"Joe the Plumber"
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): "Joe the Plumber"
Apparently, none of the "facts" about Joe the Plumber from the presidential debate were accurate. I looked up and have included a link, the rest of this was a bulletin a friend posted on MySpace.
Joe the Plumber
"Joe the Plumber," who became an instant political celebrity after John McCain cited him Wednesday night as a potential victim of Barack Obama's tax plans, has a lien on his home for failing to pay state income taxes.
He also isn't a licensed plumber, Ohio records show.
POLITICS BLOG: Joe under the microscope Is he even a plumber?
And his concerns about how his tax burden might be affected by Obama's economic plan may well be moot or at least off target.
The story of Samuel J. Wurzelbacher the real name of "Joe" began Sunday, when he approached Obama as the Democratic nominee was campaigning in Wurzelbacher's Toledo, Ohio, neighborhood.
Wurzelbacher told Obama that he hoped to buy the plumbing business where he's employed and noted that the business makes slightly more than $250,000 a year. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" Wurzelbacher asked.
In Wednesday's debate, McCain, Obama's Republican opponent, invoked Wurzelbacher as "Joe the Plumber" and used his story as an example in arguing that Obama's tax plan would penalize small business owners. Turns out, Wurzelbacher may not have been the best case study.
Wurzelbacher acknowledged in an interview with the Associated Press that he does not make more than $250,000 a year the threshold for getting a tax increase under Obama's plan. He also acknowledged that he has no specific plan to buy the plumbing business where he works a two-man firm that consists of Wurzelbacher and the owner and has only talked generally about someday taking over the business.
"It is utterly bizarre that McCain chose this guy as the poster child, because this guy would get a tax cut under Obama, and wouldn't under McCain," says William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, which has analyzed both Obama's and McCain's tax plans. The center is run jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute, two Washington think tanks.
Wurzelbacher, 34, lives with his teenage son in a three-bedroom home that he bought in 2005 for $126,500 in Holland, Ohio, a Toledo suburb, public records show. He has been registered to vote in Ohio since 1992, registration records show, but he never aligned with a particular party until this spring, when he opted to vote in the Republican primary.
County court records show that two liens have been placed against Wurzelbacher's home. One, for $1,261.37, was placed in July 2007 by a local hospital for outstanding bills, and it was lifted that October after the debt was satisfied through garnishment of wages. The second, for $1,182.98, was placed by the state of Ohio in January 2007 for unpaid personal income taxes, and that lien remains in effect.
Wurzelbacher told the AP that he works for Newell Plumbing and Heating in Toledo and said he does not have a plumber's license. Wurzelbacher said such a license is not necessary as long as he is working on site with the owner, Al Newell.
Newell did not return messages requesting comment.
Gale, the tax analyst, said commercial business databases suggest that Newell's business apparently has annual sales of about $100,000. As such, Obama's tax plan would not raise taxes on the business. Under the plan, only businesses with adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 a year would see tax increases, and the increase would be only on that portion of their income that exceeds $250,000.
Gale noted that Obama has proposed a series of subsidies for small business owners that could actually help, not hurt, the company.
If Wurzelbacher or his employer make "a whole lot of money in the future," they would pay more taxes under Obama's plan than McCain's, Gale says. As things stand now, "this guy's not in any danger from Obama's tax hikes."
Contributing: Dennis Cauchon in Toledo, Ohio, and Richard Wolf in Washington.
Poor Joe. As far as I can tell from the net, the question to Obama was his own idea. And Obama took about 5 minutes to talk with him. But I'll bet Joe never figured he'd get his 15 minutes of fame, and I'm pretty sure he never figured on having so many details about his personal life broadcast to the world. He does, however, seem to hold on to his preference for McCain's tax plans rather than Obama's - maybe it was an impulse born of principal. Still, I feel kind of sorry for the guy. And I really feel sorry for his teenage son, who is going to have his own 15 minutes at school for the next few days.
I think that it is horrible that someone "dug" into this guys back ground, when clearly he was just used as an example for the working class. People need to find something better to do with their time.
I agree with Ginny that I kind of feel a little bad for Joe the plumber. I am sure he didn't know that he was going to caught up in all of this. But in saying that, I am sure there are thousands if not millions of Joe the plumbers out there that are really glad he got the attention he did!
I just really wish there would have been one follow up question to Obama. I wish someone Joe would have asked him why he felt it was needed to "spread the wealth" to all those behind him so they could be "given" the same opportunities he had. Most people that I know were not given a thing. They worked hard and long hours to get their business. Instead of being given things, what is wrong with working for them?
Well, in my view, Vicki, businesses, all of us, and especially the very well off and wealthy, are given a great deal. At a minimum, they get tax supported roads, airports, air traffic safety, police protection, fire department services, and a whole host of tax supported infrastructure and services - without which they could not exist, let alone be doing well. They get a stable society in which to operate and to which they can promote and sell their goods and services. Business profits greatly from tax supported research. Public education educates the people Joe will hire (though not anywhere near as well as it used to).
All of us living in this country have been given a great deal - by those who came before us and those around us now. Yes, people work long and hard hours to succeed, but without the systems, infrastructure and society that this nation has and supports, that long hard work wouldn't get them very far.
