joe the plumber

I think it was Mccain lame attempt to seem like he understood... I don't know about where all ya'll live, but we make around 60,000 a year (on a good year) and we are struggling!!! Since when in a small town was 60,000 not enough to live on. We didn't even get in a house that we couldn't afford. We live cheap, and still are not making it... We own to small business and I am looking forward to Obama's tax breaks!!!
 
I look at it like this, why should I bust my ass 12-14 hours a day as a small business owner who employs 5-10 people and pays them well, with free medical coverage, great benefits, etc if my government is going to tax the shit out of me if my profits went over 250k a year. And depending on what business you are in 250k a year in profits is nothing.

Also, these politicians talking about lower taxes this and lower taxes that are full of shit. If they let Bush's tax cuts die, EVERYONES taxes are going up anyway so what difference does it make.
 
Chrisuperfly said:
I look at it like this, why should I bust my ass 12-14 hours a day as a small business owner who employs 5-10 people and pays them well, with free medical coverage, great benefits, etc if my government is going to tax the shit out of me if my profits went over 250k a year. And depending on what business you are in 250k a year in profits is nothing.

Also, these politicians talking about lower taxes this and lower taxes that are full of shit. If they let Bush's tax cuts die, EVERYONES taxes are going up anyway so what difference does it make.
Click to expand...

And we have a winner!! Finally, someone thinking like a small business owner.
 
You all make it sound like the tax rate above $250k (net profit, after expenses and payroll and deductions) would be incredibly different. The difference is between 36% and 39%. If you count in the small business breaks that Obama provides, and the <$250k shield, your business would have to make probably closer to $350k per year in NET PROFIT (that's after you pay yourself whatever salary you want, and pay all your employees, and pay all your expenses, and take all your deductions), before McCain's stance would save you anything.

If you're at that point, then you're doing several million dollars gross in business per year, you're probably making however much money you want to make (in salary), and you STILL have that much net profit. If you're doing that well, I think that difference between 36% and 39% is not unreasonable. That's only an extra $3000 in taxes per HUNDRED GRAND in net profit, and again, that's after you pay yourself whatever the hell you want for a salary.

50% of all companies have paid zero dollars in taxes for the last seven years. Those that have paid taxes are the top of the heap -- Exxon, Microsoft, Google, etc. I think they can handle it okay without shifting their tax burden to the middle class, which can't.
 
Bongulator said:
You all make it sound like the tax rate above $250k (net profit, after expenses and payroll and deductions) would be incredibly different. The difference is between 36% and 39%. If you count in the small business breaks that Obama provides, and the <$250k shield, your business would have to make probably closer to $350k per year in NET PROFIT (that's after you pay yourself whatever salary you want, and pay all your employees, and pay all your expenses, and take all your deductions), before McCain's stance would save you anything.

If you're at that point, then you're doing several million dollars gross in business per year, you're probably making however much money you want to make (in salary), and you STILL have that much net profit. If you're doing that well, I think that difference between 36% and 39% is not unreasonable. That's only an extra $3000 in taxes per HUNDRED GRAND in net profit, and again, that's after you pay yourself whatever the hell you want for a salary.

50% of all companies have paid zero dollars in taxes for the last seven years. Those that have paid taxes are the top of the heap -- Exxon, Microsoft, Google, etc. I think they can handle it okay without shifting their tax burden to the middle class, which can't.
Click to expand...

So where do we draw the line? 39%? Why not 42%? It's only 3% more than 39%. Can't hurt that much, can it?

It's like anything else. Give 'em an inch, they want a foot.

A business owner can not just pay him/herself a salary. The company has to be incorporated for the owner to receive a salary from the company. Basically makes the owner an employee rather then being self employed.

A company making $250,000 per year, even 1 million per year, is "middle class" when stacked up against companies like Exxon, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Sorry...but I still don't get it. Tax, tax, tax!! Work hard, get taxed!!

I smell Robin Hood tactics at play.
 
CaliHighRider said:
So where do we draw the line? 39%? Why not 42%? It's only 3% more than 39%. Can't hurt that much, can it?

It's like anything else. Give 'em an inch, they want a foot.

A business owner can not just pay him/herself a salary. The company has to be incorporated for the owner to receive a salary from the company. Basically makes the owner an employee rather then being self employed.

A company making $250,000 per year, even 1 million per year, is "middle class" when stacked up against companies like Exxon, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Sorry...but I still don't get it. Tax, tax, tax!! Work hard, get taxed!!

I smell Robin Hood tactics at play.
Click to expand...

Actually not even then Cali

In order to qualify for the salary the business must have more than, I think it's 10 or so shareholders, and they can't be related to the person that is going to be drawing a salary as CEO.

The system is really really fucked up.

I don't know the exact amount of numbers, but I do know that you have to have a certain number of shareholders in order to be able to pay the CEO a salary. Otherwise the CEO is viewed as an owner, and gets to deal with pass-through taxation.

