Thursday, October 16, 2008

No Obama Tax Breaks Joe Plumber Joe Oil Exec McJoey Heiress

Update: includes material concerning Barack Obama's yes vote on reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Joe W AKA Joe the Plumber reportedly is a bit remiss in paying his property taxes on time, or some taxes, there are liens on his property?

He's registered in the Republican Party in his state - a reportedly first time voter in Ohio in the Republican Primary 2008 and his name is misspelled on voter rolls?

Joe the Plumber doesn't make currently anywhere even close to $200,000?

Doesn't that dismiss the complaint Barrack Obama's tax plan would raise his, Joe's taxes? He doesn't make enough in personal income!

Plumbernomics: the politics of deceit
October 16, 2008, 4:44PM

Joe isn't actually a plumber he doesn't have the appropriate license?

Joe the Plumber: Not a Licensed Plumber

And finally, he has a dream of owning a business that would bring in more than $250,000 annually, but hey, he isn't making that amount either cause he doesn't yet own such a business.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

We just had to do that.

Joe doesn’t have the business sense to own a business or make money. The taxes that McCain and Obama were talking about are income taxes. A business worth $250,000+ does not generate $250,000 in income. If they could, that would be 100% return on investment. Even Wall Street does not hope for that. If Joe Plumber expects to make $250,000/year which is good money for a plumber, then this business would probably cost him and be worth more like $2.5 million. Joe Plumber would have to make more than $250,000/year in profits from his new business in order to see more taxes under Obama.

Update: Watch the entirety of the exchange between Barack Obama and Joe the Plumber.

Obama says at the end of the clip he'd have to take a look at the specifics of Joe's case to purchase the business, but it looks like Joe would actually qualify for a 50 percent reduction...

Video provided

to this day, Joe W. won't reveal who he's supporting? McCain or another Third-Party candidate perhaps?

He should say, only because doing so might reveal a motivation like many others would have in asking the question put to Barack Obama specifically, and if one had the chance to ask John McCain similarly - they would have.

If he's a McCain supporter, it's extremely doubtful he'd have asked McCain anything which might have generated a 'disturbing or controversial answer.'

Say a question about his vote supporting the Patriot Act and an extension of the Patriot Act... or a question about his actual vote on the 'bailout' oops, the rescue plan. Um, Senator McCain, you're the straight talker, right and there was pork in the legislation extensions, or whatever they're calling it now, so why didn't you um vote against the legislation, on principle?

If he isn't supporting McCain he could've asked McCain any number of questions that would've shown McCain's health care plan rests on actually obtaining taxation monies to carry out the plan: You say you're not going to raise our taxes, yet you also say you're going to give everybody $5,000 for health care program and you have other ideas which are going to cost money, taxpayers money.

Is your health care proposal Constitutional?

Will your health care plan tax my current benefits? (We learned the answer during the third presidential debate)

It's highly unlikely Joe is on the up and up. Too bad, he could have had a fantastic book out of this, but if he's a McCain supporter, he's just got a few days of fame... soon to pass...

The real Joe the Plumber

However, having knocked Joe the Plumber like any good investigative truth seeker, does not mean Barack Obama's answer to Joe's question should not be under scrutiny.

It should be. But so should John McCain's approach to government be under scrutiny.

How can McCain be less than hypocritical if he buys into the idea that government should be giving individuals $5,000 to obtain a decent health care insurance plan?

It's best to beware of any and all who want government involvement in your personal affairs.

Net the Truth Online

Transcript provided at Political Punch blog reproduced here for discussion

Outside Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, a big, bald man with a goatee who asked Obama if he believes in the American dream.

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher said. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama said, "First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you'd get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. 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, 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 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.”

Responded Wurzelbacher, "the reason I ask you about the American dream, I mean I've worked hard. I'm a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream."

"Well," said Obama, "here's a way of thinking about it. How long have been a plumber?"

Wurzelbacher said 15 years.

Obama says, “Over the last 15 years, when you weren’t making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means 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 through hard work – you don’t want to be taxed as much.”

“Exactly," Wurzelbacher said.

Obama continued, “But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks who are making less than 250, 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, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever, 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved…Now look, nobody likes high taxes."

"No," said Wurzelbacher.

"Of course not," said Obama. "But what’s happened is that we end up – we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence, the average wage and income for ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is – I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well - even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. 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.”