And, finally, "spreading the wealth around" a bit will make it possible for people to be able to pay for Joe's services, to live at something more than a subsistence level (which is pretty much what it is to try to live on minimum wage). That "wealth" doesn't get spread into people's pockets and stay there. Almost every dollar that a lower income family gets is recirculated almost immediately, to the landlord, the supermarket, etc.
One of Obama's proposals, assuming he is elected, is to put tax dollars into rebuilding the infrastructure. This is very similar to the PWA program of the Roosevelt era. It would do a couple of things, and the most important is that it would put out of work construction workers at all levels back to work, back to paying taxes, back to paying their mortgage/rent and bills on time (and back to paying payroll taxes, with their employers also paying local, state and federal taxes) - and the related clerks, secretaries and support services could be re-employed - and the small businesses that sell to construction companies and construction workers would profit. If it weren't for the deficit that has mushroomed to giant size in the last 7 years, it would be a total win-win. Personally, I'm all for that kind of wealth spreading.
Quote: I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Is "spreading the wealth" fair for a family that makes $X, x being in a higher tax bracket, when the family pays more in taxes Per Day, than it does for all of their everyday living expenses Per Day? Everyday living expenses includes mortgage, and all bills-phone, electric, vehicles, school, food, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I agree taxes should be paid. I'm not agreeing to much on "spreading the wealth." To me there is a difference.
Enchens, I find it hard to believe that any family is paying more in taxes per day than they pay for all of their everyday living expenses. I'd love to see an example of that.
I'll agree that Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs pay a lot more in taxes than they probably pay for "everyday living expenses", but that doesn't count all the other ways they choose to spend their money.
Well, it is my opinion that one of the reasons so many businesses are going overseas is because of the tax rates in this country. So I don't see how rasising them even more is going to be a good idea and keep jobs here.... but that is only my opinion.
As far as "spreading the wealth around" I think it is one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard. I do realize that some people are given their good fortune just because of the family they are born into. But I also believe that MOST people earn their own wealth. If you have the desire to make it, I don't think it is fair that you are pentalized so much just because you are rich. Good for you!! You chased that American dream we hear so much about and you made it. But somehow in this country, if you make it to the American dream you are looked down upon and seen as just greedy and needing to give so much of it back. And it really isn't anyones business how they choose to spend their money. They made it, they can burn it if they want too! For the life of me I can't figure out why so many people are so negative against rich people. Many of them took risks to get there, if you want to take the risk, go for it!
We are taxed way too much. There are too many government programs that are nothing but a huge waste of money. There are too many programs that people can take advantage of. FIX all of that before you go taking for even more money from people.
Ginny, a good example is our family.
I don't understand the example you present Enchens. Can someone explain it please?
Vicki- I completely agree with you, yet on the other hand, where does the taxes come from if it doesn't come from the wealthy? The poor certainly don't have it or can afford it, no? The higher the tax bracket, the higher the taxes. Shouldn't it be the same for businesses?
I also agree with you that there are probably many programs where gov't $ is being spent that simply need to be reformed or eliminated, and that would make a difference.
I think it was silly to bring up Joe the PLumber in the debate. Poor guy. He just asked a question to a possible president and his life gets examined for heaven's sake. I'm sure people do it every day. McCain singled this guy out in an attempt to slam Obama's plan, putting 'Joe' unfairly in the limelight IMO.
The reason I posted this is not because Joe the Plumber was brought up, but because none of the things he was concerned about were true. He would actually get some benefits from Obama's tax plan, not penalties. The company in question makes less than $250K a year. And I agree with whomever mentioned above about if the taxes don't come from the rich, where should they come from? You want good schools, affordable health card, and this insanely funded military, not to mention police, fire, and emergency services of the sort, nice roads, safe bridges, etc. You want disaster services when hurricanes or tornadoes hit, you want social security when you retire, but how do you want to pay for it? Do you think we can just magic all those items? Most Americans will benefit from Obama's plan, yet fight it. Everyone needs to start understanding it takes taxes to make our country run, and all of these promised of lowered taxes mean we lose some benefits somewhere. Perhaps we can stop spending billions in Iraq, and use that money somewhere else so we can lower our tax needs? Then people scream that you aren't supporting the military when you say that, when as someone who has been a military wife, I feel the opposite. We need to take care of ALL Americans, not just the military, and if you wnat to cut taxes, that's a big part of where our money is going. One change I would make is if they make a certain percentage above the state average, or somehow account for cost of living. A person who makes $250K here in South Florida is just above average, and in California may barely get by, but in Kansas that is a pretty decent wage, definitely considered wealthy.
The rich are already paying enough in taxes. Instead of the government taking more and more and more from them, perhaps they should be spending less. I also don't feel that we need to take care of all americans. What happened to people being responsible for themselves? Now, I do realize that some of the programs are needed, but not near as many as we have. I see personal responsibility getting less and less in this country by the day. I am one of the people that have the opinion that government has gotten way too big. If they cut back, they wouldn't need as much money to operate.
Crystal, when he presented the question to Obama he said the business would make between 250 and 270 or something like that. So yes, possibly a business that makes less than 250 might get some relief under Obama, but not a business over 250. And Obama came right out and told him that yes, a small business that makes over 250 would see a tax increase under his plan and went on to say something about spreading the wealth.
