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

[Ironslave]

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.

First, the picture was commenting on this below, read my posts in this thread again.


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

I know what people think, and I know you think it is "selfish and not in the best interests", but you still won't even look at the evidence I post. Nobody is saying tax people MORE, I advocate cutting spending, and people saving money.

There's going to be a rough transition period in between though.

 

[Duality]

First, the picture was commenting on this below, read my posts in this thread again.


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

I know what people think, and I know you think it is "selfish and not in the best interests", but you still won't even look at the evidence I post. Nobody is saying tax people MORE, I advocate cutting spending, and people saving money.
There's going to be a rough transition period in between though.

now this i agree with. but IS you have to accept reality and realize that cutting spending with the president were about to get is not going to happen. shit it wouldn't happen with mccain either. given these circumstances, this tax plan seems to be a good fit for the nation as a whole.

but i do agree with your notion of cutting spending and not taxing anyone more, but that's just not what's going to happen.

 

[Ryeland]

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

Thanks, I too hope this can be another good debate

Who says anything about being punished? Lets think about it this way. You are a successful business person, you are joe the plumber with a successful business. You have several crews, each with their own truck, their own costs. Much of your profit is being made using the services that the government pays for. Your plumbing requires inspection from time to time, if you are doing more jobs you require more inspections. Because you are doing so many jobs you require to drive more places, causing more wear and tear on the roads than others. As a result of doing more work you need more parts delivered, again causing more wear and tear. As your equipment collection becomes more expansive and more valuable and a greater target for theft. And if you're really successful you build that brand new building. Now that building requires inspections, surveys road access.... and on and on and on.

You are not being punished for being successful (though it feels that way) you are being asked to pay your share. Odds are that your success has been built using the services available to you to your maximum benefit, a practice which everyone should be engaged in. But the point is that your business and your success has likely made much more use of roads, police, building inspections and other government services than a less successful business.

This is a very complex issue, and admittedly I don't completely understand modern tax law, but i would argue that there are not many people who do. But there is alot more that your taxes go to than welfare and social services. Businesses use tax supported infrastructure much more than the average person, thats why they are asked to pay up.

Paying more at the grocery store would be wrong, but i would argue that was an incorrect application of that analogy.

IS, sorry if I made too glib an interpretation/representation of your assumptions.

 

[Ryeland]

Nobody is saying tax people MORE, I advocate cutting spending, and people saving money.

Agreed!

Though I believe what we are arguing about is where to cut spending.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Good point. That is why so many Americans homes are being foreclosed, can't keep up on their $200,000+ mortgage.

 

[Ironslave]

Who says anything about being punished? Lets think about it this way. You are a successful business person, you are joe the plumber with a successful business. You have several crews, each with their own truck, their own costs. Much of your profit is being made using the services that the government pays for. Your plumbing requires inspection from time to time, if you are doing more jobs you require more inspections. Because you are doing so many jobs you require to drive more places, causing more wear and tear on the roads than others. As a result of doing more work you need more parts delivered, again causing more wear and tear. As your equipment collection becomes more expansive and more valuable and a greater target for theft. And if you're really successful you build that brand new building. Now that building requires inspections, surveys road access.... and on and on and on.

You are not being punished for being successful (though it feels that way) you are being asked to pay your share. Odds are that your success has been built using the services available to you to your maximum benefit, a practice which everyone should be engaged in. But the point is that your business and your success has likely made much more use of roads, police, building inspections and other government services than a less successful business.

This is a very complex issue, and admittedly I don't completely understand modern tax law, but i would argue that there are not many people who do. But there is alot more that your taxes go to than welfare and social services. Businesses use tax supported infrastructure much more than the average person, thats why they are asked to pay up.

Paying more at the grocery store would be wrong, but i would argue that was an incorrect application of that analogy.

IS, sorry if I made too glib an interpretation/representation of your assumptions.

