OT – Joe the Plumber

[SD Realtor]

breeze breeze breeze…

Okay let’s see. I asked you this:

“Why should someone who has worked hard and earned wealth have to contribute more to the government then anybody else?”

Your answer was essentially, a statement that many wealthy are born into wealth and many impoverished cannot escape it. Then you went into Obama raising the taxes for only the super wealthy by a few points so it’s not a big deal.

Breeze, you did not answer my question at all. Let me ask again, this time in capital letters so maybe you will answer it directly. Really that is all I ask okay?

WHY SHOULD SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED HARD AND EARNED WEALTH HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE GOVERNMENT THEN ANYBODY ELSE?

Please Breeze, simply answer that if you can with logic. Remember I am an engineer so logic is applicable here not emotion.

****

Let me break down the answer you gave me. First let’s talk about the impoverished that you brought up. Why do you not include impoverished all over the world? Why do you limit the argument to only impoverished in the United States? So is it our collective responsibility to eliminate poverty in the USA? Why is it only the resppnsibility of the super rich? Or even just the rich? How bout the middle class? Isn’t it thier responsibility as well? Isn’t it responsible for EVERYONE who is not impoverished to then raise the standards for the poor. While idealistic this is simply carrying YOUR argument to a very logical conclusion. Point out my flaw please.

Yeah some people are born into wealth. Some people are born in the Sudan as well or in Nazi Germany. That is never going to change. This is randomness, it is entropy, it is what happens in a random world. Seriously Breeze come on and try to argue logically rather then in an emotional manner. Look, if you want to be bitter at those who have a leg up on you personally in life due to being born into it, or family wealth or something like that, then your destiny is one I pity. Guess what, tall people get better jobs then short people. Attractive people get more breaks then ugly people. Are all tall people assholes? Should they be taxed more?

So what I get from your answer is that the justification for higher taxes on only those who are wealthy is

a) Because many wealthy people are born into it and have unfair advantages, OR
b) Because many impoverished will stay that way and it is very hard to break through a poverty cycle. (however this only should apply to the US correct?) (I am just trying to get the facts stright)

**************

Let me go on. You said:

“All Obama proposes to do is to increase the marginal wages of the super-rich a few percentage points. It’s not nearly as big of a deal as all the faux conservatives/capitalists make it out to be.”

No Breeze this is not true. I have already seen my accountant to discuss this. Lets say for instance I make an engineers salary of 130k. Lets say I have a real estate business on the side, and I pull in another 100k. Lets say my real estate biz is an S corp and I pay myself just like any employee. So now lets just look at social security and medicare ONLY. Just those taxes alone. Right now we hit the limit on contributions to social security and medicare at say 100k. Just picking a nice easy number right? Now lets say the limits to social security and medicare are wiped out. So now on my engineers salary I would contribute 6.2% and 1.45% as an employee on 130k rather then 100k. That is 7.65% on 30k which is a little over $2000 bucks Breeze. Now lets look at the extra 100k I make working on weekends, nights, and any other free time. So now I pay an extra 7.45% on 100k which is $7450. Oh yeah, since my S corp pays me, the scorp has to contribute another $7450 as well. So lets see, we are now at about $17,000 and we haven’t touched marginal tax rate or cap gains as well Breeze. I don’t even make 250k!

So please check your numbers. One day perhaps you will own a small business or work two jobs and maybe you will see what I mean.

*******************

Finally I asked you:

“Why should you pay less the me?”

Your answer is, and I quote,

“Somebody’s got to pay and I’m of the opinion that the super-rich have not been paying their fair share and should pay more. Feel free to vote for McCain if you want to see more tax cuts for the super-wealthy”

Do you not get it Breeze? You have all of this ire and angst against the super wealthy or the wealthy or whoever has it better then you. Guess what, there will always be people wealthier then you. There will always be those born into family, those who catch breaks, those who cheat, those who are destined for lives of luxury. The basic tenet of 12 step programs are to let go of what you cannot control.

Look, I absolutely loathe the Paris Hiltons of the world, the Mozillo crooks, white collar thieves, and the like just as much as you do. Yet that is not a reason to draw an arbitrary line and force EVERYONE on one side of the line to support those on the other side of the line. It doesn’t work that way for so many reasons.

What we have RIGHT NOW is not fair. I don’t like the tax loopholes at all but they are there. Our tax code is poorly written, there is no doubt about that. Yet our difference of opinion is much less about the tax code and much more about basic ideology.

Forget about the candidates and the elections if you can. Just try to answer the question I posed in caps above.

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not.
[/quote]
Look at nearly all the successful people business people in America and most didn’t either go to college or were not geeks. Gates, Dell, etc. And for every Grove with PhD, I can name 10000 successful business owners.

If you look at the Pres Bush, Kerry, Biden, Powell, Mozillo, Palin, etc, these people are not the A students, they are mediocre students, many somehow getting Ivy League degrees. (Obama one of the few with decent grades, but who has NO street smarts or common sense, which cost him the election. How did that honors degree work out for him, whipped by the plumber!!)

The resentment of the wealthy may come from bailouts and the lack of any “personal responsibility”. “Those fat cats keep all the profits, but me Bob the taxpayer has to pay when he screws up”. We cant have any rules because Angelo and friends wont risk anything unless he knows that PIGGS will bail him if the market forces creates imbalances that cause rapid deceleration of job growth in their empire.

