About Joe the Plumber, “average” guy
Dante Chinni
Posted: 10.22.2008 / 7:27 AM PDT
Since his arrival on the American political stage a week ago, Joe the Plumber (a.k.a. Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) has been a dominant force in the coverage of the presidential race.
There have been skeptical pieces pointing out his name really isn’t Joe and that he really isn’t a plumber. There have been pieces about how “Joe” inspires Americans and pieces about how the media are beating him up. He even appeared on the Fox News program “Hannity & Colmes.”
But before we all get carried away with these Joe developments, it might be helpful to consider him in the way Sen. John McCain meant him – as a symbol of “average Joe” America.
Here at Patchwork Nation, we know something about demographics in America. And while “average” is a tricky thing to define, we do at least feel we have an idea of what the United States looks like. In this case, the discussion has a bit to do with income.
No one, including Mr. Wurzelbacher, is saying he would currently have to pay more under Sen. Barack Obama’s tax plan, in which taxes would begin to rise at an income level of $250,000. While Wurzelbacher’s 2007 income isn’t generally known, the average annual income for plumbers is somewhere between $45,000 and $50,000.
But the Ohio man says he’s “getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year” – a plumbing company, actually. And if his company does bring in that money, he’s worried that he would be taxed more under Senator Obama’s plan.
That involves a lot of suppositions that raise all sorts of questions (number of employees, capital costs, write-offs). But one thing is clear: $250,000-a-year is a lot of money for a household.
In Patchwork Nation, we have a category called “Monied ’Burbs.” They tend to be well- educated and, by overall US standards, wealthy. But their household incomes are nowhere near the $250,000 mark. Instead, they sit roughly around a median of $60,000 a year – far above the average county median of roughly $40,000.
Our key community for studying the “Monied ’Burbs” is Los Alamos County. It’s one of the wealthiest counties in America, with an annual median household income of about $90,000.
Not everyone earns that kind of money there, of course: Some make less than that amount, and some make more. The point, however, is that even in one of America’s wealthiest counties – one of the most monied “Monied ’Burbs” – $250,000-a-year is at the high end of the income scale.
None of this is to attack “Joe the Plumber.” Many people dream of owning their own business and living a nice life.
It’s also not a critique of economic policy. Conversations with our people in our 11 communities around the US indicate that many voters don’t want anyone’s taxes raised, regardless of income.
And to be sure, income is just one of many ways to look at people.
But be they named Joe or Sam or Elizabeth, and whether they work as plumbers or doctors or lawyers: If they bring in an annual income of $250,000, there is nothing “average” about their paycheck.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 am PDT
OK, I will correct you. You are wrong about the person barely making a profit and being taxed more. The 250,000 is adjusted gross income. It is profit after all business expenses, payroll and everything else is deducted.
So many people refuse to take a little time to read about the issue. Think!
Matt
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 am PDT
Carteach0, I’ll correct you as you’re wrong. A small business owner can deduct nearly every expense related to the operation of their company, something a rank-and-file employee cannot. They’re effectively taxed on profit, not revenue. I know this because I’ve been a small business owner for the past 7 years and spend alot of my time dealing with the tax reporting related to it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 am PDT
Carteacho:
If a one-owner business grosses $250k — that is, before expenses — the owner doesn’t generally pay taxes on that amount. Expenses, depreciation, and other deductions get subtracted from that. The taxable income line on his 1040 reflects a number closer to his net income. If his net income is $50K, his taxable income is more in that ballpark.
If someone’s taxable income is $250K, it means his business’ gross is considerably higher. It means he’s bringing home, after expenses, something around $250K. It means he’s earning a lot more than me, for sure. — rg
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am PDT
Carteacho, if you think a business who grosses $250,000 a year but only turns a profit of 40k or 50k is taxed as if the person who owns it makes $250,000 then you obviously don’t understand what obama is saying or how taxes work. a business is not taxed based on gross income, o/w many businesses would be taxed more than their profit and thus not work. if you own a small business and it has profits of $50k, that is considered your income.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am PDT
Good points.
5% of the population have over half the wealth in the country, similar to the situation before the ‘29 depression. It took extensive government spending on job creation, the New Deal, WWII, and a democratic president to get us out of it.
This time war spending won’t do it because it is a big part of what got us in this mess.
It is amazing the number of Americans that vote against the self interest.
This election should not even be close. We will see.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 am PDT
If “Joe”’s company does make profits of $250K or more, there are many tax incentives already written into the corporate tax code to protect his business. He would also benefit by incorporation, but let’s not get into all the legal details. The point is that neither candidate would or should touch the current tax “loopholes” (for lack of a better word) that exist for small businesses.
If “Joe” decides to insure his employees, however, he would be taxed more under McCain’s plan than Obama’s.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 am PDT
In response to Carteacho, who has “been there done that”, I am a small business owner who is taxed on the small profit we make, not gross revenues. I think Joe’s problem is that he also did not understand that because he hasn’t actually been there or done that.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am PDT
Well said, Dante. Poorly said by most who have responded.
It should be noted that Obama didn’t go after this guy. The press did, as McCain should have known they would. Anyone who is given that kind of exposure is going to have the press beating down their doors. The fault lies with McCain. He never should have used Joe’s name without permission. And he should have vetted the story better than he did.
But that’s par for the course with McCain. He reacts more than acts. Just look at the disaster of a vice presidential candidate he’s got who, it turns out, has been on a shopping spree this month. $150,000 worth of clothes and accessories for herself and her family.
Check it out: http://sarahpalinwatch.blogspot.com
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am PDT
Carteach0 - you’re probably confusing revenue and profits (net income). The tax increase (back to pre-Bush levels) would be on net income.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am PDT
To Kyle,
Clearly you haven’t heard of normalization. Grades are often adjusted to ensure that people aren’t having too easy or too hard a time passing the course.
As for the article itself, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t company profit different than individual profit? Though there are still very few small companies that make 250k.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am PDT
Why is it “media distortion” every time a write criticizes a conservative viewpoint? The conservative media distorts nearly every situation with the excuse that they must counteract the “liberals”. I’m a registered Republican, but the negative McCain campaign and Sarah Palin in general have driven me first to the independents and now to the democrats. I long for the day when I can trust Republicans again to be honest and representative.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am PDT
Who cares what Joe the unlicensed plumber says. Should his opinion count for something? Sure. One vote. Just like mine. His opinion matters no more, no less than any other. My husband Joe the firefighter’s vote counts too. And he is supporting and voting for Obama. McCain likes to say he represents all the average Joes out there. He does not. “Joe the plumber” is a loyal Republican. He wasn’t undecided. He knew who is was voting for in the primaries. I am a registered Republican, but someone who was willing to pull back the labels on these candidates of Democratic and Republican and look at their vision for our future to decide my vote. There are always going to be “Joe the plumbers” who are unwilling to be open minded about the candidates. But fortunately, in this election many more are.
OBAMA 2008 - Change
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am PDT
Not having read Obama’s plan can someone inform us whether the $250K breakpoint is per individual taxpayer or does a “married filing joint” classification mean that the breakpoint is $500,000? And, what about “head of household”. Is that filing category set at $375,000?
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 am PDT
This is in response to Carteacho and others who seem to think tax is paid on the income or turnover of a business. Your tax liability is actually paid on the net profit and hence all the material and other cost associated with running the business is deducted before the tax liability is calculated.
There is no one man plumbing business that is making a profit of $250,000. There would be a lot more people out there learning the trade.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 am PDT
“Its (sic) horrible the way Obama has tried to destroy a normal voter that asked a very good question.”
Huh??? Obama spent almost six minutes with him on the rope line explaining his tax policy. Instead of giving a flippant answer and moving on, he stopped and respectfully explained things, noting that he would probably actually end up paying less.
Instead of believing the edits on Fox News, here’s a link to their conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPBxiVxVEw
Please watch it and then explain why you think that Obama is trying to “destroy a normal voter.”
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am PDT
Well said Memberry.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am PDT
Those who say they can “relate” to Joe the Plumber as part of the struggling middle class need to realize that unless they suddenly hit the jackpot and get that $250,000 job that most of us can only dream about, Obama’s tax plans are much better for them. The only ones who will benefit from McCain’s plans are the same ones who have been benefitting from the Bush “tax cuts” - the super rich.
The Republicans have been playing you for dupes, folks. They claim to “feel your pain” so they can get your votes. Then they laugh all the way to the bank with their high rolling friends.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am PDT
I aggree with AGarza; what was your point?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am PDT
Carteacho - you’re wrong, the tax is on $250k in net income, not gross income. That means as a business you can take several deductions based on your costs.
Additionally, we have a progressive tax structure. The tax hike proposed would affect only the additional money made over $250k. You would pay the same taxes now as you do under the new plan on money under $250k. Once you go over $250k, the new plan is something like 39 percent instead of 35 percent. That means for every dollar you make over $250k you would pay 4 cents more per dollar than you would under the current system. If you make $250,001 in net income, under the new system that means you would pay a whole 4 cents more than you do under the old system. If you make $300k in net income, the new system would charge you an additional $2k in taxes.
But as the article says, if you’re making over $250k, you’re not part of mainstream America, you are officially part of the wealthy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am PDT
“Been there, done that.
Obama says he will raises taxes on the individual in that situation.
He told ‘Joe’ that, and he told the rest of us that too.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joe the Plumber is nothing but a selfish oaf with a chip on his shoulder who thinks it’s all about him. Yes, he’s bitter. He goes out of his way to let us know that he works for everything he gets–no one ever questioned that, least of all Obama, who answered the man in detail and with respect.
Then Joe goes on to say how much he hates Social Security, without giving any reasons why–it’s just a “joke.”
Then he says he knows people who’ve served in Iraq, who have come back to tell him that the Iraqis appreciate our war. Fine, I’m sure that’s true. But then, Joe follows up by saying that he’s sick of politicians apologizing about America. Again, without giving one example of how politicians (presumably, Obama/Biden) have done that–maybe because neither Obama nor Biden has done what Joe wants to think they’ve done.
Yes, we’ve “been there, done that.” Joe represents ignorant resentment, the kind we saw with George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, and now with McCain/Palin. What happened to McCain, who used to be a dignified, admirable person? Can’t he win on his own considerable merits, without help from lowlifes like Palin and Joe?
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 am PDT
Its funny that you link all those other articles that say this or that about Joe the Plumber…what about the mountain of them that bring up the exact point of your article? Joe the Plumber was old news about two days after the debate. If you are going to have nothing original to say, don’t do it a week late.
Also to Kyle who wrote this: “average or not, being taxed more because you make more is not what America is about”
America has had a progressive tax system (which means you get taxed a higher percentage because you make more) since 1913. A) Why have you not been up in arms about this issue your entire life? B) HOW THE F could something almost a century old not be what America is about? and C) “The Tax Foundation states that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less.” -from Wikipedia referencing the IRS.
Its not like McCain is going to win, so stop bringing up silly arguments like this…why don’t you talk about how Mickey Mouse will rig the election instead?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 am PDT
From what I see people are not taking this as literally as you should. People are seeming to think a plumbing business operates like a regular business, there are good times and bad times, it’s not as if it is a given every day that he makes a helluva lot of money. Joe the plumber is a crook, he isn’t a hero, Obama has the right idea, even if the tyaxes are higher McCain is going to loosen economic control, we already have someone in office that did that, look at us now. Not to mention a business like that depends almost solely on the area it is in on its gnp.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am PDT
Donna Trivione says “I can really relate to “Joe the Plummer”, most of us hard working middle class American’s-we don’t always have all of our bills paid up to date…”…Donna, if Joe is making $250K, he is NOT average and he is, therefore, not middle class. He would not be like you. Look, let’s all congratulate Joe if he makes his $250K, but make sure you understand that he is now in the top 5%, not in the bottom 95% like the rest of us.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am PDT
correct individuals who make a profit of $250,000 or more per year will see a tax increase under Obama ’s plan.
The key word is profit.
A business could gross a million dollars but after cost of inventory, labor and other expenses, could make a profit under $250,000. If that was the case the owner of the business would not see a tax increase.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am PDT
I’m sorry but anyone who depent or is it depends on Palin for anything looses all respect. I don’t think an intelligent person, conservative or not, can admire her. She’s the reason I’m not voting for McCain. I was leaning to him until that God awful choice. It proved to me he does not make good executive decisions.
Joe the plumber is more of a distraction. I would like to know if HBL’s wife would be taxed at a higher rate after only bringing in $40,000. on a business that receipts $300K. It is still not enough to change my mind with Palin in the wings.
Regardless of who wins I pray our country can be restored to it’s rightful place in the world and to a forward moving healthy economy. It’s going to be hard work and painful regardless. I hope people are aware of that.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am PDT
The media has been in appropriate in focusing on the personal life of Joe. The guy just asked a question of a politician. The answer of “spreading the wealth around” should be reported more than Joe’s private details. How about reporting how socialism has affected the national economy or how many small businesses “thrive” in countries who have tried this?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am PDT
Someone mentioned here, that many small businessese earn more than $250,000 per year, and but the saving they make for their household may be much less and they will be taxed under obama. Well, to set the record straight, OBAMA’S TAX PLAN STARTS FOR $250,000 EARNINGS AFTER EXPENSES. SO, IF AN INDIVIDUAL MAKES $250,000 AS PURE PROFIT, ONLY THEN HE WILL BE TAXED UNDER OBAMA PLAN, ELSE HE’S BETTER OFF IN OBAMA PLAN THAN IN MCCAIN PLAN.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am PDT
Socialism
Yes brought to you by your favorite Republican friend George W. Bush.
We now have socialism for the Rich, leaving the average Joe on the corner looking for health insurance.
PS. Joe, try reinvesting in your business to offset those huge profits. This is the way most business owners invests in themselves and avoid taxes. Even if this quarter million taxes was levied at small business, it would only be an incentive for them to re-invest and hire more people or purchase equipment to offset these profits. If your business is gushing money so fast that it can’t offset profits with expenses, then maybe it should be paying a little extra. The logic behind this complaint is contrary to how every business is run in this country. I would really be interested in how many small businesses are showing $250,000 in profit because not many do. They may have the cash but they re-invest and offset profits with expenses.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 am PDT
Heh. “Average American” also should be expanded to include not only salary information, but IQ data as well. That would explain these over-generalized comments and shows a complete lack of understanding about how America and business really works.
–
dumbfounded - “W” already privatized and socialized some big banks and insurance companies… maybe you haven’t heard that yet? And when you finally want to draw your Social Security (note the first word in that) and your Medicare and all those other freebie benefits I’m currently working to cover - enjoy a frosty cold one on me…
HLB - Companies are not taxed in the same way individuals are, and vice versa. The only exception? Partnerships. Therefore, an LLC, S-Corp, C-Corp, etc., would not have a 1-to-1 tax on gross income like most individuals. EBITDA comes into play, and the business pays tax on what’s essentially left over after you cover deductions, payroll, taxes, and so forth. If an “owner” of a company pays themself a salary - they pay tax on the salary just like everyone else. It’s true the company does pay taxes, but just like the article indicated - it’s after all the lovely legal deductions and write-downs. And by the way - if a family really earns more than $250,000 / year — consider filing separately instead of jointly and see how that works out for you. Might be better, might not.
Doug Sunshine - Google “list of jobs that pay over $250,000″. (Sheesh!)
David in Detroit - Yep. Agreed.
Carteach0 - Bzzt. No. Fail! Wasn’t said in the context you claim.
A. Garza - You missed the point? Then as my 3rd grade teacher used to say to me: “Go read the article again.” The point was clear - and made mostly in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8.
PJBravo - Completely agree! And nice article reference. A good read for everyone!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 am PDT
Why do we have make $250K per year to care about the people in that bracket?
Personally, I think it’s shameful as a nation to say that we feel that people earning a certain dollar figure, don’t deserve to keep the same % of their money that lower-income people do.
Would you like to one day make $250K? Do you know how much of that you would bring home under Obama’s plan? I don’t have the exact numbers, but figure rougly 60%, or $150,000.
I’m sorry, but on $150,000, you’re not eating caviar every night. At best, you have a nice home, probably two decent (but not extravagant) vehicles, and perhaps you vacation in a nice spot once per year. On that salary, you’re NOT sending your kids to an Ivy-League college and you’re NOT a member at all the posh local hangouts.
People keep forgetting that Obama is talking about $250K Gross, not NET!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 am PDT
Joe the plummer is not an average guy he is making 45 to 50,000 a year that is not average. He doesn’t own a business yet, he is behind on his taxes and he does not have a plummer liscense. I doubt he has the money to buy a business and with the present economy he won’t get a loan. Joe these are things that you have to take care of first before you bad mouth a proposal.
Duh
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am PDT
“Spread the wealth” was a poor choice of words when in effect Obama is trying to spread the tax burden. The reality is that most of those who are in the upper 5% income level, (net not gross), have sufficant tax loopholes to preclude them from paying ANY taxes. Unfortunatly, until we have real campaign finance reform where the rich can no longer purchase an elected official, that arrangement will never change.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am PDT
It’s interesting how many people don’t understand the difference between income and profist. You can be a small business with well over 1 million in income but probably not make over $250,000 in Adjusted Gross Profits.
A small business owner will only pay higher taxes on the portion of gross profist above $250,000. If you have a small business that makes over $250,000 in Gross Profits, you can afford to pay slightly higher tax rates.
As a previous poster mentioned, if you make this much you could always hire another employee to allow you to fall below the limit.
