I wonder how much it would cost Joe the Plumber to buy that business. I wonder if Joe the Plumber would need a loan to make the purchase, and if so, how much of a loan, and how might its costs bear on the bottom line. If Joe does not need a loan, I wonder about the source of his funds and how the financial crisis has impacted his assets and whether he attributes any losses in his net worth to George W and John McCain's policies over the past 8 years. It's not only the pipes that are calling, Joe, to analyze your personal situation. Maybe Cindy McCain can make a personal loan available so that you can join Joe Sixpack in rejuvenating McCain's campaign.

That's not the point. It's that he takes extremely high risk, and works extremely hard, harder than most people can imagine, to run a business like that. He exposes his entire future to risk. which he takes on himself. He has to build his own retirement funds and administer it. He has to pay both sides of the taxes, He is unable to collect unemployment taxes, he has to pay his own healthcare, and doesn't get to participate in redistribution. He is more highly charged for services (elctricity) because he has no political representation as do consumers or big business.

It isn't that his business is charged to the point of failure. It is that it is already unjustly charged. He is penalized for his initiative. The slow moving, lazy, simpleton who gives me terrible customer service at the department of licensing has precisely the opposite of these risks, dangers, and expenses. The plumber lives a life of good judgment, and serves others with it. Someone else who lives a life of bad judgments, or of laziness, is rewarded for his efforts. He suffers, works harder, for his efforts.
I've built seven companies from 5M to 100M in revenues, and thousands of jobs in my lifetime. Doing so is unreasonably difficult, and the rewards vary from destructive (bankruptcy) to rewarding (millons of dollars). The truth is that the people who are injustly rewarded in business are those who are in collaboration with the government: and all of them are in either the financial sector, the legal system, public services, or the military system. Private industry, when it makes use of capital markets that are flooded with cheap government money. Government is the problem. It is not services that are the problem. It is government administration of the services that is the problem. Human decisions in such matters cannot possibly be made, at least for any period of time. It's that Government regulation that is the problem.

Personally, I am glad that I've already made myself secure, and independent. Because for the next decade, it's going to be a horrible environment. There will be less to redistribute. There will be less capital available. It will move more slowly. The social impact will be exactly what pre-keynesians said it would be. Boomers will not be able to retire, or their standards of living will drop. And the only way out of the mess will not be government. It will be small business.

That is, if government lets them.

Mr Doolittle,

In reality, the people who have been unjustly rewarded in business are in those sectors, and in healthcare, technology, agriculture, automotive manufacturing, import/export, transportation, and numerous other industries. This happens when businesspeople suck money from their customers and shareholders and enrich themselves, by groups of friends filling boards of directors with friends. The government isn't the only political system in America, and it's hardly the most unjust.

Too bad no plumbers or any other working people got ahead during the years (from before WWII to 1981) when the top bracket was over 70%.

what about the opporunity for joe to use the tax relief promised by obama plan to invest in his future business plan.

also,the assumption that the employee working for business is lazy and simple is an unjust generalization to be used in comparison making your point incredible. i would note that our capitalist free market economt economy is driven by consumers, most of them emplyees making under $200,000. tax relief for them means more spending,ie greater demand for the goods and services of small business...like mom and pop diners, corner video store, tourist attractions, home improvements and even plumbing services like the one joe dreams of.

what about the opporunity for joe to use the tax relief promised by obama plan to invest in his future business plan.

Try and follow the numbers to see why this wonderful tax credit is a hoax.

Joe gets a 3k tax credit for every person he hires. Thats all perfect. The problem is it costs Joe 30k to hire someone, and his taxes go up. For example, Joe hires two employees at a salary of 25k per year, then he has to take on additional expenses in healthcare and workers comp and a plethora of other state and federal employment taxes. Joe gains 6k in tax credit while he is out 50k in new salary alone. Good job Joe you have now increased your cost by 44k. At this rate you will be in business a long time.

Curt Doolittle wrote, It's that Government regulation that is the problem.

LOL! Anyone who says this given the current mess created by unregulated financial derivatives ought to have his head examined.

truth is that the people who are injustly rewarded in business are those who are in collaboration with the government: and all of them are in either the financial sector, the legal system, public services, or the military system.

