Obama vs. Plumber

[SPOOLIN]

I don't hate to admit it. It's a great number to use. Small businesses do in fact employ half of the american work place. Again, I want you to look at the math up earlier in the thread. Taxing the personal tax code at rates higher that 250k will actually increase jobs. I will say it again. IF YOU RAISE THE TAX BRACKET FOR THE HIGHER THAN 250K RANGE, IT WILL CREATE JOBS.

Why? Well it's quite simple. If Joe plumber is grossing 1.1 mil in revenue and has 5 employees. He pays each of them 150k. That means he has at least 750k of deductions and if he pays himself 350k for salary, he will pay higher taxes. But instead, Joe plumber has an ounce of intelligence. He could hire one more person and pay then 100k a year and then his take home is 250, essentially dropping him one tax bracket to where he is currently. See where I am going with this? How has this plan prevented him from hiring new jobs? If anything, it gives incentives not to "hoard" all of the profits from the business and invest it in jobs instead.

So let me get this strait, a business owner is supposed to hire an extra person to take a purposeful PAY CUT to make less money so he won't get taxed more. that is ludicrous, what is the fucking point in him continuing to try and grow his business and make more for himself. We all want to make more money than we make, If you can't do that then there's no point in trying hard in anything. Your idea is screwed up. I don't know any company that will purposely make less money to hire more employees.

[Alan®]

I can agree to that to some extent, but let's turn that same situation around. What happens if you reduce the tax load on that same person. Are they going to hire more people? NO. Are they going to invest more in the business or economy? NO. They are going to do the same think you think they are going to do. They are going to "hoard" the extra money that they get to use your own words.

Wait a minute by almost everyone's argument here on this forum is that small business owners like yourself, Jamie, my old man, etc. their sole priority in life is making money. Now why in a time of economic crisis if you're business is doing well and there are still opportunities to invest and grow would you not do so knowing that in the end it is going to net more income. People using you're argument that business owners of any kind are selfish greedy bastards can not have their cake and eat it too. Sorry.

[Alan®]

All this wishy washy going back and forth is truly amuzing.

Let's see:

Let's see just which one of all of you has EVER run/owned their own business.......show me hands......

I'm going to make up an "article" about how turds come out of space and go INTO your butt crack and suddenly someone somewhere is going to use it as a "statistic" or "study"......

Bottomline is pure common sense:

If you tax the upper 5% MORE than they already have to pay, they are simply going to figure out a way to either A: hide more of their income and keep CHEATING just like the rest of us, or B: not be able to HIRE any more employees in order to maintain a certain level of income. Use you head folks. Put YOURSELF in their shoes. YOU own a successful business. YOU pay yourself $250k/yr. YOU now can afford to pay 5 employees a decent salary and STILL take home $250K/yr. Yall still with me? Ok, NOW tell that same business owner that next year he/she is going to have to pay MORE of their income to taxes because Obama said so......what do you think he/she is going to do? Are they going to be able to HIRE anyone else? If you think so, explain how when his/her costs of doing business just went UP. What's going to REALLY happen is one of the two things I mentioned above. Do you think someone who makes $250K/yr is going to run out and SELL his/her vacation home, MB, or tell little Johnny that he can't have that F1 go-kart he wanted for Christmas????? Hell to the no. They're going to figure out how to KEEP what they have and hoard the rest. Which leaves WHAT to be invested, spent, or other wise used in the general economy???? LESS is what.

So let me get this straight: A person who already pays MORE than what the average American MAKES in an entire year in taxes all year long is the same person you guys want to ask to pay yet MORE next year to cover for WHO?????? The ones that either don't pay at all or very little????? Okie dokie. Again, put yourself in their shoes. They didn't get to make $250k/yr by being stupid, right? So they're going to figure out ways to maintain their way of life and simply say "screw everybody else, including Uncle Sam". Wouldn't you? Well, those same business owners are the exact ones that HIRE folks. Think about that. HIRE FOLKS. So what do you think is going to happen when they DON'T HIRE FOLKS???? Now, factor in the FACT that we are in deep caca in just about every single segment of the job market. Hell, Pepsi......multi BILLION dollar PEPSI is laying people off by the hundreds right now.......so what do you think is going to happen to small businesses that aren't doing as much business as they once were AND you want to tax the owners on top of that MORE??????? Yall can't be that dumb, right?


