OT – Joe the Plumber

[svelte]

Oh, Joe the Plumber matters a great deal, and here’s why: it demonstrates McCain’s attention to detail – yet again.

Anybody who would make JtP the centerpiece for their final debate before the election without doing adequate research into the individual (perhaps doing no research at all) deserves to look like an idiot as McCain now does.

It is just another example in a long line of examples that McCain has given us of his impulsiveness and reluctance to do even rudimentary examination of details. Does ANYBODY really want someone like that making the world’s most important decisions?

Other examples of this type of behavior: the picking of a running mate who is under investigation and has the capacity of a parakeet for logical thought, and the decision to halt his campaign to get a bill through Congress.

[gandalf]

bob, I really appreciate your tone. It’s great. It’s old-school, respectful and substantive. I’ll try to do same. Here’s my answer to your point about the composition of the tax base:

The amount of wealth in our country, the portion of the economy, percentage of GDP, etc., controlled and owned by large corporations and wealthy individuals increased significantly during the last two decades of the 20th century, and rose even more dramatically during Bush Junior’s two terms in office.

The reason the rich are paying a greater share of taxes is because they own A MUCH GREATER SHARE of our country’s collective resources. The real question is what happened to their tax rate, relatively speaking. This is where the games and obfuscation usually begin, because as every sophisticated individual or manager knows, there are all kinds of strategies and mechanisms to shift accounts around and adjust taxable income. Average people don’t do this. They just pay their taxes.

The fact of the matter is, the public tax burden as a percentage of wealth, or more accurately as a percentage of the annual change in wealth (not accounting for shelters, exclusions and loopholes) has become MORE regressive and unfair to the middle class. Wealthy individuals and large corporations have a much lower tax rate as a percentage of real wealth gains (which rarely equals taxable income).

Tax policy has absolutely accounted for _some_ of the wealth redistribution that has occurred in this country. Average people have been getting shafted for many years now. This is the reality. Both democans and republicrats are to blame. But only the GOP blathers on about how unfair taxes are to the wealthy when the reverse is true. It’s deceptive. Enough already.

[gandalf]

bob, I really appreciate your tone. It’s great. It’s old-school, respectful and substantive. I’ll try to do same. Here’s my answer to your point about the composition of the tax base:

The amount of wealth in our country, the portion of the economy, percentage of GDP, etc., controlled and owned by large corporations and wealthy individuals increased significantly during the last two decades of the 20th century, and rose even more dramatically during Bush Junior’s two terms in office.

The reason the rich are paying a greater share of taxes is because they own A MUCH GREATER SHARE of our country’s collective resources. The real question is what happened to their tax rate, relatively speaking. This is where the games and obfuscation usually begin, because as every sophisticated individual or manager knows, there are all kinds of strategies and mechanisms to shift accounts around and adjust taxable income. Average people don’t do this. They just pay their taxes.

The fact of the matter is, the public tax burden as a percentage of wealth, or more accurately as a percentage of the annual change in wealth (not accounting for shelters, exclusions and loopholes) has become MORE regressive and unfair to the middle class. Wealthy individuals and large corporations have a much lower tax rate as a percentage of real wealth gains (which rarely equals taxable income).

Tax policy has absolutely accounted for _some_ of the wealth redistribution that has occurred in this country. Average people have been getting shafted for many years now. This is the reality. Both democans and republicrats are to blame. But only the GOP blathers on about how unfair taxes are to the wealthy when the reverse is true. It’s deceptive. Enough already.

[gandalf]

bob, I really appreciate your tone. It’s great. It’s old-school, respectful and substantive. I’ll try to do same. Here’s my answer to your point about the composition of the tax base:

The amount of wealth in our country, the portion of the economy, percentage of GDP, etc., controlled and owned by large corporations and wealthy individuals increased significantly during the last two decades of the 20th century, and rose even more dramatically during Bush Junior’s two terms in office.

