn't going to work next January.

[maxsawdust]

Oct 17, 2008 13:57:59 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Do you really think a billionaire is the right person's opinion to ask about increasing taxes on the rich?

Look, I don't know how well off you are but the reality is that most middle class people in America are struggling right now to make ends meet. They need help. Using a hatchet to freeze spending would be a terrible thing to do. It would lead to further disintegration of our educational system and keep us from being competitive in the future. Obama's plan helps people who need it NOW while McCain's plan basically changes nothing. Who should have the money, the middle class who need it or the oil companies who are already making obscene record profits?

Is 10% REALLY an "Obscene" Profit Margin?

Really?

LOL



Take Exxon Mobil, which recently reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any “windfall” tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to me, but perhaps I'm missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.


Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).


If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings.

The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.



In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn’t investing enough in “renewable” energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%…..



"Obscene Profit" Myth Dispelled.




Send in the Unicorns...and fairy dust.

[bolverk]

Let me ask you something saunterelle, do you think automakers will get a tax increase? If they do, I won't be able to buy a new car this coming year as I planned. Which means my money will not go back into the economy. Is that a good thing?

How about oil companies, will they get a tax increase, plus an increase in fuel taxes and a windfall profits tax? If so then I will be traveling much less and I will not be taking the vacation I had planned for next year into Northern California. I would have been spending money in smaller communities, spreading my wealth around to the businesses I want to help. But Obama wants to spread the wealth to people I don't even know, why is it better for him to decide how my money is spent.

Gee, if the price of fuel goes up then so will the price of food, you can't prevent that. If the price of food goes up then I will be spending less on other things. I will be paying the taxes of the people who transport the food to my store instead. Or is that beyond your meager comprehension?

You really are lost aren't you saunterelle.

[Mink]

Bloverk: "How funny that everyone wants to pile on Joe the Plumber now, or Samuel if you prefer. Oh, he owes $1,200 in back taxes to Ohio. And he has a $1,200 debt with a hospital."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not that people want to pile on this guy, but if he can't pay taxes under Bush's plan (which he doesn't owe much), what makes him think he can pay under Mccain's? He's paying more money for gas, food, utilities, healthcare...etc as are all of us, now. With the financial mess we are all in, we all have a shaky future, save the top less than 10%. Is it really feasible or smart for a guy in his position to start a business?

[The Big Dog]

People don't want to pile on him. Left leaning Democrat surrogates for Barack do.



And in so far as it being feasible to start a business right now, there is an old saying when playing poker that applies......

"No balls, no blue chips."

For an idea of what that really means, see T. Boone Pickens above, or the 116 Americans who are even wealthier than he is.

[jgaffney]

Oct 17, 2008 13:57:59 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Do you really think a billionaire is the right person's opinion to ask about increasing taxes on the rich?

Well, it seems that Obama doesn't have any problem looking to Warren Buffett for economic advice.