Joe the Plumber...

[VABills]

Because this country has 10 trillion dollars worth of debt, is fighting and paying for two wars, we are in the midst of an economic crisis and we have huge numbers of people out of work. Is it so much to ask, given that we live in the greatest country in the world, to help out the country that you "created" all that wealth in?

So we have 10 trillion in debt, yet you want to tax more and start even more entitlement programs which will cost hundred of billions/trillions of dollar. Let's extend unemployment, better pay for the poor, universal healthcare, alternate fuel entitlements.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

No, we've mentioned a 20% flat tax with no deductions. I would hope they would still keep the qualified plan contribution deduction.

Hmm, once again is that a transaction tax or an income flat tax? And on what level of transaction, which is where the rub is? Does it become a retail flat tax? Just some questions that come to mind. Is 20% the right number? Does it squelch productivity. Be more specific. 20% doesn't tell me much and creates as many problems as it solves.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

My first deal if I were a President would be to offer retirement buyouts for 20% of all bureaucrats and reduce its size by 20%. That still won't reduce it to President Clinton's levels, but it would save a lot without doing to much damage to services.

 

The one problem is that in a recession it might not be the greatest idea, but at least it would not be across the board pink slips. So an across the board freeze as McCain suggests is a start.

 

I want effective services without bloated middle men. I would suggest that all insurance companies, if they want government subsidies would have to reduce their administrative costs to 15% and reduce their premiums in a corresponding manner.

[swede316]

Hmm, once again is that a transaction tax or an income flat tax? And on what level of transaction, which is where the rub is? Does it become a retail flat tax? Just some questions that come to mind. Is 20% the right number? Does it squelch productivity. Be more specific. 20% doesn't tell me much and creates as many problems as it solves.

I'm a big proponent of the flat tax..Why? Because it does not punish success. I know if I make $50,000 or $1 million dollars I pay the same as everyone else no matter what. I would also say no one making under the poverty level pays income tax. It creates incentive to do well while helping those that do not make enough to live. It will also simplify the tax code, reduce government (I wouldn't want to be an IRS agent) and generally make tax time a lot easier. Think of the money we'll save on tax forms alone.

[OGTEleven]

I'm a scientist and my wife is a partner in a law firm. We also live in Boston. We probably pay more in taxes a year than 75% of the people on this message board. Not once have I bitched about taxes. Not once. There are fortunate people, and there are unfortunate people. We live in the greatest country in the world and if all it takes is a couple hundred dollars more from those of us who are fortunate, to make sure the mentally ill aren't thrown out onto the street, or a family without health insurance doesn't end up living in their car, or urban kids have some kind of after school programs then yeah, I'm totally cool with that. Because that's what we're talking here. In fact, even after all that, by the calculations we did with the information on the web, we'll actually pay less in taxes under Obama's plan.

I don't have a problem with any of the goals you stated in your post. But as a scientist, can you honestly say that having the Federal government take money in taxes to help make sure the mentally ill aren't thrown out onto the street, or a family without health insurance doesn't end up living in their car, or urban kids have some kind of after school programs works?

 

Personally, I don't see any evidence. There are layers of government to get through before the first dollar goes from your paycheck to an after school program in Boston. By the time it gets there it has turned into significantly less than $1. Once it is there it has to be monitored by locals who are all paid to be sure they are in compliance with the program. Many times, the allowable programs do not meet the needs of the individual. Rather than change the programs or allow flexibility, they give the recipient the wrong solution.

 

Without even going into the openings in the programs for money to be stolen or the anti-motivational effects these programs can have, there are issues galore.

 

To me, it is the antithesis of a solution to centralize programs for problems that are as distributed as can be. IMO, the Federal government is the worst possible administrator of programs like this because by definition they are the furthest away from the problem. As a scientist, does that make sense to you? I'm not aware of one of these programs that has a stated goal of ending itself such as "when there are no people living in cars, this program will cease to exist". Even if the goal is wildly unrealistic, it is still a goal.

 

I work in computer sales and see the tug of war between centralization and distribution on a daily basis. The best systems allow the user to shape his own destiny while allowing enterprise wide organization and failsafes. Distributed systems handle the former reasonably well but struggle with the latter. It is the flipside for centralized systems. There are always moving targets in both user and enterprise needs and goals. The problems are difficult to solve just with computer systems that do what you ask them to do. When you add the office politics of people it gets real tough. And this is all within one enterprise, not a nation.

