34 year old Joe is unlicensed and owes back taxes!

[wurm]

I can't check the link here at work now, but you're probably right. That said, I don't think "spread the wealth" is a whole lot better.

[MacGurl]

I don't know - "spread the wealth", to me, projects more the feeling of a "communal wealth" (tax pool?) being shared by all. "Sharing the wealth" seems to bring to mind that you must share *your* specific wealth, kind of like when you were a kid and were told you had to share your goodies against your will.

Kathy :dunno:

[Mike Sellers]

michaelb wrote: I think it is irresponsible for McCain to drag an "ordinary" citizen into his campaign without that person's consent and without doing some basic fact checking first.

Thorough vettings and fact-checking don't seem to be McCain's strong suit.

[Dennis S]

Joe will never make more than $250,000.

[Black Landlord]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=karsen]
His question is still valid.

Indeed it is.

He will pay less taxes under Obama's plan.

Therefore he can save more money.

Therefore he can buy the business faster.

And he can pay the extra $12-$1500 in taxes on his $250,000 in taxable income.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbus...2008101611

Obama answered his question. Just because he didn't get the answer he was trolling for (i.e. "Yes! I'm evil! I am going to RAISE your taxes because I hate small business owners!" - or something similar) doesn't mean he didn't get an answer.
I don't feel like looking for a cryptic graphic depicting the concept of "falling on deaf ears" at the moment.

[karsen]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=karsen]
His question is still valid.

Indeed it is.

He will pay less taxes under Obama's plan.

Therefore he can save more money.

Therefore he can buy the business faster.

And he can pay the extra $12-$1500 in taxes on his $250,000 in taxable income.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbus...2008101611

Obama answered his question. Just because he didn't get the answer he was trolling for (i.e. "Yes! I'm evil! I am going to RAISE your taxes because I hate small business owners!" - or something similar) doesn't mean he didn't get an answer.
Obama did answer his question.

The day before yesterday during a speech though Obama blew off the plumber's question pandering to the crowd, then poked fun at him for being a plumber who makes over 250K a year. It was dismissive. I don't think that was a good image for Obama to send to small business people who relate to Joe The Plumber's (possibly fictional, but still relevant) situation. Had Obama been a kinder or more explanatory during his speech he would have looked better in the eyes of small business owners in my opinion.

I'm not saying your breakdown is wrong, but there's another way to look at it too.

He will pay less taxes under Obama's plan, but there's no denying that his employer will pay more.

The employer will possibly have to cut back somewhere to be able to pay those additional taxes. The employer may be forced to lay off Joe The Plumber.

Joe The Plumber is now out of work, therefore he can't save any money.

Therefore he can't buy the business.



I'm just sayin'.

[Black Landlord]

karsen wrote:
[quote=Lux Interior]
[quote=karsen]
His question is still valid.

Indeed it is.

He will pay less taxes under Obama's plan.

Therefore he can save more money.

Therefore he can buy the business faster.

And he can pay the extra $12-$1500 in taxes on his $250,000 in taxable income.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbus...2008101611

Obama answered his question. Just because he didn't get the answer he was trolling for (i.e. "Yes! I'm evil! I am going to RAISE your taxes because I hate small business owners!" - or something similar) doesn't mean he didn't get an answer.
Obama did answer his question.

The day before yesterday during a speech though Obama blew off the plumber's question pandering to the crowd, then poked fun at him for being a plumber who makes over 250K a year. It was dismissive. I don't think that was a good image for Obama to send to small business people who relate to Joe The Plumber's (possibly fictional, but still relevant) situation. Had Obama been a kinder or more explanatory during his speech he would have looked better in the eyes of small business owners in my opinion.

I'm not saying your breakdown is wrong, but there's another way to look at it too.

He will pay less taxes under Obama's plan, but there's no denying that his employer will pay more.

The employer will possibly have to cut back somewhere to be able to pay those additional taxes. The employer may be forced to lay off Joe The Plumber.

Joe The Plumber is now out of work, therefore he can't save any money.

Therefore he can't buy the business.



I'm just sayin'.
So, let's eliminate taxes.
So, when Joe gets a nasty gash on a broken toilet, there's no ambulance to take him to the hospital, no roads for an ambulance to drive on anyways, no hospital that will provide care to the uninsured, no emergency financial support when he's unable to work for a few months, etc. etc. etc.
You and Joe seem to think public services should just fall from the sky.
As spineless as both candidates seem to be much of the time, I'll give Obama credit for having the guts and integrity to remind us aloud that taxation is necessary.

[karsen]

I didn't say eliminate taxes, did I?

I certainly don't think we need more taxes considering how poorly our government uses the money in the first place. Our government needs to control and curtail spending before they get me on board for more taxation. Excuse me, but when I hear about millions of our countries dollars going to help wooden arrow makers in Oregon (for example) I kinda get the feeling they're not doing the best job they could with our money.

[AlphaDog]

karsen wrote:
I didn't say eliminate taxes, did I?

Excuse me, but when I hear about millions of our countries dollars going to help wooden arrow makers in Oregon (for example) I kinda get the feeling they're not doing the best job they could with our money.

I'd be the last one to say there's not plenty of room to slash waste, but I'd like to suggest you come up with a better example for use in your argument. That particular addon essentially reversed an error, when toy wooden arrows got incorporated in a bill targeting expensive archery arrows. The loss of revenue amounts to about $200,000 a year. Here's an exerpt of an article about it:

"They say a tax on arrows was meant for more expensive archery arrows and is untenable for makers of toy arrows that may cost only about 30 cents apiece.

One of the leading makers of toy arrows is Rose City Archery Inc. of Myrtle Point, Ore.

The company's president, Jerry Dishion, said the tax break was not aimed at arrow makers, but at camp programs and Scouting groups that found the tax made the toy arrows cost-prohibitive.

"Rose City Archery does not make one penny on this," Dishion told The Associated Press. "We do not save one penny."

The beneficiaries of the bill are children in archery programs across the United States, Dishion said, including schools, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and Christian camps.

Many youth programs have discontinued archery because of the tax, Dishion said.

The tax break is one of dozens included in the bailout bill as part of an effort to entice those who had rejected it in the House to change their votes. The House approved the bailout bill on Friday, two days after the Senate.

"This is how Washington works," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "A big pot of pork is their recipe for final passage."

Ashdown's group labeled arrow provision the No. 1 "tax sweetener" in the bailout bill.

Jay McAninch, president of the Archery Trade Association, said toy arrows should never have been included when Congress changed how U.S.-made arrows were taxed in 2004. The law imposed a flat tax of 39 cents per arrow - a fee that more than doubled the cost of toy arrows.

While arrows for hunters or adult archers can cost $8 or more apiece, toy arrows sell for as little as 30 cents.

About six companies nationwide would be affected by the tax loophole, said McAninch, who said he did not ask for the provision to be included in the financial rescue bill, either.

"We had no idea that this provision, which had been laying there for over a year, would be picked up, and we had no idea that anybody would throw it into this rescue package," McAninch told the Bend (Ore.) Bulletin.

Dishion hopes there is one positive outcome from the controversy.

"Now that the tax is removed, we hopefully will be able to get these (archery) programs back implemented again," he said."

Here's a link to the entire article:

http://www.eastoregonian.info/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=48&ArticleID=83562&TM=72971.8

[Black Landlord]

karsen wrote:
Our government needs to control and curtail spending before they get me on board for more taxation.

They need to do both. But the money to pay for basic, necessary government services has gotta come from somewhere.
So, we've determined that Joe doesn't, but do you at least understand that, under Obama's proposed plan, your takes would not go up if you earned less than 250k?