Flat false. The number one group of people who are handed money by the government for doing absolutely nothing are landowners. It's about 10--20% of GDP.

This has been understood for centuries by people who actually know something about economics. Like John Stuart Mill: The ordinary progress of a society which increases in wealth, is at all times tending to augment the incomes of landlords; to give them both a greater amount and a greater proportion of the wealth of the community, independently of any trouble or outlay incurred by themselves. They grow richer, as it were in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. What claim have they, on the general principle of social justice, to this accession of riches? In what would they have been wronged if society had, from the beginning, reserved the right of taxing the spontaneous increase of rent, to the highest amount required by financial exigencies?

But I thought we subsidized small business in America with govt backed loans at decent rates so people like Joe can hire several illegals to do their work for them while they dodge their taxes (mmmm...burning patriotism) and overcharge people for a couple of hours worth of slightly skilled labor?

And doesn't Joe want to live in an America where more people under him in the great pecking order can afford to have Joe's Entremanurial Enterprise unclog their toilets?

Or would we prefer that he put his family further into hock with a loan he really can't afford right now so he can sit next to a phone that doesn't ring because people can't afford the luxury of a plumber because they no longer have a toilet?

Vote for Keynesian stimulus now or prepare to watch the ugliness unfold.

The only man who might change anybody's mind on who to vote for in this presidential race is Joe Wurzelbacher. He was the star of last night's final debate: the only one who managed to bring something genuinely new to an otherwise pretty predictable to-and-fro from Barack Obama and John McCain. Joe the Plumber as he has come to be known is the man who wants to buy the small business in which he works, and to expand it so that he can employ more staff (which is to say "create more American jobs" in political speak). A few days ago, in what has now become a legendary confrontation, he accused Obama of planning to raise his taxes, thus making it very much more difficult for him to do his bit to expand the economy. In the course of that exchange, Obama made the revelatory comment that he believed that "spreading the wealth around" would help everyone. And there it was: the crucial distinction between those (Democrats) who believe that the wealth created by individuals should be compulsorily redistributed, even if that means limiting the possibilities of creating more of it, and those (Republicans) who feel that it would be better left to the small businesses which will use it to grow and proffer more employment.

If that distinction were to permeate the consciousness of the US electorate with real force and clarity, McCain would win the election.

Curt Doolittle wrote, There will be less to redistribute.

That's just nonsense.

The government, by allowing landowners to capture Ricardian land rent in exchange for doing absolutely nothing productive, is redistributing wealth, to the tune of 10--20% of GDP, and predominantly from poor to rich, and by definition from the productive to the parasitical. That could all be taxed away, with no efficiency loss. (That land value taxes are 100% efficient has been known since Ricardo. Adam Smith probably knew it also: Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. . . . Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land, are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.
)

marion valentine wrote, And there it was: the crucial distinction between those (Democrats) who believe that the wealth created by individuals should be compulsorily redistributed, even if that means limiting the possibilities of creating more of it, and those (Republicans) who feel that it would be better left to the small businesses which will use it to grow and proffer more employment.

(yawn)

Yes, the government does spread wealth around: it forcible takes it from the productive and hands it over to parasitic landowners.

marion valentine wrote, ...(Republicans) who feel that it would be better left to the small businesses which will use it to grow and proffer more employment.

You meant to say, "Republicans, who apparently think the Saudis and Chinese are going to finance our federal budget deficits forever."

If that distinction were to permeate the consciousness of the US electorate with real force and clarity, McCain would win the election.

Yeah. I'll bet if everyone realized that Obama might raise taxes a little bit on people netting more than $250K/yr, he'd lose bigtime.

LOL!

Look at health care in the whole package. Taxing healthcare benefits means the employee pays twice - McCain's brilliant idea. Joe the Plumber would need to increase wages to offset that tax to his employee is he is to get very good employees. McCain's plan is a mess - we have lived in countries that have a base level of health care and what a difference it makes to society. Yes, our taxes were a bit higher as business owners, but some employees got very ill and were able to be productive as they healed, and their families didn't have to worry about bankruptcy. I would gladly pay the extra $1,000 tax as Joe the Plumber as a trade off to being taxed on my health care and my empoloyees' being taxed. LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE!