 

These computing issues are dwarfed by issues governments have in implementing programs. And that is before we even dicuss the insertion of people into the equation. People include the innocent recipient who just doesn't fit into any specific program, the guy that decides to be lazy because of the program, the highly organized groups of people running scams to steal money from the programs, the local administrators who at times have their hands tied by red tape, the local administrators who are there because it is an entitlement job, the politicians who are good at understanding problems but not scripting solutions, the politicians that are simply looking to put a bullet on a Power Point in their next campaign, and the thieving politicians. When the Federal government is in control of these programs, all of these issues must be overcome and they must be overcome with people deliberatley and accidently sabotaging them. Does this make sense to a scientist?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I'm a big proponent of the flat tax..Why? Because it does not punish success. I know if I make $50,000 or $1 million dollars I pay the same as everyone else no matter what. I would also say no one making under the poverty level pays income tax. It creates incentive to do well while helping those that do not make enough to live. It will also simplify the tax code, reduce government (I wouldn't want to be an IRS agent) and generally make tax time a lot easier. Think of the money we'll save on tax forms alone.

I hear you, but the Devil is still in the details and unintended consequences by how you define what gets taxed as part of that flat tax. Also, if it is a transaction tax, even between business purchases, 20% seems excessive. The other problem is that if it is a transaction tax, subcontractors will be subject to the tax and it may be cheaper for businesses to hire in house to avoid such a tax, creating more consolidation and control of the economy by a few.

 

The list above is all suppositions. I am not sure exactly what would happen and I don't dismiss the idea, just think all the implications should be well thought out before being proposed. As a talking point it sounds straight forward enough, in practice it is complicated.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I don't have a problem with any of the goals you stated in your post. But as a scientist, can you honestly say that having the Federal government take money in taxes to help make sure the mentally ill aren't thrown out onto the street, or a family without health insurance doesn't end up living in their car, or urban kids have some kind of after school programs works?

 

Personally, I don't see any evidence. There are layers of government to get through before the first dollar goes from your paycheck to an after school program in Boston. By the time it gets there it has turned into significantly less than $1. Once it is there it has to be monitored by locals who are all paid to be sure they are in compliance with the program. Many times, the allowable programs do not meet the needs of the individual. Rather than change the programs or allow flexibility, they give the recipient the wrong solution.

 

Without even going into the openings in the programs for money to be stolen or the anti-motivational effects these programs can have, there are issues galore.

 

To me, it is the antithesis of a solution to centralize programs for problems that are as distributed as can be. IMO, the Federal government is the worst possible administrator of programs like this because by definition they are the furthest away from the problem. As a scientist, does that make sense to you? I'm not aware of one of these programs that has a stated goal of ending itself such as "when there are no people living in cars, this program will cease to exist". Even if the goal is wildly unrealistic, it is still a goal.

 

I work in computer sales and see the tug of war between centralization and distribution on a daily basis. The best systems allow the user to shape his own destiny while allowing enterprise wide organization and failsafes. Distributed systems handle the former reasonably well but struggle with the latter. It is the flipside for centralized systems. There are always moving targets in both user and enterprise needs and goals. The problems are difficult to solve just with computer systems that do what you ask them to do. When you add the office politics of people it gets real tough. And this is all within one enterprise, not a nation.

 

These computing issues are dwarfed by issues governments have in implementing programs. And that is before we even dicuss the insertion of people into the equation. People include the innocent recipient who just doesn't fit into any specific program, the guy that decides to be lazy because of the program, the highly organized groups of people running scams to steal money from the programs, the local administrators who at times have their hands tied by red tape, the local administrators who are there because it is an entitlement job, the politicians who are good at understanding problems but not scripting solutions, the politicians that are simply looking to put a bullet on a Power Point in their next campaign, and the thieving politicians. When the Federal government is in control of these programs, all of these issues must be overcome and they must be overcome with people deliberatley and accidently sabotaging them. Does this make sense to a scientist?

 

This is only one side of the argument. There are as many problems with the private sector running things as the public sector as evidenced by the stock market crash and the over leveraged banks. I agree to much control stifles ingenuity and flexibility and allows this funding to become more about local fiefdoms and power, not enough control, oversight and regulation allows the private sector to do the same thing without producing results. The goals are wonderful, but we cannot sit idly by and expect it all to work. Americans love to believe that government should work on its own without their participation and vigilance... but read the Constitution ..."By the People". It takes all of us, but that means a lot additional attention in our already long days.

[GG]

So you really don't give a crap about the country then. You'd rather hoarde your wealth while it all goes to sh-- around you. No money for cops. No money for firemen. No money for crime prevention programs, after school programs, extending unemployment benefits for people who lose their jobs. Basically you don't care. Hide behind the "personal responsibility" mantra, but the reality is you could give two craps about everyone else around you.