Peace and let’s try to be aware of the facts before we decide our country’s future.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am PDT
JOSEPH,
Don’t let your ideology blind you. First, Obama hasn’t tried to destroy anyone. As a matter of fact, he spoke to “Joe the Plumber” during the debate, just like McCain did… did you see it? What’s destroying “Joe the Plumber” is the truth: There is no “Joe the Plumber” because he’s not even a plumber. He’s got a tax lien on his house- how’s he going to buy the business? He doesn’t have the cash. And “Joe the Plumber” doesn’t know the first thing about running a business; if he did he’d realize that if you gross $250k you’re not going to bring home anything near it- you’ve got payroll, equipment, all kinds of expenses. “Joe the Plumber” asked the kind of question that a Wall Street banker would love. He’s no friend of plumbers, that’s for sure (just ask the Plumbers Union where he lives).
Finally, I hope to God that lying tax deadbeat is NOT America. This is not the land of lying tax deadbeats. America (I hope) is the land of honest, tax paying citizens.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 am PDT
John is correct. The $250k is NET income, not gross income. Got that everybody? Furthermore, to the person who complained that Obama “has tried to destroy a normal voter that asked a very good question” you need to be reminded that McCain first mentioned this guy in the debate and McCain and Palin have continued to hawk the “Joe the Plumber” metaphor during their speeches. McCain and Palin have used this poor guy’s example repeatedly and without permission (as far as we know).
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 am PDT
Why would anyone laud this guy as the average guy or want to hold him up as an example? Two divorces, tax evader, isn’t licensed as a plumber (meaning he either isn’t one or that he just feels that being licensed isn’t important). Seems to me like he is the “way below average” guy who has no worries about ever making $250,000 a year–not legally anyway. What a loser
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 am PDT
Wow…I’m amazed at how “uninformed” many of the posters are…and Joe the Plumber was. A few posts misleading or just flat out incorrect and at least one posting as someone that had a business.
First of all, I don’t know of ANY single employee small businesses that have a “profit” of over 250K. Obama’s tax hike will only occur on those businesses who’s profit exceeds that amount…not Gross but Profit. Secondly most small businesses that do get close to that amount have more than one employee, so there are tax breaks there…not to mention expenditures that drop the profit margin.
Finally on the “Socialism” charge that is such a red-herring with “real” America…I think Colin Powell said it pretty well. But I’ll take a run. Taxes have always been a redistribution of wealth…ALWAYS! The Problem with Bush/McCain is that it’s a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Obama want’s to correct that course and have the rich…who have had the party…to pay for some of the cleanup of the party. “Real” America…Pro-America parts of the country understand that and think it’s fair.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 am PDT
It is absolutely wrong to assert that paying taxes is a way of knocking “the A student down to a B and the D student up to a C just to make the grades closer together.” Only 10% of our federal budget is spent on safety-net programs for the poor - the vast majority goes to Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense. So for those of you who complain of paying taxes, which will it be? Will you kick granny to the curb and watch her die in the gutter without income and without access to health care? or would you prefer to send our sons and brothers into war without weapons, or just give up and let others attack us at will? This is where your taxes go. It IS patriotic to pay taxes!
Moreover, the service on our National Debt is also 10% of federal outlays - so if we just taxed as we spend instead of borrowing money like these so called “fiscal conservatives” currently in office, we’d have a 10% cut in spending right there. Crazy thing about debt. You have to pay it off. with interest
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am PDT
“but I can depent on Sarah Palin for the truth in reporting.”
That’s so cute. It’s DEPEND. And if you think Faling Palin is the truth teller, you need to look up the definition of truth (& maybe truthiness while you’re at it).
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am PDT
As a retired businessman, I’m surprised the obvious hasn’t been noted, that “Joe the Plumber” was talking of buying a business that probably GROSSED somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 per year. I would be quite surprised if Joe has the wherewithal to buy a business that would NET that amount. For a business to net that much, it would have to gross over $1,000,000. From that gross income, expenses would have to be deducted. These expenses are not taxed, of course. Only net income is taxed. Joe’s taxes are not going up, unless he makes more money, in which case it’s appropriate. I always saw paying taxes as being better than the alternative, which is to lose money and thus owe no taxes.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am PDT
When ever I hear a discussion about taxing small business, it brings back a conversation I had with a man who was a successful with his small business. We were discussing the fact that he never showed a profit, and still he stayed in business and lived very well. His response was interesting. He informed me that anyone who owned a small business and showed a profit was not a very good businessman.
It would be well to note that more than 60% of American Corporations pay no taxes at all. As for the income tax. It has since it’s inception, always taxed those with higher incomes at a much greater rate than those at the bottom, so the statement that this is not what America is about is incorrect. Those who reap the benefits of our economic system should pay more. It is after all the efforts of the workers at the bottom that create wealth at the top. It is a basic tenant of capitalism that money or wealth flows from the bottom up, not the other way around.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am PDT
You almost got your story right until you implied that Joe could personally be making 250,000 a year. As you stated, that is the amount that his business might bring in. After all of the expenses (including employees, supplies, taxes, etc.) on that amount, you can hardy say he would be making anywhere near that much! DUH!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am PDT
When are you going to learn that no one pays taxes but consumers and wage earners? Taxing the “rich” corporations doesn’t work! Those taxes only get passed down to the consumer in the cost of the product. Any tax on a corporation is only a hidden tax on you and me. Wake up and smell the plimbers putty.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am PDT
What people seem to miss in this argument is that, in order to earn $250,000 or more per year, one has to take risks and make sacrafices in terms of starting a business (with no guarantee of success), getting an advanced degree (such as medical school) or taking on significant responsibility within a corporation. Somehow, we do not include these people when we talk about “working families.”
I am not in that income bracket but I know some who are and they have sacraficed and worked long hours to get there. I do not feel that those who made such sacrafices should be penalized. This notion of raising taxes on them will discourage others from achieving and hurt the entrepreneurial spirit that makes this country great.
What you will see if this plan is passed is a renewed interest in tax shelters and plans to reduce/hide income. Tax receipts increased when Reagan reduced the income tax partly because it became easier for the wealthy to pay tax at the lower Reagan tax rate than to worry about complex tax shelters.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am PDT
Currently Joe probably makes $40-60k/year as a plumber. That’s great. But does he realize that others are, and have for years, being taxed at a higher rate to support him? He doesn’t seem to mind taking his share from the government redistribution of wealth!!! Yet, he complains that if he becomes successful, he will have to do the same. You can’t have it both ways Joe….
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am PDT
The issue here is Joe presented himself under false pretenses.
He isn’t a plumber… he works for a plumbing company.
Does everyone who work in an ER a doctor? No.
He says he’s planning on buying his bosses’ business.
Being a worker bee at a plumbing company, he has a hard enough time paying his own taxes … speak less of buying the business from his boss. [Ask yourself reader… are you ready to buy the company you are working at now? If not, what would it take for you to be ready?]
So how exactly is he “getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year???” Where is he getting the $$$ from? Credit markets are frozen.
The questions raised about Joe the Plumber aren’t an attacks on the average Joe. It’s what happens when people look at the situation objectively and ask themselves and Joe “how does this even make sense?”
Republicans will ignore the obvious holes in his story because he is vying for them. But can you imagine what would have happened is he came out and endores Obama? He even admits that under the Obama tax plan, he would get a tax break. Taxes were issue number 1 for Joe remember? So with issue number 1 taken care of you would think that he would have few issues with the Obama-Biden campaign right? Nope. Joe came to the rally with his mind already made-up and wasn’t converted to McCain by Obama’s tax plan (because remember it benefits him).
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am PDT
What would be a reasonable purchase price for an operation that generates $250,000 a year?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am PDT
In response to Kyle’s “grade analysis”
I laughed to myself at this analysis because I’m currently in law school and was appalled at first by the “curve system” that is used by my institution. In this system, 70% of the class must get a C. That means that an A is not an A and a B is not a B all the time. Sometimes, both in law school and in reality, a system needs to be in place where there is a balancing and evening out so that at least the majority is equal with eachother.
Anticipated a lucrative career, if I ever reach $250K/year, I would be more than happy to pay out more. Anyone who makes this amount has really got to ask themselves, do I really need that extra 5%? Or shouldn’t I give back (because let’s be real, that’s what taxes really are). Paying taxes “to the government” is paying into the public fund. Government is not some ambiguous entity, but rather a group of us, a group of people… we tend to forget that alot…
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am PDT
John McCain was completely out of touch, first by implying that Joe the plumber makes over $250K (his future business might), and secondly by implying that if he did make over $250K a year he would be an average American. Obama’s tax plan will raise taxes on household’s who make over $250/year - the top 5% of American pay checks - not on small businesses. And as someone earlier pointed out, just because the business might bring in over $250K a year, that would not lead to an annual salary of $250K for the individual - there are tons of deductions first.
Obama is planning to CUT taxes for all of us earning less than $250K/year. That is the entire middle and upper middle class!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am PDT
Joe’s earnings were released and they are about $40,000.00 a year. The business where he works is run by two people and the income is only around $100,000 a year, split between two people.
I have run small businesses for about 25 years. Some of the perks you get are right offs for the business. And if you invest profit into the business, that is not taxed as income. So, a quarter of a million from a small business is a lot more money than if you simply earned it as a wage.
What is incomprehensible to me is how the corporatist have been able to convince people like Joe to vote against their own interests. Joe does much better under Obama’s tax plan. He gets about $1,230.00 back and only a couple hundred under McCain. McCain’s plan gives most of the money to folks earning well over $250,000.00 They primarily dupe the “low information” voter.
You can calculate your tax break here:
http://togeika.multiply.com/journal/item/73/Barack_Obama_and_Joe_Biden_The_Change_We_Need
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am PDT
Lame.
The wealthy are wining because Obama is going to stop the persecution of the middle class that Bush began 8 years ago. They are not getting a tax increase - Obama is going to remove the ridiculous tax cuts they got under the GOP rule of our government. When Bush had a budget to work with he squandered it on military adventures, and his cronies across Washington and Texas. McCain is a good man, but he will not fix that problem.
As the middle class goes, so goes the nation. All the ideas, productivity and wealth of this nation come out of the middle class. And no, over $250,000 NET (different from gross people!) income is not middle class by any measure.
Come on people.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am PDT
Under Mr Obama’s tax plan your business is taxed on net-income,meaning if the plumbing outfit that Mr Joe-blow is employed by as a handy-man had a gross income of $400,000(under reporteddefalted) then 400K less all expenses(over reportedinflated e.g.drawing salaries for ghost positions for family memebers)as long as you don’t report under that certain %percentage which would raise an IRS flag for your particular business you’ll always end up paying peanuts in taxes.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 am PDT
Re: “many voters don’t want anyone’s taxes raised, regardless of income.” This may not be the correct avenue to post my query, but I’d welcome any clarification since I don’t completely understand the difference between tax increases vs. tax corrections. How is it appropriate and fair for the wealthiest to be awarded various tax breaks and deductions so they do not pay their fair share? Why should I support their increased profits and personal wealth since their savings don’t get retintroduced into my local economy since so many stores and professional service companies are owned by out-of-state or (even more likely) foreign concerns? I feel as if I’m paying twice for services and goods: Once for the immediate sale/service and again to support the difference made by tax loopholes.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am PDT
Again, the tax hike would be $20.77 a week folks! Not $30K as someone stated.
If you can’t make a budget work with $20 less a week making over $250,000 of personal income, you’re business will fail anyway.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am PDT
For a “small one-owner business” that’s taxed like an individual, I believe you’re taxed based on the amount of *profit* the business makes, not on gross revenue. So if the business does $250,000/year in receipts “while leaving just enough profit to barely support a small family”, the business owner is going to be taxed based on the small profit, not the larger gross receipts.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am PDT
“Joe the plumber” does not, in fact, represent the average American. That is a misrepresentation and an insult to all.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am PDT
Very little of the comments get to the real problem. Too many people in this country want their government to deliver more than the tax base can support. They don’t want pot holes in the pavement, but they don’t want to pay for the repair. California has been going downhill ever since a cap was put on property taxes, as an example. You get what you pay for, or more accurately, you get what you don’t pay for.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am PDT
To reiterate what others have said here:
It’s a tax increase on NET profit. NET income - for individuals, for businesses.
Compare your gross wages to your taxable income on your last 1040. Big difference. As an individual, you take all your deductions, etc., away from the gross. THEN you pay your taxes. Same for a business. Deduct all your expenses and pay taxes on what really goes in your pocket.
If an individual or small business NETS $250,000 a year - pockets it, has it left over after ALL expenses, they are doing pretty well and can afford a bump in their taxes.
How many of you reading this article and these comments net that much a year? Not one of us, I would imagine.
And there’s a larger point. We are in debt up to our eyeballs because Republicans cut taxes and dramatically increased government spending. How do you think we are going to pay that debt off?
How can you cut taxes and increase spending without borrowing money? YOU CAN’T.
It’d be like you or me cutting our income and going wild with the credit card.
That’s the big story, folks. The Republicans say one thing and do the opposite. They say they are for smaller govt., less spending and a free market. They say it often enough that people believe it.
But they’ve dramatically increased the size, scope and reach of the government and have doubled our national debt during the Bush presidency. It’s now 10 TRILLION dollars and on the way to 11 Trillion.
And the Republicans aren’t even thinking about how to pay it off. And then you hear them spout baloney about “tax and spend” liberals, when they have been “Borrow and Spend” conservatives (not fiscal conservatives, mind you!).
Obama gets it. The wealthy can afford to pay more. That’s not socialism! It’s fairness. You make a lot of money on an economic system we all work to support, and you can pay your fair share. And we need the money because we’re so far in debt - courtesy of the Republicans. Wake up!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am PDT
The author, and most of the comments, totally miss the point. knickerbocker said it best: “Obama didn’t deny that he’d tax Joe more. He said he thinks it’s better when we “spread the wealth around.” ” That’s what this is really about. It doesn’t matter what the tax laws are; it doesn’t matter whether Joe really makes $250K/year or if he can even buy the business; it doesn’t matter if he’s behind on some payments. He simply asked a question of a presidential candidate. It was that candidate’s answer that caused the stir. And, as we’ve seen over and over, the left-wing politicians and media have distorted that answer by attacking the person who asked it, as if Joe has no right to ask such a question of such a noble savior candidate if Joe himself has not lived a 100% holy life!
PLEASE!
The average “Joe” is getting weary of Obama’s spin machine. Obama is trying so hard to buy this election that by Nov 4th the American public will be so tired of seeing his face and hearing his rhetoric they will vote overwhelming for McCain.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am PDT
Well said SWMissouri. The ‘Socialism’ charge is not only by definition inaccurate, but uncomfortably reminiscent of McCarthy era ‘communist’ charges. As an independent voter, the GOPs constant missuse of the term is a measure to me how off the mark they are this season. They’ve been bad boys, and they need a time out.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am PDT
Businesses are taxed on earnings, not gross. So, in answer to your question, NO, your taxes wouldn’t go up. This is why the Obama campaign emphasizes over and over again that 95% of americans, including small businesses, would see their taxes go down. Only those making (net earnings, or take home) more than $250,000 would pay more. NO avg. Joe makes more than that. You would have to be an investment banker (not out of work) or a corporate CEO of a large company before you are making that much. Small businesses are getting incentives such as tax credits for hiring employees, etc. that would further reduce taxation.
> HLB Says:
> October 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am EDT
> My wife owned a restaurant for several years, the gross income there was
> $300,000.00-400,000.00. Most of that money just passes through the
> business. It translated to around $40,000.00 annually for my wife and
> normally required 12 or more hours a day. Would the business get taxed as
> if it made over $250,000.00?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am PDT
Every time a politician says they are going to tax the wealthy, the only thing they are telling the truth about is the tax part. If Obama isn’t willing to tell the whole truth about his past, what makes anyone believe he is telling the truth about his tax plans. $250,000 will easily become $100,000 then $75,000 and soon $45,000. When the party is over and the bill shows up we will all get our share of his plan. I am not interested in what they say they will do, I am interested in what they have done compared to their promises. Obama says he is looking out for the little guy, then says Joe is a little guy and procedes to beat him up. Lesson don’t ask questions.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am PDT
Almost all of the anti sentiment is spouted by those with no understanding of small business tax issues. My Small business has made upwards of 5 mil a year with no tax consequence. Sub chapter S corp don’t pay taxes. The income AFTER ALL EXPENSES is passed through to the owners. Most of my career this would translate into less than 250k a year. I am one of the people who hires people and I am sorry but I do not ever recall deciding hiring issues based on the Federal Tax Rate. Just more smoke and mirrors and cannon fodder for those who do not care to educate themselves on the realities of Tax issues. Obama is the only sensible choice in this election.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am PDT
After reading all these posts. I simply have this to say.