EVY

It must be the most amazingly profitable plumbing business ever. Most plumbers do well--it's a skilled occupation, after all, but $250K is exceptional even in California. It's possible that the business is worth $250K, but that's not what we're talking about here--that would include the equipment, good will etc.

chris @ 9:52 AM

Think about what you posted. You miss the whole point of any business -- small or large.

Joe won't hire and pay those two people in order to get a little tax credit. He will hire them because their work will enable Joe to charge his customers more than all the money Joe pays the workers, the parts suppliers, the health insurance carrier, the social security system, the unemployment system, and the IRS.

And if he doesn't have enough customers to keep the two new workers busy, and the customer's money flowing in, Joe won't hire them in the first place. So the way to help Joe and his business (and his potential workers) is to get his POTENTIAL customers into financial positions where they can become ACTUAL customers.

No, his income taxes would increase 5%, not to mention that joe the plumber already has taxes deducted for social security and medicare. I'm not sure if this author has ever done his own taxes. No I'm not a 6 figure earning kinda kid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

Here is the actual question asked by Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio. He seems to be a plant. just watch is body language when Obama is talking to him.

Have to say I'm a little disappointed by the responses. Perhaps Dean Baker can join the thread and expand on this a little more, because I don't think the hypothetical concerns of Joe Plummer here have been fully addressed.

Joe the Plumber doesn't actually make $250K. See http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/16/politics/horserace/entry4525242.shtml

The quality of Press reporting on Joe's situation is TERRIBLE. Is the $250k gross or net? what are the deductions? And, fundamentally, a question neither candidate will answer, WHO is going to pay for the costs of running the government and paying off interest on the Reagan-Bush1-Bush2 debt? If we have Clinton-level balanced budgets since 1980, our federal spending would be $450 Billion less per year (that's $1,500 per year per person being spent just on INTEREST in money that was borrowed long ago). Joe's reduced tax bill due to no national debt if we'd stuck with Democratic policies far outweights the $900 extra he may pay under Obama.

John Jay--

The quality of reporting on taxation in the press is generally terrible, and it's even worse when they're reporting on the taxation of the vast unwashed. (I claim to be a member, so I can say that.) I particularly hate the "statistic" that we all spend a zillion hours doing our taxes. That's not true of the vast majority--who file the short form. I do our federal and state taxes in less than an hour, and I'm arithmetically-challenged, so I have to use a calculator.

Well, I have several comments and observations.

First, I spent most of the exchange trying to figure out just what this Joe the Plumber actual situation was and what the the exchange was all about. McCain obviously wanted to toss out a stink bomb and would rather not have disclosed enough facts to enlighten the listener. It appeared that Obama was trying to dredge the relevant facts up from a distant memory. Schiefer utterly failed in his role as moderator by not insisting that McCain explain more about Joe the Plumber so that the audience would understand the facts.

Second, a large portion of Obama's plan is an employer tax credit of $3,000 for each new job created by business's such as Joe's Plumbing. If Joe creates one or two new jobs, he would actually have a reduced tax bill under the Obama plan.

Third, I expect that construction contractors, as a group, did much better in 2006 and 2007 than they are likely to do when the books are closed on 2008. Joe should be careful not to pay too much for that business.

While its well and good to say its only another $900 a year, but then its also an extra ten to fifteen percent on capital gains, then theres the 55% death tax and the first thing you know you are working for almost nothing. The government wants to be your partner in the good years but not in the bad years. Money built up in the good years tides over the business in the bad ones. I know because I lived through it. My business was profitable for 14 years before it became unprofitable, it was only by having reserves that I managed to hang on and survive for the next three years while the business hemoraged money. Did the government help? No, but they sure as heck had their hand out the minute I made a profit even though I didn't take a salary for over three years. Obama's plan for taxes on the very businesses that make the economy work will wreck the economy, put people out of work and cause harm that it will take years to correct.

Okay my math might be shakey I went to a public high school but Mr. Baker you said Joe would pay an additional $900 is taxes. You also said the tax rate under Obama would go up form 33% to 36%. So then $250,000 * 0.03 = $7,500. So where did you come up with the $900?

It also turns out that Joe the Plumber hates Social Security. Not many plumbers hold this opinion. I'm a plumber, and I made THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tts2uTWt6e8

Kevin, you need to go back and look at your tax returns, and calculate your tax divided by your taxable income. It's far below your marginal tax rate.

And then look up "marginal tax rate".

I have a question. What is the definition of a "small business?"?

John McCain probably conducted the same thorough background check on Joe the Plumber as he did on Sarah the Governor!

Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber! Not even a registered voter! Probably not qualified to teach either. Sounds like he was planted by the McCain Camp because McCain went straight to Joe the Plumber right from the get go.

It's so annoying to see everyone just talk about taxes in relation to social redistribution measures. Besides those measures, what else do taxes pay for? Come on folks! Why do so many countries who are stuck in poverty remain stuck? LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE. And by that I don't just mean physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, public utilities, etc...) but also educational infrastructure, to name but a few examples.

So, when all the people with profits of over 250,000 are complaining about having to pay higher taxes, I CHALLENGE them to move to Malawi and see how successful they are with their business.

You think it takes only initiative, hard work, blah blah blah to start and run a business? ha! Think again. It's the social and market infrastructure which TAXES pay for that allows you, Joe the Plumber, to even hope to run a business.

And I'd love to see Joe's tune change on social security (which he thinks should be taken down) were he to have some sort of accident and need benefits.

Folks- stop whining about how we're going down the socialist path and realize that we're already on the socialist path in most ways that count and when we've strayed from that path is always when we've had serious problems (like the current crisis).

I can't wait to pay slightly higher taxes and know that my fellow citizens will all have access to basic human rights like health care and retirement benefits. If I don't want to support these things... well... I could always move to Malawi.

"I have a question. What is the definition of a "small business?"?

Posted by: Bobby"

It actually varies by industry (by country too, but that's not really pertinent here).

Typically, under 100 or so.

If Joe the Plumber doesn't want to pay $900 more in taxes each year he can reinvest any amount over $249K back into his business and not pay it all to himself. If Joe the plumber can't figure that out, I don't think his business is going to make him all that much money anyway!

Is my math wrong?

250K *.33 82.5
250K *.36 90

7,500 increase

"Is my math wrong?

250K *.33 82.5
250K *.36 90

7,500 increase

Posted by: Hawk"

No, but your method is. See JB's answer above- income and taxable income are not the same.

you are all missing the point. this is for the greater good. once you have all been through the reeducation camps it will be much clearer.

Also, remember when clinton was running and he said he would only raise taxes on the rich? How did that work out.

Clinton's balanced budget? What a joke. Remember the queen's failed single payer socialized medicine? I wonder what the budget would have looked like if that passed. Does anyone know any history? Gingrich's contract with America is what balanced the budget! After the reeducation camp I am sure that I will realize how Farrakhan's "Messiah" was really responsible.

not only is your math wrong, you're not including the extra 15+% he will have to pay in Social Security tax over $250k. (Obama's genious idea to turn SS into a welfare system by decoupling contributions from benefits).

So 5% income tax increase and 15% SS tax increase equals 20% tax increase on taxable income over $250k!

Welcome to the Soviet Union folks. As a small business owner who makes well over 250k, I can tell you this will be a disaster. People like me will LAY OFF WORKERS to pay for our lost income. Some of those "nice to have" sort of admin positions. Gone.

And guess what else? Raise taxes on businesses (C corps?) another genious Obama idea. Guess what? Businesses don't pay taxes. They pass those costs on to consumers. YOU will pay for that increase directly at the retail level.

The other thing I want someone to answer is the Obama's ridiculous talking point about how 95% of people will pay lower taxes with him. How is that possible when nearly 40% of people pay ZERO!!!!! And under his plan it will grow to 48%.

NO TAX? What happened to paying a "fair share"?

"If Joe the Plumber doesn't want to pay $900 more in taxes each year he can reinvest any amount over $249K back into his business and not pay it all to himself. If Joe the plumber can't figure that out, I don't think his business is going to make him all that much money anyway!"

Typical Obama voter. Almost all small businesses are LLCs these days. You can't "retain" earnings. All income made in the business is passed on to partners or proprietor and taxed.

If you make 500k and leave 200k in the business to fund receivables or whatever, you are still taxed on 500K.

