Barack Obama and "Joe the Plumber" - Whole Convo. about taxes

[Paulie]

 

[Ironslave]

Looks staged, Obama is such a douche.

 

[Tonyk212000]

Looks staged, Joe the Plumber is such a douche.

Every video I watch of this guy he annoys me more and more. How about he decides on a candidate already and quits bitching. Not to mention the fact he wont tell anyone he is voting for. O by the way he lives about 5-10 minutes away from me.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Every video I watch of this guy he annoys me more and more. How about he decides on a candidate already and quits bitching. Not to mention the fact he wont tell anyone he is voting for. O by the way he lives about 5-10 minutes away from me.

Kick his ass, seabass

 

[Tonyk212000]

Kick his ass, seabass

 

[Oloz]

"when you spread the wealth around for everybody." 4:42.

go go United Soviet States of America

 

[TJ]

I never had a problem with this guy and I thought he brought up a great point about Obama and his ludicrous tax "plan." Let's hear it for the media though; they investigated this guy and plastered that he's unlicensed all over the TV.

"OMG, this guy is fixing your toilets without a license! Oh noes!!!?!??"

 

[Paulie]

I see pros and cons in his tax plan

 

[Tonyk212000]

Seriously why is he bitching he will Probably be making 250,000 a year, this is all hypothetical because he doesn't have the business yet. Lets have him decide making maybe 60,000 a year and paying 15,000 in taxes or making 250,000 a year and paying 30,000 (these numbers are hypothetical don't feel like doing the actual math) Which one would you take, seriously be happy you're making that much and shut the fu*k yup.

 

[Ironslave]

Seriously why is he bitching he will Probably be making 250,000 a year, this is all hypothetical because he doesn't have the business yet. Lets have him decide making maybe 60,000 a year and paying 15,000 in taxes or making 250,000 a year and paying 30,000 (these numbers are hypothetical don't feel like doing the actual math) Which one would you take, seriously be happy you're making that much and shut the fu*k yup.

Agreed, he should be content being given the same services paid more for by other people's money.

 

[Oloz]

Agreed, he should be content being given the same services paid more for by other people's money.

lol

 

[Tonyk212000]

Agreed, he should be content being given the same services paid more for by other people's money.

I think you are trying to be funny here but I cant tell cause they way you wrote it is hard to read (like you typed it retarded)

 

[Ironslave]

I think you are trying to be funny here but I cant tell cause they way you wrote it is hard to read (like you typed it retarded)

1) The picture should explain it all.

2) It was written fine.

 

[Ryeland]

Of course you are assuming all the people that are making ridiculous sums of money are working for it.

What Obama is pitching actually makes sense for the average american. Why should the lower tax brackets take the hit so those in the higher can save money.

The money has to come from somewhere. For those of you who think all this money goes to welfare for lazy slobs there is alot more to consider.

With the rising cost of steel, copper, concrete and other building materials the cost of maintain even just roadways is astronomical. The amount of public roads these days is insane, plus add the extra traffic volume which causes untold wear and tear and you have something that everyone needs and it costs a ton of money to keep it operations.

I bet most people on this board are all about "green energy" and "alternative fuels", "higher efficiency". For companies to get the tax breaks they need to perform R&D in those industries that money needs to come from somewhere. For the 25 billion dollar bailout quietly given to GM and the automotive industry, to keep thousands employed long enough for GM to hopefully (looking pretty grim at the moment) correct their problems, that money needs to come from somewhere.

The money for the services you all depend on (Roads, Safe Water, Police, Fire Dept, Emergency Services) needs to come from somewhere. As gas and raw material costs climb due to china's massive economic growth the money needs to be made up.

Now I am not saying you are all saying welfare is the cause of all evil. But there is much more that tax dollars go to than welfare and social aid programs. The costs of simple maintenance and essential government services is increasing. Raw building materials cost more, due to increased demand from rapidly developing nations.

A little off topic, but I just get a little miffed when people claim that so much of taxes go to only welfare or social services.

That is not to say that the governments administration of these services can't be made more efficient, there is a TON of room for that.

 

[Ironslave]

Of course you are assuming all the people that are making ridiculous sums of money are working for it.

What Obama is pitching actually makes sense for the average american. Why should the lower tax brackets take the hit so those in the higher can save money.

The money has to come from somewhere. For those of you who think all this money goes to welfare for lazy slobs there is alot more to consider.

With the rising cost of steel, copper, concrete and other building materials the cost of maintain even just roadways is astronomical. The amount of public roads these days is insane, plus add the extra traffic volume which causes untold wear and tear and you have something that everyone needs and it costs a ton of money to keep it operations.


The money for the services you all depend on (Roads, Safe Water, Police, Fire Dept, Emergency Services) needs to come from somewhere. As gas and raw material costs climb due to china's massive economic growth the money needs to be made up.