Name calling is the last resort of the wittless.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am PDT
As a small business owner myself, I noticed that you are missing a couple of things. First, if Obama gets in or the Dems get a super-majority, then Joe’s taxes will very likely go up, as will millions of us when the “Bush tax cuts” expire. I have read accounts that this will affect incomes from $62,000 and up. Secondly, if Joe starts a company and his company makes $250,000 that is not what Joe takes home. Adjusted taxable income is not all profit. After the end of the year when I figure out my taxable net income, I then determine what I re-invest in the business. Sometimes I have enough to determine that we can give out bonuses, hire another employee, sometimes we can buy more equipment. If/when my taxes go up, I will not have any money left to make those choices. Thirdly, the left really wants to attack “Joe the plumber”. They don’t like it when someone disagrees with their candidate. Is freedom of speech not respected by the left? Is calling Joe a fraud the way that an American who dares to question a politician should be treated? I was raised in an America that not only allowed the questioning of our government, but it demanded it. I was not raised in a socialist state that punished success and stifled dissenting opinions. Is that where we are heading under an Obama regime? On July 2, 2008, Obama said in Colorado Springs, CO, that he wanted a National Police Force that was as well funded and equipped as our military. Wow, what does he want that for? So, if I understand what I see happening: we have a candidate who the population is not allowed to even question, let alone criticize, who wants to “spread the wealth”, have his own police force/state that matches the military, and raise taxes. Hmmm, sounds a bit like Germany in 1939.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 am PDT
Joe is a fraud–not a plumber and has not paid his taxes. In all likelyhood Joe will never own a business that earns “$250,000″ income per year. However, I do believe that he is an “outstanding” representative for the Republican Party–McCain needs to find other Joe types to support his causes. By the way I pay my taxes and do not pretend to be something that I am not.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 am PDT
It certainly seems to make sense that if Joe does decide to, and is able to buy the company,that his income will go up. This article seems to assume that the whole $250,000 will go into Joe’s pocket. That is, in my opinion, an erroneous conclusion, that seems prevalent in the more liberal, “spread the wealth around” mind set. “Profit” does not equal “Paycheck”. As the new CEO of Joe’s Plumbing, Joe will have to decide how to maintain his competitive edge, whether or not to hire, whether or not to invest in equipment, and so on. His current profit divides between growth, paycheck, and taxes. Obviously, if taxes are high, Joe will be less likely to want to grow; the more the company makes, the more tax they take. Why take the risk? Why hire? Let’s face it, Joe can “ride out” the current slow down for awhile and just take home his nice check and hold his company back at the 250,000 mark so his tax liability is lower. Don’t ask him for a job though. And there are some people who I hear need jobs these days. So while we feel good about squeezing Joe’s wallet, he’s not hiring and investing, people are still out of work. Sound good for the economy? Don’t miss the fact that we still aren’t getting much more out of Joe; he’s not going to go above the cutoff at 250K. But we have stifled the economy. Why is this so hard for some people to see? I don’t make very much money- let’s just say I’m closer to $250.00 and nowhere near even 25K. “Sticking it to the rich” may sound like a solution, but it doesn’t seem to work. Many successful people are that way because they know how to avoid paying anything they don’t have to.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am PDT
Joe represents several serious, apparently chronic problems in the McCain campaign. One is the repeated hip- shooting that seems to wound the shooter as much as the shot. Joe should have been backgrounded. He’s not what he said he was. McCain could have safely used a hypothetical composite of Joe to make his point without risking his own credibility and humiliating Joe. Joe also represents the working class guys who don’t understand how their real economic interests in this struggle are represented or how the game is stacked against them.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am PDT
Taxable income is profit from a business. If you hire 10 employees, you reduce your taxable income. As the restaurant owner above, employees and many other expenses are deducted before determining profit. A plumbing business that profits 250k after all expenses are deducted is a substantial and well-run business. By Joe practicing plumbing without a license, and thereby putting customers at risk, shows very poor judgement, and I question if such judgement could be effective in building such a profitable business. The important point in the discussed article is the quote “John McCain meant him – as a symbol of “average Joe” America.” By McCain quickly choosing ‘Joe’ as a symbol of America, McCain has shown the same poor judgement that Joe (Sam)has shown. Joe now represents a symbol of John McCain’s failed campaign tactics of misleading, discrediting, fear mongering, and substance evasion. Joe will remain a ‘plumber’ in the new year, and McCain will remain a senator- at least for a while.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am PDT
According to your patchwork map, I live in the only moneied burb in Alabama. And you are correct about this area being monied. There are thousands of people here with lots of money. My 2100-sq-ft, 35-year-old house is tiny in comparison to the ostentatious 6500 sq ft house just built across the street from me, in a neighborhood of 2000 to 3500 sq ft houses. These huge houses have sprung up everywhere - like rabbits - more than half bought by people moving in from out of state. We have lots of high paying government contractor jobs here.
Last June, when we had a referendum, which failed, to raise our extremely low property taxes by 1/2 mill to help the schools get rid of portables, it was the owners of the huge houses who had the signs out that said “no new taxes.” The new 1/2 mill tax would have cost the owner of an average house less than $100 a year.
Their signs should have said “I’ve got mine and ain’t sharin’ nothin’. You get your own.” Of course, the teen daughter drives a BMW.
Someone has to help pay for the new roads, new schools, and other infrastructure these newscomers are causing us to have to build.
Regarding Joe:
If his business grosses more than $250k, that is certainly not his tax liability. He would have to make net profits of more than $250k to be affected by the Obama plan. But 97% of small businesses never make that kind of profit because there are so many expenses to deduct that tax liability is always limited. If the net profit, after all expenses, is more than $250K, there is only a 3% difference between Obama’s small business tax rate and McCain’s small business rate on anything more $250K. So even if he made more than that, it would be offset by the additional benefit that Obama’s plan offers: a per employee tax credit for new employees and the elimination of capital gains for small businesses. Very importantly, the Obama health care savings and benefits to small business would more than make up for any modest tax increase. This doesn’t sound like Obama is “punishing” small businesses.
I personally know and have known several small business owners, including one in my own family who is quite successful, and have never heard one say ‘I’m going to stop making more money because the government is going to take more of it.’ That argument doesn’t hold water.
I went into the wrong business. I became a teacher because I wanted to do something that was beneficial to society. As a now retired teacher, I am struggling financially. I never lived large. I bought a fixer-upper house at a distress sale. I have always driven my cars for 12 or more years. My present car is 13 years old. I owe no debts, no stocks, no huge 401k, no fancy cars, no fancy clothes, and go camping for my vacation because I cannot afford a motel. I was never paid enough to really put much back, so I am dependent on a pension that gets very little COLAs.
Maybe I should have been a plumber.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am PDT
Liberal-lefties with their undies all in a bind over Joe the Plumber. Have they ever looked into Frank Marshall Davis, Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc.? Joe is just simple enough for the Left to get their small intellect around.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am PDT
SWMissouri:
You do live in America right?
As far as your “uninformed” claim…
It is you my friend who needs to open your eyes and see what is actually going on here.. First and foremost, you and other “liberals” like you, continually give Obama a free pass to say, do and act the way he wants, trying to sell Americans a broken and beat up bag of sunshine that we all know cannot and will not happen. He is so full of empty promises that we know he couldnt fulfill, it is insane.
Besides beating up Joe The plumber, trying to negate his question by ripping through his personal life, it is he, and the liberal left that got us into this mess in the first place!
Not GWB, the Senate! Your Liberal Senate has done nothing but fill the pockets of thier friends, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be in jail!
It is a shame that Some Americans dont actually do any research, but listen only to the bogus television ad’s Paid for by Obamas camp.
It will be a sad decade in America if we let this Ticket win an election.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am PDT
To Kyle about the grading system.
When an A equals 3 houses, 5 cars and lavish clothing and a D equals not enough to buy food and clothing, let alone a home. There ARE inequalities that America may not have experienced to the degree that we are now. America is not about letting the poor (not just lower class) grow in number and severity of condition while a wealthy beyond compare hold tightly to their wealth. We ARE about creating a nation of opportunities and it will take money and that just happens to have concentrated in the hands of the few over the past decade or two or three. We have to make systemic changes in order for our social structure and economic viability to be lasting.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am PDT
I don’t understand why Obama doesn’t explain the tax structure more clearly. So many people really don’t understand how it works, as is shown by responses to this article. We are talking about a 3% increase on net profit over 250,000. That is profit AFTER business expenses — payroll, equipment, inventory, etc.
So if that amount is 300,000, for example, the business owner would pay 7,500 more in taxes. We are talking about a very mild redistribution of wealth. Wealth has been funneled upwards for the last 8 years, and this change would be a very small correction.
Is it possilbe that 7,500 a years discourages a small business owner from growing a business? Come on . . . Really? You make more profit and you pay 3% in taxes, but take home 97% more cash. You’d have to be an idiot not to grow your business when possible.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am PDT
I used to work for a small technology firm where we had about 25 employees, did $4M in annual revenue, and the owner (sole proprietor) earned about $1M per year in net income after all expenses. So it is very possible for a small business owner to earn over $250,000 per year in net income even at lower margins than this technology firm. The owner of this company created high paying jobs for 25 people and supported the computer needs of his customers. For this he would be penalized under Obama’a plan.
The owner of this company told me that the value of a business for purchase was typically one years revenue or total profit over four years. So his business would have been worth $4M using either calculation.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am PDT
The $250,000 is referring to PROFIT, and I cant think of ANY small company bringing in that much PROFIT after all their operating expenses. I cant believe how easily the neo-cons have you guys brainwashed.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am PDT
I am a CPA. I ran the numbers, for a person to pay an additional 30k in taxes under Obama’s plan he or she would have to make an additional 1,000,000 in income (30,000/.03). The real problem with the current system is that my small business clients which nets 70K will pay $20,396 in tax while my trust fund clients who does nothing but live off grand pa’s investments, that makes twice as much or $150,000 only owes $18,822 in tax. That is 1574 LESS. Lets see the “Joe” who works hard and creates jobs pays more taxes on half the income than the trust fund kid who spends his days parting. Who writes these tax laws…. oh yea, it is the lucky people who have trust funds.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am PDT
Go ahead, lift your cup to socialism. Allow your envy of those wealthier to fuel your desire to be a dependent of liberal western marxist. Enjoy in the near future when you or your child is jailed for speaking your opinion. How anyone in their right mind would want this upon theme self is suicidal. Are you happier with your hand out rather than creating what is yours? If you do not understand taxation or business operations then you truly have no grounds to base your ignorant opinion. The majority of the workforce in America is supported by small business. The majority of all new jobs created are also from the small business sector. I suppose you are ignorant enough to vote for somebody who clearly states that he will end your job so he can “hand” you a check? Let’s not even get into the topic of a party who has recently said that they will totally screw up and take action on our nations security and it would be apparent the correct decision was made? The intelligence it takes to vote for a candidate because they speak well and look good, regardless of the fact they strongly state that they will destroy your life as you have known it, making you a dependent of the government for survival, now go vote for your end.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 am PDT
You know this article says 250.000 is a lot of money. Two points:
#1- Even if Joe did make 250,000 a year, the tax bracket as it is stands to make these companies pay between 36-40% of their income to taxes. Borrock wants them to pay more. This concept that becasue you make more money you need to pay more is not a concept of the capitalist society in which we live. In this country it is the dream to make as much money as can be acheived. The key word in the previous sentence is “acheived”. It is not the right of anyone, government, or person, to decide how much a person should make or even how much tax you should pay based on success. So wheather or not 250,000 is a lot of money or not has no consequence. The concept of spreading the wealth, which is why “Joe” became such a popular guy, is the idea which Obama receives scrutiny for. Government has no right to say you make too much, so I will take your money and give it to someone who makes less in a free handout. The concept Obama beleives in has no place in the country we live in, and therefore shows that Obama has no place in our country for a position of power.
#2- If we really analyze Obamas plan to not tax 95% of the country, we need to ask for some more details. For instance, has Obama ever said that the taxes on anyone making 250,000 or more is determined by net income or gross income. Or, has he ever stated the fines or penalties that would apply to businesses that did not abide by his forced health care system. If his plan includes gross income then it’s safe to say that almost all small businesses would pay more taxes. Also, who is going to pay for the health insurance plan Obama wants to provide. Just food for thought!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 am PDT
Dante Chinni,
Wake up and smell the coffee! Have you not read the well documented facts about the so called (intentionally, I may say) “Joe”, “The Plumber”. If you don’t recognize “the plot” as pure propaganda, you are not only disrespecting our intellect but your own institution - The CSM, which I once held in high regard but this partisan reports are sad and poor journalism. You are also showing a lack of objectivity that places you in the realm of Propaganda rather than Objective Journalism which this country needs NOW.
People are plugged in to this election Dante! and, you can not pull the wool over their eyes. It is well documented what a farce “Joe the Plumber” is and how McCain/Palin under the direction of people like Karl Rove are trying desperate measures to get back in the race but is only backfiring on them.
Read the news about how a woman in SF tried to make a citizen’s arrest on Karl Rove yesterday while he was giving a speech in SF. Unprecedented!
What is really disappointing is that many of us did view McCain as a Maverick and a true patriot and server. Yet, the conclusion is now that he is just another, off the block, politician with his only interest being to win the election at any cost. I have lost all faith in him and that goes beyond 11/4 which he is destined to loose.
He is a War Hero but no “Maverick” and he has a lack of judgment (Examples: Palin, Temper, “Joe the [non] Plumber, dirty campaigning, Etc, Etc..)
This only demonstrates that he is no match to Obama’s intellect and course of direction. Certainly, *not* the man to lead us into the serious and current battlegrounds/challenges that we now face.
Respectfully, (yet direct!),
Carlos
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 am PDT
The best thing about Joe’s encounter with Obama is that he actually got the Senator to admit his socialist ideology of “spreading the wealth”. This philosophy of taking from the rich & giving to the poor will drive business bankrupt or out of the country.
Joe the Plumber is not the real issue here, it is Obama & the DEMS foolish tax schemes & redistribution of wealth.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 am PDT
Good night! BO stopped at Joe’s house and Joe asked a question, and he is being criticized?! He’s made it clear in follow-up interviews that it was a hypothetical question-he HOPES to have his own company one day. His main point was that “he’s being taxed more and more fulfilling the American dream”. And another thing, the $250k is GROSS income. By the time he pays the office rent, utilities, advertising, salaries, trucks, etc., he’d probably start out bringing home about the same as when he worked for someone else.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 am PDT
This article is typical of a writer who doesnt focus on the point, and goes off on a tangent to push an agenda. Some of the comments written are also dilusional if their authors really think this is about Joe. It is NOT about Joe! It is about getting up in the morning and busting your hump and earning your money. Then someone comes along and says, thanks for your hard work, now we are going to take some of that cash and give it to other people with less motivation and less income. This is SOCIALISM in it’s purest form. At least Obama is not lying about it. He is saying it flat out! The problem is that there are so many people in this country with zero motivation, yet jealous of those who do well so they would vote for a plan like this because it rewards them for NOT working as hard. The problem is, when those people get this “free money” it does not go to providing jobs for others, does not go to investments, does not go to anything beneficial beyond temporarily helping themselves. This does NOT grow an economy. It is naive, selfish, and it is using greed to buy votes.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am PDT
I am amazed at the amount of comments left regarding taxes and how much time is spent by business owners and individuals on figuring out how much tax they owe, and how they can deduct this and that to lessen their tax burden. It’s astounding. If only there were a Fair way to pay taxes. If only there were a Fair Tax or something. A simple tax system which was Fair to everyone, not just the rich and not just the poor…..Hmmmmm. FAIR TAX!! Good grief! Look it up. And those of you who have been fed the lie that it would add 23% to the cost of everything need to look at the plan for yourself and see the actual truth.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am PDT
Please get the facts right. The tax is not on gross income. It is on net income. Now tell me how many small businesses make a net income of 250K? Also the taxes only goes up on income over 250K. So if Joe the plumber was accurate, which he is not, his tax would only increase on the last 0-30K. Let say a top increase of 5-10% turns out = 1500-3000 per yr. I agree I hate to pay more taxes but after making 250K profit, will turn down a deal just beacuse of less than 3K. Joe the plumber must be very stupid and incompetent. He does not deserve to run a business because he will make some of the most stupid decisions ever.
By the way, again I’m against raising taxes, why do people prefer the federal government running a deficit. We have reduced taxes in recent years but never decreased spending. We increased spending instead. Voodoo math does not work. For the reaganomics to work, you cut taxes and cut spending. Over time maybe 7+ years we begin to get a increase in revenue. I mean true increase that is adjusted for inflation and not the fake numbers like the current administration touts. If we continue to increase our deficit, we are getting taxed indirectly. The value of your dollar looses value much faster with increased deficits.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 am PDT
[…] About Joe the Plumber, “average”
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am PDT
To keep things simple (although US tax code is anything but) businesses are taxed on income, not revenue. No matter what the top line SALES of your plumbing company, restaurant, store, etc are, you only pay taxes on the INCOME you make after you deduct your cost of goods, labor, (most) employee benefits, supplies, repair & maintenance costs, advertising and depreciation. So if your business’ gross revenues are 250K, but your net income is only 40K, in general terms-you only pay taxes on the 40K.
Also, it’s generally accepted that most heathly businesses are valued at around 20 times earnings (think of that as a small business’ P/E ratio), Joe would need to spend around 5 mil to purchase this hypothetical plumbing company. In my book that makes Joe anything but average.
Obama’s point isn’t to take money from the wealthy and give it to those who don’t deserve it. He’s just saying that people who “clear” 250K or more a year are benefitting the most from government, and should pay a larger share of the cost of government. Isn’t it funny how we don’t hear many wealthy people disputing this fact? The GOP is relying on American’s ignorance, even playing to it in this case.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am PDT
Rhonda–the business consultant - “I would like to have my choice of what to do with my profits whether it be to upgrade my equipment, add staff, fund more towards my retirment, give everyone bonuses etc.” All these items would lower your small business revenue lowering your taxable income. Under the Obama plan, as other have said, if your deductions brought you to $249,999 net income, you pay no more in taxes. If you were still above the $250K, you would pay a mere 3% more on the amount above the 250K.