It is complicated indeed. With regards to the first paragraph about the government providing jobs and such for Joe's company, sure, the government does provide jobs, but this isn't necessarily a good thing as these jobs are largely much more inefficient. That is money that could go towards other jobs, and the people in that employment position would find work elsewhere. It's not the role of government to "create jobs", as often times it creates jobs which are unproductive to society.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy over a large population with regards to the wear and tear on the roads by a company driving back and forth. How would this apply to someone who works out of their home as a stock broker? It wouldn't. But regardless, a stockbroker making $500,000 a year would be taxed much more than say a truck driver making $50,000, despite the fact that the truck driver does much more wear and tear on the road. Now, I am NOT saying the truck driver should pay more, but there's no reason why the stockbroker should.

 

[Duality]

Thanks, I too hope this can be another good debate

Who says anything about being punished? Lets think about it this way. You are a successful business person, you are joe the plumber with a successful business. You have several crews, each with their own truck, their own costs. Much of your profit is being made using the services that the government pays for. Your plumbing requires inspection from time to time, if you are doing more jobs you require more inspections. Because you are doing so many jobs you require to drive more places, causing more wear and tear on the roads than others. As a result of doing more work you need more parts delivered, again causing more wear and tear. As your equipment collection becomes more expansive and more valuable and a greater target for theft. And if you're really successful you build that brand new building. Now that building requires inspections, surveys road access.... and on and on and on.

You are not being punished for being successful (though it feels that way) you are being asked to pay your share. Odds are that your success has been built using the services available to you to your maximum benefit, a practice which everyone should be engaged in. But the point is that your business and your success has likely made much more use of roads, police, building inspections and other government services than a less successful business.

This is a very complex issue, and admittedly I don't completely understand modern tax law, but i would argue that there are not many people who do. But there is alot more that your taxes go to than welfare and social services. Businesses use tax supported infrastructure much more than the average person, thats why they are asked to pay up.

Paying more at the grocery store would be wrong, but i would argue that was an incorrect application of that analogy.

IS, sorry if I made too glib an interpretation/representation of your assumptions.

now this is an excellent post. ironslave i truthfully don't see how you can disagree with this. very well said ryeland. repped buddy

 

[Ironslave]

now this is an excellent post. ironslave i truthfully don't see how you can disagree with this. very well said ryeland. repped buddy

Duality, are you even reading my posts? I am by no means saying I am "right", and Ryeland is "wrong", because much of this is a matter of personal opinion on the roll of government. But, I responded to the post.

 

[Ryeland]

It is complicated indeed. With regards to the first paragraph about the government providing jobs and such for Joe's company, sure, the government does provide jobs, but this isn't necessarily a good thing as these jobs are largely much more inefficient. That is money that could go towards other jobs, and the people in that employment position would find work elsewhere. It's not the role of government to "create jobs", as often times it creates jobs which are unproductive to society.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy over a large population with regards to the wear and tear on the roads by a company driving back and forth. How would this apply to someone who works out of their home as a stock broker? It wouldn't. But regardless, a stockbroker making $500,000 a year would be taxed much more than say a truck driver making $50,000, despite the fact that the truck driver does much more wear and tear on the road. Now, I am NOT saying the truck driver should pay more, but there's no reason why the stockbroker should.

Sorry bud, i must not have worded my first paragraph right. I was not at all talking about the government creating those jobs. Whether contracted out or not to private companies the cost of maintain infrastructure is ridiculous. I mean in Canada (in ontario at the very least) we use external construction companies to build and maintain roads, they are inefficient and crooked as all hell. The problem is not the creation of government jobs, its the need to sustain massive infrastructure. Simply put i was talking about the cost, not who did the work.

And as for the stock broker working out of his home, what is he trading? How does he accomplish this trading? He himself may not be driving all over moving the commodities, but i am willing to bet that whatever he is buying or selling has to be moved by someone. So his business does affect infrastructure more than the average (btw wtf is average these days?) person. The only reason he can trade from home is due to infrastructure that allows him to. The stocks he is trading involve workers driving to work, moving product, getting in car accidents, using police and emergency services, simply because they go to work. It is because of those people that there is stock to trade at all. He is making using country wide infrastructure, and making more than the average person by using it.

