Joe the plumber

[justanotherbozo]

I have to agree with the points you make , anyone misrepresenting themselves is going to lose any validity if and when they are exposed.
I am sure that if this question had been posed in a way that made it clear that the asker was speaking rhetoricaly then there would have been no problem , by implying that he himself would suffer when it isn't true just destroys any credence the question has.

not if you're a business man making around $200,000.00 it doesn't.

and if you go back and really listen to the entire piece, Joe says he
hopes to buy the business, and he hopes to make $250,000.00 after
he buy's it.

not that it matters 'cause if you're anyone making around $200,000.00,
you know that if you earn just a little bit more, Uncle Sam is gonna come
and take it.

the point you guy's all miss is that the question is relevant regardless of
who asked it, Obama want's to 'spread it around'. that's his philosophy,
and he's gonna spread yours around too, mark my words.

and when he raises taxes on all those nasty rich people, they're just gonna
raise thier prices and we're all gonna have to pay more, the fat cats will
remain fat, it's us that gets screwed.

[daihashi]

On a side note, a few posts ago I asked if there were any examples of Obama ever bringing Joe up in a speach by name. Today I heard the first example. Today Obama was saying something like, "I just LOVE Joe the Plumber. I love him so much I want to give him a tax break!" Then he goes on to make the case that the real Joe the Plumber, with his real income, not his fantasy income, would receive a larger tax break under Obama's plan than he would under McCain's plan. See how that works? That's how you use a real person to make a political point!

It's no wonder a valid question doesn't get asked by the media. People are more concerned by investigating the person rather than investigating the question.

I've said before that Joe owes back taxes.. that Joe never said he made that income.. but let's say Joe or any other business owner aspired to grow their business to 250k + net income. Well everyone has just dismised the question because they are too hung up on the person.

Regardless of Joe's real income there are many small businesses that do make over 250k and employ MANY people.

If a reporter had asked this question; whom didn't own a small business, would the question be a worthy question then? Fact is Joe asked a very real yet serious question and instead of focusing on the question they focused on Joe. Maybe that was McCain's fault for invoking his name so many times but it does not change the validity of the question which should be the main focus here.

And I'd hardly giving Joe anywhere from $10 - $20 a week as helping him with his real income.

Truth be told, taxes are so low that no one could cut taxes for the majority of middle class Americans enough to make a TRUE difference.

The focus of this topic has shifted several times after I've brought up points. From Joe the plumber and his supposed (false) connection to the keating 5, to spreading the wealth of taxes, to the number of potential americans effected by this, to Obama using the money to create his healthcare and not to actually give back income to middle class americans, to Joe's personal credibility and then to something closer to what this really boils down to... How a person's background story and it's credibility effects a valid question, but people here are so set on not accepting that it's a question that is credible and worthy of investigating for many other Small Business owners and the employee's that work for them. Does no one wonder why Obama doesn't go into greater detail instead of constantly making Jabs at Joe the plumber? Obama is invoking his name as a tool to try to make the question posed seem mediocre and stupid instead of actually addressing it in detail.

Both candidates should stop using the name and should start focusing on the question.


What will we shift the topic to next? I am amused.

[daihashi]

I am sure that if this question had been posed in a way that made it clear that the asker was speaking rhetoricaly then there would have been no problem , by implying that he himself would suffer when it isn't true just destroys any credence the question has.

So you're trying to say that because of the person who asked it that other American's to whom it's applicable to don't need to know the answer or that it's suddenly become an irrelevant question.

Too much focus on an individual who doesn't matter in this election.. and more focus on the question itself.

Look at how Obama will spread the wealth. Is $10-$20/week really spreading the wealth?

[dragonrider]

Does no one wonder why Obama doesn't go into greater detail instead of constantly making Jabs at Joe the plumber? Obama is invoking his name as a tool to try to make the question posed seem mediocre and stupid instead of actually addressing it in detail.

Below is the full transcript of the exchange between Obama and Joe. Where is the part where Obama does not answer the question? What question is left unanswered? It seems to me that Obama DOES answer his question --- he acknowledges that if Joe's business makes over $250k that the marginal tax rate will go from 36% to 39% on that part over $250k.

Of course, after he acknowledges that point and answers Joe's question, Obama describes why he thinks his plan is beneficial --- Joe would have had a tax break for the entire 15 years he worked as a plumber before being in a position to buy a business making $250k a year. He would have had the money to get to this point sooner.

If Joe buys health insurance for himself and his employees through his business he gets a 50% tax credit, which will help his buiness. If Joe grows his business and sells it, he'll get a break on his capital gains.

Regarding the "spread the wealth" comment, Obama is making the point that most of Joe's customers would recieve a tax break and be in a better position to afford his services. That is the context in which he says, "If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." It's not some socialist BS --- it's the idea that if people who are financially pinched have some money to spend, it benefits the economy.

This is the original exchange before it became clear the Joe had misrepresented himself and the business he wanted to buy and that he actually would be one of the 95% of people who would BENEFIT under Obama's plan. I think Obama answered his question. What part do you think he didn't answer, Daihashi?

Here is the transcript:

Obama: What's your name?

Joe: My name's Joe Wurzelbacher.

Obama: Good to see you, Joe.

Joe: I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 â?¦ $270-$280,000 a year.

Obama: All right.

Joe: Your new tax plan's gonna tax me more, isn't it?

Obama: Well, here's what's gonna happen. If you're a small business which you would qualify as, first of all, you'd get a 50 percent tax credit, so you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are gonna stay the same. It is true that for â?¦ say, from $250,000 up, from $250,000 to $300,000 or so â?¦

Joe: Well, here's my question â?¦

Obama: I just want to answer your question. So, for that additional amount, you'd go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 so what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less â?¦ I want to give them a tax cut and so what we're doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than $250,000 that that marginal amount above $250,000, they're gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36 percent rate.

Joe: Well, the reason why I ask you about the American Dream I mean, I work hard. I'm a plumber, I work 10-12 hours a day â?¦

Obama: Absolutely.

Joe: â?¦ and I'm, you know, buying this company and I'm gonna continue to work that way. Now, if I buy another truck and adding something else to it and, you know, build the company, you know, I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.

Obama: Well, here's a way of thinking about it. How long have you been a plumber? How long have you been working?

Joe: Fifteen years.

Obama: Okay. So, over the last 15 years, when you weren't making $250,000, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means that you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful â?¦

Joe: Through hard work.

Obama: â?¦ through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much.

Joe: Exactly.

Obama: Which I understand. But another way of looking at it is, 95 percent of folks who are making less than $250,000, they may be working hard, too, but they're being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I'm doing is â?¦ you know, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever â?? $60,000 or $70,000. Under my tax plan, you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be spending lower taxes, which means that you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are faster. Now, look, nobody likes high taxes, right? Of course not. But what's happened is that we end up â?¦ we've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $250,000. We haven't given a break to folks who make less and, as a consequence, the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is â?¦ I've got a tax cut. The only thing that changes is, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well, even though they've been working hard â?¦ and I understand that; I appreciate that â?¦ I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect your disagreement, but I just want you to be clear. It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too.

Joe: It seems like you'd be welcome to a flat tax then.

Obama: You know, I would be open to it except for â?¦ here's the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you'd probably â?¦ in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40 percent sales tax. I mean, the value added, making it up. Now, some people say 23 or 25, but, in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's â?¦ things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf 'cause I want to make sure â?¦ small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it. All right. (applause) One other thing I didn't mention. For small-business people, I'm gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains that you get, we're not gonna tax you on it 'cause I want you to grow more so you're actually going â?¦ you may end up â?¦ I'd have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that 'cause I'd have to take a look at your business.

Joe: Okay, I understand that.

Obama: All right. Thanks for the question, though. I appreciate it. Okay, guys, I gotta get out here. I've gotta go prepare for this debate. But that was pretty good timing. Thanks.

[daihashi]

Below is the full transcript of the exchange between Obama and Joe. Where is the part where Obama does not answer the question? What question is left unanswered? It seems to me that Obama DOES answer his question --- he acknowledges that if Joe's business makes over $250k that the marginal tax rate will go from 36% to 39% on that part over $250k.

Thanks for going through the trouble of posted that, but I was referring that ever since Joe the plumber situation he has avoided talking about the taxation on those above 250k. Only stating that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. You misunderstood what I was referring to.

Of course, after he acknowledges that point and answers Joe's question, Obama describes why he thinks his plan is beneficial --- Joe would have had a tax break for the entire 15 years he worked as a plumber before being in a position to buy a business making $250k a year. He would have had the money to get to this point sooner.

10-20 buck a week is really going to go a long way to help him buy that business </sarcasm>.. we're already paying the lowest taxes currently than we have in the last 16-24 years. You yourself said that this is a red herring so I'm not sure why you defend him so adamantly.

If Joe buys health insurance for himself and his employees through his business he gets a 50% tax credit, which will help his buiness. If Joe grows his business and sells it, he'll get a break on his capital gains.

In addition to this small business would need to come up with the money first before they could get the tax credit. It seems to me by raising their taxes you are being counter productive to the health care solution you are trying to implement.