You imply that you are a small business owner… Either you do not understand tax implications and structure, Obama’s plan or are not a small business owner. Which is it?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 am PDT
CupofSense Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am EDT
Let’s not even get into the topic of a party who has recently said that they will totally screw up and take action on our nations security and it would be apparent the correct decision was made?
What decisions are you refering to ? Just for curiosity sake….
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am PDT
I live in NYC, trust me $250000 is not that much here for a family of four. But it’s the only place my wife and I could find jobs. Many highly educated people invested a lot in their future. Many doctors and other professionals have huge education loans they have to pay off.
How about that? If they want to “punish” rich they should raise taxes on people who make millions.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am PDT
Guys get real. If you make 250K/year that doesn’t mean all of it is taxable. After all the deductions (standard, 401k, child credit etc.,) whatever your AGI is and that’s what is taxable. Ok that’s for individuals. But for businesses, the AGI will be even less. Assume that is one man business, then they still can deduct all of the following. Rent, a Van or Truck, 401k/IRA and any other expenses.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am PDT
Man oh man, the number of people here who have latched onto the whole ’socialism’ shtick who seemingly are unaware of what Social Security and Medicare are. It’s really rather shocking. I’m all for reducing my tax footprint but one wonders where this 700 billion bailout that Bush berated our elected officials to pass. It’s not like there’s a whole lot more fat to trim from the budget unless we start pulling money out of military spending. So instead we borrow and sock ‘the children’ with the interest? And frankly I’m astounded at how many people are gasping at a $250,000. I have one person I know personally who makes that sort of dough and he’s a VP for a Silicon Valley software company and he’s certainly not ‘Joe average’. The money to prop up the financial market has to come from somewhere folks, if it’s not gonna come from the wealthy then perhaps we’re all willing to let ‘average’ ourselves be taxed more instead? I make $30,000 a year, I know I don’t want and increase. The VP I spoke about has 3 houses, two boats, a slew of cars and regularly gets haircuts that cost over $100. How much do you suppose he’d feel a tax increase? I think a few here need to step back and get a bit of perspective.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am PDT
Although I do agree with your point about McCain, he was talking about the average “Joe” and not this specific plumber. I do not agree with you, when you say $250,000 is a lot of money for a family income. My fiancé and I worked very hard in college and within a couple years of graduating, will be above this $250,000 income level. This tax increase scares me, not only in the fact that it is going to take me that much longer to pay off my student loans but what this is going to do to the American dream. In a since Obama wants to tax the American dream, he want to punish the people that set goals and then reached them, and reward those who did not. We all grew up hearing the story of Robin Hood, and how he would steal from the rich and give to the poor. Well in real life it does not work like that, I am telling you right now. If I get taxed more, one of two things will happen I will either pass that extra cost onto my customers or I will fire someone. Think of it like this, say you make 2 million dollars and now all of the sudden you are getting tax 2 percent more ($40,000), according to your article that is the average salary of a average person. My question to you is would you rather me higher a person with this money expanding my business and then he pays taxes on that money or would you rather have me give it to the government and have them move this country to more socialism ?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 am PDT
I love the “Its horrible the way Obama has tried to destroy a normal voter.” It’s McCain who mentioned “Joe the Plumber”, remember, in the 3rd debate. It’s the media who jumped on it. McCain hadn’t done his homework on “Joe the plumber”, like when he picked a running mate - Palin who gets taxpayers to pay for taking her kids on trips, who got a per diem payment for sleeping at home, who supported the “Bridge to nowhere”.
Oh and guess what, people, the tax code is already full of credits that take money from one group while letting others keep more, which is in effect “spreading the wealth around”.
I do find it strange that “Joe the plumber”, who would pay less taxes under Obama, would support McCain.
Why should other people get a child tax credit when I don’t have any children yet? Is that socialist?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 am PDT
HLB Said:
My wife owned a restaurant for several years, the gross income there was $300,000.00-400,000.00. Most of that money just passes through the business. It translated to around $40,000.00 annually for my wife and normally required 12 or more hours a day. Would the business get taxed as if it made over $250,000.00?
No, it wouldn’t. Obama’s taxes are based on profit, not revenue, so the business would get taxed as if it made around $40,000. The only way Obama’s plan would tax your wife’s restaurant more is if it started turning a quarter million in profit after expenses.
A side effect of this is that a company that IS making $250,000 in profits can lower its taxes by putting some of that profit back into the company - put $50,000 of that into hiring new employees or improving your equipment and you’ll be back below the line.
At least, that’s my understanding of Obama’s tax policy. You can read more about it here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am PDT
Wow!! Enough about Joe the Frickin Plumber!!! Obama is allegedly hanging out with a former terrorist and the press doesn’t seem to care. Does he still agree with those who commit terrorist attacks? Did he really “hang around” with Barack Obama? No one seems to care!! However, we know every detail about Joe the Plumber’s life. Why? - because he may have embarrassed the democratic candidate. The day when a political party has that much control over the media is the day we are one step closer to fascism
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am PDT
What does it mean to “make $250,000 a year?” Is that gross or net?
If it’s the former then he may be just treading water; if it’s the latter then he’s doing really well.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:07 am PDT
Let’s be clear about small business “profit” and what the owner makes as an employee. A small plumbing business GROSSING $250k rings about right. If Joe makes $50k as an employee, and also profits $50k from the business, it’s ALL taxed as personal income under a sole proprietorship. This IS how most small businesses are organized. (Joe is paid for both WORKING and for RISKING HIS CAPITAL). You can extrapolate this to fit your deli, printer, coffee shop, etc. Some are $250k businesses; some are $1M businesses, but even the latter is a “small business.”
Tax increases aim to take more from well paid people, but not so much as to depress job creation. It’s an important matter, as the interaction between marginal taxation and job creation is certainly not linear (i.e. there’s a scenario under which increasing taxes nets more tax revenue, but many scenarios under which increasing them DECREASES tax revenue - Art Laffer explains this eloquently).
Many conservatives take it on faith that increasing the marginal rate (either by rate change or threshold adjustment) is always bad (i.e. depresses job creation). Many liberals take it on faith that such changes always wring “excess” income from people who can well afford it. Demonizing the side you disagree with doesn’t help. GOOD POLICY depends on understanding the elasticity data. Study hard Mssrs. Obama & McCain!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:07 am PDT
Another poster made the inaccurate comment that “being taxed more because you make more is not what America is about.” American has used progressive taxation for nearly 100 years, i.e., those who make more pay a higher rate. That’s because in pure capitalism all the money eventually ends up in the hands of a few and the system collapses. Progressive taxation helps keep the system running smoothly and this benefits everyone in the long run. Few Americans would really want to return to the 18th century era of 12 hour work days and robber barons. You know, McCain makes over 5 million a year and has never worked a real job. And his views on taxation are closer to Marie Antoinette (“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or “Let them eat cake”) who felt the wealthy have no obligation to the common people.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:07 am PDT
I think some of you are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter about Joe’s taxes, his licensing or the worth of his business. Joe doesn’t matter. What matters is his message — the “redistribution of wealth” that Obama calls for is socialism. Karl Marx was a socialist. Don’t you find it ironic that we as a country are working so hard to turn communist countries into free market societies and yet we’re letting our own politicians slowly turn us into communists? The number thrown out there is high, and maybe you make considerably less than that so you’re not affected. I can tell you that I’m not affected, but to me it’s not the number it’s the principle. And I’m willing to bet that before you know it that number will be creeping towards a number that will affect us.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am PDT
Iam amazed at the vitrioil slung against this man for just asking a question.
1. He is going to school to earn his Plumbing Contractor’s License and is scheduled to complete the requirements in a few months.
2. He is working - as many plumber’s do - under his employer’s license. Common practice in this and other industries.
3. He is in the talking stage with his present employer of purchasing this plumbing business once he secures his license.
4. This man claims tht he hadno knowledge of the +/- $1,100 the IRS claims he owes. We all understand that given the state of the IRS, this is more than possible.
5. How many of you also owe some money? How many out there are behind on their credit and/or mortgage payments?
This hard working American was just asking a question, and the media and poublic are jumping all over him, instead of praising him for having the guts to ask a question. And I do not care what his political afiliation or leanings are. How dare the media and the public for taking apart his personal life.
Don’t we as Americans have more to do. Shouldn’t we all be asking each candidate to set forth in easy to understand terms exactly what they are proposing, how they intend to accomplish their goals, how they expect to pay for them - AND more IMPORTANT - exactly what is their VISION FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE & how will we get there.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am PDT
“average” is all in one’s Point Of View. What I hear in the mainstream media as “average” income would be wealthy to me. There are a lot of us folks that live well below the poverty level, folks that scrimp and save to get by month to month and day to day. And don’t get the idea I’m a lazy bum, I work 8-10 hours a day, but don’t charge the artificial, exorbitant rates that most do.
And yes, I sometimes whine and complain about those that make more money than I do… but not so much about the amount of money, but about their whining and sniveling about possible higher taxes … especially when the real individual tax increase is small and the benefit to society is large.
I mean, give me a break, when I hear folks that are making 3 to 5 to 10 times what I make, complain about having to pay a little higher taxes, it makes me sick! I work full time and can barely get by and I still do local community volunteer work because folks need help … and then I read some of the indignant comments about ‘having to share one’s wealth’ and higher taxes… and I just shake my head in amazed sadness.
What a pathetic state American has sunk to…
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 am PDT
It doesn’t matter what Joe the Plumber said or even if he was a fake. What matters is what Obama said. He said he wanted to spread the wealth around. That is SOCIALISM. End of discussion.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am PDT
The point this article misses is that there is a difference between corporate revenue and income. Only about 2% of all small businesses make more than $250,000 in INCOME per year, though almost 50% make it in REVENUE. Obama would only tax the 2% that make the INCOME of $250,000.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am PDT
The tax code is 60k pages of socialism. Tax breaks for children, mortgage interest, real estate taxes. If your a married couple, renting, with no children, you’re screwed. If you own real estate and you have no children, you have to put everybody else’s children through school.
If Joe the plumber made 250K profit, he’d still pay more under McCain’s tax plan than Obama because his health benefits are taxed. Everybody less than 250K profit pays less tax under Obama’s plan.
For McCain to call Obama a socialist is the height of hypocricy, and Reagan and Bush have proven that trickle down doesn’t work. The small increase in taxes for those making over 250K is not going to stop investment in small business. It’s like the guy who paid $1 for a lottery ticket and won $1M. They said he had to pay taxes on his winnings, and he said - Give me my dollar back. How stupid is that?
I’m voting my pocketbook because I don’t make 250K profit, and I’ll pay 4K less tax under Obama’s plan, and I might even get better health insurance.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 am PDT
While parts of what Mr. Chinni and several of the poster have listed are true: Average income for plumbers (journeyman outnumber masters about 20 to 1), there are corperate tax breaks, and some of the other tax info, a lot of the opinions here are not educated to the actuality of small businesses.
I work as a licensing consultant for states, countys, and cities for all types of construction trades. I hold three valid contractors licenses across an array of construction professions, but due to health problems (an injury incurred while working) I qualify a Mechanical Contracting Firm, but my consulting is my primary line of business. I travel the entire nation on a regular basis. In 2008 I have done work in 9 states.
Most states do not require the Owner of a firm to be the license holder, only to employ a qualifed Master. So “Joe” could easily buy and run a firm and not be illegal. Even small 2 and 3 person operations in “service and residential installation” can easily gross over $250,000.00 a year. Most small businesses are not Corperations, they are sole propiterships, partnerships, and LLCs (depending upon state law largely!) As any of the three primary types of small business the owner is responsible for the gross income of the company as their own income. Of course you get to take out expenses, but many, many small firms net well over $100,000.00 a year that the owner has to count as their own income and pay taxes on. As the businesses get bigger so does the amount the qualifing Master makes, with many of them making low to low medium six figure incomes! And the thing is this is typical of well run small businesses throughout the construction industry. And since the businesses are not corperations all of the trucks, tools, and equipment (it cost about $65,000.00 in today’s money to set up a properly equiped and stocked service vehicle!) these are “personal” assests of the owner and are taxed by the feds, the state, and locally. How many people pay taxes as a “business asset” on your car or truck? So Mr. Obama’s tax plan will directly affect people like “Joe the Plumber” and the posters lack of information about this is exactly how this country got into its current state of affairs. So “Joe the Plumber” was right and the failure to recognize what he said can lead to the demise of thousands of small bussinesses, which employ far more people than the big firms do overall. So put all the little contractors out of business by not being informed, you think things are bad now? Just put the “average” contractor completely out of business by raising their taxes and see where things end up.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 am PDT
I am so sick of Republicans pretending to represent “main street” and middle america. It’s being reported that Palin has spent 150k on clothes, hair, and dumb glasses in the last few months!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 am PDT
Just a technical point — businesses pay federal income tax on their net income, not gross receipts. So only if “Joe’s” business made enough money to bring his total income (after expenses of the business) above $250,000 would whatever increase Sen. Obama proposes kick in.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 am PDT
Nothing average about Joe the plumber, who would make 250k a year. Thats the top 1.5% of Americans, assuming his wife doesn’t work.
One of the first few commenter said that 250k ins’t enough to support a family after taxes, what a joke. Small businesses pay taxes, just like every other business.
I pose the question: Why do the affluent worry so much about what they pay in taxes, when they don’t care what they put in their grocery cart?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am PDT
This is a very illuminating and clear note. Many thanks.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am PDT
I am an administrator for a small business grossing around $350,000 per year. Our net taxable income generally hovers around $12,000. To reach the $250,000 net taxable income level, most companies are going to need to be grossing well over $1 million.
No thinking person believes that John McCain singled out Joe because he was average or because his story had a firm foundation. This snippet was focused upon because Sen. Obama mentioned hot button works ’spread the wealth’. Sen. McCain’s advisers quickly saw an opportunity to take advantage and give Sen. McCain something economic to talk about.
Each of us that might be a real ‘average Joe’ should get beyond the idea that the powerful should monopolize wealth and there should be no role for government in insuring that someone beside the bankers, lawyers, doctors and politicians gets a slice of the pie. It is the role of the government to protect those with a minority of power against the avarice and greed of those that have grabbed the golden ring. We all should have a shot at our own American Dream.
I would like to see the candidates deliver more substance and a lot less fewer hot button attacks. If there is validity in a position, get that out to the American people and trust their ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. I believe the fat cats should have as little chance of holding on to Washington as they do of stuffing the Camel through the eye of the needle. We’ll see…
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am PDT
Joe is a marketing campaign. Nothing more.
Doesn’t anyone here understand that?
I don’t care WHO you think is right or wrong in this freak show.
“Joe” has nothing to do with anything that matters in this election.
He is just one more dog $ pony show sucked into a world that exists for a few months and then blows away on the next breeze.
If you can’t see that and wrap your mind around the true ideologies of these candidates/campaigns/parties, then you live in a dream world.
Learn what socialism actually means instead of just using it as an interchangeable term for the word “communist”.
Plan on getting any social security in your old age? Whoops! Socialism!
Ever had to get unemployment benefits? Medicaid/Medicare? Like having your bank deposits insured by the FDIC? Oh no, your a socialist! Don’t mind paying for all those state and federal prisoners to eat? Don’t mind some taxes going to kill the next creep on death row? You like paying that cop to keep that wino or that prostitute off your suburban street? AAArrgh! Socialist!!!
Wake up idiots! Learn something about the world you really live in!
If you don’t know who to vote for by now, do everyone a favor and stay away from the booth! Just let me go one day without hearing about a deadbeat unlicensed “plumber” who is supposed to be “me”!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am PDT
Joe the Plumber is not the real issue here. It is Obama’s & the DEMS foolish tax schemes & their philosopy of “redistribution of wealth”. Cradle to grave entitlements.
Obama should just admit, “Yes, that’s what I believe.” Instead, he lies & hides his liberal/socialist ideas & tries to fool hardworking folks.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am PDT
We have allowed both parties and the media to divert our attention from the real issue: Class Warfare. We let politicians and the media demonize Joe the Plumber (I don’t care if he is a plumber or not or will be better under either plan) when the Kennedys, Kerrys, McCains, Murdocks, Turners, Obamas, etc. have millions of dollars in cash and assets. Do you REALLY think that any of them will fight to raise their own taxes? Hmmm? Say Ted Kennedy, or any of the above senators, who have a $200,000 income from “working” in the legislature. They pay income tax on that. THEY DON’T CARE because they already have millions in assets!
The powers that be have us believing that the person who has amassed a $200,000 school loan debt to go to medical school who makes $250,000 is the person who needs to be “patriotic” and pay half his/her income in taxes. Or, if Joe is right, he borrows the capital and buys the plumbing buisiness, employs 4 or 5 people and the business makes $250,000 or more per year, he will be soaked with taxes. This is wrong. If the left really believes that the “rich” should pay, why not have a “wealth tax” and make these rich fat cats in Washington pay half their wealth in taxes!
Let’s be fair. Let’s have a fair tax. www.faritax.org
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:16 am PDT
I read the responses and shake my head; many people REALLY REALLY aren’t paying attention. “Higher taxes mean fewer jobs” is the mantra repeated by so many responses here. Yet in the past decade we’ve seen thousands upon thousands of jobs shipped overseas, in the interest of higher profits. Where’s the benefit to “average” Americans there? Lower costs on the shelves? I’d bet a few of those people whose jobs went away would rather have higher prices AND a paycheck.