Wurzelbacher said it seemed as though Obama might support a flat tax.

Obama says, “you know, I would be open to it except here’s the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, 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% sales tax. I mean that’s 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. And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent."

Obama said, "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’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."

That's the key moment McCain is jumping out…"when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

"But listen," Obama said, shaking Wurzelbacher's hand, "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, because small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.”

"Guys I gotta get out of here and go prepare for the debate," Obama said, "but that was pretty good practice right there."

-- jpt

Original post

None will get a tax break under Barack Obama's taxation reformation plan. Only individuals making under $200,000 and corporations or businesses no matter the size making profits under $250,000.

That's what we got from Obama's explanation of his response to Joe W., the individual who has made fame and possibly fortune anew after last night's presidential debate.

that's our assessment. There are others worth a read...

Joe the plumber throws a wrench into tax debate

Read the entire exchange between Joe the Plumber and Barack Obama. Obama gives a few scenarios wherein the middle class would get a tax break (like the fat cats have historically received tax exemptions and breaks) and small businesses would get tax credits for start ups.

Consider equally so questions are raised with John McCain's approach to the bailout, rescue plan. Somebody's got to pay for it, and it will be all of the taxpayers.

We find it puzzling John McCain didn't ask Obama whether his tax plan would as has been portrayed by detractors give money to people who do not earn any income.

so the answer is left unanswered.

We don't believe government is the solution. Has nobody read Harry Browne, or Ayn Rand works - a smattering at least - all available on the Internet, in summary?

Harry Browne income taxation

Ayn Rand political philosophy

But is McCain any better with his health care plan? Will McCain's economic plan benefit the little guy, the middle class, often paying more than high income corporate execs who can take advantage of loopholes and tax breaks.

Not in our opinion. McCain does no better than Barack Obama. At least Obama tells you point blank he's going to raise the capital gains tax a return to the Clinton years.

McCain's manatra is the same. Sorry, but just the McSame as the fiscal conservative Republican playbook. Meanwhile, the deficit has ballooned and continues to do so when Republicans were in the majority and after returning to the minority with George W. Bush as President.

McCain would leave in place a corrupt taxation system. He doesn't say he'd eliminate all income taxation because it is against everything our nation should stand for. He says he'd lower taxes, if that is so why does the national Chamber of Commerce pan McCain's tax plan? And placing a tax on current health care benefits of indivuals - what's that - not a tax? Sounds Orwellian to us.

How about the CATO Institute? It's doubtful CATO supports McCain's plans as wouldn't that be yet again supporting the so-called 'status quo?'

Reason Magazine writers have been blasting McCain in recent issues.

Likewise, McCain has shown exactly what he'd do when faced with a financial crisis the likes of that suffered during the Great Depression.

He's voted for the bailout, and called it a 'rescue plan.'

He'd say one thing, he's against pork, he's against taking over private business/banks, but guess what, just this one time, people, just this once, we must do it! He wouldn't even recognize that he did it on our behalf. He'd vote against his own expressed principles if the 'right' 'crisis' came along!

that's not only sick, it's unconscionable and it's hypocritical the epitomy of the definition of a hypocrit.

Are either of the pair worth a vote on one or two issues.

That's for everyone to determine for themselves. Colin Powell made a case on one matter noting the McCain campaign has gone too far, over the line attempting to equate Barack Obama to the likes of an anti-American terrorist.

It's unconscionable to imply in any way Obama is palling around with terrorists and Powell's comments regarding that are impressive.

there are more issues of comparison.

Government under our Constitution is supposed to be limited and defined as limited for certain purposes.

We do not exist to serve government and its spending on unconstitutional programs.

We have long argued the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. End of controversy, right?

At its heart, the Patriot Act intrudes on private citizens. It started out offered as a safety and security measure that was going to track foreign terrorists. Not American citizens, but it quickly devolved into the latter.

Who supported the reauthorization and why?

Is this reason enough to go with one or the other candidate?