The Obama misinformation campaign is staggering.

Appreciate it, clear as mud. That's why I let my Wife do it, ugh.

"So, when all the people with profits of over 250,000 are complaining about having to pay higher taxes, I CHALLENGE them to move to Malawi and see how successful they are with their business."

They don't have to move to Malawi, they can move to Ireland and pay 12% corporate taxes. Or Ukraine, or Estonia, or Latvia, or Singapore (0% capital gains tax).

Besides, government spending, no matter how worthwhile, is just an expense. Government creates no wealth, they just take it from those who do. It's like fixing your car. You may need to do it, but it doesn't mean your bottom line is better off. The government taking money from the productive sector and redistributing it, even to area of severe need, does not help the economy grow.

Look up "the broken window theory" on google or something.

This fellow reminds me of Steve Carell.

Hes totally right though. The numbers made no sense to argue against. Considerin the amounts, its piddly for this example.

wouldnt we all like to have Joe the plumber's quandry.

Joe Seely said:

"Besides, government spending, no matter how worthwhile, is just an expense. Government creates no wealth, they just take it from those who do. It's like fixing your car. You may need to do it, but it doesn't mean your bottom line is better off. The government taking money from the productive sector and redistributing it, even to area of severe need, does not help the economy grow."

Look up "Hoover Dam," Einstein.

"they can move to Ireland and pay 12% corporate taxes. Or Ukraine, or Estonia, or Latvia, or Singapore (0% capital gains tax)...

Posted by: Joe Seely"

We're talking about income tax for Joe the plumber. In Ireland (to take one of your examples of what you seem to think is a "better" tax system for Joe), there is a progressive income tax from 20%-41% (no in between.). The 20% is for people earning LESS than 34,000 Euros. 41% is for earnings over 34,000 Euros. Don't bother converting into dollars because they don't pay their mortgages or their food bills in dollars. If you must adjust do a PPP calculation. Anyway, Capital gains tax in Ireland is (may want to sit down Joe- drum roll please) 20% for individuals. Joe would pay MUCH more in taxes in Ireland than he does (or will under an Obama tax plan) in the United States.

(all info noted above can be found at: http://www.revenue.ie/)

Nice try there to get extra effect by mixing together figures from different countries, but these governments do not mix revenue, so it's obviously a worthless effort. I could break down where Singapore gets their taxes for you as well, but it would be tedious. Look it up.

ps Joe- broken window theory? You've got to be kidding me. Try reading a bit more about it before trying to apply it to this discussion. Try this for example:

www.cjcj.org/pdf/broken.pdf

whiskey,

You miss the point. You tax the hell out of a successful small business like Joe the Plumber, and what do you think happens? Less jobs and less investment back into his business so that he can't grow it and have MORE jobs and MORE income to tax from.

Typical class warfare democrats. Someone busts their ass for twenty to thirty years to be successful and you've got to TAKE from him and give to someone who partied their way through their twenties or made other poor choices in life. pathetic.

Isn't Joe proposing to buy and existing business? How many jobs will that create? Usually when businesses are sold there is a net loss of jobs.

db, you have the wrong "broken window theory" in mind:

http://www.mises.org/story/781

Whoa, folks, let's calm down a little here. A couple of comments:

1. Joe the Plumber doesn't have a plumbing license, and neither does the guy he works for. And he owes back taxes. If he was a plant, he wasn't a very good one. Either they saw a youtube video and an opportunity, or the McCain campaign doesn't vet anyone.

2. The marginal tax rate is easy--even I can do it. It's the rate you pay on the tippy-top part of your income. Most people don't know what it is because the tax table figures all that out for you. You pay no tax on the amount of the standard deduction/exemptions--that's why is subtracted from your income. You'd pay x% on the first whatever amount, x+% on the next whatever amount, and x++% on what's left over. So you only pay x++% on the last part, so raising the x++% would only raise your taxes on that, not on your entire income.

But when you use the tax table, that's all computed for you.

3. Comparing taxation from country to country requires that you look not only at the tax rate, but the kind and extent of exemptions available. A tax rate of 20% with no deductions allowed is higher than a tax rate of 30% with a lot of possible deductions. And you also have to look at the distribution of taxes paid. You'd have to do a decile-by-decile comparison to get equivalent tax rates.

