Putting "Joe the Plumber" into perspective for a moment
With all due respect to Mr. Wurzelbacher, whom I don't know and toward whom I bear no ill will...
There seemed to be an effort to turn this particular gentleman into an "Everyman" of sorts. I'm rather pleased to see that the effort in general did not go over terribly well among the debate viewing audience. Regardless of Mr. Wurzelbacher's hopes ( Read more... )
There seemed to be an effort to turn this particular gentleman into an "Everyman" of sorts. I'm rather pleased to see that the effort in general did not go over terribly well among the debate viewing audience. Regardless of Mr. Wurzelbacher's hopes ( Read more... )
First of all, the guy is talking about a business he wants to run. (Not that it should matter because the point is the same, it's HIS money.)
It's not that he can't make ends meet, it's that he's worked his ass off to get ahead, was lucky enough to be in a field that makes that kind of money, and now that he is reaping his rewards, he wants to know why Obama feels that he needs to pay a larger percent in taxes than he would be now, to give people who pay NO income tax, a check for a tax credit! The whole point of having some people not pay taxes is the government felt they didn't make enough money to get by... so they give them a break by not having to pay any income taxes. How can you get a "Tax Credit" if you pay no income taxes?!?!
This is socialism. Or in other words,income redistribution. This Joe guy probably has people working for him...he's an employer creating jobs and he's getting penalized for success. What is the incentive to excel, if the ultra liberals want you to pay larger and larger percentages of your income to the government? IMPORTANT POINT>>>>>So if he is successful, why does his "neighbor" have a claim on it? It's his frakkin money!
Why should his rate be higher? The more money he makes the more taxes he pays for a given rate. Period.
This is why my husband,who has worked his ass off to become a commercial pilot, is annoyed as the plumbers (who aren't going to kill people if they make a mistake) now make more than he does!! But he would never expect the government to give him money from somebody else to make up the difference. He works two jobs right now, to make up for the pay cut we were forced to swallow three years ago.(And to let me stay home full time with our son.) Our cars are paid for. Model years 89 and 95. Not very ostentatious. We live in the first house we ever bought. Hardly glamorous.
I wish we made that kind of money! I wish all my friends did. But that doesn't entitle us to expect him to pay a higher rate of taxes because he can "afford it".
86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.
The top 50% pay 97% of the federal income taxes.
The top 1% pay 39%, up 2% since 200o when Bush took office.
Obama is telling us that he's going to give tax cuts to 95% of working Americans. How can he do that when only about 70% pay any tax at all?
For the record, I can't stand Palin. But I want to keep every dime we make.
It's a choice of evils AGAIN. I'd like to vote for Obama, but he sat and listened to vicious racial hatred for years...at the minimum just to get ahead politically. And his philosophy will do untold damage to the economy. I voted for Clinton both times and I'm proud of it...(Oh yes, and that Gore person too.) I can't vote for Obama. I'm resigned to the fact that he'll probably win, mostly because McCain has given this election away by choosing Palin instead of Lieberman or some other more competent person. She is a joke, and not because she's a woman.
Just my opinion...
P.S. If this in any way affects my standing in the gallery as it pertains to smut stories not written for me, etc...I can be bribed into said "socialism"...I just need to know that they won't take all my stuff and sell it, if I can't pay the taxes! I'm not giving up my V and Evey dolls, my V mask, my V earrings, my V and Evey on the red couch picture, my samurai Thorn V picture (they'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands!) Or any of my other "stuff"!
Reply
My more conservative political opinions would not be popular either!
Reply
Reply
I'm a taxpayer, and, up until THIS fiscal year, I never earned over 30 grand (Canadian). The minimum taxable standard of living is $12,000, but I can tell you from experience that you cannot live in a major Canadian city on less than $25,000 per year. If it is similar in the U.S., that means that nearly 1/4 of your population lives near or below the poverty line, not a member of the working poor like me.
I am an educated socialist, which is a fancy, made-up term for someone who believes in governmental controls and a sturdy social infrastructure (healthcare, unemployment insurance et al.). I do not believe in the re-distribution of wealth: you make it, you keep it, you get taxed on it and shut up about it. I don't understand why you'd give a tax break cheque to non-taxpayers, but if you think that part of your taxes ISN'T going to those folks one way or the other, yer crazy. And I believe it's the gov't.s responsibility to help those waitresses, janitors, housepainters, hourly workers who can't get scheduled 40 hrs/week etc. to help them - they're not lazy, they are undervalued and being plowed under by a shitty economy and an administration who could care less about them.
This isn't a retort against you or your husband (Merc, sweety, you KNOW I loves ya!), but to most 2 cars, the ability to travel and a home of one's own is just a pipe dream. We're working very hard to achieve that dream, but there's a very real possibility that it'll never come to fruition.
Reply
I can see your point in regards to being "penalized" for making more money. One of my co-workers got hit with higher taxes when he got his cost of living increase one year, which effectively negated the increase in his income. He was not happy, and I don't think I would be either.
I would point out that the tax figures you stated above are what people are supposed to pay - given the number of legal loopholes and outright fraud being perpetrated left and right, I don't for one minute believe that that's what's actually being paid. Frankly, if it was, I don't think we'd be in anywhere near as messed up a situation as we are. :-/
My primary source of irritation from the whole "Joe the Plumber" thing that McCain brought up in the debate was that he seemed to be trying to make this an example of what the "average" citizen is dealing with. It is not.
I honestly don't know if the $250,000 line that Obama has drawn is a fair one or not. Under a tax system that increases one's percentage as one's income increases, I don't know if there is a "fair" line to draw at any point. Maybe that's where the whole Flat Tax idea comes in, I don't know, but I'm sure there are horribly messy aspects of that one too.
I would never sign up for a true "redistribution of wealth" a la Socialism - but I don't see this as that. To my mind (and I may be mistaken), if that were actually to happen, then everyone who makes X number of dollars would surrender X-n dollars and that money would be given directly to those making X-n dollars (as charities are designed to do). That is my understanding of this concept. What is being proposed here is that people who make less than Y dollars give rate N to the government in taxes. People who make more than Y dollars give rate N(x%) to the government in taxes.
I very much hold with the adage that "to whom much is given, much is required." I know this clashes with the current American sentiment of "MINE!!!", but there you have it. Having said that, I would also hold that to be true of anyone, including myself, who might benefit in the future, from anything - be it a tax break, a fantastic job, winning the lottery, whatever. But it only works if the playing field is level, which it currently is not. We are no longer the country in which a dream and elbow grease equals success. I would argue that we haven't been for several decades. And, for better or worse, one of the most immediate ways I see to begin to correct that situation is to make those who make the majority of the nation's income more accountable for its care.
Granted, it may simply come to pass that more people just find better loopholes, and the problem will remain or get worse. We're certainly a selfish enough people to do that to ourselves. I guess what it boils down to for me (aside from a number of core idealogies) is that I don't favor one candidate because I trust him more than the other; I favor one candidate because I distrust him less. :-/
Reply
Leave a comment