About increased taxes over $250,000. Please try to keep in mind that someone who makes $250,001 is NOT going to take home less than $249,999. It’s only that extra $1 over the threshold that’s going to get taxed at a higher rate, and even then it’s going to be at the same level that it was during Reagan’s administration. Is that so horrible? The tax cuts that we’ve seen over the past seven years have been the primary force behind the unbelievably huge federal deficit we’re seeing, and it’ll only get worse if they’re made permanent, which is what McCain wants to do. We’ve seen eight years of government spending on credit, and WE have to pay the interest on the money borrowed to keep the government and all federal programs going. And we’re going to have to pay interest on it for years and years to come, which saps the ability of the government to do the things that have already been promised. Remember No Child Left Behind? What about the money for it? An increasing percentage of everyone’s taxes is being used simply to pay the INTEREST on our debt. And please don’t give us the line about smaller government under Republicans; if “smaller” government happened under Reagan, Bush, or Bush, why did their budgets rack up deficits every time? So much for fiscal responsibility, eh?
My favorite line in the responses so far was “I can depent [sic] on Sarah Palin for the truth in reporting.” Oh, please. Can you say “Bridge to Nowhere?” How about the “largest energy infrastructure project in the country”? Would that be the pipeline that she’s exaggerated in size, that hasn’t gotten out of the planning stage, and that may never happen? The Palin that persists in misleading statements and even pants-on-fire lying in campaign speaches even AFTER being called on them?
And as for Joe … wow. Here’s a newsflash, people. Barack Obama did NOT catapult this fellow onto the national stage. McCain did. Over and over and over. And Obama didn’t “destroy” this man’s life. Of COURSE the media started digging; conservative or liberal, that’s their job! I don’t recall Republicans complaining about the “liberal mainstream media” when Clinton & Lewinsky dominated the news for months. Do you know many people who think very highly of Nixon these days, or think that the “media” should have ignored Watergate? The double standard being applied here is profound.
d
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 am PDT
I’m disappointed by how many responders miss the point of the ‘Joe’ plumber and McCain’s repeated references to it. It’s not a question of whether he or some other small business owner (or wannbe business owner) will pay higher taxes or where he falls in relation to the median income for his area or whatnot.
The point is that Obama intends to raise taxes………he intends to redistribute wealth form those that have it to those who don’t.
By anyone’s definition, whatever New Age label you might put on it, that’s still socialism.
(And please leave Joe’s motives, affiliations, actual status as a plumber out of this….this guy’s only ‘crime’ was speaking his mind when he was accosted at random by Obama. Blame Obama for not vetting his ‘random’ citizens he decides to talk to in front of the cameras.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am PDT
He’s not an average guy. He’s not a plumber. If he were to ever take the test to become a plumber, and then save enough (as one who is taxed at a lower rate) to buy a business, the next thing is HIRE AN ACCOUNTANT. Because clearly he also knows nothing of accounting.
It is completely appropriate that people as out of touch as McCain and Palin should pick this fraud as a representative of the common people.
You only get taxed at the hgher rate for the AMOUNT OVER 250K. The difference between the amount you pay for 249,999 and 250,000 is 3 cents. The difference between 249,999 and 259,999 is 300 dollars. The difference between 249,999 and 349,999 is 3000 dollars. I repeat: For every 100,000 dollars that you DRAW OUT instead of leave in the business, you will pay 3,000 more dollars in taxes.
Those numbers are never seen by “average” guys. So who is still fooled by all this talk?
Joe says his truck isn’t paid for yet. He thinks he will never buy a new truck. He needs an accountant. Your truck is an expense. It lowers the taxable amount. Need I go on?
This is a complete ruse. Do the math. If you can’t do the math, then please do not claim to be an authority. Thanks.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am PDT
I am totally floored by the level of understanding illustrated just in the comments to this article. I think Kim from Charlotte said it best way up at the top. The marginal tax rate on your income after $250k (NET, not GROSS) is absolutely the least of any business owners’ problems.
Americans seem to say that we know a lot about running a business, and I am shocked at the fact that most of us obviously don’t. The 3% tax difference on net income above 250k is nothing compared to the money my firm has lost due to the fact that the economy is bad. Would you someday-business-owners rather pay less in taxes or have more business? Trust me, you’d much rather have more business.
No wonder we’ve gotten so screwed up.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 am PDT
These comments are painful to read. Can’t tell if it’s willful ignorance, or just true misunderstanding. But…
Businesses are not taxed on gross income, they’re taxed on profits. To generate $250k in PROFIT (income minus expenses like materials, vehicles, employees, health insurance, owner salary, etc), a plumbing business would most likely generate well over a MILLION dollars in gross sales.
Also, if Joe bought the business and took it from $250k in profit to $300k in profit (he used the number $270k in the clip I saw, but just for the sake of argument…), his taxes under Obama’s plan would go up by …wait for it… $3300.
Three thousand, three hundred dollars (marginal tax rate on $250k+ 33% -> 39.6%). $3300. Big deal. Don’t pretend that will slow him down from hiring more workers or spending to expand the business (if he did either of those things, his taxes would go down! How’s that for promoting growth?)
And for those commenters who believe that’s socialism… The United States has a progressive tax structure. That means that if you make more, you pay a larger percentage of your adjusted income. It’s been that way for a long time, and has nothing to do with Obama. He’s just moving the goal posts out a few percentage points on the very top end (back to where they were a few years ago), and reducing tax liability on the lower ends. So if that’s socialist, then we’re already a socialist state and Obama is arguing for some tiny adjustments to address a current problem.
If you don’t like progressive tax structures, then you should be voting for a flat tax or a national consumption (sales) tax. Both are reasonable ideas to consider, but both are likely to have unexpected side effects (and a flat tax at 15% would end up being a tax increase for both low- and high-income groups at the same time).
I know no one will read this, and it will change no minds. But I read and hear this total lack of understanding every time this topic comes up. So I’ll submit it anyway. For the truly confused, please try to understand that there are people who are purposefully deceiving you about this issue.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 am PDT
NATIONAL SECURITY and ENERGY INDEPENDENCE is the real issue affecting the ECONOMY. Obama would be a disaster with both. The current stock market down-draft is the pricing-in of a possible Obama win. If he wins, it will only be worse.
Don’t blame Bush for the current economy. The Dummocrats have been in charge for the last 2 years, and have a favorability rating that’s less than Bush’s. Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) are the primary culprits with the housing disaster. The economy wasn’t even mentioned at either Convention in August.
The economy issue will go away as quickly as it popped-up; national security and energy issues will be around for decades. McCain is the man who can best handle these issues.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 am PDT
To the people above about gross vs. net income being taxed, Obama refuses to say weather his plan would tax gross or net income. The tax code is not set in stone, and it could easily be that he decides that another 95% of Americans won’t be affected by changing that. Then another 95% for another change…
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am PDT
Joe is a lier and a cheat. Is that average?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am PDT
Obama and the Democrats will destroy our great country.This guy will make Jimmy Carter look like Thomas Jefferson.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 am PDT
Maybe some of you “self proclaimed experts” should try running a small business sometime. From the outside looking in, everything looks great. You are making tons of money, you’re the boss and get to take off all the extra time you like and life is just peaches and cream. Why shouldn’t you
be required to supply health insurance to your employees, after all, look
how much money you are making and they are so loyal to you.
Try looking from the inside sometime. Try looking out and seeing your whole
retirement back into a business that you are trying to keep going so your employees still have a job. Try running a small business sometimes and see
what it means to put everything you have on the line to keep a business going when the economy is slow. Maybe then you will understand what it means to have someone from the government say you made too much money this year so we are going to spread it around to the ones that won’t work regardless of what kind of job they are offered.
If this sounds a little bitter, I guess it is. I have run a small business for almost 40 years and yes, we do supply health insurance for our employees. And yes, on a few occasions, we have made over $250.000 per year and have paid my taxes. There have also been lean years, but none of you democrats wanted to help out, after all I am a small business owner and have it made. And yes, I would be much better off with McCains plan than I would with Obamas.
I believe the concept is simple, if I am willing to put everything I have on the line and work 80 hours a week to make a small business work, I think I should be the one to decide who I pay. I frankly prefer to pay the employees that helped make it happen, not someone that sits back and waits for the world to hand them something.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am PDT
All this discussion is missing the point. Joe is asking if he’s going to be penalized by paying more taxes if he wants to do something that will improve his family’s lot. Obama basically said yes. If Obama wins, I’m going to figure out how to cut my expenses and reduce my income, maybe do more barter so I can keep a higher percentage of what I earn. Why should I break my neck so Obama can “spread” MY extra wealth?
BTW, a taxpaying family with two kids, two cars and a mortgage, paying for kids’ schooling, saving for college and retirement, heating bills in the winter and cooling bills in the summer, gas for the cars, and state and local taxes…..is just getting by on $150,000 in the Tri-State area.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am PDT
The author seems to buy into the politics of envy. There are a lot of things that go in to making a large income, whether you earn it as a salary or put your capital at risk and run a company.
One has to remember that the top 1% of the income tax filers pay 39+% of all income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 70%. Is that point to an unfair system? HOw much more should they pay?
What the lesson should be from the plumber story is that the government remains intent on taxing income rather than wealth. Someone else will determine how much of your earnings you are allowed to keep. At the same time the truly wealthy who have legions of tax specialists who hide resources from the government allow people like the Kennedy’s and Soroses to shield their wealth in ways not available to people who are trying to amass wealth.
How wealthy is a family earning 250K who have kids in school and qualifies for no financial aid. How much are they spending taking care of their extended family keeping them off the public dole?
The fairest way is for government to reign in its spending, but we know that is not going to happen.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 am PDT
Hey Matt, here’s what Webster says about Socialism:
“a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government. The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”
Sound like the liberals? “Spreading the wealth around” and government controlled heatlthcare are the beginnings, not a “shtick”.
Who cares if a guy wants to spend $100 on a haircut. Just because you and I would not choose (key word) to do that does not make it wrong. And it is not the government’s job to tell me or anyone else where to spend our money or to which charity to donate.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am PDT
Maybe some of you “self proclaimed experts” should try running a small business sometime. From the outside looking in, everything looks great. You are making tons of money, you’re the boss and get to take off all the extra time you like and life is just peaches and cream. Why shouldn’t you
be required to supply health insurance to your employees, after all, look
how much money you are making and they are so loyal to you.
Try looking from the inside sometime. Try looking out and seeing your whole
retirement back into a business that you are trying to keep going so your employees still have a job. Try running a small business sometimes and see
what it means to put everything you have on the line to keep a business going when the economy is slow. Maybe then you will understand what it means to have someone from the government say you made too much money this year so we are going to spread it around to the ones that won’t work regardless of what kind of job they are offered.
If this sounds a little bitter, I guess it is. I have run a small business for almost 40 years and yes, we do supply health insurance for our employees. And yes, on a few occasions, we have made over $250.000 per year and have paid my taxes. There have also been lean years, but none of you democrats wanted to help out, after all I am a small business owner and have it made. And yes, I would be much better off with McCains plan than I would with Obamas.
I believe the concept is simple, if I am willing to put everything I have on the line and work 80 hours a week to make a small business work, I think I should be the one to decide who I pay. I frankly prefer to pay the employees that helped make it happen, not someone that sits back and waits for the world to hand them something.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am PDT
JOSEPH Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am EDT …”the way Obama has tried to destroy
a normal voter that asked a very good question”
How did he do that? Seems like everyone else is having their say on this dime. He just honestly answered a question from a fraudulent republican plant who (A)isn’t a plumber, (B)doesn’t make $250,000 a year and never will, (C) owes back taxes on what he did make.
KYLE Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 am EDT)”…average or not, being taxed more because you make more is not what America is about.”
Tell you what, I’ll never make $250,000 in a year,(Go figure. I’m a licensed professional) but if I did and paying a little more taxes is what I could do to help straighten out this mess, to sacrifice for my country, I would gladly do it. In fact I would pay a little more now @ $50,000 a year to help get our country back on track. I’m lazy, I’d rather do that than donate rubber, tin, lard and aluminum scraps, plant a victory garden, ration gas, buy war bonds, etc. to match the sacrifices our elders.
What a bunch of spoiled babies we’ve become.
KYLE Says:@ October 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am EDT
…”Thanks to Sarah Palin for telling the truth and breaking the latest news stories. The media is failing in that reguard, but I can depent on Sarah Palin for the truth in reporting.”
First I had to stop laughing then I had to reread it. You put TRUTH and Palin in the same sentence? Surely you jest. Unless you’re saying “Sarah Palin plays fast and loose with the TRUTH.”
Then THAT wouuld be accurate
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 am PDT
Funny that those of you who defend Joe here say that media concentrates on his personality more than on his legit question and yet that’s all you say. So… what about that question?
Joe did ask a good question. However, Joe has no chances of making 280k INCOME for many, many years to come. And when he does, he can invest the part above 250k back into business and pay NO taxes on it.
So the point here is, 2% of small business *may* be taxed more (I say may b/c, again, they can choose to re-invest some of the income to GROW their business
). And even if they are taxed a BIT more, so what? You’re only taxed more on the part ABOVE 250k. The part below that is taxed by existing system. So if you make 280k (good for you!), only 30k gets taxed higher. 30k!! That’s it.
This isn’t as big of a deal as either party makes it out to be. And please, we already have socialism to a degree - EVERY country does (hello!?)… There’s no such thing as pure capitalism and thank God there isn’t or this country would be a sorry place to be.
We already have bracket tax system and it worked wonders. What’s so bad about updating it a bit? Both republican and democratic parties have partly-socialistic agendas - and we thank them for it. For if they hadn’t, we’d have to buy our own roads. Good luck with that.
I even heard some confusing communism with socialism - goodness… that’s like confusing capitalism with democracy. One is an economic system and another is a political system - the two are about as similar as pineapple is to a carrot.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am PDT
Rhonda–the business consultant Says:
))
I would like to have my choice of what to do with my profits whether it be to upgrade my equipment, add staff, fund more towards my retirment, give everyone bonuses etc.”
))
All these things are tax deductible items. It’s quite obvious from the comments made that many people do not understand how business and the tax structure works . I would suggest you have a word wit a good accountant.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 am PDT
Jo:
You are being misled. The OECD has reported when comparing the mean income taxes a percentage of income by country that within the 30 countries within the organization, which represent the 30 of the most industrialized, the U.S. is 8th to last in personal income. We are not being “overtaxed” even if we feel the pain of being taxed.
What I find dumbfounding is how people fail to inform themselves. Democratic presidents have generally been more successful in both spurring overall income growth and creating a more equitable distribution of income than Republican leaders since the end of the World War II (see the findings of Larry Bartel, political science professor at Princeton). Think about it, if we as middle class have better jobs, get the deeper tax breaks, and have more disposable income, we allow the wealthy (who usually own the big companies) to have better revenues by having better sales and therefore they can offset the additional taxing through overall additional prosperity.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am PDT
I am a small business owner. The business has its own tax ID number, it is NOT taxed as an individual. The income flows directly to me and my partner, the other owner. All of the business expenses are deducted from our respective personal incomes, along with our other deductiions, such as for home mortgage interest and the like. We pay taxes on the rest. So, the individual whose wife owned a restaurant that grossed $400,000 per year would pay taxes only on NET income after all of the business’s expenses were deducted, i.e. on the $40,000. They would be BETTER OFF under Obama’s plan.
Get your facts straight, people. An increase in taxes on people whose household income, after all deductions, is $250,000 or more has nothing to do with small business, pro or con. Moreover, we have a huge and growing national debt, and someone has to pay. I am likely to be affected by the tax increase; I am close to that $250,000 number most years. But, the truth is, the wealthiest Americans have gotten an 8-year gravy train ride paid for by those who make much less. I agree with Obama that this must change.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am PDT
$250,000.00 is not middle class!!!! (I don’t think 200,000.00 is middle class) I am middle class. I am single making anywhere from 30k -40k annually (if I was married and my wife was making the equivalent we still would be middle class). If you are making an income of $250,000 (including itemized tax write offs for businesses) or more your children pretty much do not have to worry about how they will enter college, mine do ( and you could probably afford a vehicle that cost as much a typical middle class family house would cost).I think it would make since to raise taxes on businesses making over $250,000.00 annually and give it to the middle and lower class, instead of no tax relief on the lower and middle class and giving the wealthy a tax cut. What is a 3% tax increase on business making over 250,000 (7,500.00) which leaves them with 242,500.00? If I made that amount I would mind being tax 3% of my hard earned money, and have it giving to “Joe the plumber” so he can afford to eat at my restaurant, buy my products, use my institution to get his plumbers license, so I can make more money(it only makes sense). If I don’t give the lower and middle class tax breaks how will they afford my services (which means I , the 250k income guy, will be losing money). The middle class drive this country…your Teachers, Truck Drivers, Law Enforcement, Mom and Pop Stores…if they don’t don’t receive relief in our economic crisis, what good is a tax cut for 250k and above? So what if there are some people not working “your awesome $100k job” he buys products that probably help keep your company in business. my 2 cents…
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am PDT
We all pay our fair share of taxes, thank you! I don’t want the gov’t taking more of my money.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am PDT
Freshman Senator Obama’s class warfare rhetoric and recent comments about ‘spreading the wealth’ show that his economic view is solidly socialist.