 

The trouble with your line of reasoning is that the programs to help the truly unfortunate still exist, and no one is removing them. What's really being debated is the cavalier attitude that just because someone makes a certain amount of money, they should simply hand more of it over, again just because it makes you feel good to take money away from someone who's wealthier. Never mind that there are far fewer strawmen that you describe, but a lot more of the lazy, shiftless, low ambition slackers who hate their jobs. Maybe someone can come up with a term for them.

[Chef Jim]

I'm a scientist and my wife is a partner in a law firm. We also live in Boston. We probably pay more in taxes a year than 75% of the people on this message board. Not once have I bitched about taxes. Not once. There are fortunate people, and there are unfortunate people. We live in the greatest country in the world and if all it takes is a couple hundred dollars more from those of us who are fortunate, to make sure the mentally ill aren't thrown out onto the street, or a family without health insurance doesn't end up living in their car, or urban kids have some kind of after school programs then yeah, I'm totally cool with that. Because that's what we're talking here. In fact, even after all that, by the calculations we did with the information on the web, we'll actually pay less in taxes under Obama's plan.

 

If you're cool with that, they why don't you write a check to the US Treasury today. I'm sure they'd find some needy person to give it to.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

If you're cool with that, they why don't you write a check to the US Treasury today. I'm sure they'd find some needy person to give it to.

Why if he doesn't have to. It is against human nature and except for the very wealthy because they have money to burn, that is why we have a tax system to help spread the burden out more equitably. The question is how equitable our tax system is and where the burden should be adjusted should be the discussion, not whether or not we should mandatory pay taxes.

 

This should in include actual taxes paid v. a discussion about the euphamistic margin rate which no one pays.

[blzrul]

If you're cool with that, they why don't you write a check to the US Treasury today. I'm sure they'd find some needy person to give it to.

Why do you insist on sarcastic attacks against people in this particular vein? Do you worship money that much?

 

Hint: wake up one morning and find a loved one dead in bed. I hope it never happens but when it does you may realize just what's important in life and consider that some people really DO have bad things happen to them in spite of their best efforts, and those who care and want to help them are a blessing.

 

If it has happened to you, I'm very sorry for you and it's obviously soured and embittered you.

[Johnny Coli]

Does this make sense to a scientist?

You don't abandon a problem/project because it's not going perfectly. You find a way to fix it. Programs that help the less fortunate in a free-market system with minor regulation are needed. That's reality, because if you don't administer some type of relief for those people you will have bigger, more costly problems. You keep the ones that work, you fix the less efficient ones. You clearly disagree.

[IDBillzFan]

Because this country has 10 trillion dollars worth of debt, is fighting and paying for two wars, we are in the midst of an economic crisis and we have huge numbers of people out of work. Is it so much to ask, given that we live in the greatest country in the world, to help out the country that you "created" all that wealth in?

Not that it is suddenly any of your business, but just because I appear to have a generous income, you in typical liberal fashion just naturally assume that we sit in our house like Ebenezer Scrooge, piling coins by cloudy candlelight, shoulders hunched, forehead wrinkled, all while sneering cautiously at the windows to see who is trying to take our loot. It would help if you'd take that big generous heart of yours and spend less time following the "hate conservatives" party line and take a chance to believe that people who are financially comfortable actually do, in fact, help others.

 

My family donates a considerable amount of TIME and MONEY each year to various charities: cancer and battered womens shelters, for starters. We don't have garage sales, but rather go to the church to find people in need, take what we have and don't need, and bring it to people who who are in trouble and need the basic necessities. We bring food to hungry people not just during the holidays, but all year long. And now we do it as a project with our four-year-old son so he remembers how important it is to help others who can't help themselves.

 

So do me a favor: stop with the "what's wrong with helping others" talking point when you have absolutely, positively NO !@#$ing idea how much families like mine ALREADY do.

 

What people like me resent is being made to do more simply because your liberal representatives feel that people with money should NOT have money, and simply having that money entitles them to TAKE that money and spread it around, let alone do it with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

But thanks, Mr. Liberal, for trying once again to tell me what YOU think is good for me.

[pBills]

Can't wait till I get back out in Northern and Central Virginia next week through election day passing out literature for Obama. The real Joe the Plumbers like hearing about Obama.

[Chef Jim]

Why if he doesn't have to. It is against human nature and except for the very wealthy because they have money to burn, that is why we have a tax system to help spread the burden out more equitably. The question is how equitable our tax system is and where the burden should be adjusted should be the discussion, not whether or not we should mandatory pay taxes.

 

This should in include actual taxes paid v. a discussion about the euphamistic margin rate which no one pays.