The reason the rich are paying a greater share of taxes is because they own A MUCH GREATER SHARE of our country’s collective resources. The real question is what happened to their tax rate, relatively speaking. This is where the games and obfuscation usually begin, because as every sophisticated individual or manager knows, there are all kinds of strategies and mechanisms to shift accounts around and adjust taxable income. Average people don’t do this. They just pay their taxes.

The fact of the matter is, the public tax burden as a percentage of wealth, or more accurately as a percentage of the annual change in wealth (not accounting for shelters, exclusions and loopholes) has become MORE regressive and unfair to the middle class. Wealthy individuals and large corporations have a much lower tax rate as a percentage of real wealth gains (which rarely equals taxable income).

Tax policy has absolutely accounted for _some_ of the wealth redistribution that has occurred in this country. Average people have been getting shafted for many years now. This is the reality. Both democans and republicrats are to blame. But only the GOP blathers on about how unfair taxes are to the wealthy when the reverse is true. It’s deceptive. Enough already.

[gandalf]

bob, I really appreciate your tone. It’s great. It’s old-school, respectful and substantive. I’ll try to do same. Here’s my answer to your point about the composition of the tax base:

The amount of wealth in our country, the portion of the economy, percentage of GDP, etc., controlled and owned by large corporations and wealthy individuals increased significantly during the last two decades of the 20th century, and rose even more dramatically during Bush Junior’s two terms in office.

The reason the rich are paying a greater share of taxes is because they own A MUCH GREATER SHARE of our country’s collective resources. The real question is what happened to their tax rate, relatively speaking. This is where the games and obfuscation usually begin, because as every sophisticated individual or manager knows, there are all kinds of strategies and mechanisms to shift accounts around and adjust taxable income. Average people don’t do this. They just pay their taxes.

The fact of the matter is, the public tax burden as a percentage of wealth, or more accurately as a percentage of the annual change in wealth (not accounting for shelters, exclusions and loopholes) has become MORE regressive and unfair to the middle class. Wealthy individuals and large corporations have a much lower tax rate as a percentage of real wealth gains (which rarely equals taxable income).

Tax policy has absolutely accounted for _some_ of the wealth redistribution that has occurred in this country. Average people have been getting shafted for many years now. This is the reality. Both democans and republicrats are to blame. But only the GOP blathers on about how unfair taxes are to the wealthy when the reverse is true. It’s deceptive. Enough already.

[gandalf]

bob, I really appreciate your tone. It’s great. It’s old-school, respectful and substantive. I’ll try to do same. Here’s my answer to your point about the composition of the tax base:

The amount of wealth in our country, the portion of the economy, percentage of GDP, etc., controlled and owned by large corporations and wealthy individuals increased significantly during the last two decades of the 20th century, and rose even more dramatically during Bush Junior’s two terms in office.

The reason the rich are paying a greater share of taxes is because they own A MUCH GREATER SHARE of our country’s collective resources. The real question is what happened to their tax rate, relatively speaking. This is where the games and obfuscation usually begin, because as every sophisticated individual or manager knows, there are all kinds of strategies and mechanisms to shift accounts around and adjust taxable income. Average people don’t do this. They just pay their taxes.

The fact of the matter is, the public tax burden as a percentage of wealth, or more accurately as a percentage of the annual change in wealth (not accounting for shelters, exclusions and loopholes) has become MORE regressive and unfair to the middle class. Wealthy individuals and large corporations have a much lower tax rate as a percentage of real wealth gains (which rarely equals taxable income).

Tax policy has absolutely accounted for _some_ of the wealth redistribution that has occurred in this country. Average people have been getting shafted for many years now. This is the reality. Both democans and republicrats are to blame. But only the GOP blathers on about how unfair taxes are to the wealthy when the reverse is true. It’s deceptive. Enough already.

[an]

TheBreeze, please stop with the false information of $10T. Unless you consider people on welfare, students, veterans, people who got helped because of the hurricanes, etc. are the richest folks.

