Joe the Liar

[Herzblut]

"Joe" tried weed. But he didn't inhale.

Isn't that stupid?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And now Wurzelbacher says he might just run for Congress in 2010!

Yeah, that's the ticket! And I'm also a secret agent. And I used to date Kate Blanchette but I had to break up with her because she was cramping my style. And I once killed a bear with my bare hands. Yeah. . . that's the ticket.

 

[T.A.M.]

Wait. What?

I must have missed something. Do you have a link for that?

Nope, saw it on Olbermann about 5-7 days ago. I suppose you could go through the video archives there, if they have them.

TAM

Edit: and the word "talking" was probably an overstatement, as I believe Olbermann was referring to some activity on blogs (IIRC).

 

[mr rosewater]

What I am asking you for is a link to the portion of Obama's proposal that would give checks to people who are unemployed, on welfare, or have no source of taxable income.

See best I recall, his tax plan offers tax cuts to WORKING people who make less than $250K, not EVERY PERSON.

Prove it to yourself, show me a source. Otherwise, you are merely spewing the GOP lies.

As for the rest, well McCain is the GOP candidate. You know the GOP, the party supported by the right wing pundits. You know, the right wing pundits who were talking to Joe the Plumber DAYS before he ever showed up at an Obama event and allegedly just asked an innocent question.

TAM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.

What's a McCain?

 

[mhaze]

In other words, they make that much money by doing something other than working as a plumber.

Just for clarification, do you understand that owning a company that makes $250K-$280K (no word on if that is net or gross) does not mean that you pay personal income tax for that amount?

Indeed, even if Joe's accountant mangled the books so much that Joe does have to pay personal income tax at that level, that puts this "Average Joe" in the elite top 2% (or so) of wage earners? It certainly wouldn't effect Joe's capability to run the company since Joe's taxable income comes after all the expenses are paid.

I thought it pretty obvious when Joe talked about "buying a business" he'd then be working as a "business owner". Of course you understand, that master plumbers working in their trade, overseas, at say...Saudi Arabia for Exxon, and filing a US tax return, really do make boatloads of money?

Small Biz 101. Schedule C 1040.

There is no difference between "net income", and what you pay tax on, the bottom line of the Sch C is carried right back to pp1 of the 1040.

We're talking about net, of course. The business owner would pay both parts of the Fica and Medicare , then from the tax tables whatever graduated rate applied to the $250k.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.....

This is correct. Just one part of "spreading the wealth around" and increasing the freeloader percentage at the cost of looting the tax system.

"Change".

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler
And now Wurzelbacher says he might just run for Congress in 2010!

​

...seriously? His opponent is going to eat him alive...

Nope. Not if he selected, and moved to, the right district.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

And now Wurzelbacher says he might just run for Congress in 2010!

...seriously? His opponent is going to eat him alive...

 

[mr rosewater]

I thought it pretty obvious when Joe talked about "buying a business" he'd then be working as a "business owner". Of course you understand, that master plumbers working in their trade, overseas, at say...Saudi Arabia for Exxon, and filing a US tax return, really do make boatloads of money?

Small Biz 101. Schedule C 1040.

There is no difference between "net income", and what you pay tax on, the bottom line of the Sch C is carried right back to pp1 of the 1040.

We're talking about net, of course. The business owner would pay both parts of the Fica and Medicare , then from the tax tables whatever graduated rate applied to the $250k.

This is correct. Just one part of "spreading the wealth around" and increasing the freeloader percentage at the cost of looting the tax system.

"Change".

What change it's the same democrat line we've heard since the late 60's. Is it the 60's again?

 

[mhaze]

What change it's the same democrat line we've heard since the late 60's. Is it the 60's again?

No.

"Obama, you are no John Kennedy".

 

[mr rosewater]

No.

"Obama, you are no John Kennedy".

True, ask not... remember?

 

[T.A.M.]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.

What's a McCain?

Your "Proof" is an opinion piece from a former Reagan staffer?

Show me where IN OBAMA's Proposed tax plan, where it shows he will be writing checks to the unemployed, or welfare recipients?

TAM

 

[mr rosewater]

Your "Proof" is an opinion piece from a former Reagan staffer?

Show me where IN OBAMA's Proposed tax plan, where it shows he will be writing checks to the unemployed, or welfare recipients?

TAM

What are you talking about unemployed and welfare? What does that have to do with Senator Obama's tax plan? OMSM! Does he want to give money to them too?

 

[Malerin]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.

What's a McCain?