 

Why do you think the weatlhy have money to burn? What does that mean? They have a lifestyle they've created that takes money. Now the super wealthy that may be a different story. But what about the +$250k club. That buys you a decent lifestly in certain parts of the country. I've created a nice lifestyl for my family that takes every bit of money I make. I don't waste any of it. I'm very frugal and what I don't spend I save. So what's going to suffer? My spending and saving which will hurt my lifestyle today and in the future.

 

Why do you insist on sarcastic attacks against people in this particular vein? Do you worship money that much?

 

Hint: wake up one morning and find a loved one dead in bed. I hope it never happens but when it does you may realize just what's important in life and consider that some people really DO have bad things happen to them in spite of their best efforts, and those who care and want to help them are a blessing.

 

If it has happened to you, I'm very sorry for you and it's obviously soured and embittered you.

 

I was just being willy nilly with his money like he's being with mine. And yes I worship money that much. It's what has created a better lifestyle of me. I've been on both ends of the wage scale and having money gives my family the things that we enjoy, and that includes peace of mind that if one of us didn't wake up tomorrow that the other would be very much taken care of. I or my wife will need no help whatsoever if that were to happen. See the money I make has allowed me to protect myself today and tomorrow. Oh and nice freudian slip there. You hope it never happens but when it does....good one.

[pBills]

Good ol' Joe

 

 

Meanwhile, reporters and liberal bloggers dug up a $1,182.98 tax lien the state of Ohio has taken out against Mr. Wurzelbacher, and discovered he's been plumbing without a license, something he does not deny. Reporters also discovered that Mr. Wurzelbacher's name is apparently misspelled on the Lucas County Board of Elections database, potentially disqualifying his vote.

[IDBillzFan]

Good ol' Joe

 

 

Meanwhile, reporters and liberal bloggers dug up a $1,182.98 tax lien the state of Ohio has taken out against Mr. Wurzelbacher, and discovered he's been plumbing without a license, something he does not deny. Reporters also discovered that Mr. Wurzelbacher's name is apparently misspelled on the Lucas County Board of Elections database, potentially disqualifying his vote.

You have no answer for your candidate's plan to socialize America, soooooo KILL THE PLUMBER!!! KILL THE PLUMBER!!!!

 

Nice. But for the record, it is actually Joe the Scab. Please get it right before you attempt to pick him off your skin.

[KD in CA]

Good ol' Joe

 

 

Meanwhile, reporters and liberal bloggers dug up a $1,182.98 tax lien the state of Ohio has taken out against Mr. Wurzelbacher, and discovered he's been plumbing without a license, something he does not deny. Reporters also discovered that Mr. Wurzelbacher's name is apparently misspelled on the Lucas County Board of Elections database, potentially disqualifying his vote.

 

 

So much for "every vote counts" huh?

[Kelly the Dog]

You have no answer for your candidate's plan to socialize America, soooooo KILL THE PLUMBER!!! KILL THE PLUMBER!!!!

 

Nice. But for the record, it is actually Joe the Scab. Please get it right before you attempt to pick him off your skin.

Just a question. When did you start your business and how long ago did you start making good money.

[blzrul]

I was just being willy nilly with his money like he's being with mine. And yes I worship money that much. It's what has created a better lifestyle of me. I've been on both ends of the wage scale and having money gives my family the things that we enjoy, and that includes peace of mind that if one of us didn't wake up tomorrow that the other would be very much taken care of. I or my wife will need no help whatsoever if that were to happen. See the money I make has allowed me to protect myself today and tomorrow. Oh and nice freudian slip there. You hope it never happens but when it does....good one.

It wasn't Freudian and I hope it doesn't happen. It was just a mistake is all. And it's NICE to have a good lifestyle. I have one too.

 

But interestingly what we've learned is how much fun it is to do nice things for others. We started at the YMCA "Angel Tree". I'd pick my kids up from after-school care and see the tree with all the wishes hanging there...week after week. We felt bad for kids who were asking for basics, like shoes and stuff. So we gathered up those wish tags and hit the store. We had a BLAST shopping for those kids. From there we expanded to other charities.

 

I think we got far more than we gave. On Christmas morning we'd do our thing but the kids would be more excited thinking about those other kids.

 

And, we didn't really miss the money. Later when we hit hard times, financially and otherwise, people came out of the woodwork to love and help us. I guess that's what is meant by paying it forward.

 

You worked for your money and it's yours to do with what you will. But it's small-minded and petty of you to criticize others who don't mind sharing their good fortune. If you ever do need help you'd best pray that you're not surrounded by people who think like you.

 

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses"?