Did that make sense? It made sense in my head. Sometimes a keyboard doesn't do you justice you know.

Thanks for the compliments Duality.

IS thanks for another badass debate bro!

 

[Ironslave]

And as for the stock broker working out of his home, what is he trading? How does he accomplish this trading? He himself may not be driving all over moving the commodities, but i am willing to bet that whatever he is buying or selling has to be moved by someone. So his business does affect infrastructure more than the average (btw wtf is average these days?) person. The only reason he can trade from home is due to infrastructure that allows him to. The stocks he is trading involve workers driving to work, moving product, getting in car accidents, using police and emergency services, simply because they go to work. It is because of those people that there is stock to trade at all. He is making using country wide infrastructure, and making more than the average person by using it.

Did that make sense? It made sense in my head. Sometimes a keyboard doesn't do you justice you know.

Sure, the stocks he is trading may be commodities that are transported, but, going by this logic, why does the stockbroker have to take the bigger hit when he isn't the one who is actually driving and damaging the roads? I don't think it matters that he makes more money in his career at all. Personally, I think since they both use the same roads and such, both should pay for the same service for it. Why should he pay $250,000 to use all the same services that someone in a lower income pays say $25,000 to use?

Another example, say there is a professional sports team in the area. Both the stockbroker and the truck driver have the opportunity to purchase a ticket to see the game. Let's say that they happen to be friends, and decide to go to the game and they sit next to each other in the same section. Should the stockbroker pay more for the exact same ticket?

I'm not sure what the average wage is, and of course, many businesses are ridiculously expensive to maintain. But that is part of life in a working, productive society, where the laws of supply and demand always apply. If the materials are too expensive, then sure, many companies might go under. However, some companies will still find a way to use the materials, and make profit for the service they provide. Going back to the maker of these materials, if there material is overpriced to the point where nobody buys it, in turn they must lower the cost to the point where they can achieve a balance of price and sales to make the most profit. Look at the price of oil right now. Though oil is much more complex than many other commodities, because it's value is largely influenced by speculation on it's usage, this year the use of oil has been less than expected. The price went high, and people/companies couldn't afford to use as much. In turn, the price has now dropped.

It's an interesting subject, and as I'm sure you'd agree, it's not just a matter of what is best for society as a whole, but also what rights are, or should be given to each individual in that society.

 

[Ryeland]

Sure, the stocks he is trading may be commodities that are transported, but, going by this logic, why does the stockbroker have to take the bigger hit when he isn't the one who is actually driving and damaging the roads?

Should the stockbroker pay more for the exact same ticket?


It's an interesting subject, and as I'm sure you'd agree, it's not just a matter of what is best for society as a whole, but also what rights are, or should be given to each individual in that society.

Agreed on the rights front. I am not advocating a socialist or communist set up, thats just silly.

About the stock broker. I still need to make my point clearer. Its not about him directly using the roads, its about him profiting on the use of the roads. He makes his shitwack of income because the infrastructure is there and is in good shape. He makes his living because commodities can be shipped, using roads, planes, trains, all government funded and regulated and policed and provided emergency services for. Even if he is not trading in commodities, he is making money of the value of company A. Company A only has value because employees of the company do some productive work. The employees of company A will likely have to drive to work, requiring all the services mentioned. They would not drive there if they didn't have work to do. The stock broker is making a ton of money because those people drive to work and do some great stuff. Those employees use infrastructure to make a living and the stock broker uses those employees to make a larger living. He makes greater profit margins because he uses the infrastructure to greater advantage (again something i encourage). Success isn't free, and these stock brokers and CEO's would have a job if it weren't for the people under them (same is true vice versa) but for the higher ups to earn that salary they need lots of people under them. All the people under them use the infrastructure and cause wear and tear. So by bringing on all that wear and tear they should pay a little more.