Normally, I would agree with you. I don't like handing out money to people for no reason. However, the money will go to working families, and they have had a hard time of it the last 30 years. See the nearly flat grwoth in median income in the last 30 years:

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-for-middle-america/

In 1977, the top 1% received about 10% of pre-tax income. Now it's almost 20%.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm#_ftn1

And another good chart showing flat incomes for 50% and below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

Also, we're now ranked one of the worst countries in the OECD for income inequality:

"ANY mention of redistribution of wealth in America would normally scupper a politician's ambitions, but Barack Obama has managed to preserve his lead in the polls while also saying that he wants to “spread the wealth around”. And there is a lot of spreading potential: income distribution in America is the widest of the 30 countries of the OECD. The top 10% (or decile) of earners have an average $87,257 of disposable income, while those in the bottom decile have $5,819, among the very lowest of any country. Britain, Canada and Luxembourg also see big differences between the richest and poorest."

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12454152

So I think you see why Americans may be receptive to a "share the wealth" message.

 

[mr rosewater]

Normally, I would agree with you. I don't like handing out money to people for no reason. However, the money will go to working families, and they have had a hard time of it the last 30 years. See the nearly flat grwoth in median income in the last 30 years:

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-for-middle-america/

In 1977, the top 1% received about 10% of pre-tax income. Now it's almost 20%.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm#_ftn1

And another good chart showing flat incomes for 50% and below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

Also, we're now ranked one of the worst countries in the OECD for income inequality:

"ANY mention of redistribution of wealth in America would normally scupper a politician's ambitions, but Barack Obama has managed to preserve his lead in the polls while also saying that he wants to “spread the wealth around”. And there is a lot of spreading potential: income distribution in America is the widest of the 30 countries of the OECD. The top 10% (or decile) of earners have an average $87,257 of disposable income, while those in the bottom decile have $5,819, among the very lowest of any country. Britain, Canada and Luxembourg also see big differences between the richest and poorest."

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12454152

So I think you see why Americans may be receptive to a "share the wealth" message.

This is how I see it I don't expect anyone to carry my water, that's how I view America.

 

[Malerin]

This is how I see it I don't expect anyone to carry my water, that's how I view America.

I hear ya, but countries that have extreme concentrations of wealth at the very top tend not to do too well. I don't think we're at the point where we have to start worrying about Bastilles being stormed, but as Disco Stu says, "If these trends continue...".

Look, my wife and I are both teachers. She just started and I've been teaching for 10 years. We're now at $110,000 a year and living comfortably. We could afford to pay an extra 2 or 3 percent. I won't be able to get that ivory back scratcher, but hey, that's life. Five years ago, we were making $45,000 and it was a lot tougher, and that's WITHOUT having to worry about paying for health care. I go grocery shopping nowadays, and I honestly wonder how a family at median income can afford it.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well you were claiming that Obama's plan would write checks (give aways) to those who pay no taxes. Well people on welfare do not pay taxes, do they?

Since we seem to have been misunderstood, simply tell me who is going to get a check from Obama that doesn't, in your opinion, deserve one?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

This is how I see it I don't expect anyone to carry my water, that's how I view America.

I understand where you are coming from.

I graduated high school at age 17. I then went to college, and graduated with an Electronic Engineering Technology Diploma, A Bachelor in Medical Science, an MD, and a 2 year residency...I was 30.

I graduated with $160,000 in student loan debts.

I now make about $200-$250K per year. I lose about 35% of that to taxes. I lose another 15% per month to pay off my student loans.

I don't expect anyone to carry my water either, but I FEEL AN OBLIGATION to contribute to those who for any number of reasons didn't get the right shakes, didn't get the right breaks, and as a result, do not do as well as I do.

If I have to pay a few percentage points more in taxes then them...so be it.

I am Canadian, and that is how I see Canada.

TAM

 

[mhaze]

..... I FEEL AN OBLIGATION to contribute to those who for any number of reasons didn't get the right shakes, didn't get the right breaks, and as a result, do not do as well as I do.

If I have to pay a few percentage points more in taxes then them...so be it.

I am Canadian, and that is how I see Canada.

TAM

What % of money that you send to the central government do you think actually goes to any worthy purpose? That is really the center of the issue.

....We could afford to pay an extra 2 or 3 percent.

Try 5-6%.

From http://andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com/
While Mr. Obama calls his plan "Making Work Pay," under standard economic assumptions his plan would actually discourage work for anyone earning over $8,000 per year. The tax credit itself would increase workers' take-home pay, an "income effect" that reduces incentives to work. Moreover, for workers in the $75,000 to $85,000 income range, where the tax credit is phased out at five cents for each dollar of additional income, this would add five percentage points to their marginal tax rate.

....Show me where IN OBAMA's Proposed tax plan, where it shows he will be writing checks to the unemployed, or welfare recipients? TAM

From http://andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com/
Under the plan, which he claims would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, provides an income tax credit worth 6.2% of earnings up to $8,000, for a maximum credit of $500 per worker or $1,000 per couple. The 6.2% figure is important, because it matches the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax. Because around a third of Americans currently pay no income taxes -- a fraction that would rise to almost half under Mr. Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center -- Mr. Obama's tax credits would be refundable, meaning you could collect the credit even if you paid no income taxes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What % of money that you send to the central government do you think actually goes to any worthy purpose? That is really the center of the issue.

I agree. And the Republicans seem to want to spend $2-3 billion in Iraq each week. I'd much rather see that money go to health care, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, or to helping working families and the less fortunate.

I just don't buy that the problem with our country is that the rich can't concentrate enough wealth.

 

[leftysergeant]

This is how I see it I don't expect anyone to carry my water, that's how I view America.

Ah. Ithink I see your problem. You believe that there is such a thing as a self-made man.

 

[Malerin]

What % of money that you send to the central government do you think actually goes to any worthy purpose? That is really the center of the issue.



Try 5-6%.

From http://andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com/
While Mr. Obama calls his plan "Making Work Pay," under standard economic assumptions his plan would actually discourage work for anyone earning over $8,000 per year. The tax credit itself would increase workers' take-home pay, an "income effect" that reduces incentives to work. Moreover, for workers in the $75,000 to $85,000 income range, where the tax credit is phased out at five cents for each dollar of additional income, this would add five percentage points to their marginal tax rate.




From http://andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com/
Under the plan, which he claims would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, provides an income tax credit worth 6.2% of earnings up to $8,000, for a maximum credit of $500 per worker or $1,000 per couple. The 6.2% figure is important, because it matches the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax. Because around a third of Americans currently pay no income taxes -- a fraction that would rise to almost half under Mr. Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center -- Mr. Obama's tax credits would be refundable, meaning you could collect the credit even if you paid no income taxes.

Oh boy, the AEI.

1. There's a difference between marginal tax and total tax. Even if my marginal rate goes up, my total tax under Obama's plan goes down. See chart here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vt1LPZed0LU/SO7kIUJnZwI/AAAAAAAAAP4/eO2lVGpkpTc/s1600-h/image002.gif

Which is from http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-tax-plan-and-basic-honesty.html

Note that I would be better off under Mccain's plan because it skews so much towards the rich/near-rich

2.

"While Mr. Obama calls his plan "Making Work Pay," under standard economic assumptions his plan would actually discourage work for anyone earning over $8,000 per year"

This is laughable. $200,000 a year taxed at 39% > $8,000 taxed at 0%. I can see it now: Obama wins and we all quit our jobs and start working at Wendy's.

3.

The tax credit itself would increase workers' take-home pay, an "income effect" that reduces incentives to work. Moreover, for workers in the $75,000 to $85,000 income range, where the tax credit is phased out at five cents for each dollar of additional income, this would add five percentage points to their marginal tax rate.

Again, why would a tax credit reduce my incentive to work? I want higher pay AND the tax credit. Does this guy actually assume people are going to forego career advancement for a $1,000 tax cut? Even if Obama's tax credits completely disappeared from $60,000 to $100,000 (which they don't), $40,000 > $1,000. In other words, I'll take the extra $40,000, even if it means I lose $1,000 in tax cuts. Duh.

Fox had a similar article awhile back:

The effects of these phase-outs are dramatic. Alex Brill and Alan Viard, at the American Enterprise Institute, show that a two-earner couple with two children (one of whom is in college) can face a 34 percent marginal tax rate when they earn $31,000, with the tax rate rising to 39 percent when their family income reaches $45,000. And families making $110,000 to $120,000 may have to think twice about making more money with the federal income tax alone taking almost half of each additional dollar they make.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405562,00.html

OK, so in this highly specific example, the hypothetical family sees their marginal rate rise 5% from $31,000 to $45,000. Not their total tax- that goes down. Just the marginal rate. Their total tax will be lower under Obama's plan. It's not even true that their marginal rate goes up. What is more accurate to say is that the phase out from Obama's tax credits (child tax and college credit) goes up.

And from this we're supposed to conclude what? People won't try for raises because Obama's tax credits phase out at 5% between $31,000 and $45,000? Ridiculous. People are not going to sit on their asses because of a 5% decrease in a tax CREDIT. If that were true we'd all be serving each other at Denny's because no one would try for high paying jobs that are taxed at 30% (or higher).

Famlies making $100,000 are at the marginal rate of 30%. http://www.finance.cch.com/sohoApplets/TaxMargin.asp
The article's assertiion that their marginal rate will jump TWENTY points under Obama's plan is also ridiculous. They too will see an overall tax break.

For a good rebuttal, go to the site I referenced earlier:

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-tax-plan-and-basic-honesty.html