The company in question makes less than the 250 right now, but perhaps by the time he buys it or takes it over or whatever he thinks his future plans are, maybe he was thinking that is what it might be making then? Who really knows what he was thinking??
Well, according to Bloomberg (hardly a liberal publication):
"The company McCain said the plumber wants to buy has annual sales of $510,000, according to an analysis by Dun & Bradstreet. That makes it unlikely that Wurzelbacher's purchase would give him a taxable income of more than $200,000 -- leaving him unaffected by Obama's proposal to roll back tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000, said Steven Bankler, a certified public accountant in San Antonio, who counts plumbers and other trade professionals as his clients." ... "Almost 95 percent of 21.5 million owners of small businesses who file as sole proprietors had receipts under $100,000 in 2007." ... "Another 4 million businesses organize as so-called subchapter S corporations, according to IRS data; less than 5 percent of them earn more than $200,000." Bloomberg
Sorry my thoughts are in so many different posts. Dd had a couple of friends over and they needed me and then I had to run them to the football game. I also wanted to comment on this that you said Ginny:
And, finally, "spreading the wealth around" a bit will make it possible for people to be able to pay for Joe's services, to live at something more than a subsistence level (which is pretty much what it is to try to live on minimum wage). That "wealth" doesn't get spread into people's pockets and stay there. Almost every dollar that a lower income family gets is recirculated almost immediately, to the landlord, the supermarket, etc.
Do you honestly believe this is true? Do you think that businesses will just absorb a tax increase? Or is it more likely that they will raise prices which in turn eats up even more of the wealth that was supposed to be spread around? Or not hire as many people or possibly even lay people off? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me at all!! Sounds more like a vicious circle.
Vicki, I agree with you totally. "Spreading the wealth" is Communism, or at the very least, socialism. Obama's plan implies that it is a "shameful" thing to be wealthy and successful, and those that are should be penalized. It totally flies in the face of capitalism and the free enterprise system that made this country the strong nation that it was in the post World War II years. America is the land of opportunity. You can be whatever you want to be in America, IF you want to work for it.
You are absolutely right, Vicki, when you state that many jobs have gone overseas because of the present tax burden on the business owner, It would only get worse under Obama's plan. It is the wealthy person who owns the businesses who provide the jobs for the rest of us. We should take care of them, not punish them.
The 1980's were a time of booming prosperity in our country under President Reagan and his "trickle down", "supply side" economics. America was built on self-reliance. Get it for yourself. Work for it.
DH and I are far from wealthy people. We own our home and have raised four children. We have a modest amount of savings, but probably not enough to sustain us if we live to be very elderly. We have worked very hard, as did our parents. We have never taken government handouts, unless you count the things that Ginny mentioned that have benefited us all, such as infrastructure, public education, etc. I acknowledge that there are very real needs in this world, and a lot of suffering. To that end, we give to charities of OUR choice, and support our church. I do believe that "much is expected from those to whom much is given". If God has blessed you, you have an obligation to help others. However, I want a say as to where my money goes and how it is given. I don't want that decided for me.
Working in the medical field, I know that there are people that just are not employable. We see them in our office. For those people, there should be a safety net. However, I also see people who have an entitlement attitude. For example, if for some reason, their Medicaid benefits have lapsed and I tell them they have a balance due to the doctor, they are highly incensed and tell me flat out that they don't "have to pay it". As the office manager, it is one of my duties to collect payment due to the physician I work for, and it is frustrating to me when I cannot. It is the patient's responsibility to ascertain that their benefits are in effect. Many come to the office and accept the doctor's care and services KNOWING that they have no coverage, with no intention of paying. In the meantime, the doctor has her own expenses to pay.
Under Obama's plan, there has to be some sort of means test to determine who is truly needy and who is just lazy, and I don't know if that is possible. And when the wealth is "spread around", it destroys the incentives for many to even try. When McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972, he promised everyone in America $10,000.00 per year (which, believe it or not was a lot of money in 1972), whether they worked or not. The promise was so ludicrous that he lost the election.
The purpose of government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not to provide sustinence.
I got off topic there, i.e. "Joe the Plumber", and I apologize. One thing that I meant to say is that poor Joe has had his life laid bare to the world because he dared to question the "left". Why have we not had satellite trucks and round-the-clock embedded newscasters parked on William Ayer's front lawn?
Ok, I'm back.
Let me see if I can explain myself a bit more regarding the taxes.
First, I'm sorry, Ginny, I hesitate at giving out our specific personal financial information. Suffice it to say that my husband did the math (he is a numbers guy) and he said we do pay more in taxes than we do in our expenditures.
For example, suppose our expenditures total $75 per day. (Yeah, if only) Our taxes are $100 per day (for purposes of the example). So in one month our expenditures (again for the example) total $2325. Our taxes in one month is (again, going along with the example) a total of $3100.
We don't live extravagantly.
Now, here's why I agree with paying taxes, and I don't agree with "spreading the wealth"
Vicky has it right. We are constantly told to work hard and it will pay off. You'll achieve the American Dream. Well, guess what? My husband and I did just that. He comes from a family of four, who always had enough. I would say they just missed the cutoff for middle class.