This is not a math equation. It is a common sense equation. You take out the top wage earners and top tax payers and all you have left is the bottom 95% of people that pay little to no taxes. So you're left with what? No companies hiring, no companies making profits to possibly invest INTO the shitty economy, and you're left with folks that just hold their hands out.......GREAT UTOPIA.

BTW, 99% of business owners don't own a business with any intentions of ever selling it, so Capital Gains is a big BS marketing ploy. They pay NO Capital gains now, and 99.9% EVER do. So that's like giving an Eskimo a discount on ICE......pffft, there's FREE ICE all around them, right?.....same thing here. Matter of fact, small businesses (especially right now) are more likely to go UNDER all by themselves due to the market conditions than they are to be "bought" by someone else. Again, look at the realistic side and common sense side of things. Why would ANYONE buy a failing business? Why would anyone sell a productive business? The REAL side of life is that if you are making money, especially now when everybody is losing money, then you are more than likely going to stay right where you are keep making money. If you are like 90% of everyone else losing money hand over fist......just what the hell do YOU have to offer anyone that's worthy of buying???? It's easier for someone like that to just ride it out or file for bankruptcy on the whole damn thing. Why would you sell your business for pennies on the dollar and STILL KEEP debts you don't have money to pay off????

People need to use their heads and think about things. If none of you have ever owned your own business and paid the gov't thousands in taxes every single quarter or sat down to balance a business account to see where all your money is going.......then quite frankly you need to STFU and quit talking like you "know" what's going to happen when Obama starts taxing the shit out of business owners because you really have no clue.


BTW, the Fair Tax argument is really no argument. How can anyone that has really thought about it ever think it won't net more revenue? Think about your own tax returns. How many times did YOU CHEAT on your own taxes to get a bigger return or less to pay????? You think you're the only one doing that? Ummm, no. So that's just the people that are actually PAYING anything. Now, factor in all the millions that PAY nothing already. Now, look at how much revenue you would have just out of those people that DON'T PAY at all now that can't get around paying something anymore. That alone adds up to billions I bet. Now, just think about those people making decent money that suddenly can either buy more or invest more because they take home 100% of their check.......how many BILLIONS do you think that adds to be????


Yall are all nuts.

Jamie, BEST FUCKING POST IN THIS THREAD!!! I'm a business major in college. My old man runs a security consultant company and what his business pays in taxes PER QUARTER is 2-3x what the median income is in this country.

It's funny. We are only talking about income tax here. The discussion on removing the cap on Social Security, Increase in payroll tax etc., hasn't even been adressed yet. I read a study the other day of both of their economic plans and it said(but I have a hard time believing this) under Obama a small businesses owner making over $250k will see up to 62% go back to Uncle Sam. I have a hard time believing but at the same time I wouldn't doubt it.

[Alan®]

it doesn't matter if you've owned your own business or not before... owning a business doesn't make you and economics guru... i'll post up the previously used chart...

again we are talking about Joe who makes 250k which will fall into the 225-600k range... from what i see it is a wash... he will see no real tax change.




i know many on the right like to use the stance of well jobs will be cut...

lets do a simple break down....

250,000 x .35 = 87500
250,000 x .40 = 100000 (i used a +5% change in taxes just for example)
-------------------------
difference of above: 12,500 \ 52 weeks = 240 \ 40 hours = 6$ an hour

6$ an hour employee ... now lets take everything into perspective we are just banking on Joe's Company has a growth rate of 0%




i've attached the tax brackets for your reference....

You know what all these charts mean squat to me. I seriously had a 30 minute debate in my history class with my professor and all but one other person in my class because my professor had a chart that OBAMA'S ADVISORS SUBMITTED that said if you make $237K-$613K that you would see a $7k tax DECREASE. And I argued with them for a half hour that it was bull shit because even Obama said last night that if you make over $250k you will see an INCREASE. Again the Obama campaign just playing both sides of the argument to their advantage.

[4dmin]

Please post the SOURCE of these charts.

BTW, you're fixing to fall into this very category. How would you feel if I walked up to you and said that since you and Kate make a ton of money that you HAVE TO give me the difference from what you were making before to what you're making now???? Forget the fact that Kate put her blood, sweat, and tears into her education to EARN that money. Forget that you had to put up with a lot of BS to get where you are today. Forget that Kate gave up having fun and getting drunk with me and you while she studied to get her degree. Forget that you have expenses, like student loans to pay back, that you are paying. Forget all that. I need it more than you do, so I want it, and I should get it because you guys make more than most. Tell me on what planet that is fair or makes sense.

its the way of the world my friend... life isn't fair and when your on top everyone wants a piece... do i like paying taxes? No. do i expect to pay more due to our income? Yes.

but here is where i and many of you disagree... if kate and i make 250+k and we own a business, well say a pharmacy. would we be better off w/ obama or mccain taxes... hoenstly obama - healthcare is quite expensive and people day by day skimp out on things they need including medications b/c they can't afford them. put money back in 95% of consumers pockets... they aren't going to be saving they will be spending. which in return benifits me. when they don't have money; i don't have money.

[jwrape]

its the way of the world my friend... life isn't fair and when your on top everyone wants a piece... do i like paying taxes? No. do i expect to pay more due to our income? Yes.

but here is where i and many of you disagree... if kate and i make 250+k and we own a business, well say a pharmacy. would we be better off w/ obama or mccain taxes... hoenstly obama - healthcare is quite expensive and people day by day skimp out on things they need including medications b/c they can't afford them. put money back in 95% of consumers pockets... they aren't going to be saving they will be spending. which in return benifits me. when they don't have money; i don't have money.

And you summed up the entire election right there, depending upon your circumstance, you vote for the candidate that will help YOU the most. That IS "the way of the world"...

[bafbrian]

its the way of the world my friend... life isn't fair and when your on top everyone wants a piece... do i like paying taxes? No. do i expect to pay more due to our income? Yes.

but here is where i and many of you disagree... if kate and i make 250+k and we own a business, well say a pharmacy. would we be better off w/ obama or mccain taxes... hoenstly obama - healthcare is quite expensive and people day by day skimp out on things they need including medications b/c they can't afford them. put money back in 95% of consumers pockets... they aren't going to be saving they will be spending. which in return benifits me. when they don't have money; i don't have money.

x2

You will vote for who you believe best has your, Americans, best interests at heart.

I believe we could all agree that we don't like paying taxes, but that is part of life our lives as Americans.

PS - "Joe the Plumber" doesn't have the required license to be a registered plumber in his county, which states is a requirement.

[Verik]

#1. Yes I have. I have and still do own businesses.
#2. I've yet to meet a single business owner, and I know a million, that started a business with the sole purpose of selling out. It doesn't happen that way. The way it REALLY happens is that you create a successful business and MAYBE your competitor buys you out, but that's an outside chance. Yes, people do sell out and make a profit. But it's not because they set out to do that like a stock or savings account. It's more likely because some Joe Schmo competitor decided one day to make him/her an offer and they took it. But I promise you that as a business owner who is making money, the possibility of selling it and starting over is not in the fore front of their mind.

Generally speaking I fall in the conservative side of things but as a Finance major Imma do my part in shedding a bit of knowledge. Most entrepreneurs Are not able to fund an entire business endeavor straight out of the gate. Seeking investors (or a single) to invest in their project and then receive something like 10% of the original investment plus the first 5-10% of profits every year for 10 years is a very common investment prospect. Those 5-10% extra the investor is receiving is not considered income to the investor, it is a form of capital gain (as is any dividend or sale of stock for a profit) and is taxed under capital gains tax (if i believe I understand capital gains right).

Do you see what I'm getting at? In the financial world, its far more common for small business to begin with initial investors that are not there for the long/indefinite term and this is when Capital Gains will come into play.

[Total_Blender]

x2
PS - "Joe the Plumber" doesn't have the required license to be a registered plumber in his county, which states is a requirement.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...WS09/810160418

Joe also hasn't voted since 1992. Apparently he's not that concerned about the government if he hasn't voted in 16 years.

Yeah, the union leader they interviewed in this article didn't seem to hold a very high opinion of Joe the plumber. I imagine Joe will be visited by some union thugs in the near future. Oh, and the plumber's union supports Obama.

