[speechlesstx]

In Londonderry, NH yesterday, Obama mocked all the Joe the Plumbers out there when he said, "And then he's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for...How many plumbers you know makin' a quarter million dollars a year?"

Patterico's Pontifications posted some examples of the maximum average annual receipt allowed to be classified as a small business according to the Small Business Administration:

Crop production of all types — $750,000
Animal production except for cattle & chicken/eggs — $750,000
Cattle feedlots — $2.5M
Chicken/egg production — $12.5M
Forestry & logging — $7M
Fishing — $4M
Irrigation, sewage, water supplies — $7M
Housing construction — $33.5M
Heavy and civil engineering construction — $33.5M
Dredging and cleanup — $20M
Concrete, framing, and other housing contractors — $14M
Car dealers — $23-29M
RV, motorcycle, & boat dealers — $7M
Furniture, hardware, clothing & sporting good stores — $7M
Electronic stores — $9M
Supermarkets, gas stations & department stores — $27M
Pharmacies — $7M

Here is the entry on plumbing contractors specifically according to the SBA:

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors $14.0 million

While poor ol' Joe the Plumber is getting hammered now, how many small businesses are going to get hammered under an Obama administration? How many plumbing contractors do you think DON'T have a quarter million in receipts per year?

[speechlesstx]

While Obama is chastising McCain for not fighting for the little guy and destroying Joe the Plumber, Michelle was having herself an ordinary snack:

THOUGH he's battling GOP accusations that he's an Ivy League elitist, Barack Obama has a lifestyle of the rich and famous, like TV show host Robin Leach, who always signed off, "Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!" While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six.

[tomder55]

I guess we've moved on from those chili at Wendy's days of 2004.

Around here a plumber could easily make the $250 M . If he has a modest home and a couple of kids then he is not exactly living in Biden-land either .
Like I said; Joe the plumber represents the prototypical "middle class " worker that the Dems. Used to stand up for. But the Alinsky model says you need to play lip service to them even as you despise them. Sometimes Obama's contempt slips out.

"Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."
'Rules for Radicals'

[Merris]

I think the whole point is that we are going to have to get the money to pay for two wars and the social security for the baby boomers from somewhere... (since many baby boomers I know didn't start saving until their 40's-- which means they don't have a lot of money saved and prices are only going up)

We can't keep borrowing it from other countries as the republicans like to do. Someday we're going to have to pay the piper. The middle class can't pay for it all, because we're supposed to be the ones doing the shopping... right? So where do you think this money's going to come from? And I'm going to assume since you all are screaming for the rights of people making over 250K a year that you, yourselves make this much? You must to be dripping with so much sympathy.

[tomder55]

Because I don't make that much I should display "class envy " ?

There are not enough rich to pay for all the entitlements that we have accumulated on our way to the nanny state so yes the "middle class" does need to pay the bulk of it if we continue along that path.

Let's say Joe the plumber gets hit heavy with taxes when he eventually achieves his dream of owning his own business. What are his choices ? Maybe he does the "patriotic" thing and emptys his pockets willingly as Joe Biden suggests . Maybe he just doesn't work as hard so he can control his income. Perhaps instead he decides he could shut down ;lay off his staff ;go solo in an underground economy . That happens a lot in socialist states .

I can't control what has already been plundered . Had they not lied to us about social security insurance and instead of adding it to the general revenue ,put it aside for it's intended use the system most likely would be solvent. Ask me how to fix it now and I would argue that a mandatory investment by the individual in TIPS would create a secure retirement for most folks .

[inthebox]

So Obama is going to raise the rate on adjusted gross income over 250000 from

33 %

» 2008 Federal Income Tax Brackets: Official IRS Figures on Blueprint for Financial Prosperity

To 39%.

Here is another large group that will be affected

Physicians [ solo, small groups ]
Oh, you think, they make a lot of money - they should pay more. But think about the unintended consequences.
1] fees - especially to the uninsured / self pay
Will rise. - so much for increasing healthcare affordability.
2] These SB will hire less employees if not cut number of employees and reduce benefits.
3] They will scale back or not see any new Medicare or Medicaid folks because their lower reimbursement won't cover the cost of overhead.
4] Many older physicians that can retire, will rather than having to work harder for less.
5] You think your doctor does not have time now to address more than one issue? When he / she has to see more people to make the same amount - guess what - shorter visits.
6] your doctor will use more " extenders " such as Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants - not necessarily a bad thing, but you are paying to see the doctor.

The same can be said for other high income professionals, such as lawyers, dentists, veternarians etc...

It is the law of unintended consequences:

A TIGER OF A TAX - New York Post

Taxes don't occur in a vacuum. Wealthy taxpayers and large businesses don't simply continue along as if tax-rate hikes of 30-plus percent are just another day at the office.

* Businesses will raise prices to try to recoup the extra costs - a cause of inflation.

* Entrepreneurs will adjust their expectations with respect to investing their risk capital - souring the economy.

* Enterprises will visit more carefully the advantages of moving business overseas.

* Generally, all such individuals and businesses will take all possible legal steps to reduce the impact of confiscatory tax rates.. .

Only once since 1917 has there been a tax-rate increase equal to or greater than the two twin tax proposals being made by Obama. That tax increase, the Revenue Act of 1932, was proposed by Herbert Hoover. The result was an even greater budget deficit, plummeting tax revenue and a longer Great Depression.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an interesting poll that points out the difference between Obama and McCain



Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.


7*What is more important, creating economic growth or reducing the income gap between rich and poor?

65% Creating economic growth **
27% Reducing the gap between rich and poor
8% Not sure

8* Which is more important to John McCain, creating economic growth or reducing the income gap between rich and poor?

67% Creating economic growth **
12% Reducing the gap between rich and poor
21% Not sure

9* Which is more important to Barack Obama, creating economic growth or reducing the income gap between rich and poor?

20% Creating economic growth
62% Reducing the gap between rich and poor
18% Not sure


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would cut it to 25 percent.


The Tax Foundation - Do Corporate Taxes Impede Economic Growth?


The Tax Foundation - U.S. Corporate Taxes Now 50 Percent Higher than OECD Average | Twine

if countries want to enhance their economic growth they would do well to move away from income taxes—especially corporate income taxes —toward less distortive taxes such as consumption-based taxes. The key to creating a growth-oriented corporate income tax system is to impose a reasonably low tax rate with few exemptions.

Now I know this sounds counterintuitive to the Obama's populist mantra that the rich, and the big rich corporations are evil and they need to pay more, but think about it...

If Big Corp can make more money by moving US HQ and using non-American labor force
Because Iceland or Ireland or South Korea has a corp tax rate < 20 % - they will.
And who loses - Your average American.



News N Economics: High corporate tax rates are stunting economic growth

[Merris]

because I don't make that much I should display "class envy " ?

Class envy? Let's try National Reality. If I am taxed anymore I'll have a hard time paying my bills. If Exxon is taxed more their profit goes from 40 billion for 2007 to 25 billion. I'm glad you are a champion there, fighting for their cause. I was being nice about the baby boomers but I think your idea is better. Let's just tell them all... gee we don't want to be your nanny. Let's just give them exactly what they paid and not adjust for inflation. The rest? Pay for it yourself and work till your 80-- I'm sure Wal-mart will pay you handsomely as their store greeter while giving you GREAT health benefits! So we can ditch medicare too. Two problems solved!

[tomder55]

don't put words in my mouth .there was a social contract implied in the SS agreement . The people have lived up to their end of the bargain.. the government hasn't... duh... word to those who think they should empty their wallets for more government guarantees.

You do realize of course that corporations do not pay taxes... they pass along that expense to their customers. The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrial world .When jobs get outsourced oversees you ask why ?

And who owns that EXXON stock you would devalue ? Uhhh citizens mostly.. in mutual funds... 401Ks ,even municiple retirements funds. So trash corporate profits.
Clearly you would consign us as wards of the state from cradel to grave.

[inthebox]

Class envy? Let's try National Reality. If I am taxed anymore I'll have a hard time paying my bills. If Exxon is taxed more their profit goes from 40 billion for 2007 to 25 billion. I'm glad you are a champion there, fighting for their cause. I was being nice about the baby boomers but I think your idea is better. Let's just tell them all... gee we don't want to be your nanny. Let's just give them exactly what they paid and not adjust for inflation. The rest? Pay for it yourself and work till your 80-- I'm sure Wal-mart will pay you handsomely as their store greeter while giving you GREAT health benefits! So we can ditch medicare too. Two problems solved!

You know if you expect Exxon to take a hit to the tune of 15 billion or 37.5% hit, why don't you take an equal percent pay/ 'profit' cut. For example if you make 40 k per year make 25 k instead. You are only sacrificing 15 k "for the greater good" while Exxon is sacrificing 15 billion.

And with your paycheck being 37.5% less, expect to pay more for gas because companies like Exxon can't reinvest into maintaining what they have or researching and developiing new sources of oil. Meanwhile imports from foreign sources will go up.

You have a great theory there ;)

[ZoeMarie]

You know if you expect Exxon to take a hit to the tune of 15 billion or 37.5% hit, why don't you take an equal percent pay/ 'profit' cut. For example if you make 40 k per year make 25 k instead. You are only sacrificing 15 k "for the greater good" while Exxon is sacrificing 15 billion.

And with your paycheck being 37.5% less, expect to pay more for gas because companies like Exxon can't reinvest into maintaining what they have or researching and developiing new sources of oil. Meanwhile imports from foreign sources will go up.

You have a great theory there ;)

When you only make 40K a year 15K is a huge difference. If I had to take that much of a pay cut I would be selling my car and buying a huffy. Either way Exxon is going to lose money.

[Galveston1]

In all the discussions of the big bad companies there is something that gets lost.
Have any of you ever gotten a job from a poor man? I didn't think so!
Are multi- million dollar bonusus justified? I don't think so.
But my mom used to say, "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face".

[speechlesstx]

The middle class can't pay for it all, because we're supposed to be the ones doing the shopping... right? So where do you think this money's going to come from? And I'm going to go ahead and assume since you all are screaming for the rights of people making over 250K a year that you, yourselves make this much? You must to be dripping with so much sympathy.

Um... no, but as Galveston suggested, do you want to work for a poor person? I'm a firm believer that I can't make more money unless my boss makes more money. That's the point isn't it? If corporations don't profit how do you profit? If corporations don't profit, how does my retirement account grow? And as tom said these companies pass their expenses off on the consumer, so why should we make it more expensive for them to do business so they can make it more expensive for us to buy goods? Fact is we need rich people for us to make a living, we need profitable companies to afford retirement, we need less burden on corporations to make goods affordable.

[Merris]

Um...no, but as Galveston suggested, do you want to work for a poor person? I'm a firm believer that I can't make more money unless my boss makes more money. That's the point isn't it? If corporations don't profit how do you profit? If corporations don't profit, how does my retirement account grow? And as tom said these companies pass their expenses off on the consumer, so why should we make it more expensive for them to do business so they can make it more expensive for us to buy goods? Fact is we need rich people for us to make a living, we need profitable companies to afford retirement, we need less burden on corporations to make goods affordable.

So how do we pay off the deficit? How do we fund the Iraq war? How do we fund the war in Afghanistan? How do we compete with China in manufacturing when they don't play by the same rules and their people aren't free? How do we stop global warming or pollution?

What exactly is your solution? Think we can do it without raising any taxes at all?

[inthebox]

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1326483

last third.


---------------------------------------------------


CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Think about your own budget.
If you are in debt, one part of the equation is cut spending.

Cut the pork. Some sites that have good ideas.

Americans for Tax Reform


Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage


-------------------------------------------------------------------------


INCREASE REVENUE

You Can't Soak the Rich - WSJ.com

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich – if they knew about it.

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - The Coming Tax Hike

The current economic slowdown will increase the federal budget deficit this year and, in all likelihood, next year as well. But as the economy enters its recovery phase, rising taxes would choke off the recovery. The right policy, for both the economy and the budget, would be to make current tax rates permanent well before the scheduled increase. Giving investors greater certainty that current tax rates will be maintained will spur investment and aid the economic recovery, as it did in 2003. Federal budget balance will be achieved once the economy is again operating normally.

[tomder55]

How do we stop global warming or pollution?

Alaska state's glaciers, after two centuries of shrinkage (a trend that began before the advent of the internal combustion engine and smokestack economy), actually grew during the winter of 2007-08.
The International Arctic Research Center reports 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last.Temperatures in Oregon hit record lows, and on Oct. 10 Boise, Idaho, got its earliest snow ever.South Africa, had its coldest September night in history a month ago, and had an unusual late-winter snow.August in New Zealand, officials at Mount Ruapehu reported the largest snow base ever.

What do these events mean ? Absolutely nothing... much like the stats that are forever used to justify the global warming theory. Especially the premise that it's root cause is human activity.

[Merris]

Physicians [ solo, small groups ]
Oh, you think, they make alot of money - they should pay more. But think about the unintended consequences.
1] fees - especially to the uninsured / self pay
will rise. - so much for increasing healthcare affordability.
2] These SB will hire less employees if not cut number of employees and reduce benefits.
3] They will scale back or not see any new Medicare or Medicaid folks because their lower reimbursement won't cover the cost of overhead.
4] Many older physicians that can retire, will rather than having to work harder for less.
5] You think your doctor does not have time now to adress more than one issue? When he / she has to see more people to make the same amount - guess what - shorter visits.
6] your doctor will use more " extenders " such as Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants - not necessarily a bad thing, but you are paying to see the doctor.

What's really killing physicians is the cost of medical malpractice insurance due to an overly litigious society and rising student loan costs for medical school and the interest on those loans, and the uninsured who can't pay their medical bills... not taxes. I never said I was for raising taxes for physicians but you can't act like the system is perfect and everything's going great. Health care is unaffordable and because insurance is tied to your job there are real problems for people with pre-existing conditions, college students who are working part time and elderly people who are retired. We can't continue to ignore these problems. Not to even mention the fact that many people who use emergency rooms lack basic routine care which is often what catches life threatening progressive diseases that would be much less expensive to treat if caught early.

Edited to add: I read the last third of the post you linked to and I have always been interested in a national sales tax based on consumption and I'm not opposed to this idea at all. I think in many ways it would work well because people who have more income buy more luxury goods and would therefore pay more taxes. It would also curb consumption BUT it wouldn't solve the problem of Americans not paying the real value for goods-- manufacturing would still go to China, and I'm still for government environmental regulation. Getting rid of income tax and having a very simplified corporate tax would drastically reduce the need for accountants... (eureka!) not to mention save people a heck of a lot of time and paper. Alas accountants are probably the people lobbying against such a change. I owned a small corporation and my accountant made a LOT of money on me.

[Merris]

Alaska state's glaciers, after two centuries of shrinkage (a trend that began before the advent of the internal combustion engine and smokestack economy), actually grew during the winter of 2007-08.
The International Arctic Research Center reports 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last.Temperatures in Oregon hit record lows, and on Oct. 10 Boise, Idaho, got its earliest snow ever.South Africa, had its coldest September night in history a month ago, and had an unusual late-winter snow.August in New Zealand, officials at Mount Ruapehu reported the largest snow base ever.

What do these events mean ? Absolutely nothing ...much like the stats that are forever used to justify the global warming theory. Especially the premise that it's root cause is human activity.

Wow... we disagree on just about everything.

You would do well to read Scientific American, Discover, or any scientific journal. You scoff and say that college students are "generally stupid people" when many of them are doing vital research. And then you ignore the scientific community in favor of big business, profit, and the random soundbites which is not just stupid, it's dangerous for the human race. I wonder, Tom... did you ever get a degree, yourself? You say I have class envy because I'm not sympathizing with the ultra wealthy... yet your college kid remark makes me wonder...

[Galveston1]

The simple fact is that Obama's tax plan will increase the unemployment rate. That's not good! More unemployed people=less goods and serveces purchased=more jobs lost. You should get the picture.
I have no idea how we will ever pay off the national debt, but Obama's way will just dig this hole deeper.

[tomder55]

You did not see the sarcasm in my comments about college students being too stupid to handle the responsibilities of having credit cards ?

I read Discover and do peruse other scientific journals from time to time. They represent an orthodoxy bordering on religious regarding climate.

But some scientists are beginning to realize this and many are breaking from the gospel of the Goracle. Perhaps when sufficient numbers break rank there can be real scientific debate on climate change .
If you ask me I say "climate change happens" .
I continue to read evidence from both sides and think that ultimately solar activity has the greatest role . This year sun spot activity was the lowest it has been in a long time.
VANISHING SUNSPOTS PRELUDE TO GLOBAL COOLING?


Sunspots and climate

Suddenly the evidence I cited about temperatures dropping and glaciers on a rebound have some related non-human activity as a possible cause. Do I think this is good news ? No.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting Eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

[Merris]

You did not see the sarcasm in my comments about college students being too stupid to handle the responsibilities of having credit cards ?

No... sorry. I dated a republican who didn't have a degree and he said things like this all the time. :p

The latest article and talk about a mini-ice age was covered in Discover magazine over a two years ago. I read both Discover and Scientific American from front to back and have been for many years. The mini-ice age is expected because once glaciers start melting from global warming largely attributed human activity, the influx of icy water into the ocean will have a significant, but temporary cooling effect on the planet. Once the water warms up and there is no more ice our planet will then really start to heat up... much more significantly than it is now.

Keeping up with science (and not finding a random article to suit my purposes) I see that the most brilliant scientists in the world community by and large are not just saying here or there... "You know we think humans might be causing the planet to warm up..." No, Tom. They are screaming it. Cover story after cover story after cover story after cover story. And people like you who bought the republicans talk that we should go on business as usual are being convinced by politicians who were bought by CORPORATIONS making too much money to lose it. Do you not get it? Are you ever, for the sake of humans, going get this?

And this is the problem with money and greed and the business schools who espouse these principles. The bottom line or money is what matters to corporations. Should the amount of money they make or don't make determine... everything? Because that's what libertarianism leaves us with.

The corporate goal of profit and growth leads to consolidation and if you think the government is big, bad and bureacratic, having a few ultra-large, elite corporations who own everything isn't any better and that's pretty much the destination of the free market if left unchecked. For me, big corporation isn't any better than big government. A purist free market disciple is no better than a communist. Both philosophies are too extreme and it leaves people at large vulnerable.

The whole point of libertarianism is privatization with little government oversight (if I understand it correctly?) Well when your only voice of dissent against the corporation is your shopping habits, you can't afford not to pay attention to where your goods are coming from and this means looking at what's going on in other parts of the world as a moral obligation. This personally seems like a lot of work for a mother with a family to raise, which is why I'm for government regulation-- especially when it comes to environmental impact and fair trade. And I'm sorry... I'm not about to get rid of the FDA after seeing thousands of infants sickened in China because corporations lacked oversight and wanted to make a quick buck. A completely unregulated market left to its own devices leaves people very vulnerable. Not buying that product isn't going to give those mothers their babies back.