Under the plan, small businesses would get a refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid on behalf of their employees. To be eligible, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums.

So basically they have to offer it to every employee within the company regardless of their full time/part time status. It has to be a quality health plan which has NO DEFINITION, and cover a meaningful share which also has NO DEFINITION. In addition to that only 50% of that cost is put back into small businesses pockets.. meaning that they are still dishing out 50% more than they normally would.

There is a lack of information and also the way that it is worded is manipulative. In addition they would need to come up with the extra money to purchase the plan before the tax credit would be received.

Sorry but there is just too much information lacking there and it doesn't make sense logically.

That's like me saying "buy a car today for your neighbor and I'll pay you back 50% of that cost in a year. But it has to be a quality car.. something that I don't have a definition for but I'll decide what's quality, and you have to pay for a significant portion of the premium of that car.. I don't know what that is but I'll decide what is significant at a later date".

Regarding the "spread the wealth" comment, Obama is making the point that most of Joe's customers would recieve a tax break and be in a better position to afford his services. That is the context in which he says, "If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." It's not some socialist BS --- it's the idea that if people who are financially pinched have some money to spend, it benefits the economy.

Have you ever gotten plumbing work done? I'm sure you have. Plumbing generally costs more than the $10-20 a week you would get. In addition I am positive the last thing on people's minds when they see the $10-20 is "ooh I can hire that plumber now". We are pinched so bad for money because of poor spending by the people of this country (again we are paying the lowest taxes since the tax restructure in 1986, at least) and by government overspending. If we can't make it at our current tax rates then how the hell is this country ever going to make it. Lowering taxes aside from businesses is just like saying it's ok to be irresponsible.. we'll just lower taxes again when that time comes.

Again, you yourself have said this is a red herring; why do you defend it so adamantly? We've semi agreed on this before and you still argue against what we both have agreed on, LOL!

This is the original exchange before it became clear the Joe had misrepresented himself and the business he wanted to buy and that he actually would be one of the 95% of people who would BENEFIT under Obama's plan. I think Obama answered his question. What part do you think he didn't answer, Daihashi?

Again, and maybe this was my fault for not clarifying, but since the first interaction with Joe. He's gone out of his way to avoid the topic of how this will effect small business since this interaction and gone out of his way to down play Joe the Plumber by saying he's going to "spread the wealth".

[dragonrider]

Well, Daihashi, I'm glad you agree that Obama did answer Joe's question.

And I do still think that the tax issue is mostly a red herring, and all the arguing about whose tax plan is better means very little when it comes to the real practical impact of either plan on most people. It means almost nothing. I wasn't "adamantly defending" either tax plan as you said, I was simply saying what Obama said in response to the question. That's what this is about, right? Joe's question is in regards to taxes, so I don't think there is really any way to take Joe's question seriously and answer his question without talking about taxes, even if I personally think it isn't as important an issue as most people seem to think it is.

So I'm glad we also agree that Joe's question is a red herring.

[daihashi]

Well, Daihashi, I'm glad you agree that Obama did answer Joe's question.

And I do still think that the tax issue is mostly a red herring, and all the arguing about whose tax plan is better means very little when it comes to the real practical impact of either plan on most people. It means almost nothing. I wasn't "adamantly defending" either tax plan as you said, I was simply saying what Obama said in response to the question. That's what this is about, right? Joe's question is in regards to taxes, so I don't think there is really any way to take Joe's question seriously and answer his question without talking about taxes, even if I personally think it isn't as important an issue as most people seem to think it is.

So I'm glad we also agree that Joe's question is a red herring.

Just so you know my position on this. I don't really think McCain's plan is key either. Honestly I think our tax rates for both business and working class Americans is fine where it's at; but I think Obama's tax plan is a way to cloud people's judgement by making offers that just don't really make sense.

And I never agreed that Joe's question is a red herring. I agreed that Obama's tax plan for the middle class is a red herring. I think Joe's question is very valid in relation to small business employers.

So if you feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree as we don't seem to be gaining any traction in either direction. :thumbsup:

[dragonrider]

So if you feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree as we don't seem to be gaining any traction in either direction. :thumbsup:

Agreed!!!

[psychocat]

So you're trying to say that because of the person who asked it that other American's to whom it's applicable to don't need to know the answer or that it's suddenly become an irrelevant question.

No.
I am however saying that misrepresentation is hardly a way to make a point and only detracts from the issue.

[justanotherbozo]

No.
I am however saying that misrepresentation is hardly a way to make a point and only detracts from the issue.

focusing on a supposed misrepresentation distracts from Obama's
desire to spread your wealth around, why don't you see that?