[Jaimecbr900]

I am not saying that a capital gains reduction is going to help a bunch of small business owners. I can say that it won't hurt any and will help a few. There's nothing bad about that.

It's a marketing ploy that the vast majority of Obama supporters is buying hook, line, and sinker.

Why not instead implement something that will help MANY if not ALL Americans instead of a handful? Capital gains does not affect 99.9% of small businesses as much as general taxes and tax shelters.

I don't hate to admit it. It's a great number to use. Small businesses do in fact employ half of the american work place. Again, I want you to look at the math up earlier in the thread. Taxing the personal tax code at rates higher that 250k will actually increase jobs. I will say it again. IF YOU RAISE THE TAX BRACKET FOR THE HIGHER THAN 250K RANGE, IT WILL CREATE JOBS.

Why? Well it's quite simple. If Joe plumber is grossing 1.1 mil in revenue and has 5 employees. He pays each of them 150k. That means he has at least 750k of deductions and if he pays himself 350k for salary, he will pay higher taxes. But instead, Joe plumber has an ounce of intelligence. He could hire one more person and pay then 100k a year and then his take home is 250, essentially dropping him one tax bracket to where he is currently. See where I am going with this? How has this plan prevented him from hiring new jobs? If anything, it gives incentives not to "hoard" all of the profits from the business and invest it in jobs instead.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. There is NO business owner out there that is going to hire an additional employee to reduce his own PERSONAL tax bracket, i.e. just add yet another expense. See, you seem to think that hiring an employee at $100k/yr means that your only cost is $100k/yr. It is NOT. So therefore, he just essentially shaved $100k+/yr off his profits if he/she even has the business essential to afford that $100k/yr employee. Again, compound that by the current economic situation, i.e. business is down all over, then that means that not only are you going to RAISE his taxes, but you're also going to handcuff him/her from hiring anyone else because it's just another expense on top of that.

You're model is not realistic at all.

This right here is where your theory falls apart. Reducing taxes businesses through the personal tax code doesn't offer any incentive to hire more. You are reducing his personal taxes, therefore, just increasing his own personal income. He would have more cash, no one else. You have to get the taxes from somewhere, so if you aren't taxing him, who are you going to tax?

I just explained one way how above.

Spreading wealth is not the same thing as taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. In this case, it's taking it from the rich to use for everybody (get it? spreading the wealth?), otherwise known as taxes.

See, this is where YOU dropped the ball.

Taxes are NOT to support PEOPLE. They are to support GOVERNMENT.

Taxes do pay for public programs, but if you really want to get down to brass tax (no pun intended) the lower end of the income earners which in turn are the same ones that pay NO TAXES now are the very ones USING those public assistance programs supported by OUR TAXES. Follow that? Probably not. I'll elaborate.

Taxes are collected involuntarily literally at the end of a gun. You don't pay, you go to jail. So those same taxes collected go to fund the GOVERNMENT and it's endeavours, which include public assistance programs. Public assistance programs have guidelines. One of those non-negotiable guidelines is that you have to have little to NO INCOME to even get it. So let's put the dots together: People that make NO MONEY and PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH are the very ones USING UP THE MONEY (benefits) FUNDED BY TAXES. Follow that? THIS is the problem, not that we pay or not pay. It is that we are paying MORE than we are COLLECTING because the people USING are NOT PAYING. Get it? If you don't, then walk down to your local unemployment office, social security office, or welfare office. Tell them that since YOU PAY X amount INTO all of those out of your paycheck, you want to get your share back. See what they tell you.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. The only business owners I know besides a few family own enterprises have all started with the intention of selling out. Maybe it's because I work with a ton of technical businesses and that is THE business model everyone uses. It's really not a stong part of my arguement as I can agree that capital gains reductions for small businesses is still not a huge selling point of Obama's in the first place, but rather gravy.

Again, if you have nothing of value to sell then you're not going to sell much. You have to have something of value first for your theory to ever work.

[Jaimecbr900]

its the way of the world my friend... life isn't fair and when your on top everyone wants a piece... do i like paying taxes? No. do i expect to pay more due to our income? Yes.