I, on the other hand, lived below the poverty line my whole life and I didn't even know it. I come from a family of farm laborers, and I'm the first and only one to go to the university. I worked hard to pay for it. At one point, I held three jobs and went to school full time. After dh and I married, I made a pittance as a schoolteacher and my husband, being the bottom rung on the ladder at his job, made even less than I did. We lived in a small apartment that got filled up with our little family-we added two children. We were all in one bedroom. Imagine how fortunate and relieved I felt when we finally bought a house. We've been here going on three years next month. Housing was at it's peak at that time.
Now we are finally settled. Dh works, we have a house for our family, we can afford to breathe a little easier and now we have to pay more in taxes! How is that right? How is that fair?
With the price of milk and the price of gas so high we are expected to pay more? How are we supposed to save for our own future so we don't burden anyone? How are we to save for our children's education? Why do we have to "spread the wealth" when we already pay our fair share? I say let my little family keep what we sacrificed to earn and let us take our own "extra" and save it for our future. We should not be forced to give it away. I feel we are being penalized for doing nothing more than working hard.
Tax us at a fair percentage. We are not opposed to taxes. We are opposed to unfair ones. We are by no means rich. We are more comfortable than most, for two reasons, we don't spend unwisely and my dh finally makes a decent wage.
I hope this made sense and clarifies some points. Even with several revisions, it's hard sometimes to make sure things are written so others understand my thoughts.
Ditto Vicki, Hol, and Enchens...
Ditto Vicki, Hol, and Enchens..and Kate.
Vicki- I very much agree with you that the gov't spends too much, thus 'needing' to raise taxes. On the other hand though, isn't this a time when there is SO much to pay for? All these issues that are being discussed...the $ for finding better energy sources, education, special needs research and programs, healthcare. Seems like that is enough right there to *need* to raise taxes.
I also don't tend to agree with 'spreading the wealth' necessarily, but that it should be done on a limited basis (timelines, deadlines for taking your own responsibility, that sort of thing). I personally don't reallyn understand all of this bailout situation. Regardless of how much I read about it, I still think it's the borrowers who should be held the most responsible! Therefore, 'bailing out' just seems like one more way of making people not take responsibility for not doing simple math and figuring out how much they can afford to pay for a home.
Hol - I think there are lots of people with an entitlement-type of attitude, from the poor on up. I also agree that some people just aren't employable. I don't think we should paying for those people all the time, but often those are people with small children as well, and therein lies the problem.
Hol - I think because William Ayers already has his life laid out there, no? People have heard of him, but not Joe the Plumber.
>>"Everyone needs to start understanding it takes taxes to make our country run, and all of these promised of lowered taxes mean we lose some benefits somewhere. Perhaps we can stop spending billions in Iraq, and use that money somewhere else so we can lower our tax needs?"<<
Crystal, I agree with you. So maybe my thoughts are a bit scattered. I feel that I can see both sides.
I guess I don't really get why raising taxes on small businesses over $250K by 3% is a big deal? For income tax, if you make more, you pay more. Why is this different? When I go back to work, we will bump up into another tax bracket and pay more taxes. It's not going to keep me from going back to work though, so I sort-of don't get why it's that big of a deal.
$250K would be considered wealthy in Indiana as well.
That's a bit off topic, but anyway. Enchens, thank you for your example. 
Well, I don't agree with the current structure of the income taxes either, but that is a whole different topic. But Obama is proposing to make it even worse than it is now!
I have heard some spread the wealth analogies lately and the fairness of it.....
Take a room full of college kids. At the end of the grading period they take some of the grades from those that got all A's and give them to the kids that got some C's and lower to even things out and make things even. Is that fair? Take grades from those that worked their butts off and give them to those that didn't so we all can be on a more even playing field? What incentive do you give anyone? What incentive do the hard working kids have to keep working hard when they loose some of their grades? What incentive do the slackers have to work harder, because they are getting grades for not doing the work?
Take a doctor and a nurse. What incentive does the doctor have to go through the expense and time of going through medical school when you take his money and give it to the nurse so she can be more even to the doctor?
You work for years in your field and get merit raises and raises for doing a great job and credit for time worked. But they hire someone new and take some of your pay and give it to them so they can be close to you..... You still have more experience and have to do more of the work since you have been there longer and the new hire doesn't know what you do. But so things can be fair, they take your money and give it to them. What incentive do you have to stay there and do more work, harder work for less money? What incentive does the new hire have to learn new skills and take on more responsibility when the pay is just handed to them to be fair?
Very good analogies, Vicki. There is a similar situation in the public schools, at least here in Rhode Island. We have a high rate of illegal immigrants, especially in the cities, because the mayor of Providence made his city a "sanctuary city". The burden on the school dept has been enormous, between the social problems that this population brings and the need to hire bilingual teachers. Because these students are at a disadvantage because they don't speak English, their ability to learn is diminished. Therefore, to level the field and also to make the statewide testing scores look better (to get more Federal funding), the school departments have put all of the grading on a curve. It creates just the situation you mentioned. It rewards the under acheivers and penalizes the motivated. Consequently, the high standards of education that we once enjoyed in this state are gone.
I'm afraid that this "spread the wealth" business is formulated to benefit the lower socio-economic class, and possibly the people who are here illegally, the most. Notice that, in all of the debates, or any of the other rhetoric from either candidate, neither side has even dared to go near the immigration issue. Both side want votes so they don't want to ruffle any feathers. I suspect that there will be a large problem of voter fraud in this election for that reason; ala ACORN, etc.