This is not much of a surprise considering that Chicago Communists Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis were major influences on Barack Obama.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am PDT
The charge of “Socialism” is BS and nothing more then “Red Meat” for the uninformed. We are all socialist to one degree or another. If you send your kids to public school, you are a socialist. If you travel on public roads, you are a socialist. If you eat USDA inspected food, you are a socialist. If your private jet took off from an FAA run airport, you are a socialist.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am PDT
There is a misunderstanding in this discussion about the way taxes work. One thing is how much money a business produce per year and another thing is its taxable income. A business can make 250,000 but its taxable income would be the amount left after resting expenses and losses and investments on the business. So in the example of the woman owner of a restaurant making between 300-400,000/year, but taking home only about 40,000, it is this amount the taxable one. The cost of running a business is not considered taxable income. The actual personal income or adjusted income for this restaurant owner would be 40,000 dollars and no 300,000 or more. As such, this person would still qualify for the tax cut proposed by Obama.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 am PDT
As I read more of the post I just thought of two recent examples of “redistribution of wealth” that may help a few people reason on it some more.
In Venezuela they have had a recent and significant “redistribution of wealth” by their elected president. He attached the property, at first by taxation, of the major owners of all businesses in the country. Then he managed to get himself elected,”president for life” and then he gave back the wealth to his supporters, kept most in state control, and how is the “average individual” there fairing now? They don’t have enough to eat, they are lacking in basic medical care, and there are now even fewer who have even more, including their “President” who drove himself to the last election he has to worry about in an old VW Beetle (with 15 vehicles carrying his “support” and bodyguards.
Then we have Zimbabwe. Mr. Mugabe, after completing his Law Degree here in the US went “home” to Zimbabwe. He used his learning and credintial earned here to get elected as a “reformer.” After 28 years of “reforming” “change” where is Zimbabwe now. Well one of the things that Mr. Mugabe has done is “redistribute the wealth.” Now the country has the HIGHEST inflation rate in the world. It no longer produces enough food to provide for its’ own residents. There is constant turmoil as the “average” person no longer has enough to do anything.
So lets follow their lead and “redistribute the wealth.” After all I’m sure the “average” person here won’t mind being just like the “average” person in either of those countries, who by the way had very similar lifestyles to the US before the “change” happened there.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 am PDT
re: Kyle Says: October 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 am EDT
Kyle you have illustrated by analogy how one person should not benefit at another’s expense and I agree in principle, but only if the playing field is level for all participants. Where market capitalism is the monetary system practiced by a nation, tax code drives said economy and those who occupy the high ground benefit accordingly… hmmm – wonder how legislators come up with their tax code justifications… (If you need a lesson on how economic class, hence the ‘high ground’ is achieved I would be happy to discuss it in a different forum). Allow me to present my argument against your logic in a similar frame work: You propose that students “earn” different grades which should not be exchanged to the benefit of one to the detriment of another. By example, if learning (which is to say earning money) is enhanced for the A students by virtue of their close proximity to a note-filled blackboard necessary to be able to better achieve high grades (clear view of the blackboard is analogous to the ability to earn more) while blocking the view of B students (better vantage point due to high ground occupation in an economic sense), B students blocking the view of C students and so on. If all students had equal access to the source of learning perhaps the grades achieved would reflect higher achievement for those presently earning lower grades vis-à-vis distribution of wealth according to equal access to that wealth for all concerned.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 am PDT
The proper response, when someone says that they’re buying a business that does $250,000 per year is to ask: Is that gross revenue or net income?
Gross revenues have costs against them such as labor, parts, equipment, vehicles, overhead and marketing, resulting in a Net income that is usually a small fraction of the gross. For a plumbing business with gross revenues of $250K, the net is usually around $50K.
If Joe were buying a plumbing business that grossed $250,000, he would have to pay somewhere around $200K, figuring a multiple of 4-5. If it netted $250,000, he would have to pay upwards of $1,000,000. He might be able to buy the former (with an 80% loan), but there is no way he could buy the latter.
This whole thing is shameful. He is a fraud, and the McCain campaign should be ashamed of pumping it to his embarrassment.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am PDT
The attention on Joe is misplaced. The issue isn’t him, but rather Obama’s reply to his question. Is it appropriate for govenrment to “spread the wealth around?” Or, more to the point, does your wealth belong to you as an individual, or to all of us collectively (i.e. the government)?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 am PDT
So what if someone is making $250. Did you ever take into consideration what a person has done to get to that point. My husband and I have both always worked, raised two children,(as well as 3 that weren’t ours) paid for college for both of them. All of this on an average salary range. Not cheap this day and time but we did it ourselves without any help from the government.
My husband has been a proud coalminer for 35 plus years. Has been in management over 33 of those years. He works an average of 80 hours a week in a very dangerous profession. When he retires, hopefully in two years, it will end an era in our family since around 1920. Why should we have to pay more in taxes. We feel we have always paid more than our share and while watchin some people draw a free government check for doing nothing. Where is the fairness in that?
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am PDT
Someone bringing home $250,000 a year SHOULD be taxed. He/she is rich. End of story.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 am PDT
OK sports fans, let’s try this one more time:
It’s a 3% tax increase on NET income over $250,000. NET, NET, NET! Take home pay. Profit. What you pocket after all deductions.
You or your business clears $250,000 in a year. You made a quarter of a million PROFIT. Or you’re an individual and you clear $250,000 from your job. You say “Hey honey, we CLEARED a quarter mil this year! Buy the kids some ice cream!”
Got that? P-R-O-F-I-T. But whoops! You clear $250,001.00 instead! You have to pay 3 cents MORE on that dollar than you did on the other dollars under Obama’s plan.
Wait - it gets worse. Let’s say you clear ANOTHER $100,000.00 OVER the $250,000 - $350,000.00 NET for the year - and you have to pay an extra $3,000.00 tax on it (the hundred grand). You say “Honey, it’s beans and rice for the rest of the year! We had to pay an extra 3 grand because of that danged socialist we elected! We can only pocket $97,000 of our profits over a quarter of a million dollars. We’ll have to struggle along on $347,000.00 profit for the year.”
Some of you guys are taking a simple statement “It’s good to spread the wealth around” and you’re trying to turn Obama into Karl Marx. Wrong. False. Incorrect.
How many of you guys declaring Obama a socialist clear $250,000 a year? Show of hands, please. No, not those that would LIKE to in a hypothetical ideological discussion. Those who really do. Those who would pay 3 cents more per dollar over $250,000 profit…what? No one?
I’ll warrant there is not one person in this thread who CLEARS $250,000 a year.
It is NOT socialism to have progressive tax rates, where those who have more pay a higher percentage. It’s FAIRNESS. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet make billions a year. They can pay a higher percentage than someone working at Walmart. Warren Buffet, by the way, endorses Obama.
I used to live in Washington state, where there is no state income tax, so taxes on everything else are high. That means Bill Gates and I paid the exact same amount of tax per gallon of gas every time we filled up.
It is reasonable to have very wealthy people pay higher taxes! And as I mentioned before, we are drowning in national debt because cutting taxes and increasing spending (brought to you by the Republicans) DOESN’T WORK! Explain to me how in the world that debt is going to be paid off if someone’s taxes don’t go up.
The people who have made billions can pony up a little more. And anyone clearing $250,000 a year can pay 3% more on amounts above that. It ain’t socialism!
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am PDT
Well said, Eb. Folks need to do the research on socialist ideas. Whether you over 250K or not, the gov’t should dictate how much you keep of it.
Unfortunately, most folks have the entitlement mentality, sad but true. I was in the boat, until I came to my senses.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 am PDT
Well said, Eb. Folks need to do the research on socialist ideas. Whether you make over 250K or not, the gov’t should NOT dictate how much you keep of it.
Unfortunately, most folks have the entitlement mentality, sad but true. I was in the boat, until I came to my senses.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 am PDT
I don’t understand.
Even if Joe was a plumber, even if he had the money to buy that business that grosses $280K a year what is the big problem?
First of all tax is paid on ADJUSTED gross income. Would that business have no deductions, not even 10% deductible to bring it below 250k for purposes of taxation?
Second of all, lets assume, for the sake of argument that Joe was referring to an Adjusted Gross Income of 280K ( which it seems he wasn’t since he referenced earnings BETWEEN 250 and 280K in his original question). We’re talking about a tax increase of 3% on 30 thousand under Obama’s plan. Are we to believe that a $900 tax increase on 280 thousand is enough to scuttle the company’s viability? Are we supposed to assume that a $900 tax increase on almost 300K is socialism.
If I’m missing something here please explain it to me.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am PDT
If your net income from business is a quarter of million dollars, from sales, services, or products than your gross income is between a million and two million dollars. Obama’s plan does not tax gross income! After deductions and expenses for labor, deappreciations, travel, equipment, office expenses if you still net 250,000, hire another employee, give to charity, get that new fall and fall under the 250,000 to avoid taxes. Actually the tax rate is an incentive to invest in your business and yourself!
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 am PDT
So cgm, what you are saying is everyone should get to choose how much taxes they want to pay. Make it a voluntary system? Should make for an interesting armed forces!
If the government, (IE; we the people)dont dictate how much should be paid in taxes, who should?
Should we have a flat tax? Everyone and every business pays the exact same percentage? Hey it’s OK by me but only if you remove every loophole on the books and banish any company that uses offshore accounts. Trust me, this is the last thing those wealthy you are protecting wahnt to see.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am PDT
I see where I’m being CENSURED because [Admin: Readers don’t think this comment adds to the discussion.]
I think my point deals directly to the question because Joe the fraud is irrelevant and so was his question. Anyone can speculate on anything they want but if the question was posed by a standup citizen instead of a tax dodger and a Republican who voted for McCain in the primary then it would have some relevance.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am PDT
No matter where you put the number, designating a rich person from a middle class person, isn’t it wrong to segment society; forcing one small population to pay for and finance the livelyhood of the larger population?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 am PDT
@dumbounded said: “Here we come socialism here we come!!!!! Yeah Obama steal from me and give to my fellow American who doesn’t work!!!!”
Taxation, under ANY model that doesn’t levy the same even rate without exemptions for every single taxpayer, is a process of redistributing money. Even if we *did* have a flat tax rate, the fact that money is collected from taxpayers, and then redistributed via various government funded operations and programs, makes the process a redistribution of wealth. You need to get this concept under your belt first before you can begin to discuss the topic from an informed perspective.
When Bush and his cronies gave major tax breaks to the wealthy, and to multi-billion dollar corporations, THAT was an incredibly significant redistribution of wealth, and it was even touted as part of the purpose of the tax cuts: the entire theory behind “Reaganomics” is that taxes on big business should be cut to “stimulate business” — this, at the very beginning, is a blatant redistribution of wealth to the already-well-off. The theory goes on to suppose that by giving more to big business, they will in turn create more jobs, but as we’ve seen, corporations were happy to take the tax breaks and ship a huge number of jobs overseas. In the end, the tax cuts of the last 8 years — sponsored by George Bush and voted for by John McCain — redistributed money from the average taxpayer to the wealthy and the large corporations. THAT is what you should be upset about.
Obama’s plan is, in essence, undoing that policy and unfair redistribution of wealth — undoing that policy based on that tested and failed theory — so that the very wealthiest in this country no longer get to feed off the money earned by the average worker in a skewed and unfair way.
Also: if you’re upset about the concept of socialism, take a close look at the subsidies that federal government, under the Bush white house, has given to trillion dollar oil companies, and the near trillion dollar bailout being given to the financial industries at taxpayer expense, necessitated in large part by the de-emphasis on financial rigor and the republican denial of the value of oversight and regulation in these industries.
Good idea to actually understand the issues before you start spouting campaign slogans.
- Jon
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 am PDT
Please read the related article titled: “Joe the plumber gets flushed to Nottingham” at http://www.cliffyworld.com/blogs
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am PDT
Nope, you missed the point, by McCain using the example of Joe the non-plumber who isn’t actually buying a plumbing business, the business in question doesn’t generate 250k in revenues and apparently, the multitude of “average Joes” don’t understand the tax codes pertaining to small businesses, McCain is in fact making an appeal that plays to the ignorance of that segment of the population. The reality is that the “Joe the non-plumber” thing is just one of many in a long list of dumb choices regarding his campaign. How about we chat about the 150k spent on wardrobe at Saks and Neiman for “Sarah the average Washington outsider, small town gal,” okie dokie? Wink, wink, you betcha!
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am PDT
I am suprised that so many people are totally unaware of how taxation works! You are taxed based on gross revenue less all allowable business expenses. To end up with more than $250K in taxable income would require a 30-40 person operation that brings in revenue of $5M or so (based on my calculations).
Also, the proposed increase (to Clinton levels of 39% above 250K instead of 36%) of 3% would add $300 for every $10K earned. Hardly a disincentive to work!
The incentives that the Obama plan adds is in health care costs (which is shared) and in the capital gains tax break, where the owner is rewarded for adding value to the business. Those are exactly the kinds of incentives that we need.
ANY progressive tax scheme that cuts taxes for the poorer and raises tax for the wealthier WILL in nature be spreading the wealth around. It is basic math. For what it’s worth, my household income is above $250K. So yes, I would pay more under Obama.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am PDT
People do not want their taxes raised yet it seems that we all do want more from our local and state governments. Decent schools, roads in good repair, efficient legal system, high functioning police and fire departments, etc. When times are good we feel more willingly to pay into the broader good through taxes. When times are bad, we pull back on this impulse (backed up by empirical studies). We are in an economic situation that will require more tax payer money to fix, in the short term (Wall Street, two wars abroad). Whoever is elected will be forced to deal with this reality. I agree with Obama’s policy to tax, at a marginal increase, those who are the most well-off. My husband and I have a small business. Taxes hurt, but at the end of the day, we contribute to the greater good and we do take money home.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am PDT
Ol’ Whip, thank you for your comments. The problem is not collecting taxes, it is spending or over spending with our elected officials. If I spent more than what I make, I would be bankrupt too.
I’m all for a “Flat tax” but it will never happen with either party. Another solution is reduce the tax rates & close the loop holes. This won’t happen either since both parties is beholden to special interests, etc.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am PDT
[Admin: Readers don’t think this comment adds to the discussion.] Who makes the decision on the above statement. Are you in favor of the 1st Aadmendment to the Constitution of the United States. If so then you should not MONITOR opinions/comments of others.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am PDT
typical to the McCain camp, they have latched onto any “cheap” marketing tool they possibly can instead of dealing with issues. Their attempts to spin ‘Joe” the plumber are once again as misrepresented as everything else they have tried to do to win….ie: Palin as VP (she does not even know what the VP does), 5 “devil terms” per week to call Obama (however misrepresented) until they find one that sticks!, “prisoner of war” story, (very good, but enough and it does not give McCain a caveat to be president..
The nasty terms during rallies are purposefully inciting the mob. This has been very, very irresponsible on McCain’s part….let’s not even get into how he can “work across the aisle”. I used to like McCain, but he should be ashamed of his decisions and actions as witnessed in this campaign.
Obama has defended himself and kept out of the mud.
Is this how McCain will represent this country when dealing with world leaders that we disagree with????????
More of the same……and maybe worse with McCain/Palin
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am PDT
First let me say that I do not want to be associated with another “Carlos” who followed my post and only uses brief posts to spouse his own brand of propaganda with brief sound bytes that we have already heard and do not go into any detail but simply try to brand “the opposition” as people with a purely “socialist agenda”. Wrong Carlos!
Perhaps there are social elements in Obama’s and Democrat Party objectives but we can’t just use terms that are negatively associated by many Americans. If you want to brand as socialist - assuring proper health-care for children and the elderly as well as most Americans, so be it. I’ll byte! What is wrong with that form of policy and thinking?
Do you prefer to see a child being refused care for lack of health insurance dye in his father’s arms in the emergency room in L.A.? A true story that happened about 3 months ago in So. Cal.?
Where is your sense of compassion? and what do you know about what that child may have become as a contributing member of our society?
It is people playing these games for their own political agenda that have placed us in the mess we are in..
In regards to associating “Joe the Plumber” (JTP) to the “Average Joe” who works his butt off for his family and holds true and humble values, it’s an insult to the latter. There is no association! If you do your homework and read all about JPB you should by now that he is a fake and even if he was not he would benefit under Obama’s proposed tax cuts.
Dirty politics!
Carlos Alberto
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am PDT
Nice. No Joe, No Liz, Everyone in America is poor, Only the $250K+ guys are breathing in their evil abodes.
But remember, the poor spend more (per ratio) than the rich and most of the poor are poor because they can’t save.
Obama is appealing to the greed of the nation and if elected, the nation will also pay the price.
Journalists like you are they real bad news.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am PDT
Yes $250K would be a lot of money for people living in OH or KS. However, $250K goes not go a long way when you are living in parts of California or Viriginia. When the average house in Northern VA is $600K+ ($600K is a small house with less than 1/4 acrea of land) and childcare cost $1000 per month per child or more…so $250K does not go far especially after taxes. God forbid should you look at what is cost to live in NY city. So for those of you that think $250K is living high on a hog (without the lipstick). Think again!!!!
What I dislike about the democratic party is that they apply the same standard to all. Are we not of nation of diversity and differences???? Or this this a one size fits all United States???? Is that what socialism is???? Think about it!
BTW - I am a first generate immigrant. Don’t let the name fool you.
M. Booth
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am PDT
When Obama was asked by Joe if he would raise his taxes. Obama said yes, I find that refreshing. A politician told what he thought was the truth. Even though it seems unlikely that ‘Joe’s’ taxes will indeed go up.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am PDT
Joe The Plumber is about as authentic as John McCain The Hero Maverick and Sarah The Hockey Mom Shopper and McCain/Palin The Country First Campaign.
Everything they do, everything they say, everything they “represent” is a lie, a phoney, hypocritical, self serving, sleaze attempt to hold onto power and finish the job of dismantling this government that was started 8 years ago. They are a disgusting embarrassment.