You wouldn't have to with the Fair Tax in place.

BTW, you still didn't site your "source" of those charts.....

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbc...EWS09/810160418

Joe also hasn't voted since 1992. Apparently he's not that concerned about the government if he hasn't voted in 16 years.

Yeah, the union leader they interviewed in this article didn't seem to hold a very high opinion of Joe the plumber. I imagine Joe will be visited by some union thugs in the near future. Oh, and the plumber's union supports Obama.

And your point is what? That because he hasn't cast a vote in some time, if that's even true, that what he SAID was not right? Obama choked all over it. If it came from an unemployed piss ant doesn't matter as much as the fact that he finally admitted he was going to simply distribute the wealth around. Talk about that.

Generally speaking I fall in the conservative side of things but as a Finance major Imma do my part in shedding a bit of knowledge. Most entrepreneurs Are not able to fund an entire business endeavor straight out of the gate. Seeking investors (or a single) to invest in their project and then receive something like 10% of the original investment plus the first 5-10% of profits every year for 10 years is a very common investment prospect. Those 5-10% extra the investor is receiving is not considered income to the investor, it is a form of capital gain (as is any dividend or sale of stock for a profit) and is taxed under capital gains tax (if i believe I understand capital gains right).

Do you see what I'm getting at? In the financial world, its far more common for small business to begin with initial investors that are not there for the long/indefinite term and this is when Capital Gains will come into play.

Paying the miniscule amount that you would pay for taking out dividends amounts to less than a drop in the preverbial bucket.

Real life shows that most small business owners from mom and pop shops to less than blue chip co's don't sell out all that often. They may set up shell LLC's to tax shelter their money and get taxed less than straight income. They may opt to take options instead real money. But the bottom line is that very few personal tax returns are ever affected by Capital gains as a small business owner. So again, you're offering ice to eskimos. It's a placebo.

PS - "Joe the Plumber" doesn't have the required license to be a registered plumber in his county, which states is a requirement.

Once again.....AND????

You obviously don't want to talk about content and want to get stuck on meaningless details. Ok, I'll play along. Have you thought about the fact that many plumbers are allowed to work for a COMPANY and thereby noone requires the individual plumber to have a "license"??? How about all the DJ's in every radio station? Do you think each individual one of them are FCC licensed? Does that make them any less a DJ? How about RE agents that work under a Broker? Any less an Agent? I could go on and on. Many professions allow you to legally work under someone else that is licensed w/o any problems what so ever. So where is your argument? Besides, what does any of this have to do with what he SAID?

Talk about grasping at straws.

[Vteckidd]

The point of TAXES is to RAISE REVENUE, NOT REDISTRIBUTE MONEY TO "PEOPLE THAT NEED IT MORE."

when will you people learn that

[Alan®]

The point of TAXES is to RAISE REVENUE, NOT REDISTRIBUTE MONEY TO "PEOPLE THAT NEED IT MORE."

when will you people learn that

I argued that with my history professor yesterday. You have no idea how uncomfortable it is to have 30+ people looking at you like you are crazy while trying to argue this.

[4dmin]

You wouldn't have to with the Fair Tax in place.

BTW, you still didn't site your "source" of those charts.....

this was pulled from some major news source done by a 3rd party analyst... it has been used on this section for a while it will take me a while to find the original that wasn't an attachment

[BanginJimmy]

Admin,

Would a canidate that openly supported the Fairtax, but was 50/50 on all other issues gain your support over a canidate that you agreed with on other major issues except taxes?

[Jaimecbr900]

this was pulled from some major news source done by a 3rd party analyst... it has been used on this section for a while it will take me a while to find the original that wasn't an attachment

Ummmmhmmmm, likely story......


Go find it biotch!!!! Now I get to flip the coin on you like you did me.....

[Alan®]

as I remember you pulled that from cnn

[Verik]

Paying the miniscule amount that you would pay for taking out dividends amounts to less than a drop in the preverbial bucket.

Real life shows that most small business owners from mom and pop shops to less than blue chip co's don't sell out all that often. They may set up shell LLC's to tax shelter their money and get taxed less than straight income. They may opt to take options instead real money. But the bottom line is that very few personal tax returns are ever affected by Capital gains as a small business owner. So again, you're offering ice to eskimos. It's a placebo.