"Isn't Joe proposing to buy and existing business? How many jobs will that create? Usually when businesses are sold there is a net loss of jobs."

Yeah, buy an existing business, and if Obama doesn't tax the crap out of him, he'll be able to at least maintain it and KEEP those jobs and maybe even GROW it. But if Obama taxes him more, he'll do one or both of two things, cut staff or raise fees to YOU, the consumer.

We can only speculate about Joe's tax situation because we don't know how his business is structured.

Assuming he's a sole proprietor, he will be taked on his profit which are his income not related to his business plus his business revenue less his business expenses and then all other deductions whether standard or itemized including credits. He's left with an adjusted gross to which the tax base is applied. If he buys a business who's revenue is 250K, it doesn't mean he's paid $250K for the business. He probably purchased the assets and possibly even the liabilities of that business. He determines the net value of the business and then deducts what he PAID for the business. that is then his included as income IF it is not a net loss. Slick people figure out how to get the number to record a loss...and guess what, you can claim a loss up to your net profits and carry over the leftover loss into the following year's profits. Small businesses that expand usually carry a net loss for a few years and thus pay relatively little or no taxes. Joe would have to be running a fairly successful business wherein his profit well exceeds the cost to buy that business before he'll even pay a dime in taxes at all.

The tax code in america is written to benefit the self employed. It was expected that more people would run their own business in lieu of working for someone else.

PeonInChief wrote, Comparing taxation from country to country requires that you look not only at the tax rate, but the kind and extent of exemptions available.

Absolutely.

What comprises the tax base is as important as what are the marginal tax rates.

stalin wrote, you are all missing the point. this is for the greater good. once you have all been through the reeducation camps it will be much clearer.

Right. Because we all know that there's nothing in between Uncle Joe's collectives and the libertarian paradise known as "Somalia."

LOL!

It's my understanding that Joe the Plumber would have a business partner. They form a Sub S, split the profits and pay the personal tax rate.

Am I missing something?

stalin wrote, Also, remember when clinton was running and he said he would only raise taxes on the rich? How did that work out.

Quite well---economy from 1994 to the end of Clinton's term was in very good shape.

Of course, there's a post hoc fallacy there, but it's definitely evidence that raising top rates doesn't seem to hurt the economy much, at least when the top rates are low to begin with.

I wonder what the budget would have looked like if that passed.

Hillary's health care plan was a terrible bastard cross between private and nationalized health insurance.

However, it's clear looking at empirical data---sorry, I know you right-wingers are reality-challenged---that socialized health insurance is far cheaper.

Does anyone know any history? Gingrich's contract with America is what balanced the budget!

You clearly don't know history. The factor most contributing to balanced budgets was, aside from the end of the Cold War, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which was a compromise between Bush 41 and Congressional Democrats.

Joe Seely wrote, Besides, government spending, no matter how worthwhile, is just an expense. Government creates no wealth, they just take it from those who do.

LOL!

Actually, what happens is that government gets tax money from the productive, creates wealth with it, but then hands most of the wealth over to landowners for free.

Joe Seely wrote, They don't have to move to Malawi, they can move to Ireland and pay 12% corporate taxes. Or Ukraine, or Estonia, or Latvia, or Singapore (0% capital gains tax).

Or, they can move to Somalia. Effective tax rate: 0%!!

nobama wrote,
As a small business owner who makes well over 250k, I can tell you this will be a disaster.

Depends. Some small businesses add value. Others (like many large businesses) are just parasites.

Businesses don't pay taxes. They pass those costs on to consumers.

Uh, not necessarily. Depends on the elasticities of supply and demand.

I just hope for the sake of your business that success in your line of work doesn't depend on a working knowledge of economics.

Um, liberal, if all companies pay a higher tax rate, all companies will pass that down to the consumer. It becomes part of the cost of doing business. That expense has to be figured into the equation to maintain their margins.

(try to wrap your head around it. I know you can do it)

I know you liberals just want to take from the productive citizens and spread it around to the unproductive ones because they are somehow entitled to the fruits of my hard work.

From Liberal

"However, it's clear looking at empirical data---sorry, I know you right-wingers are reality-challenged---that socialized health insurance is far cheaper."