I will be so very relieved when I do not have to see them, hear them, or even think of the likes of McCain, Palin, Bachmann, Nancy Motor Mouth P, whatever that “different” name is who is his surrogate on TV, Bay Buchanan, and the Nazi looking campaign managers and staff of that sorry character known as McCain.
Has that Sheriff in Florida been fired yet for participating in a political campaign in full uniform?? Now, that’s something I want to hear about.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am PDT
Igmo.
The point is not joe the plummer’s background…it is the question he asked and the answer he received…we all have aspirations improving our income…we would like the door of potential to be open instead of an assurance that once we arrive at the golden door, there will be the little elf taking the dollars and “spreading the wealth around” to all the people who have been getting 8 or nine hours of sleep waiting for their check.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am PDT
Joe the Plumber is a fake and was a Fox News set-up. Joe whose real name is Sam is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who spouts all the Republican talking points like the off shore drilling mantra. More dishonest theatrics. When we need substance McCain gives us fakery. Katie Couric interviewed “Joe the plumber” and the makes less about $100K. He would not pay more under Obama’s plan. The story about buying the company he works for is also false- ha has no such plan. For a key debate McCain used one of his own supporters to act as a prop. When you pull away the McCain curtain - it is all smoke and mirrors: Joe the Plumber and the Pit Bull with Lipstick. Maybe Sarah and Joe the Plumber can run together on the next GOP ticket.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am PDT
Rhonda, if you spend your profits as you said, then you won’t be taxed more because you’ve just lowered your net income back down again, so your argument doesn’t hold water.
>Rhonda the business consultant wrote: I don’t want to be penalized if I haved >a good year and make additional money. I would like to have my choice of what >to do with my profits whether it be to upgrade my equipment, add staff, fund >more towards my retirment, give everyone bonuses etc.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am PDT
About 5 years ago, no matter what any studies say, the average household income among home owners in the Marin communities of Ross, Larkspur, Kentfield, and San Anselmo was over $300K.
The average reported income of plumbers is around $50K. In the major cities, this is no longer enough to support a family let alone buy a house so, they have to supplement their income with cash deals and side work that often amount to more than their salaries.
The point that Joe the Plumber was trying to make is that he has a dream. If he realizes his dream and ends up with a business and hires 5 or 6 more plumbers and laborers who would give him enough revenue to realize $250K in profits, he doesn’t want to be penalized for working his butt off. After listening to Joe a few times, it’s pretty clear that he is smart enough to realize that all he has to do is raise his prices to cover the new taxes and then the only thing that will get spread around is pain. It’s the idea of the thing and the fact that this is a false promise.
Joe knows that no matter who the taxes, license fees, and fines are collected from, average Joes and below average Joes end up paying them. All of the money collected by business and the government comes from average Joes who are struggling to make ends meet.
http://ewebsmith.com/Finance/playboys.html
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am PDT
Last time I hired a plumber, it ran about $125/hr.
$125/hr X 40hrs/week X 50weeks/year = $250k.
If Joe–or any plumber that owns the business–doesn’t gross $250k, he is doing something wrong.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am PDT
I’ve owned a small business (sole proprietorship) for 20 years. Contrary to what an earlier poster said, single-person businesses *can* deduct (and amortize) the cost of capital goods like tools, trucks, computers, etc. One of the purposes of the tax code, by taxing NET rather than GROSS income, is to encourage us to put money directly to productive use — by putting it back into the business, and paying our employees — rather than taking it home and spending it elsewhere. I think this is a fine thing. And I certainly don’t mind paying another $30 per $1,000 additional PROFIT over $250,000, which is what Obama is proposing: I’d be happy to have that extra money available to maintain public services we all use. I just want government to do the jobs well that we’ve created it for — not pour money down the rathole of endless, fruitless wars, for example.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm PDT
Even if your little tin hat tells you that Joe the Plumber was not authentic, you can be assured Barack Obama’s reply was authentic Obama.
He said - even though you might want to invest your life savings, your life and more hours than that in the American dream of successful business, be prepared to “spread the wealth around”. Obama finally found a number he pulled out of the air to represent the sharing…when you reach $250,000 - you give it up brother.
Obama’s tax plan takes from the working American and gives to the idle and rewards idleness. He wants to keep the poor in the poor tax bracket so he can send Acorn to tell them how to vote.
Obama is not about American opportunity. There are plenty of places in the U.S. where $250,000 income is barely making it. It doesn’t matter…$250,000 is his favorite number.
Obama’s message to the American entrepreneur? “foggeduh boutit!”
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm PDT
“spread the income around” was an unfortunate choice of words because it gave those who don’t want people looking at their party’s “spreading income around” to be examined by the public.
When looking at 1979 vs. TODAY, the bottom 80% of hard working Americans are LOSING $600 BILLION PER YEAR today, as compared to the TOP 1%, who are GAINING $600 BILLION per year today? (As reported 10/19/08 on CNN). This was primarily a result of tax code changes called the “trickle up” method. The top TOP 1% is not about to give up their trickle.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm PDT
Tell us about the “first Dud” and the first “Dupe”…
A seccesionist and a tax evader
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm PDT
McCain’s take on the middle class is so far off base it’s laughable. A case in point is his “Keep your wealth” campaign. My lil sis came home last month to an eviction notice. She’s an LPN and she hasn’t had a vacation in 10 years. While most Americans may not be facing eviction notices, I can’t nelp but think, that they too, would wonder “What wealth?” I’m voting for Obama because he’s the right man for the job. McCain’s campaign shifts position almost hourly–depending on what they can catch Obama saying out of context.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm PDT
Just because your name is Joe does not make you average!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm PDT
I do hope those folks who have issues with Obama’s proposal and claim to be educated and/or small business owners here aren’t what they say they are because it really doesn’t bode well for their business acumen or reasoning ability. None seem to recognize what Obama has stated over and over and over and over again (Why is that? Why ignore the detail?): he is ONLY ROLLING BACK the tax rate to what it was during the Clinton era!
Geez, people, the socialists didn’t take over then–why do you think going back to what was will somehow leap up forward into something that never could be anyway? But the main thing I don’t get is why people are ignoring this detail. And with that, I wonder how mnay of the so-called educated and/or small business owners here have even done enough research to discover the easily discovered fact that under Democrats (who, yes, tend to tax the rich more and give breaks to the poor), the US economy faired a ton better than under Republicans. Low deficits, higher GDP, less of a gap between the rich and the poor, and so on and so on. These are facts. The socialism thing is ridiculous fearmongering.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm PDT
Think about all the government programs that works as well as UPS.
Think about all the government entitlements that covers and service as many people as cost efficiently your auto insurance company does.
Think about all the government transportation programs that have the safety record and punctuality that your airline does.
If you have ever eaten in a public school cafeteria, depended on Amtrak for punctuality and did you drive a yugo? This is the best of service government has to offer.
McDonalds does it better and more cheaply for more. Southwest Airlines does it better and faster and smiles when they take your luggage. General Motors on a bad day has a better vehicle.
And you want government in charge of your retirement income and your health insurance? Duh.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm PDT
I enjoy seeing the Dem’s tear down Joe the Plumber about anything in his current lifestyle. The fact is that the difference between where he is at and where he wants to be does not even matter. The whole issue is that Joe asked a question, was answered, and answered poorly. Because he was answer poorly on National TV, it seems to be more fun to attack Joe than deal with the answer.
You do not build an economy from the bottom up. The reason the Reagan and Bush tax cuts both stimulated the economy is that it made it better for 5 percent to invest it rather than hide it in tax shelters. The Reagan tax cuts lead to near twenty years of growth. The Bush tax cuts softened the recession he inherited from the tech bubble.
Personally, I think that if you do not pay income taxes, then you are in no position to talk about taxes. Currently 38 percent of working Americans do not pay income taxes. In fact, they get paid by the government rather than paying the government. (Get earned income credit) So why should the 5 percent, who already pay half the income tax now, give up more to those who are not paying any? And no, I am not there and do not expect to get there.
Why, because this is little more than buying votes and class warfare. Once you get to the point that a majority (non-tax payers) is taking from a minority (tax payers), then the tax payers have less and less say on what happens with their money.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm PDT
Has lil sis looked into government subsidized housing? It is available now. Chances are, it wasn’t to her taste. Run down. dismal. So Obama means, more government housing and fewer economic opportunities to improve your lot.
I bet lil sis still won’t choose government housing and will still be evicted, even with Obama as president.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm PDT
Joe the plumber is a wonderful prototype for the misguided American who is encouraged by the Republican party to vote against his own interest.
He is accusing Obama of raising his taxes, when in fact he is lowering them.
If Joe wants to buy the company, the decrease in taxes will help him save enough to do that.
John McCain continues to use Joe in order to get other people to vote against Joe’s interest.
Fact check: If the company that Joe owns will generate $250,000 in revenue, Joe will probably earn well less than $100,000 in income. In addition, in the VERY unlikely scenario that he would earn (after deductions) say $300,000, his taxes would only be increased on the last $50,000.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm PDT
“: he is ONLY ROLLING BACK the tax rate to what it was during the Clinton era!”
Get your facts straight…he is NOT rolling back the tax rate. It remains. McCain is rolling back the tax rate.
Obama is merely suggesting sending a check to certain qualifying incomes from the taxes that have been collected. That’s how some one who doesn’t pay taxes (because maybe they don’t work) will receive a refund for taxes they never paid.
Get educated.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm PDT
To kaadamson at 12:01 PM,
It’s 3% tax on NET PROFIT above $250,000 a year. Do you clear $250,000 a year? Even in a spendy place to live, pocketing $250,000 bucks a year ain’t bad.
And that’s 3 cents on the dollar above $250,000 a year. You could PROFIT another 100 grand and it would cost you 3,000 bucks, leaving you only 97,000 above your $250,000 PROFIT to reinvest into your version of the American dream.
You know, that just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Doesn’t look like 3 grand more on 100 grand over a quarter of a million annual PROFIT would shatter your dreams.
It’s pretty simple. If you want roads and streetlights, not to mention a couple of wars, you gotta pay for it. Republicans have been borrowing the money, creating a false prosperity, because they haven’t had the guts to tell us all this stuff costs money. So they doubled the national debt - now 10 Trillion dollars - during the Bush years.
The real target of Obama’s tax plan are people to whom $250,000 is chump change. We’re talking about people who make millions of dollars a year. That 5% of Americans who have 95% of the wealth. They live in a world we will never get close to. They can afford to pay more than those of us who work hard and play by the rules, yet will never EVER see a quarter of a million net in a year. ****, most of us will never see a quarter million gross in a year.
Think about it. It’s fair. All those guys on Wall Street who are getting bailed out courtesy of you and me, the ones with the millions of dollars in “golden parachutes”, can afford to pay higher taxes than you and I, and they should.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm PDT
“was answered, and answered poorly. Because he was answer poorly on National TV, it seems to be more fun to attack Joe than deal with the answer.”
Joe the plumber was answered honestly and truthfully. And that’s the point. Obama summed up his mission: “spread the wealth around”
The $250,000 number as the dividing line is arbitrary. Anyone who has travel thirty miles beyond home knows that $1 in one place is $5 in another.
But democrats are generally economic dwiddles. That’s why they vote for socialism - saves actually having to figure a budget - the government will tell you how much you can earn/spend/save and how.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm PDT
I have been thinking about this Obama tax, taking from those who have and giving to those who don’t. Sort of reminds one of Robbin Hood, OH wait, Robbin Hood took from the tax collectors and gave it back to the people that were over taxed.
I’m a self employed business owner. I work hard to make a living. My wife also works so we can have a home of our own. It bugs me to have the Gov. take money I work hard for and give it to someone who is to lazy to work. There is a verse in the good book that says ” if you don’t work, you don’t eat”. Now I’m sure it does not apply to those who can’t work as the rest of scripture says we should help those people. I believe I would vote for someone who says our complete welfare system is in need of an overhaul. Lets try to create jobs in this country instead of taxing the rich so much that they keep their money off shore and don’t hire workers.
I will not vote for Obama, not because of the tax question but because he has spent more money on this campaign than anyone before him and has a lack of experiences. Also he is trying to take away my rights and put me out of business. He should be upholding the constitution instead of trying to change it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm PDT
This may have been already mentioned:
The answer to the question about an income above $250,000 was “spread the wealth around.” It doesn’t make any difference whether JOE is in that category or not.
Obama’s answer was definitive of his policy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm PDT
> [Admin: Readers don’t think this comment adds to the discussion.]
>
> Who makes the decision on the above statement. Are you in favor of
> the 1st Aadmendment to the Constitution of the United States.
> If so then you should not MONITOR opinions/comments of others.
Bern - this isn’t censorship by csmonitor, but by it’s readers. Did you see the “Flag this post as inappropriate” option? It’s not a particularly effective system as it’s open to abuse by readers. Instead they should have a person oversee the removal of truly offensive postings, like racial epithets.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm PDT
I wonder if JTP was paid by the Republicans or Fox News to say some of those silly GOP mind-manipulation slogans.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm PDT
Now we’re talking business. But before we proceed to the business part. Isn’t Palin socialist by spreading the wealth and supporting welfare in Alaska? Now the business part. How many of you here are making over $250K a year? And if you don’t even make $250K, why are you complaining about the tax plan? Is not affecting you.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm PDT
Dear Big Pete - Who are you? Joe Biden?
You are confusing a business tax with personal income tax. Obama has not changed the personal income tax rates. They remain. He is talking about his tax on business America. You know, the ones who create jobs and services and otherwise pay the bill?
The top 5% you refer to is on income tax. Did you know that the top 10% earners with the earning beginning at $108,000 paid 71% of the Federal income tax that was paid in 2006.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Barack Obama’s numbers are imaginary and so are yours.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm PDT
Two points here seem relevant, and neither would indicate McCain should be bringing up Joe the “Plumber”. 1) Under most plausible scenarios, Joe would pay more taxes under McCain, and 2) McCain’s mixing personal income tax messaging with business income tax messaging. That confuses even the people commenting on these articles, as they are really two separate discussions. And in both cases, McCain’s plan taxes individuals and small businesses more. McCain’s tax cuts start in the much larger companies, and are thus less relevant to the voters to whom he is reaching out.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm PDT
Rene Gade - What do you mean it isn’t affecting me? It will affect me. and my children.
You are the perfect I-want-mine-now voter to whome Obama has appealed. You just buy pie in the sky and hope it’s good cause it seems so for the moment.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm PDT
I owned a small business for about 25 years. The gross income varied enormously, from 10,000 to 300,000 a year. But the taxable income was never above 30,000 or so. I paid very little corporate tax because of the deductions allowed in the tax code. Pension deductions in particular allowed me to save money for retirement - I am living on that now. The tax code strongly favors small corporations and Obama is not talking about changing that. Joe needs an education.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm PDT
McCain doesn’t raise anyone’s taxes. He cut corporate American taxes to increase jobs in the U.S. Corporate america pays higher taxes than anyone in the world. So they go over seas to make money. They have taken the jobs with them. It’s the same thing your city does to attract businesses to emmploy people and add to the tax coffer…tax breaks. America needs a national tax break to bring corporations back and to give smaller companies the opportunity to grow and compete.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm PDT
I am a small business owner, have been for over 20 years, and it’s clear that many people posting here actually understand tax law, unlike Joe. If Joe gets to the point in his business where he can afford to take $250,000 in salary out of a plumbing business then he is one of the very very few small business owners who can. But maybe more importantly, why would any small business owner decide to take that kind of cash out of their business? Joe could reinvest that money back into the business. With the help of a good accountant he could probably find ways to write off all sorts of expenses(home office, company car, business trips, etc.). He could also invest the company’s extra cash (over the $250,000 profit) in virtually anything he wanted (so long as the company owned it) and increase the value of the company.
The real bottom line here is that Joe doesn’t begin to understand how a small business works or how it is taxed, but there are people out there listening to him about a Presidential election as though he represented an important constituency. It would make about as much sense for us to be listening to him about how to go about working out a middle east peace treaty. McCain using Joe the plumber to get votes makes about as much sense as Joe the plumber’s understanding of small business tax law. We have real problems in America and simply getting some one elected is not one of them. We need a President and Congress that are going to address our serious problems in a way that seriously considers the long term needs of the majority of Americans, not the short term needs of the candidate or some elite group of billionares.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm PDT
Robert-Now Retired. You were in business during the Reagan years, now doubt.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm PDT
I continue to be surprised that so many people do not understand or accept the existing tax structure or the proposed plans by both McCain and Obama. Don’t they understand that we have had a graduated tax structure for over 100 years and that does tax those who earn more at a greater percent than those who meet the lower standards. This is not socialism but an attempt to equalize on the basis of ability to pay.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm PDT
Guys, you know what a “straw man” argument is? You create a straw man and then attack it. That’s what the “socialism” and “our hard earned dollars supporting lazy ne’er do wells” arguments are.
Here’s reality:
The Republicans have spent so much money that not only our hard earned tax dollars have been spent, but they’ve had to borrow TRILLIONS of dollars to support the war in Iraq AND give their rich buddies a sweet deal on taxes at the same time. Our national debt is staggering, and we get to pay it back, with interest, to the people we borrowed it from (like China).
If you work for a living, they’ll toss you a bone. But make no mistake, the Republicans take care of their own, and their own are filthy rich.
If you clear less than $250,000 a year, your taxes will GO DOWN under Obama’s proposal. Go down. You’ll pay less. You’ll have more in your pocket. Less of your dollars for the government.
If you clear more than a quarter million a year - CLEAR, mind you, you’ll pay 3% more on the amount above what you’ve cleared.