(Of course there's also other reasons for having more than one shareholder, such as making it harder to pierce the corporate veil)
 
Here are some stats. Make of them what you will. They're all true and verifiable. If you doubt, check em out yourself.

1). FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats.

2). FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.

3). GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats outproduce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.

4). REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all.)

5). INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%.

6). UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.

7). JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. There are no exceptions.

8.) DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations.

9). THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans.

SOURCES - Primarily from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and also the Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angles Times
 
Bongulator said:
Here are some stats. Make of them what you will. They're all true and verifiable. If you doubt, check em out yourself.

1). FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats.

Who cares?

2). FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.

This is relevant to the discussion of Obama vs McCain how?

3). GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats outproduce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.

So our money supply is inflated faster under Democrats... that's just f*ng great

4). REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all.)

Arguably, but Democrats gave us the HOUSING CRISIS, which has created a massive destruction of wealth. Oh... wait, I forgot, can't include legislation from the prior administration. It'd cause the statistics to actually be more realistic.

5). INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%.

6). UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.

7). JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. There are no exceptions.

8.) DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations.

9). THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans.

SOURCES - Primarily from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and also the Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angles Times
Click to expand...



Bongulator, the problem with all these statistics is the fact that they are macrostatistics not microstatistics. That is they look at the over all picture during a set time frame with out actually delving into the different causes of these statistics.

Statistics are a two-edged sword, the fact that you can actually find them makes you look intelligent. Quoting them makes you look like an idiot.
 
Heh, standard Republican tactic -- the statistics don't back up your message, so they must be meaningless. I'm trying to remember the fallacy name for that one from my college debate days, but that was a couple of decades ago and my brain's not as spry as it once was. But logic fallacy it is.
 
Bongulator said:
Heh, standard Republican tactic -- the statistics don't back up your message, so they must be meaningless. I'm trying to remember the fallacy name for that one from my college debate days, but that was a couple of decades ago and my brain's not as spry as it once was. But logic fallacy it is.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were meaningless, I said you are missing the Why, and the How. Oh hell, you are also missing the What.

What caused these statistics, Why did these statistics come about, and How did prior actions, or actions taken under the present administration actually effect these statistics.

But whatever Bong.
 
vertise said:
joe the plumber has nothing to do with the issues. its a gimic and a bad one
Click to expand...

It was a gimmick, that's true, but with those very simple two or three questions he completely flummoxed Obama.

A person's income is NOT a sign of wealth.
It is a common mistake which politicians take every advantage to fool the masses.

Anyone can make 250k per and be up to their eyeballs in debt. On paper according to pol's like Obama, ur wealthy.

In reality you are not.

This is the fallacy the "imposter" plumber brought out. It was a brilliant expose on how flimsy Obama's plans are. They just don't stand up to scrutiny.

So the next tactic is to vilify anyone who examines his plans and finds the numerous and odious faults....

A vote for Obama is a vote for Acorn .. no thanks!!

out.
 
CrackerJax said:
It was a gimmick, that's true, but with those very simple two or three questions he completely flummoxed Obama.

A person's income is NOT a sign of wealth.
It is a common mistake which politicians take every advantage to fool the masses.

Anyone can make 250k per and be up to their eyeballs in debt. On paper according to pol's like Obama, ur wealthy.

In reality you are not.

This is the fallacy the "imposter" plumber brought out. It was a brilliant expose on how flimsy Obama's plans are. They just don't stand up to scrutiny.

So the next tactic is to vilify anyone who examines his plans and finds the numerous and odious faults....

A vote for Obama is a vote for Acorn .. no thanks!!

out.
Click to expand...


you make 250,000 a year and your in debt you are living way far beyond your means. thats why the economy is already in the shitter. maybe he shouldnt open his own business then cause he cant actually afford it. debt is what is fucking over this nation. Loans that people dig holes with and cant afford. there are problems with both economic plans plus you cant think that acorn is not another gimic.
 
Joe the Plumber doesn't really matter. Attempts to discredit the guy won't work. The issue at play here is O'Bama's principles and lack of faith in capitalism, free markets and entrepenurship. What O'Bama said in that taped interview was, "Hey Joe, no one likes to pay high taxes, but if you attain some success, I want to take money away from you, to give to those coming up behind you so that they can have some success too."

So, if you believe that its government's job to take away money from one citizen who works hard, plays by the rules, sacrifices, opens a business, then makes a decent living for him/her self, only to put that money into the hands of someone who hasn't earned it ... then vote for socialism. Vote for fascism. Vote for legalized plunder. Vote for immorality. Vote for lack of principles. Vote for theft. Cast your vote for O'Bama.

Vi
 
you guys have to look at the bigger picture. what they say is different then what they will do. they will never end up delivering a take away money from one guy and give it to another guy type of economic policy. its just to get votes. im done on this thread politics should never be discussed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top