Um, you base this on what? Your opinion? Far cheaper my ass. Guess what? I have a bad back. More of a constant annoyance. I chose to live with it. But if I had FREE healthcare, I would probably go through 50k worth of tests and therapy (easy) to try to fix or make it manageable. Millions of other people like me that would take every advantage of FREE healthcare.

Guess what? You know how long it takes to get ELECTIVE medical procedures in Canada? FOREVER. Elective MRI (non critical) takes 29 weeks! Waiting lists! Health care is rationed because the system becomes overwhelmed. Most of my Canadian employees carry SEPARATE private insurance because the govt run program is so bad. So they pay TWICE!!!

Since when is the government an efficient operator of ANYTHING?

You liberals are sad.

liberal -

*Quite well---economy from 1994 to the end of Clinton's term was in very good shape.*

I guess you forgot that two of the last three quarters of clinton's presidency were negative growth. Which technically isn't a recession, but close enough.

*However, it's clear looking at empirical data---sorry, I know you right-wingers are reality-challenged---that socialized health insurance is far cheaper.*

I am not even sure how to respond, since it is common knowledge that socialized medicine is in the red in nearly every country that has implemented it.

*The factor most contributing to balanced budgets was, aside from the end of the Cold War, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which was a compromise between Bush 41 and Congressional Democrats.*

I am surprised that you would give any credit to a Bush, but the budget wasn't balanced until 1998 and was one of the key components of the Contract with America. As well as a balanced budget amendment that couldn't get passed because of the dems.

liberal -

*Right. Because we all know that there's nothing in between Uncle Joe's collectives and the libertarian paradise known as "Somalia."*

Certainly no one is arguing for anarchy (except the leftist anarchist at every G8). The point is that the gov't is not efficient or proficient at anything, even defense. So the people of this country have every right to be skeptical of the gov't. I know that Farrakhan has already deemed The One as the messiah and I should just follow blindly like you, but I guess that is what the obama citizen action groups will be for; to convert all us nonbelievers.

I'm a commercial banker, and rarely do I see companies paying taxes. Depending on the structure of the company, the tax burden is passed on to the employee. Or, as a Sub S, the owners pay taxes at the personal tax rate.

The tax deductions taken by companies is criminal. We turn down at least 60% of loan requests because they refuse to show a profit, thus pay taxes.

most companies don't pay taxes because most companies are LLC's or S Corps, and by definition, have their income passed down to the personal level for taxation.

But by the same token, you raise the tax rate on the individual business owner, he is going to pass that cost onto the consumer. He's not just going to "eat it".

No one seems to remember Joe the Plumber does not own a business and does not have a plumbing license. Can you do that in Ohio?

Would a rose, by any other name smell just as sweet?

Well would Socialism, by any other name (ex. 'fairness', 'spreading the wealth around') smell just as rank?

That is basically what we have here; another point, can the Kool-Aid King himself explain how is it possible to lower income taxes to 95% of Americans when more than 40% pay none?

-W
www.eclecticwill.com

I for one am sorry to hear that you don't make a six figure income.

"Typical class warfare democrats. Someone busts their ass for twenty to thirty years to be successful and you've got to TAKE from him and give to someone who partied their way through their twenties or made other poor choices in life. pathetic."

Some people have not been paying attention for the last 30 years. There has been class warfare, but the capitalist class onto the working class.

That is why inequality has exploded since the 1970s, why average wages have stagnated for 3 decades, that is why productivity growth has not been reflected in growth in wages.

And if you think that working class people are poor because they are lazy, well, I have news for you. It's not the case.

Why is a business successful? Because the boss pays the workers more than the wage they get. The business is a collective work, but the boss monopolises the product of this collective labour.

Unions help to ensure that workers keep more of the goods they produce, which is why they have been systematically undermined since the 1970s (class warfare, by the elite).

So, maybe its time that there is some class warfare on our part? Organise and fight for your rights!

Apparently, it’s not just the Leona Helmsely’s of the world who think taxes are for other people. It turns out that Joe the Plumber is a proven liar who materially misrepresented himself to the nation, and who owes significant unpaid back taxes. Instead of validating his whining, delusional view of himself, this jackass should pay his taxes, and thank god he lives in a country where antisocial creeps like him have food on their table and a roof over their heads.