When Obama said “it’s good when you spread the wealth around”, the right wingers jumped on it as proof of socialism. It’s not. He wants the rich, who have had it sweet during the Bush years, to pay more than folks who clear less than $250,000 a year. That’s fair.
As far as the straw men: The welfare system WAS overhauled. You know who did it? Bill Clinton. It is nothing like it was before.
You know who left office with a budget surplus? Bill Clinton.
You know who doubled our national debt? George W. Bush
You know who trampled on the Constitution? Bush. He signed a law that trashes the 6th amendment.
And believe me, Barak Obama knows and respects the Constitution more than anyone currently in the White House.
You know who extended the reach of the government into your private lives more than ever before? Bush.
You know who dramatically increased the size and scope of our government? Bush.
What the Republicans have done is staggering. What they SAY and what they DO are two different things! They’ve spent more money and expanded government more than anyone in recent history. It’s amazing.
They had their chance. They ruled Congress for 12 years and the White House for 8, with 6 of those years overlapping. They ran the whole show. Now we have so many things wrong it’ll take more than one miracle to square it all away.
The Republicans blew it. We know what we get with them, and we can’t afford any more. It’s time to throw them out.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm PDT
First of all, I think you need to take a statistics course - you referenced the “median” at least three times in your article, and once confused it with the “mean”. This is a huge problem, especially when discussing economic distribution.
When you say the median income is 60,000 - this may be true. But it also means that 50% of the income level could be between 50 and 60k, while the upper 50% could be between 60 and 250k, and could even be more heavily weighted to the top. In fact, if 51 people made $60k a year, while 49 people made 250k dollars a year, the median would be $60k income, which obviously scews the representation of the actual earnings of the population. In Los Alamos, the average home lists for 350,000. This is the AVERAGE - extrapolate that to a great interest rate and low monthly payment - you would be looking at at LEAST 3k a month. That is $36,000 a year on your home. If the “average” income is $60,000 per family (pre taxes, 49k after) - you’re all obviously doing something wrong, or your income distribution is actually much higher than you would like to show. The top 1% of income earners pay 94% of American taxes - building your roads, funding your schools, and most likely paying for your healthcare in the future. Maybe if you learned some statistics you could join that top 1% instead of skewing statistics to make it appear as if everyone is in a low income bracket. Think of how dumb the average person is, and remember - 50% are dumber. Now think of how much money the average person makes, and remember to tell all your readers 90% of them are in the lower end so they won’t be affected by ridiculous tax policies.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm PDT
First of all, I think you need to take a statistics course - you referenced the “median” at least three times in your article, and once confused it with the “mean”. This is a huge problem, especially when discussing economic distribution.
When you say the median income is 60,000 - this may be true. But it also means that 50% of the income level could be between 50 and 60k, while the upper 50% could be between 60 and 250k, and could even be more heavily weighted to the top. In fact, if 51 people made $60k a year, while 49 people made 250k dollars a year, the median would be $60k income, which obviously scews the representation of the actual earnings of the population. In Los Alamos, the average home lists for 350,000. This is the AVERAGE - extrapolate that to a great interest rate and low monthly payment - you would be looking at at LEAST 3k a month. That is $36,000 a year on your home. If the “average” income is $60,000 per family (pre taxes, 49k after) - you’re all obviously doing something wrong, or your income distribution is actually much higher than you would like to show. The top 1% of income earners pay 94% of American taxes - building your roads, funding your schools, and most likely paying for your healthcare in the future. Maybe if you learned some statistics you could join that top 1% instead of skewing statistics to make it appear as if everyone is in a low income bracket. Think of how dumb the average person is, and remember - 50% are dumber. Now think of how much money the average person makes, and remember to tell all your readers 90% of them are in the lower end so they won’t be affected by ridiculous tax policies.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm PDT
I am planning for taxes next year and I am figuring them out for the first time in my life using a 1099. Most of my possible tax deduction are things I cannot even begin to afford after paying for gasoline and expenses. The rest of my possible deductions are things I am not qualified to deduct. Where is the justice in that? I have not been able to get medical care for a few years. I am well educated and will be able to increase my income soon, and I look forward to seeing tax reform for those in the income bracket I am now in. It is not wealth redistribution, it is a thing called fairness. I look forward to seeing the tax laws changed. You have no idea how much I look forward to this.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm PDT
pete - huffy today? You don’t think Joe the Plumber is a strawman?
Obama is not making any indivudal’s taxes go down. Check again.
The Welfare Reform was forced on Bill Clinton by a Republican congress who knew he would have to sign it to win re election. The Welform Reform Act has been a tremendous success and is up for renewal but has not been renewed by the current Democratic Pelosi congress.
You have some fuzzy idea that “spreading the wealth around” is not a recipe for increasing the size and scope of government? Hold on to your pocket book.
Amazing, isn’t it, that the stock market is in its deepest decline during the two years of a Democratic controlled congress? It was doing fine and growing previous to that.
Bill Clinton let the military languish with substandard equipment for the length of his presidency. It has taken billions to put it where it should have been all along.
I’ve seen what Obama respects. He sat in a church for 20 years while his spiritual leader spewed, “God Damn America!”
The real downhome bottom line story is Obama intends to “share the wealth” At the moment $250,000 is an arbitrary number. Next week, **** pick another number and it might be yours. And with his democratic congress, **** up the welfare commitment tenfold. You can sit back and collect your check.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm PDT
kadamson Says: Robert-Now Retired. You were in business during the Reagan years, now doubt.
I’m not sure what your point is, but here is some more information.
I was in business from 1978 to 2004, so yes, Regan, but also Clinton, Bush, and Bush. The largest tax I ever paid was a result of a change to the tax law that caused a tax on an extra 50,000. That was under Reagan.
The success and taxes on my small business were almost entirely due to what I did. Tax law bored me and my ignorance led to higher taxes. I don’t think it had much to do with whether a Republican or Democrat was in the White House.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm PDT
Mary,
Obama is not changing your income tax. He has no plan for reform. If you make over 30,000, just get used to it. You are about to experience very little fairness. There is someone with less than you have and they deserve for you to give it to them.
Again…no tax reform coming. Only More taxes. Also, you will likely not have a job because no corporations will be lured back to America with lower taxes. Any small business will have to cut employees because they cannot afford the health insurance penalty. You will have to go on welfare.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm PDT
Robert Now Retired
You are correct that your taxes were affected little by who was in the white house. It was directly affected by who was in congress. Your business climate was also affected by who was in congress.
Presidents take the credit or the blame but taxes and policies are the realm of congress.
An Obama presidency with a democratic congress will bring you right out of that boredom with the tax code. You’ll feel that code reaching right into your pocket because you retired with too much money.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm PDT
Does anyone understand what $250.000 represents in terms of class represenation? There are plenty of websites you can use to verify this info but based on at least 5 sites I have seen, if you make $250,000 or more, then you are in the Top 2% of ALL US earners. Lets be less conservative & say the Top 5%. What this means is that 95% of all taxable wage earners make less than $250,000 a year.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm PDT
Myjob isat Risk,
The cut off does not matter, what is gained by taking income from the top 5 percent and giving it to the 38 percent that do not pay income taxes? McCain’s tax plan is to keep taxes at current levels for individuals and to lower the corprate tax rate. Why, so that the businesses that moves off-shore to save on taxes will move back.
Once again, you do not build the economy from the bottom up, but from the top down. The bottom does not create jobs, they supply the demand.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm PDT
So all we have to do is offer them incentives and then trust them to bring those jobs back?
You sir are dillusional!
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm PDT
Ol’Whip,
It is common in business to reduce costs where possible. If corporations are offered incentives to bring their business back to American soil and hire Americans they would make the financial decision that is in their best interest.
For you to suggest that business would not react favorably to a financial incentive but remain somwhere for some ideological principal is truly of the tin hat caliber of delusional.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm PDT
Ol’ Whip,
Pretty much, why do you think that the EU is yelling at Ireland? Because they wanted businesses to move there and set the corp rate to 15 percent. The businesses did move there.
This is what cities, states, and counties do all the time. Offer lower taxes to get businesses to move in and get the jobs. Why do most major corps have their HQ in Delaware, because they have the best state tax rates for corps.
I often wonder if the Dems understand how taxes to federal revenue relationship works. Everytime taxes went down, federal revenues went up. It is an inverse relationship which any economic major or business major could explain. It worked for Kennedy, Reagean, and Bush. The problem is when that congress has never met a dollar it could not spend.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm PDT
Hi kaadamson!
Yo bro, hope you are doing well.
If I were going to talk about ol’ Joe the Plumb, I’d agree that he is a fabrication of the Republicans to distort the truth.
Let’s talk taxes instead. But first, Congress.
It is completely ridiculous to lay our economic train wreck on the Democratic controlled Congress, elected in 2006 in response to Republican foul ups. No offense my friend, but that is just hogwash.
The Republicans are the authors of our current crisis. But it’s amazing how little they want to own up to it. I’ve heard the (2006 majority) Democrats in Congress blamed, Clinton blamed (who left office with a budget surplus), even Carter blamed (Ha!), for our current woes. It’s total denial of reality.
Republicans like to play the victim card. It’s always the big bad Democrats, or the “Liberal Media” or “the elite” or immigrants or some other reason or entity responsible for things being the way they are, and the poor Republicans are the victimized. To rally the base, the R’s always need a “them” to blame.
Republicans seem to forget total dominance of Congress for the last 6 years of Clinton’s presidency and the first 6 of Bush’s. They want to deny that the guy in the White House - their pick - has been in charge of the Executive Branch nearly 8 years. The White House and the Federal bureaucracy is completely under his control.
No, my friend. Republicans cannot be both victor and victim. They had the power. They ran the whole show. We are stuck in a sinkhole because of the incredibly bad decisions they have made. They reaped a harvest in 2006, and I think they’ll reap another one in 2008. They’ve been in power too long, and they’ve done a lousy job.
Sooner or later, the people say “Enough”. Whether it’s Democrats or Republicans being tossed out, when things cease working, the people clean house.
OK, Taxes: In Obama’s tax plan the $250,000 delineation applies to business AND individual tax payers. It’s $250K for couples, $200K for individuals. That’s the cut off point. And again, it’s on the net profit for a business (for individuals taxable income after deductions).
Read Obama’s tax plan.
He has a $3,000 tax credit per employee hired in 2009 and 2010 for small businesses.
He has tax credits for small business employers who pay for employee health insurance - 50% of the premiums paid.
He’d exempt investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes.
He’d expand the SBA small business loan program.
I think that’s pro-business. He proposes using the tax code to stimulate small business investment and to reward small businesses who hire and cover health insurance costs for employees. That’s anti-business? That’s socialism? I don’t think so.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm PDT
VCC,
So what your saying is we just have to under bid India, El Salvador etc. BULL! Those jobs went offshore with plenty of tax breaks allready on the table. It just wasn’t enough for the Corporations to keep wall street happy.
These businesses want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to privitize the profits while socializing the cost. Just like owners of pro sports teams holding cities hostages for new venues.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm PDT
Well, Ol’Whip,
Your city doesn’t have to create a venue. Sports fans happily go to another venue to eat, get gas, shop, go to a game, stay the night, sight see thus creating exponential sales tax growth and jobs. No problema. It’s a civic choice. No one is forcing you.
Sports teams operate in their own best interest and so does a municipality. It’s win/win.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm PDT
Joe is a perfect symbol for the great ignorance that has supported the Republican party while it has pillaged the country. An ill-educated (not in the formal schooling sense) person of no integrity (tax evasion) and a totally misinformed as to what tax policy is about…as in $250,000 PROFIT. Pus the fact he is not a licensed plumber ad is taking jobs from real licensed plumbers who has followed the rules.
He is as great an example as Palin the Plunderer, McCain the man most lacking in integrity to run for the office in my time, and the party that brought us the depression, “whining” Americans, and George W. Bush.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm PDT
Small business owners will get both a tax cut and a tax credit under Obama!
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm PDT
Joe the Plumber is a set-up non-issue. Someone must have put him up to it.
He’s not a licensed plumber but he’s been at this company for years?
He’s seriously considering buying a business that’s not for sale.
If he buys it, it’ll be worth more than twice what it now is?
And even after finding out that his taxes would go down under Obama, the GOP is still beating this dead horse.
Meanwhile, the guy’s personal life is being plastered everywhere, and not in a way that puts him in a good light. If he isn’t yet regreting being a stooge, he will eventually, because iyts no way to live… being judged and found to be inadequate by all and sundry. Bet if he ever meets another candidate, he keeps his quetions grounded in reality.
It’s funny. Back before Obama got the nomination, I thought McCain was basically decent. Now, I can’t remember why I thought that. What a dirty and dishonest campaign. Not the way I want to live, so I’m going for the smart, dignified guy instead.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm PDT
Joe the Plumber is a set-up non-issue. Someone must have put him up to it.
He’s not a licensed plumber but he’s been at this company for years?
He’s seriously considering buying a business that’s not for sale.
If he buys it, it’ll be worth more than twice what it now is?
And even after finding out that his taxes would go down under Obama, the GOP is still beating this dead horse.
Meanwhile, the guy’s personal life is being plastered everywhere, and not in a way that puts him in a good light. If he isn’t yet regreting being a stooge, he will eventually, because its no way to live… being judged and found to be inadequate by all and sundry. Bet if he ever meets another candidate, he keeps his quetions grounded in reality.
It’s funny. Back before Obama got the nomination, I thought McCain was basically decent. Now, I can’t remember why I thought that. What a dirty and dishonest campaign. Not the way I want to live, so I’m going for the smart, dignified guy instead.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm PDT
Joe the Plumber is a set-up non-issue. Someone must have put him up to it.
He’s not a licensed plumber but he’s been at this company for years?
He’s seriously considering buying a business that’s not for sale.
If he buys it, it’ll be worth more than twice what it now is?
And even after finding out that his taxes would go down under Obama, the GOP is still beating this dead horse.
Meanwhile, the guy’s personal life is being plastered everywhere, and not in a way that puts him in a good light. If he isn’t yet regreting being a stooge, he will eventually, because its no way to live… being judged and found to be inadequate by all and sundry. Bet if he ever meets another candidate, he keeps his quetions grounded in reality.
It’s funny. Back before Obama got the nomination, I thought McCain was basically decent. Now, I can’t remember why I thought that. What a dirty and dishonest campaign. Not the way I want to live, so I’m going for the smart, dignified guy instead.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm PDT
Joe the Plumber would be better off under Obama. Why? His workers would be better satisfied and more productive, now that they have to worry less; Joe would get more revenue, now that the wealth has been spread a bit more; Joe would probably not have to pay more taxes (let’s face it, it’s tough to buy a company making more than $250000 profits if you’re an average Joe), and thus Obama would be the better choice.
Don’t get me wrong. McCain is also a decent fella. But he’s erratic, spur-of-the-moment, and he runs all over the place and turns on a dime. We need someone a bit more stable than that to help the Joe the Plumbers of the world. Barack Obama is an example of such a person.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm PDT
John McCain - from Joe the Plumber - how to spend $150,000 wisely - hire a constitutional tutor for Sarah Palin.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 am PDT
Wow, Frank. I think you presume too much.
Liberal…I don’t think so. I am very conservative on most issues…however being old enough to know what “Conservative” actually means. And then you spew out dogma that you heard on TV or some right wing mag and gripe about “liberals” doing the same. That’s called hypocrisy, in case you didn’t know.
And that’s the problem us “true” Conservatives have with the GOP right now…the hypocrites have taken over. Many of us are voting for third party candidates, many of us are voting for Obama, and many more are finding something else to do on Nov 4th. What we aren’t doing is falling for your right-wing ideology that has absolutely nothing to do with being conservative. The simple fact is after this election…if the GOP continues down this course it won’t have very many followers at all. It’ll just be the batch of you screaming looney’s talking in tongues and spewing hate. Do yourself and the GOP a favor and go join the Klan and get the **** out of OUR party.
And before you question my patriotism…I’m a vet. And before you start accusing me of being a baby killer…I have 5 kids…and 5 grandkids.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 am PDT
Most people do not base their decision to purchase a company on gross sales, they want to know how much money they will make. The 250k would be after expenses are deducted, this would be the amount taxed, therefore the reason for the question in the first place.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 am PDT
One simply needs to read “The Average American: The Extraordinary Search for the Nation’s Most Ordinary Citizen” to see how off target Joe the Plumber is to being the statistically-average American.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am PDT
[…] Does Joe the Plumber really represent the “Average Joe” in America? But the Ohio man says he’s “getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year” – a plumbing company, actually. And if his company does bring in that money, he’s worried that he would be taxed more under Senator Obama’s plan. […]
October 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am PDT
[Admin: Readers don’t think this comment adds to the discussion.]
What exactly does this mean? I had to scroll furiously to get to a few opinions. This is my first visit here, nd given the obvious censorship, it will probably be my last visit here. What gives?
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm PST
A prior poster asked what a reasonable purchase price for a business that “generates” $250,000 a year. Firstly, I am assuming $250,000 in net income. Sometimes they talk about sales figures on Wall St., but in this context you would always talk about net income. Let’s assume a 10% rate of return on the business. Then the price you would pay would be $250,000/0.10 = $2,500,000.
The short answer is: If the business really did net $250,000 per year, you could pay as much as $2 million for it.
There is a problem with service businesses, though. The customer loyalty depends on who is doing the work, so unless all the employees stay, the value before and after new ownership will not be the same. This is called goodwill in the accounting world.