Net the Truth Online

Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Thursday, February 16, 2006

act Check: Obama's Consistent Position on the Patriot Act
January 05, 2008

Rhetoric: "Sen. Obama Promised to Support Repealing PATRIOT Act, Then Voted to Extend It"

Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe

Obama Said That the Senate Compromise on the PATRIOT Act Was "Far From Perfect" But Modestly Improved the Original Law By Strengthening Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing the Tools That Law Enforcement Needs to Keep Us Safe. "Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise: we strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records; we established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps; we protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters; we preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath; and we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things." [Speech on the Senate Floor, 2/16/06]

2006: Obama Voted For a PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Bill That Included Three Key Changes Designed to Prevent Abuse of Authority By Law Enforcement. The final conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress in March of 2006, included three key changes that were not in the original bill that President Bush supported in 2005.

What Would Ayn Rand Have Done?
By Michael Duffy
Friday, Sep. 19, 2008
New York Times Co. / Getty

"It's a complete disaster," said Yaron Brook, the executive director of the center. "Its a form of national socialism of the financial markets...This is socialism 101.",8599,1842879,00.html

The Income Tax: Root of all Evil
by Frank Chodorov
Online edition © 2002 The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Copyright 1954 by Frank Chodorov and the Devin-Adair Company. See full text in a PDF edition.

Obama vs Ayn Rand

However contemptible taxes on consumption are, Frank Chodorov insisted that taxes on income and inheritance were "different in principle from all other taxes." In the seminal work, "The Income Tax: Root of all Evil," he elaborates:

“The government says to the citizen: "Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide."

Fundamentally, taxes on income imply a complete denial of private property, which is what socialism is in all its permutations; it rejects man's absolute and natural right to his property and vests property rights in the political establishment. The 16th Amendment did just that. When they incorporated the Amendment into the Constitution, Americans said a resounding "yes" to socialism.

Make no mistake: What's staving off communism is not the Constitution. If it so chooses, Congress has constitutional imprimatur to raise taxes to 100 percent of income, an odd thing considering the Declaration of Independence vests the source of man's rights in the Creator, not in government. (My comment: I don’t agree that the source of man’s rights is the “Creator” and I think the Constitution was ambivalent on what actually constituted the Creator since you can rationalize that the “Creator” is nature and still honor the Constitution. However, her point is correct; the government is not the source of man’s rights.)

Philosopher Ayn Rand explained the source of man's rights with reference to man's nature. "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his survival," she wrote in "Atlas Shrugged." Be it the nature of man or divine law, "congressional law" is never the source of man's rights – it is merely entrusted with protecting the rights with which man is imbued.

This, the 16th Amendment corrupted.

In order to survive, man must – and it is in his nature to – transform the resources around him by mixing his labor with them and making them his own. Man's labor and his property are extensions of himself. As Chodorov elucidates, the right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. If ownership is not an absolute right but is instead subject to the vagaries of majority vote, then so is the right to life.

Statists will always counter by claiming that if not for the State, man would be unable to produce. Poppycock! Production predates government predation. Government doesn't produce wealth – it only consumes it. What, pray tell, would government have fed off if man were not hard at work well before the advent of the bureaucracy? That's like saying that the tick created the dog! As usual, the statists have it topsy-turvy. First came man – he is the basic unit of society, without which there can be no society. And without man's labor there is no wealth for government to siphon.

However you slice it, there is no moral difference between a lone burglar who steals stuff he doesn't own and an "organized society" that does the same. In a just society, the moral strictures that apply to the individual must also apply to the collective. A society founded on natural rights must not finesse theft.

The Founders intended for government to safeguard man's natural rights. The 16th Amendment gave government a limitless lien on a man's property and, by extension, on his life. The Amendment turned government into the almighty source – rather than the protector – of man's rights and Americans into indentured slaves.”[5]

The technocrats who defend progressive taxation and talk about how best to ensure economic growth while still “siphoning” as much as possible for the government are the statists about which Ms. Mercer is writing. They focus their mathematical skills on finding just the right balance between tax rates and exemptions completely ignoring the debate about whether they have a right to even a penny of our money…and they have no such right...

Maybe we'll find similarly, for John McCain, or if not, compare similarly for McCain, and any and all others who continue to take from any of us to prop up unlimited government.

their plans

Under Obama's Plan

Under McCain's Plan

The Income Tax: Root of all Evil
by Frank Chodorov
Online edition © 2002 The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Copyright 1954 by Frank Chodorov and the Devin-Adair Company. See full text in a PDF edition.

Ayn Rand political philosophy

No comments: