Perhaps Joe Was Wrong
October 15, 2008
Joe is a plumber in Toledo, OH. He is contemplating buying a two-person plumbing business that has an income of $250,000. He would therefore be impacted by an increase in the marginal rate for those who make over $250,000 a year, supposedly. According to Salary.com, 90% of plumbers in Toledo, OH, make under $63,921. What Joe will learn once he actually buys the plumbing business is that individuals are taxed on net profit, not gross income which is obviously the number Joe is using.
12 Comments
Comments are closed.
But you gotta remember “when you spread the wealth around, everyone benefits” — B.H. Obama.
(Well, except the people you’re “spreading” *from*)
“But you gotta remember “when you spread the wealth around, everyone benefits” — B.H. Obama.
(Well, except the people you’re “spreading” *from*)”
They benefit by avoiding a proletariat revolution.
What Joe makes and what his business is worth are two different things. You are talking about individual tax, not business tax. Obama’s small business tax increase has nothing to do with the Joe’s personal income. Apples and oranges.
Some are already suggesting he was a Republican plant:
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/archive/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-republican-plant-and-relative-of-charles-keating.aspx
Here’s the buzz from the internet:
* Wurzelbacher, who says he was playing football outside with his son when he came upon the crowd gathered around Obama, was planted by the Republican party. This would explain how conservative sites got stories posted about him in advance of the debate and how easily everyone else found him for interviews.
* Wurzelbacher is not a registered voter.
* Wurzelbacher may not be licensed in his home state of Ohio.
* Wurzelbacher may be related to Robert Wurzelbacher of Cincinnati, Ohio, who happens to be Charles Keating’s son-in-law. Keating was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal.
* Wurzelbacher already owns a few companies, which would contradict his claims of being a plumber looking to buy a small business.
Just a question, when did it become the governments responsibility to “spread the wealth”?
The government is to provide for the national defense and protect our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When it begins to be the arbiter of fairness and the determiner of what we are allowed to earn and the standard of living that we are allowed to have, it has gone too far.
Sure, since most of us make less than $250,000 we think that it is OK to get them, but the snake that bites your enemy will also bite you. What if something that you held dear was taken because the government decided it wasn’t fair?
Suppose that you have 5 kids. Now suppose that there are those who can’t have their own kids and the wait for adoption is 12 years. Now suppose the government says you have to give up some of your kids because it is only fair. Why should those people not be able to have their own kids?
When the government becomes the manager of “fairness” we are in BIG trouble.
Joseph,
The GOP talking point is that raising high end income taxes is job killer because it taxes small businesses who often transfer net profit to their personal income taxes. The talking point is nonsense.
The government is to provide for the national defense and protect our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When it begins to be the arbiter of fairness and the determiner of what we are allowed to earn and the standard of living that we are allowed to have, it has gone too far.
Actually, the Church teaches that the government does have a role when it comes to fairness. Your view of the role of government is very american.
Some are already suggesting he was a Republican plant
Well if someone on the Internet said it, it must be true.
MZ, thanks for letting me know about GOP talking points. I wasn’t referring to the GOP in my comment.
Michael,
Where and how does the church say anything about government being the arbiter of fairness? Holy smokes!
What religion are you from that the government usurps Gods role?
We are free as children of God and fairness is up to God. It is not my role nor yours or anybody else’s role to manage fairness. We are called to show mercy, yes, but that is a personal choice not governement mandated.
Where and how does the church say anything about government being the arbiter of fairness? Holy smokes!
“To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice. The proper reconciling of the particular goods of groups and those of individuals is, in fact, one of the most delicate tasks of public authority. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in a democratic State, where decisions are usually made by the majority of representatives elected by the people, those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 169. Emphasis in original.)
We are free as children of God and fairness is up to God.
It is up to God to make us treat each other fairly, with justice?
It is not my role nor yours or anybody else’s role to manage fairness.
It is not our role to be fair? To be just?
We are called to show mercy, yes, but that is a personal choice not governement mandated.
We are “called” to show mercy, but it is a “personal choice?”
Are we not also called to fairness? To justice? How is a “call” to justice (a matter of relationships) a “personal choice”? The Hebrew prophets and Jesus sure didn’t see justice as a “personal choice.”
“Holy smokes” is right. Your sense of holiness, in all of its social dimensions, seems to have gone up in smoke.
Suppose that you have 5 kids. Now suppose that there are those who can’t have their own kids and the wait for adoption is 12 years. Now suppose the government says you have to give up some of your kids because it is only fair. Why should those people not be able to have their own kids?
Dan,
Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim rescinding the Bush tax cuts puts us on a slippery slope to the redistribution of children?