You obviously need to reread my post. Dividends was not the main subject. I was talking about the financing of a new business or a purchase of a business is almost never done in full by the entrepreneur who is looking for the long term. There are people out there who live off of the money they make by capital gains on investments in the startup (not long term investments) of small businesses.

I'm not arguing for or against the capital gain tax (raise or decrease). It's just that a lot of people are throwing capital gains around without quite realizing all that it is.

[Total_Blender]

And your point is what? That because he hasn't cast a vote in some time, if that's even true, that what he SAID was not right? Obama choked all over it. If it came from an unemployed piss ant doesn't matter as much as the fact that he finally admitted he was going to simply distribute the wealth around. Talk about that.

Have you thought about the fact that many plumbers are allowed to work for a COMPANY and thereby noone requires the individual plumber to have a "license"??? How about all the DJ's in every radio station? Do you think each individual one of them are FCC licensed? Does that make them any less a DJ? How about RE agents that work under a Broker? Any less an Agent? I could go on and on. Many professions allow you to legally work under someone else that is licensed w/o any problems what so ever. So where is your argument? Besides, what does any of this have to do with what he SAID? .

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p..._eQ&refer=home

According to records on file with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, the state filed a tax lien against Samuel J. Wurzelbacher for $1,182.98 on Jan. 26, 2007, that is still active. The address on the lien and other records for him matched the address published by the Toledo Blade, which also noted the lien.

and...

Under Obama's proposal, Wurzelbacher would face about $900 more in taxes if he netted $280,000 of income from his new business and had to pay an extra 3 percentage points on the amount over $195,851, said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group that is examining both candidates' plans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27221645/#storyContinued

Building Inspection officials said Newell was responsible for making sure that anyone working under him was licensed. The Toledo Plumbing Board of Control may consider sanctions against Wurzelbacher or Newell, officials told NBC affiliate WNWO of Toledo.

and...

Even if he did buy Newell Plumbing and Heating, Obama’s tax plan wouldn’t affect him. While Wurzelbacher told Obama that he would be taxed at a higher rate because the company grossed more than $250,000 a year, Ohio business records show the company’s estimated total annual revenue as only $100,000. Actual taxable income would be even less than that.

In any event, Obama’s tax plan specifies that the higher rate would apply only to income above the $250,000 threshold. Assuming Wurzelbacher’s income as owner somehow hit $280,000 — the top end of his supposition of the company’s revenue — only the extra $30,000 would be taxed at a higher rate.

1.) Joe the Plumber owes back taxes.
2.) Joe is working illegally without a liscense.
3.) Joe made $40k in 2006
4.) Joe mis-represented the income of the business to Obama and the media.

So Joe is hardly in a position to buy the business in the near future. The
The Toledo Plumbing Board of Control is actually considering an investigation of Newell Plumbing and Heating. A friend of mine was working on a non-union job and the IBEW sent a couple of goons out to the jobsite who very politely told him to go home. After Joe has a visit from the union thugs whats left of him will have to pay the IRS for back taxes.

[bafbrian]

Once again.....AND????

You obviously don't want to talk about content and want to get stuck on meaningless details. Ok, I'll play along. Have you thought about the fact that many plumbers are allowed to work for a COMPANY and thereby noone requires the individual plumber to have a "license"??? How about all the DJ's in every radio station? Do you think each individual one of them are FCC licensed? Does that make them any less a DJ? How about RE agents that work under a Broker? Any less an Agent? I could go on and on. Many professions allow you to legally work under someone else that is licensed w/o any problems what so ever. So where is your argument? Besides, what does any of this have to do with what he SAID?

Talk about grasping at straws.

Personally, I don't care about "Joe the Plumber". Honestly, I have no argument because in his case, the state required the license. That isn't debatable. If the state requires the license, for whatever profession, then it would make that person "unqualified" to operate without it. Like I have said before, arguing over small issues is not what is important. I merely stated a fact about him.

However, I do find it amusing the situation he has put himself in.

[Alan®]

arguing over small issues is not what is important.

How is it not important with the cituation we are in.

[bafbrian]

How is it not important with the cituation we are in.

Did you even read the post I was responding to?