I realize that I have opened another couple of worm cans here, but it is all connected.
Well I am "happy" to say that I am a rich American according to Barack Obama! when really we are Joe the Plumber! We are the owners of a small business and the BUSINESS INCOME far exceeds his "very rich" $250K. This is a joke ladies and I really hope everyone pays attention to this. This tax plan will hurt small businesses, his plan is to take gross receipts of the businesses, NOT what the owners walk away with twice a month.
And as far as Ginny's analogy of what businesses "recieve" is not accurate, at least not where we are. Our taxes, income, federal, state and property are FAR higher than individuals, as business owners and those taxes PAY for the roads/ambulances/schools, no one is GIVEN these things, please, we PAY for these things through our hard work and the risk of owning a business through taxes and the endless fees that the city and state charges for running a business in the "stable economy" Frankly, small businesses are a key to that stable economy. Our business is able to provide many donations to schools, sports programs, local youth and more. I can tell you that this will be one of the first things we will HAVE to cut if our taxes are raised any more. Furthermore I am not interested at all in Obamas socialist plans and that is what it is! In my own family I can honestly say we have the haves and the have nots, the reason being one thing: Work Ethic! It has ZERO to do with what any president has done!
And Finally, thank you Hol for this quote, I couldn't agree more.
The purpose of government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is not to provide sustinence.
Sorry to hijack your post Crystal, but for me Joe the Plumber is better left in "quotes" than for us to look a the actual man who spoke, because beleive me there are lots of us "Joes" out there who are panicking about this election!
I really disagree with the way some of you have portrayed the "spread the wealth" idea, as communism. We aren't saying take the doctor's pay and give some to the nurse to make them even, or take the kids' grades and spread them around. We are talking about giving the wealthy more economic responsibility to help fund all of the things the country needs, rather than give those making a lot above the national average all of the tax cuts, and making Joe MIDDLE CLASS pick up the tax tab. We aren't giving the money to lower income people, we are funding the things the country NEEDS to be successful. Not everyone who is low income is lazy. I'm sorry, but I've been a single mom for a few years now, and childcare alone eats up most of the money I make at even a decent paying job. When inflation is driving prices up so high, and wages don't follow, I can't even afford basic necessities after paying the sitter. Now that my kids are in school it's not as difficult, but that brings it's own costs. So a program to help provide them with health care (which BTW NONE of us have atm, and I have thousands in emergency bills when I had no other option for care) because I can't afford it, that's •••• important to our survival. THAT'S where the wealth is going.
We aren't giving the money to lower income people
That is not the way I understand his plan. From what I have been able to gather he says 95% of Americans will benefit from his plan. How can that be if over 40% of people don't pay income tax because of their low earnings?
We are the owners of a small business and the BUSINESS INCOME far exceeds his "very rich" $250K. This is a joke ladies and I really hope everyone pays attention to this. This tax plan will hurt small businesses, his plan is to take gross receipts of the businesses, NOT what the owners walk away with twice a month.
This is another fact that people aren't realizing. By the look of your monthly income, you are rich according to him. But I bet what you walk away with at the end of the month would put you about smack dab in the middle of middle class?? Just a guess there, but I bet I am not too far off. But what figure is he looking at? The bigger one of course! All the while, you are taking the risks (like I posted earlier) and maybe even providing a few jobs for people, but you are the bad guy!
He is going to kill small business if he gets elected!!
Crystal you bring up a great debate topic as
well with high costs of everything, we feel it the same way you do, you are not alone in that as a single parent. We also are not given health insurance, we pay for that out of pocket and at a premium (we have a Health saving account program) But we as American's have to realize that over taxing one set of folks and under taxing, or not taxing the others is any type of a solution for this. For one thing ALL taxes paid are funneled through a government program, this means that the $1.00 put into the system is dwindled down to mere pennies when it reaches another persons purse no matter how it is disperesed the $1.00 is not the same $1.00. We need a system that allows EACH of us to be able to keep MORE of our OWN money, to use as we need and wish. There will always be the greedy that don't "share" but as Americans we are overwhelmingly generous to the programs we are attracted to, we shouldn't be made to feel guilty because we have some extra money and we are not particularly worried about X so we choose to support Y.
I wish I could believe, like you that, the my extra tax dollars would only be going to fund needed programs, but I just cannot I have seen the downfall of our welfare system, I have seen the huge money that goes to Washington and is blown on ridiculous programs. And to use your healthcare examples, costs rise because of unimaginable law suits, illegal immigration and overuse of the medical programs,etc, not because small businesses (or anyone) pay too little in taxes! And I really didn't mean to imply that anyone recieving assistance is lazy, but looking at the root cause of MOST financial difficulties stems from lack of a good work ethic at some point, of course there are exceptions.
And Vicki you are correct, we fall in the middle class but Mr. Obama, who has never even been the employee of a small business let alone the owner, does not see it that way, if only we didn't have to pay taxes, salaries, mortgages etc, I would be rich
Well, Kym, we agree there. However, I'm not sure McCain or ANY candidate of late has had a great plan to fix that, so we work with what we have. I do like McCain's idea of a fereze in some aspects, but I think it's unrealistic. And I want to say my family has operated a small business for 2 generations now, so I completely understand what that means to a business owner. And yes, they have their own unique struggles... undoubtedly. But we have to do something different, all of these promises of lower taxes for everyone, and bailing out people's mortgages, providing decent services, and on top of that, BILLIONS to big companies that screwed themselves over, we have to fund it. Also, costs in medical were mentioned, and rise in part because people going into the ER when they have any illness because they can't see a PCM, in addition to the malpractice suits. (I don't for a second agree with the malpractice suits in most cases.)