Now I am not saying you are all saying welfare is the cause of all evil. But there is much more that tax dollars go to than welfare and social aid programs. The costs of simple maintenance and essential government services is increasing. Raw building materials cost more, due to increased demand from rapidly developing nations.

A little off topic, but I just get a little miffed when people claim that so much of taxes go to only welfare or social services.

That is not to say that the governments administration of these services can't be made more efficient, there is a TON of room for that.

We're not assuming they are working that hard at all. The "hardest workers" are probably those in jobs like construction, while the contractor for their site probably does very little and makes 10x as much. Nobody is doubting that. But there is MUCH more to things.

One, why is it fair that someone be punished for their success, and have to pay higher taxes? They pay more to use the exact same roads, police, water, and so forth. Why is that fair? Should they have to pay more in supermarkets for the same food as well?

I bet most people on this board are all about "green energy" and "alternative fuels", "higher efficiency". For companies to get the tax breaks they need to perform R&D in those industries that money needs to come from somewhere. For the 25 billion dollar bailout quietly given to GM and the automotive industry, to keep thousands employed long enough for GM to hopefully (looking pretty grim at the moment) correct their problems, that money needs to come from somewhere.

This is a stickier subject. Did you know that every single US President since Nixon has promised to work towards ending the "dependence on foreign oil"? We're still no closer to this than we were back in the late 60's. So, if we give these companies tax breaks, who pays for that? Most people advocate making the oil companies pay more, which would be an absolute disaster.

I like the way you word things though, hopefully it's another good discussion.

 

[Tonyk212000]

One, why is it fair that someone be punished for their success, and have to pay higher taxes? They pay more to use the exact same roads, police, water, and so forth. Why is that fair? Should they have to pay more in supermarkets for the same food as well?

Ive said this 10,000,000,000,000 times now. Its 80 % luck and if you are making that much then who cares if you pay a little extra, there just going to spend it on another car or another vacation to some exotic place anyway.

 

[Ironslave]

Ive said this 10,000,000,000,000 times now. Its 80 % luck and if you are making that much then who cares if you pay a little extra, there just going to spend it on another car or another vacation to some exotic place anyway.

... and not one of those times has it made sense. Who cares if it's "luck"? Sure, a LOT of it is luck, but should we give tax cuts to ugly people too?

So, let me use your example, let's just say they do spend it on a car.

Let's say hypothetically, they spend $40,000 on the car. That money will go to several things. It will go to the owner of the car company, the workers who built the car, commission to the man who sold it, and so on and so on.

Read this whole book, Economics in One Lesson, by Hazlitt. He uses a brilliant analogy to describe this whole process, called his "broken window" fallacy (the start of it is in the link below).

http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html

Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

 

[Duality]

ironslave your logic here is not what is best for this nation right now. with the economy the way it is this proposal makes the most sense. lower taxes on middle to lower class america (the bulk of society) and raise the taxes of the wealthy ($250000 a year is a lot of money) in an attempt to help stimulate the lower and middle classes to spend more. and again it is irratating that you make out all these wealthy peoples' "success" to be completely of their own doing and hard work. for the most part, it is luck that propels their prosperity, their is nothing wrong with them giving a little back in a time of need, which is the time we are currently in.

 

[Ironslave]

and again it is irratating that you make out all these wealthy peoples' "success" to be completely of their own doing and hard work.

Duality, if you actually read my last posts, and actually believe this above statement, all I have to say is.

ironslave your logic here is not what is best for this nation right now. with the economy the way it is this proposal makes the most sense. lower taxes on middle to lower class america (the bulk of society) and raise the taxes of the wealthy ($250000 a year is a lot of money) in an attempt to help stimulate the lower and middle classes to spend more. for the most part, it is luck that propels their prosperity, their is nothing wrong with them giving a little back in a time of need, which is the time we are currently in.

It is pointless for me to continue to discuss things if you keep resorting to the same unsubstantiated arguments bud, and don't even read the links I post. Stimulate the "lower and middle classes to spend more?" That is absurd! That is one of the main reasons why America is in this mess! Because the lower and middle classes spent WAY WAY more than they could afford. America needs to save, not spend.

 

[Duality]

Duality, if you actually read my last posts, and actually believe this above statement, all I have to say is.

It is pointless for me to continue to discuss things if you keep resorting to the same unsubstantiated arguments bud, and don't even read the links I post. Stimulate the "lower and middle classes to spend more?" That is absurd! That is one of the main reasons why America is in this mess! Because the lower and middle classes spent WAY WAY more than they could afford. America needs to save, not spend.

oh i'm sorry yes your right the answer is to tax them more so that way they don't have as much money to spend.

listen i know the principle your basing your arguement on, and i disagree with it. i think it's selfish and not in the best interests of this nation's situation. and i'm not the only one who thinks so. pretty soon we'll all be calling obama our president and we'll see how well this tax policy works out.