The football game analogy again is a different story. I understand the point you are trying to make, but i think we are missing each other a little. The stock broker should not pay more for a ticket if they use the same services. But say if the stock broker drives his Audi R8 (drools incessantly) to the game and parks in the same parking lot as his buddy. His R8 is going to be a greater target for theft and vandalism than joe's 1999 ford f150. Say the R8 gets damaged or stolen. Then the police are involved, should everyone have to pay for the ensuing investigation?

 

[Bulkboy]

awesome posts Ryeland, couldnt agree more

 

[Ryeland]

awesome posts Ryeland, couldnt agree more

Thanks bud.

IS has made some great points as well. The rights of an individual to their earnings still need to be protected, but we need to carefully examine who gets the most out of tax dollars, the rich or the poor. That would be an interesting study. I wonder how all the big corporate and personal tax breaks would stand up to the costs of welfare and other social services. I will have to find those numbers!

 

[Ironslave]

About the stock broker. I still need to make my point clearer. Its not about him directly using the roads, its about him profiting on the use of the roads. He makes his shitwack of income because the infrastructure is there and is in good shape. He makes his living because commodities can be shipped, using roads, planes, trains, all government funded and regulated and policed and provided emergency services for. Even if he is not trading in commodities, he is making money of the value of company A. Company A only has value because employees of the company do some productive work. The employees of company A will likely have to drive to work, requiring all the services mentioned. They would not drive there if they didn't have work to do. The stock broker is making a ton of money because those people drive to work and do some great stuff. Those employees use infrastructure to make a living and the stock broker uses those employees to make a larger living. He makes greater profit margins because he uses the infrastructure to greater advantage (again something i encourage). Success isn't free, and these stock brokers and CEO's would have a job if it weren't for the people under them (same is true vice versa) but for the higher ups to earn that salary they need lots of people under them. All the people under them use the infrastructure and cause wear and tear. So by bringing on all that wear and tear they should pay a little more.

This is an interesting way to look at it. Not saying I agree, but interesting nonetheless. There's no doubt that both a CEO and his employees couldn't function without each other, as you mention. Sure, the CEO in turn is casually associated with probably many companies, but couldn't we all say this? I agree with all of what you said, and I'm sure everyone would, but I don't agree on the part as to why someone should be forced to pay more for a service that they don't use.

How would this apply to someone like a sports athlete? Should he pay more taxes because people use the roads to drive to watch him? Or because he plays in a stadium built with government funds? How about the poker player who earns his living online?

But say if the stock broker drives his Audi R8 (drools incessantly) to the game and parks in the same parking lot as his buddy. His R8 is going to be a greater target for theft and vandalism than joe's 1999 ford f150. Say the R8 gets damaged or stolen. Then the police are involved, should everyone have to pay for the ensuing investigation?

Isn't this an argument from my perspective? If his R8 gets damaged, it's his responsibility to fix it. Going back to the previous logic, since this guy is an investor, who is responsible for a lot of success of his friend the truck driver's company, should the truck driver pay for damage to his car? Again using this logic, if the stock broker can't travel to a meeting and such, the truck driver may lose his job.

Citizens in society who use the same services should pay the same taxes for such.

 

[Ryeland]

Fair enough IS.

Yes the sports star should pay more. He could not make his money without people driving to come see his games, entering the stadium, using public water and sewage, etc. He is making a huge sum of money because these facilities exist. If they didn't he wouldn't make that money.

As for the R8 I got a little side tracked. The wealthy need the police more than the poor. Who has more to lose? I gotta tell ya, I have a POS 2001 neon in my driveway. 140 hp of pure awesomeness. I never worry about anyone vandalizing or stealing it. Who would want to. I live in a student house, how many people are going to break in? There isn't much value in there. The wealthy do make more use of the police. If the rule of law were to disappear tomorrow who would be pillaged first? I can tell you, those lovely, large nice homes with all the fantastic cars and toys. That was the R8 argument. I screwed that one up a bit. I apologize.

What i am saying is that most really successful people are using and profiting off the infrastructure to a greater degree than those who are less successful. So they should pay for their use.