First, Obama's 95% is 95% of working families, all of whom pay taxes. Even those who don't pay income tax because their income is too low (under around $15,000 annually, approximately) do pay payroll taxes, which comes to about 7.65% of income until your income reaches $102,000 a year.
Second, a business that has an income of $250,000 does not have a taxable income of $250,000. The taxable income is what is left after all business expenses are deducted - just as on your personal income tax return, where your tax is calculated on what is left after you take all the allowed deductions (including a health savings account, if you have one). (And the last time I looked, if a business pays for health insurance for its employees, that is a deductible expense.)
Third, I ran some numbers myself, Enchen. About 20% of my gross income goes in federal income tax and payroll taxes (payroll taxes - Social Security and Medicare being 7.65%). That's the part of my taxes controlled by the federal goverment (in other words, who we elect). Another 10% goes to state and township taxes and real estate taxes, none of which are controlled by the federal government. So, approximately 30% of my gross income goes to taxes at all levels - including real estate/property taxes. And, running the numbers, what I spend on mortgage, utilities, groceries, and transportation does come to around 30% of my gross income, which is about what I pay in taxes. But, I am a single working woman, so my grocery expenses are much lower than most, and I am not buying childrens' clothes any more, thank goodness (except for my granddaughter, of course). My mortgage is also fairly low. And I only drive 15 miles a day for work, so my transportation expense are probably lower than average. So my 30% of gross income for living expenses is lower than most.
Now, if you are self-employed, you do pay both halves of the payroll taxes, which really increases the federal tax bite, but that is not income tax. And remember, those payroll taxes stop when your gross income reaches $102,000 (wether you are self-employed or have a boss who writes your paycheck). So if you are self-employed, the tax bite is larger. But payroll taxes are not considered "income" tax, which is the tax schedule Obama and McCain are talking about. So that 7.65% - or 15.3% if you are self-employed - is unlikely to change no matter who is elected.
According to the article in Bloomberg, which, I repeat, is not known for being a liberal publication, very few small businesses or small business owners will pay more income taxes under Obama's plan. Read the link.
And yes, you are not "given" the various government services I listed. Yes, you "pay" for them, with taxes. Government taxes has always been the way a society pays for things that the society as a whole needs, from the Roman road builders to the roads built in your town.
If you want to talk about government spending, how about the $54 Billion spent in the last year for which the Govt Budget Office (GBO) had figures, to subsidize private insurance companies selling Medicare Advantage insurance (which some people buy instead of the regular Medicare program). The oil industry gets somewhere between $20 Billion and $40 Billion a year in tax-paid federal subsidies. Those are 2 examples I could easily find of federal subsidies that I personally would like to see ended. If you want to cut government spending (and taxes), why not go after the people that get the really big hunks?
Ginny, you are just incorrect, Obama has nicely evaded the gross vs net speak when he talks about this, but when speaking with Joe, here is his direct quote
"First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you'd get a tax cut for your healthcare costs
.. if your revenue is above 250 then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up from 250 300 or so, so for that additional amount, youd go from 36 to 39%, "
So it is based on REVENUE of the business, before any tax deductions, bills, salaries etc. maybe Obama mis spoke or maybe Bloomberg understands his plan better than Obama does,$ I don't know, but that is what I heard!
Ginny I was really just picking on your choice of words above with "given" I knew you didn't think that way, but some people may not realize the scope of what businesses do to create local lfestyle.
I am not in any way complaining about being self employed, it is our choice and a huge blessing for us as family and my husband lives his passion every day. But when you run the figures on what this comes down to 3% of revenue turns into 15% and sometimes 20% of our profit. In one year this 3% increase for us means 25% of our take home pay for the year, it is equal to one year salary for our full time employee and would pay in state college tuition for one of our four children. That is how we look at it as owners.
I am with you all the way on government spending it is so far out of control! But I am just not for going after anyone for money they have earned, I am for cutting ( yes I like the spending freeze even if it's a daydream) programs, and the good way to do it is for Americans to stop allowing governement to take so much of what is ours and let us be in control of our own money, savings, spending, retirement. Clearly the system is broken, even if we elect the Messiah, things won't change until we as the poeople of the country change our thinking, take responsibility and not believe rhetoric that any politician or government organization can make our situation better.
And Crystal, I opposed the bailouts even though I "sorta" understood why we needed to,
Kym, it has been explained to us in the exact same way. We have the same information.
So why does the accountant in the Bloomberg article say that if Joe buys a business with annual sales (gross income) of $510,000, it's very unlikely that he would be affected by Obama's tax proposals?
This is from the Bloomberg article: The company McCain said the plumber wants to buy has annual sales of $510,000, according to an analysis by Dun & Bradstreet. That makes it unlikely that Wurzelbacher's purchase would give him an adjusted gross income income of more than $200,000 -- leaving him unaffected by Obama's proposal to roll back tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000, said Steven Bankler, a certified public accountant in San Antonio, who counts plumbers and other trade professionals as his clients.