Maybe Joe the Plumber was just another Jeff Gannon, inserted into the dialog stream by the Karl Rove noise machine.

You repubs just have to face it your days are numbered. Change is coming alright and it is in what party is in all the houses. Bush and his cronies have ruined this country both fiscally and in our standing in the world.

I would like to donate a dollar or two to help Joe the Plumber pay his tax bill.
Has anyone stared a site or collection for him.

I currently earn less than he does, but he just got the shaft.

Seems to me if this guy Joe (whose real name is Sam, but the name "Sam the Plumber" was taken already) can buy a plumbing business and, without a plumbing license and despite a substantial claim for back taxes, produce net taxable plumbing-source income of more than $250,000, we should make him Secretary of the Treasury. Wait, maybe Vice President?

W wrote, Well would Socialism, by any other name (ex. 'fairness', 'spreading the wealth around') smell just as rank?

Uh, that's not what socialism means.

Socialism means "government ownership and/or control of the means of production."

nobama wrote, But by the same token, you raise the tax rate on the individual business owner, he is going to pass that cost onto the consumer. He's not just going to "eat it".

Depends.

If you actually knew any economics---and you apparently don't---you'd know that it depends on the elasticities of supply and demand in that line of business.

stalin wrote, The point is that the gov't is not efficient or proficient at anything, even defense.

Of course government isn't perfect at everything. Nor is the private sector.

So the people of this country have every right to be skeptical of the gov't.

People should be skeptical of government. The problem is when they're not skeptical of other extremely powerful institutions.

I know that Farrakhan has already deemed The One as the messiah and I should just follow blindly like you...

You're a dumb*ss. I don't "blindly follow Obama." I've gone over his voting records, and he's far from perfect: too conservative for my tastes---very close to Hillary, in fact, and not all that liberal.

But I live in the reality-based community, where it behooves one to actually look into the facts of the matter.

stalin wrote, I guess you forgot that two of the last three quarters of clinton's presidency were negative growth. Which technically isn't a recession, but close enough.

But the overall performance of the economy during Clinton's reign was extremely good.

I am not even sure how to respond, since it is common knowledge that socialized medicine is in the red in nearly every country that has implemented it.

You're incapable of responding, because the relevant metric is "health care benefits delivered per unit of GDP cost," and that concept is apparently too complicated for someone of your low intelligence to understand.

I am surprised that you would give any credit to a Bush,

Well, see, here in the reality-based community, we give credit where it is due.

...but the budget wasn't balanced until 1998 and was one of the key components of the Contract with America.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Furthermore, it's not the precise date when the budget is balanced that's important. It's the trend, the relationship of the budget to the business cycle, etc etc.

As well as a balanced budget amendment that couldn't get passed because of the dems.

LOL! Meaningless symbolism from the party which is expert at creating oceans of red ink.

Anonymous wrote, Um, you base this on what? Your opinion?

No. I base it on facts, since unlike you I belong to the reality-based community.

In this case, well-known cross-country comparisons that show that the US spends a far greater proportion of GDP on health care, with no better or even worse outcomes.

Since when is the government an efficient operator of ANYTHING?

Uh, actually, right now one of the most efficient operators of health care in the US is the VA.

nobama wrote, I know you liberals just want to take from the productive citizens and spread it around to the unproductive ones because they are somehow entitled to the fruits of my hard work.

Actually, the class the government is giving money to, in exchange for no productive contribution whatsoever, is landowners ([1], [2]).

The people of this country have every right to be skeptical of the gov't. I know that Farrakhan has already deemed The One as the messiah and I should just follow blindly like you, but I guess that is what the obama citizen action groups will be for; to convert all us nonbelievers.

supply vast kinds of styles handmade jewelry,mainly engage in wholesale handmade jewelry such as wholesale crystal ,wholesale pearl

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

Good post,thanks a lot.There is not a question of whether there are enough people to possibly be trained to practice medicine. There is only the question of whether you want one more doctor or one more derivatives trader.

Wurzelbacher could expect to see his tax bill rise by between $0-$900, assuming that this plumbing business would be his entire taxable income.China Wholesale