BTW, you can thank the Democrats congress for passing the $850B bailouts recently. They’re the majority who voted for the bailouts.

[an]

TheBreeze, please stop with the false information of $10T. Unless you consider people on welfare, students, veterans, people who got helped because of the hurricanes, etc. are the richest folks.

BTW, you can thank the Democrats congress for passing the $850B bailouts recently. They’re the majority who voted for the bailouts.

[an]

TheBreeze, please stop with the false information of $10T. Unless you consider people on welfare, students, veterans, people who got helped because of the hurricanes, etc. are the richest folks.

BTW, you can thank the Democrats congress for passing the $850B bailouts recently. They’re the majority who voted for the bailouts.

[an]

TheBreeze, please stop with the false information of $10T. Unless you consider people on welfare, students, veterans, people who got helped because of the hurricanes, etc. are the richest folks.

BTW, you can thank the Democrats congress for passing the $850B bailouts recently. They’re the majority who voted for the bailouts.

[an]

TheBreeze, please stop with the false information of $10T. Unless you consider people on welfare, students, veterans, people who got helped because of the hurricanes, etc. are the richest folks.

BTW, you can thank the Democrats congress for passing the $850B bailouts recently. They’re the majority who voted for the bailouts.

[Ozzie]

This “redistribution of wealth” is called a progressive tax and is what nearly every free market country in the world uses. The more you make the more you contribute on both an absolute and percentage basis. It’s pretty simple stuff and you only pay more on the marginal rate so if you make $300k you are paying 3% more on that last $50k or $1500 per year. Wow, that’s such a drastic redistribution of wealth! And since you’re also probably fully funding your 401k and maybe some pretax insurance it’s not even that much.

Here’s how Adam Smith (who is known as the founder of free market economcis) described a progessive tax in Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

The phrase “redistribution of wealth” is yet another GOP talking point that gets the loon base all fired up, but it’s what we have all lived with in our lifetimes.

[Ozzie]

This “redistribution of wealth” is called a progressive tax and is what nearly every free market country in the world uses. The more you make the more you contribute on both an absolute and percentage basis. It’s pretty simple stuff and you only pay more on the marginal rate so if you make $300k you are paying 3% more on that last $50k or $1500 per year. Wow, that’s such a drastic redistribution of wealth! And since you’re also probably fully funding your 401k and maybe some pretax insurance it’s not even that much.

Here’s how Adam Smith (who is known as the founder of free market economcis) described a progessive tax in Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

The phrase “redistribution of wealth” is yet another GOP talking point that gets the loon base all fired up, but it’s what we have all lived with in our lifetimes.

[Ozzie]

This “redistribution of wealth” is called a progressive tax and is what nearly every free market country in the world uses. The more you make the more you contribute on both an absolute and percentage basis. It’s pretty simple stuff and you only pay more on the marginal rate so if you make $300k you are paying 3% more on that last $50k or $1500 per year. Wow, that’s such a drastic redistribution of wealth! And since you’re also probably fully funding your 401k and maybe some pretax insurance it’s not even that much.

Here’s how Adam Smith (who is known as the founder of free market economcis) described a progessive tax in Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

The phrase “redistribution of wealth” is yet another GOP talking point that gets the loon base all fired up, but it’s what we have all lived with in our lifetimes.

[Ozzie]

This “redistribution of wealth” is called a progressive tax and is what nearly every free market country in the world uses. The more you make the more you contribute on both an absolute and percentage basis. It’s pretty simple stuff and you only pay more on the marginal rate so if you make $300k you are paying 3% more on that last $50k or $1500 per year. Wow, that’s such a drastic redistribution of wealth! And since you’re also probably fully funding your 401k and maybe some pretax insurance it’s not even that much.

Here’s how Adam Smith (who is known as the founder of free market economcis) described a progessive tax in Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

The phrase “redistribution of wealth” is yet another GOP talking point that gets the loon base all fired up, but it’s what we have all lived with in our lifetimes.

[Author]

Posts