According to the Bloomberg article, if Joe had an adjusted gross income of $280,000 it "would make Wurzelbacher very unusual among small businesses. According to the Internal Revenue Service, most small businesses organize in ways that allow their owners to pay taxes at personal rates rather than as corporations, which impose a second layer of taxes. Almost 95 percent of 21.5 million owners of small businesses who file as sole proprietors had receipts under $100,000 in 2007.
Another 4 million businesses organize as so-called subchapter S corporations, according to IRS data; less than 5 percent of them earn more than $200,000."
If you are in that "less than 5 percent" category, then I'm happy for you, and you will pay more taxes under Obama's plan. But if you're not, according to Bloomberg you won't.
Here's the link again: Bloomberg
Honestly Ginny, I can't tell you why that article says what it does. I guess different accountants and financial planners have different information. I guess you just have to pick who you want to trust.
I watched on Fox news that only 2% of "small businesses" fall into the category that will have it's taxes slightly raised.
Deanna, my thoughts are fairly scattered on this as well, and I tend to agree with what you posted. So at least we can be scattered thinkers, together. LOL
Here's an article from PolitiFact about the tax calculator on the Obama website. The article points out some details of Obama's and McCain's plans that are not clear from their websites or ads, and points out some flaws/oversights in the Obama calculator. Tax Plans
The article refers to a "tax calculator" developed by an accountant. If you plug in numbers from last year's tax return, it will calculate what your taxes are likely to be (based on present published plans) under both Obama and McCain over the next four years. Give it a try. Calculator
The Electiontaxes website also has pages explaining how the model was developed, the assumptions built in, and footnotes for the various tax laws and rules used in preparing the calculator.
I go to both PolitiFact and FactCheck regularly, and find that both sites tend to be fairly equal in their evaluations/criticisms of all candidates.
I found this interesting, because of this excerpt...
The Obama campaign e-mailed an excerpt from a McCain statement on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 in which McCain said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." The Democratic e-mail also cited a McCain statement from the 2000 campaign that "I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
Now McCain wants to extend those Bush tax cuts and argues that anything else amounts to a tax increase.
So, in 2001, McCain said almost verbatim what Obama is saying this week... people like himself, who are fortunate enough to make a certain wage, should be obligated to pay a little more.
This quote is from another AP article..
"That does involve us spreading around opportunity and it means that for people like myself, making a lot more than $250,000 a year, paying a little bit more so that the waitress who is surviving on minimum wage can put a roof over her head," Obama said.
I guess there is no clear cut answer on the tax plans. You can find information on all sides of the coin depending on where you look. Specifics just aren't put there, everything looks at assumptions and maybes and likelies.... another reason to error on the side of caution.
Even if you take all of that out of the equation, with the economy as it is, I don't see how raising taxes on anyone is a good idea. Just as businesses didn't eat the costs of rising fuel costs, most larger businesses don't eat the cost of taxes either. I have heard it said on news reports that businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them. I don't really believe that in the case of small businesses, but certainly large business it is true. They will recoup their tax increases in laying people off, raising prices, cutting their benefits, hiring less etc. NONE of which is good for anyone, but especially lower income people. Any tax credit, refund, or check they get it going to go directly to the higher cost of everything. I don't see how anyone is going to be better off with that way of doing business.
And in the quote from "The Democratic e-mail"... I see nothing strange about that at all. What were the specifics of the 2001 tax cut he is referring to? It sounds to me like he was sticking up for the middle class... saying most of the benefits would be going to businesses at the expense of the middle class. What is wrong with being against that?
That is not at all what Obama is planning.
He is planning on taxing higher income people and businesses and giving it to the middle/lower class. VERY different. I guess they find fault with McCains statement, but don't find fault with it the other way around. Give to the middle class at the expense of the businesses and rich....... that is ok.
"So, in 2001, McCain said almost verbatim what Obama is saying this week... people like himself, who are fortunate enough to make a certain wage, should be obligated to pay a little more."
People that are fortunate ALREADY pay A LOT more than those that aren't. Where does it stop? Just because you might agree that people that make more should pay a LITTLE more doesn't mean it should just go up and up with out question.
Vicki, I'm not saying what McCain said is bad, I'm just pointing out how it differs from his current stance, just like he has stated he doesn't agree with Bush policies, but a few years ago he said he agreed with Bush something like 90% of the time. The tax cuts in 2001 were geared mostly towards the wealthy and McCain felt at that time that they were not deserved, because they only benefitted the wealthy. And Obama isn't suggesting it go up and up and up... you have to remember he is one of those with income over the $250K. He AND McCain have both said at certain points that the people at that level of income should be paying more. After all the tax cuts the wealthy have had, his raising their taxes a small percentage isn't the awful crime people are making it out to be, it's reversing the cuts they have already gotten.
As for your statement about businesses cutting jobs, benefits, etc, and raising prices, if you read ALL of Obama's plan, he has measures in place to reward businesses for keeping American employees, and hiring more. That will help offset the increases in taxes. He also makes provisions to give tax cuts to small business owners to help offset the fact that they pay both sides of the payroll tax.
