No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What are you talking about when you infer taxation as anything to do with "freedom?" Please explain.

Yes, freedom would have to include the right to keep most of the money a person earns honestly. Do you not believe in such a right?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

You're confusing "honesty" with greed and immoral. Again, just because it's legal doesn't make it ethical.

0 Replies

I promised myself I would stay out of the politics thread, but if you are going to attack "Joe the plumber" for his tax problems, its only fair to point out that at least one person in the Obama camp also has a tax problem.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/17/guess-who-else-has-tax-liens/

Quote:

Oh " I almost forgot to mention: Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens. So do his companies.
You’d think that matters more than the tax liens of Joe the Plumber, wouldn’t
you? But good luck finding a Big Media story about Nesbitt’s liens.

http://webofdeception.com/nesbitt.html

So if you are so concerned about a persons tax problems, why arent you so worked up about an Obama campaign official having tax problems?

Personally, I dont think that its anyone elses business, but if you are going to get so concerned about one, you need to show the same concern about both.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Define "most."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

A person should be able to keep at least 80% of the money they earn, possibly more.

Does that qualify as most to you?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Says you, but without anything to back up your numbers with facts and figures that will support past and current government spending.

That's a non-answer as far as I'm concerned. Just the old conservative talking points without any support in fact on our national debt.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If everyone pays 20%, and if the govt can control its spending, I dont see how that wouldnt be enough.
When I get a chance, I will find some actual figures.

But since you think 20% is not enough, perhaps you can provide a more accurate figure, with all of the relevant source material to support your claim.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

If there was some way to inform Congress that 10% or 20% is all that they would Constitutionally have to work with, I can just bet you they would find a way to make it be enough. Hell, I bet they would focus more on policy that would help people be prosperous instead of dependent on the government. What do you want to bet?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

2007 -GDP 13.807 billion
2007 income - 11.663 billion

2007 Government expenditures as % of GDP - 20.0%

Required tax on income to make 20% of GDP about 23.7% (just federal taxes.)

Sources -
BLS and US budget

1 Reply

@parados,

Thank you, parados. At least you provided some "real" numbers in your calculations rather than rely on conservative rhetoric about taxation.

They continue the old saw about "cutting expenses," but can't see that Bush created some of the biggest deficits and debt in modern times. "Cut expenses," they say. Cheap words, indeed!
And they say the liberals are the tax and spend party. The republicans are the don't tax and spend party. Heck, let future generations pay for our spending. We don't want to tax the rich by any means; that's taking away from the rich to redistribute their wealth, but it's okay to let our children and grandchildren pay for our current and past spending.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Then why does he propose lowering taxes for the middle class, but raising them for the rich?

Why is that guy with the Caterpillar digging into that big ol' hill over there and dumping some of the dirt into the big ol' hole over here?

(Didn't you say you were for a level playing field?)

Note, I'm not just talking about money per se but reiterating farmerman's point that right now the tax code favors the rich and especially the very rich. Leveling the playing field means redressing some of that existing unfairness.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Well if we are REALLY doing to level the playing field, how about requiring EVERY wage earner to pay his/her fair share? Right now 40 percent of working Americans are paying nothing. That's a level playing field? Obama wants to give that 40% as well as the next 55% a tax cut. That leaves 5% at the top picking up the entire tab to cover that tax cut.

Not much incentive for them to earn anything is it? Or not move it elsewhere? Or move their means of earning it elsewhere?

You help everybody by helping people become prosperous. Not by forcing Citizen A to support everybody else.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

Right now 40 percent of working Americans are paying nothing.

can you give us some idea of what the (average-median) income of those americans might be ?
are you talking of "full-time" working people or do you include young and old people working part-time at "mcjobs" ?
a clarification would be most useful .
hbg

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I'd like some Real facts this time as well Foxfyre...

You are blowing some bad smoke.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Define "most."

I can't, but I know it when I see it.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I'll define most for you; "most" of your posts are worthless.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Says you, but without anything to back up your numbers with facts and figures that will support past and current government spending.

That's a non-answer as far as I'm concerned. Just the old conservative talking points without any support in fact on our national debt.

Yes, but determining the exact amount of taxation necessary to sustain a reasonable level of government isn't really relevant to the general principles that (a) soaking the rich as though they were guilty of something is unfair and incompatible with the American dream, and (b) when the government confiscates too much of a person's fairly earned income, you have oppressive government. Maybe Congress should spend less, and more carefully.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You wouldn't understand until the crows flies to antarctica.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Then why does he propose lowering taxes for the middle class, but raising them for the rich?

Why is that guy with the Caterpillar digging into that big ol' hill over there and dumping some of the dirt into the big ol' hole over here?

(Didn't you say you were for a level playing field?)

Note, I'm not just talking about money per se but reiterating farmerman's point that right now the tax code favors the rich and especially the very rich. Leveling the playing field means redressing some of that existing unfairness.

Yes, that is exactly what I keep saying I want - a level playing field. That's exactly my point. I agree that tax loopholes should be closed, but you can't exactly call taxing the rich at a much higher rate than the middle class level, and that seems to be what the Democrats keep advocating.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'll define most for you; "most" of your posts are worthless.

It's unfortunate that you can't just argue the political topic without constantly attacking the other poster personally and resorting to ad hominems. When a person counters an opinion with an insult, it suggests that he's incapable of countering it with an argument.

0 Replies

No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know