It's not all "tax the rich and give to the poor" ala Robin Hood... he wants to make sure AMERICANS get the jobs, and businesses aren't rewarded for sending their jobs overseas. He wants to make it easier for the blue collar people to work while affording child care, and see to it that they have health care that they can actually afford, etc. He wants to ensure we keep our businesses here, to provide jobs for our people. That may not matter to those of you who are no longer struggling to get by as a blue collar worker, but think back to when you were, if you ever went through that experience. I'm there, and I welcome any change that can give me a fighting chance to better my life, and my children's future, and it DOES effect everyone. If I can't afford to work because the child care costs are too high, your tax dollars would go to support me on welfare. That's not how most people WANT to live. We as Americans tend to only think about our current situation, and not that of our fellow countrymen. I don't have a mortgage, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't fight for the rights of those out there who are losing their homes, because if I don't, that could be me in a few years. I'm 40 years from retirement age, but you can bet I care about SS and Medicare, because one day I will be there. I really think people just want to criticize Obama's ideas without even reading his platform details, and we seem to forget that we aren't just trying to improve our own lives, but that of all our fellow citizens.
"People that are fortunate ALREADY pay A LOT more than those that aren't Where does it stop?!
Yes, Vicki, thank you! For people to say they want things to be fair, how is taxing someone even more, just because they make more, fair? It should all be the same percentage. If it goes up for some it should go up for all. Those who make more will STILL pay more. With the same percentage, everything stays fair.
(Ex) 1% of $100 = $1.00
1% of $10000 = $100.00
Those with higher income still pay more.
Like I've said before, I'm not against paying taxes. I'm against paying for unfair taxes.
Breann, you said that on Fox news, you were informed that only 2% of small businesses would be affected. Is that okay because it's only 2%? Is it fair to tax others higher because it only affects a small percentage of folks? Just wondering what your take is on that because I couldn't tell from your post.
But Crystal, as I have said, it is already happening! The rich pay almost all of the taxes now!! 40% of Americans pay no taxes at all. That means that almost half of the country pay for EVERYTHING. To keep asking them to pay for more and more is just nuts!!
And it is a Robin Hood mentality. Tax some people more and with that money, give others a tax cut and send others that pay no taxes a check. It is taking the money from one person and giving it directly to another. If that isn't Robin Hood, I don't know what is!!
And if Obamas plan is to tax businesses and then turn around and give them credits for things to make up for it, why bother doing it in the first place? Trust me, I have read his plan. If you think I am in love with McCain, you can think again. I liked Obama at the start. He is the one giving me reasons NOT to vote for him, it isn't the other way around!!
And just to be clear, I have NEVER stated that we own the small business or that we make over the 250,000.00. To me, it doesn't matter if you do or not. So the think back to a time you were struggling just doesn't fly. His plan is going to effect everyone. Small businesses are what this country is pretty much running on now. Everyone should be looking out for them.
Oh Enchens, you are making me smile with your flat tax talk!! LOL
Where do you get the figure that 40% of Americans pay no taxes at all?
Several questions: Does this include children and the elderly? Or does it include all working Americans? And if it includes all working Americans, what about the payroll taxes (SS & Medicaid)?
I did read that at one point McCain said that 40-50% of Americans don't pay taxes, but he later corrected it to say that 40-50% of Americans don't have any additional taxes to pay with their income tax return. Which is, of course, different from saying they don't pay taxes.
I've checked a couple of sites, Vicki, and your figure is correct - approx. 38% of working Americans wind up not paying income tax. Which is different from paying no taxes at all. They still have the payroll taxes, any state and/or local income tax (I know, because my son, who only worked 3 weeks in 2007 and then started school full time, had to pay both), sales tax, property tax if they own a home (unlikely, I admit). So to say they pay NO taxes is not accurate. It is, however, accurate to say that they pay no income tax.
Well good lord they SHOULD have to pay those taxes. That will be next, buy a home and not have to pay property taxes or skip the sales tax! I swear, if there is ever talk of people not having to pay those my head will explode!
But thank you for acknowledging my figures were correct.
You know, somebody put a good thought in our local paper. Of course it is oversimplifying a problem and would not really work because it does not get to the root of the issue, but he said rather than spending billions on the bailout, why not divide the billions among taxpayers? Every taxpayer would then be able to pay down debt - thereby helping the financial industry, buy a home, or just feel more financially secure (raising consumer confidence).
As unfeasible and simple as this is, I wish it would work. What a really good thing it would be if people used it responsibly.
A little OT, but still pertinent to our electoral times.
Ame
Ame, it would take a lot more money than the bailout for that plan to work. Look on snopes, there is a whole article about doing so, but the math is just not the same.
We Deserve It Dividend
Is this the article you are referring to? We could chew through $3500 very quickly, just trying to pay off a credit card.
I said it was very impractical and would never work, but was being a bit fanciful, wishing it would.
Ame
A thought occurred to me. Under Obama's tax plan, both the McCain family's income tax and the Obama family's income tax would go up a bit. Under the McCain tax plan, both the McCain and Obama families' income taxes would either stay as they are or go down.
Ginny, I have heard him say MANY times that no one should be paying higher taxes, especially right now. The money is needed to stay in the economy. If you think about it, the only people that are still spending money and investing any of it are the ones that have it. Take more from them and the economy is even worse than it is now!!
|
Members