FLU touched upon Asians working really hard and not advancing as fast/far. If you want to get stuck in this predicament, just study hard, become a geek and end up a pathetic W2 casualty that will get taxed higher and higher by the man to pay for unlimited deficits. Our culture (and tax code) has deemed education passe. Like SDR said so eloquently, deal with it.

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not.
[/quote]
Look at nearly all the successful people business people in America and most didn’t either go to college or were not geeks. Gates, Dell, etc. And for every Grove with PhD, I can name 10000 successful business owners.

If you look at the Pres Bush, Kerry, Biden, Powell, Mozillo, Palin, etc, these people are not the A students, they are mediocre students, many somehow getting Ivy League degrees. (Obama one of the few with decent grades, but who has NO street smarts or common sense, which cost him the election. How did that honors degree work out for him, whipped by the plumber!!)

The resentment of the wealthy may come from bailouts and the lack of any “personal responsibility”. “Those fat cats keep all the profits, but me Bob the taxpayer has to pay when he screws up”. We cant have any rules because Angelo and friends wont risk anything unless he knows that PIGGS will bail him if the market forces creates imbalances that cause rapid deceleration of job growth in their empire.

FLU touched upon Asians working really hard and not advancing as fast/far. If you want to get stuck in this predicament, just study hard, become a geek and end up a pathetic W2 casualty that will get taxed higher and higher by the man to pay for unlimited deficits. Our culture (and tax code) has deemed education passe. Like SDR said so eloquently, deal with it.

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not.
[/quote]
Look at nearly all the successful people business people in America and most didn’t either go to college or were not geeks. Gates, Dell, etc. And for every Grove with PhD, I can name 10000 successful business owners.

If you look at the Pres Bush, Kerry, Biden, Powell, Mozillo, Palin, etc, these people are not the A students, they are mediocre students, many somehow getting Ivy League degrees. (Obama one of the few with decent grades, but who has NO street smarts or common sense, which cost him the election. How did that honors degree work out for him, whipped by the plumber!!)

The resentment of the wealthy may come from bailouts and the lack of any “personal responsibility”. “Those fat cats keep all the profits, but me Bob the taxpayer has to pay when he screws up”. We cant have any rules because Angelo and friends wont risk anything unless he knows that PIGGS will bail him if the market forces creates imbalances that cause rapid deceleration of job growth in their empire.

FLU touched upon Asians working really hard and not advancing as fast/far. If you want to get stuck in this predicament, just study hard, become a geek and end up a pathetic W2 casualty that will get taxed higher and higher by the man to pay for unlimited deficits. Our culture (and tax code) has deemed education passe. Like SDR said so eloquently, deal with it.

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not.
[/quote]
Look at nearly all the successful people business people in America and most didn’t either go to college or were not geeks. Gates, Dell, etc. And for every Grove with PhD, I can name 10000 successful business owners.

If you look at the Pres Bush, Kerry, Biden, Powell, Mozillo, Palin, etc, these people are not the A students, they are mediocre students, many somehow getting Ivy League degrees. (Obama one of the few with decent grades, but who has NO street smarts or common sense, which cost him the election. How did that honors degree work out for him, whipped by the plumber!!)

The resentment of the wealthy may come from bailouts and the lack of any “personal responsibility”. “Those fat cats keep all the profits, but me Bob the taxpayer has to pay when he screws up”. We cant have any rules because Angelo and friends wont risk anything unless he knows that PIGGS will bail him if the market forces creates imbalances that cause rapid deceleration of job growth in their empire.

FLU touched upon Asians working really hard and not advancing as fast/far. If you want to get stuck in this predicament, just study hard, become a geek and end up a pathetic W2 casualty that will get taxed higher and higher by the man to pay for unlimited deficits. Our culture (and tax code) has deemed education passe. Like SDR said so eloquently, deal with it.

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor]”
The bottom line is that is much harder to be successful then not. To make change in yourself is HARD. It is much easier to hope for, to advocate, to force change in others then in yourself.

Life is not really fair. You either adapt or you do not.
[/quote]
Look at nearly all the successful people business people in America and most didn’t either go to college or were not geeks. Gates, Dell, etc. And for every Grove with PhD, I can name 10000 successful business owners.

If you look at the Pres Bush, Kerry, Biden, Powell, Mozillo, Palin, etc, these people are not the A students, they are mediocre students, many somehow getting Ivy League degrees. (Obama one of the few with decent grades, but who has NO street smarts or common sense, which cost him the election. How did that honors degree work out for him, whipped by the plumber!!)

The resentment of the wealthy may come from bailouts and the lack of any “personal responsibility”. “Those fat cats keep all the profits, but me Bob the taxpayer has to pay when he screws up”. We cant have any rules because Angelo and friends wont risk anything unless he knows that PIGGS will bail him if the market forces creates imbalances that cause rapid deceleration of job growth in their empire.

FLU touched upon Asians working really hard and not advancing as fast/far. If you want to get stuck in this predicament, just study hard, become a geek and end up a pathetic W2 casualty that will get taxed higher and higher by the man to pay for unlimited deficits. Our culture (and tax code) has deemed education passe. Like SDR said so eloquently, deal with it.

[patientlywaiting]

I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.

[patientlywaiting]

I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.

[patientlywaiting]

I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.

[patientlywaiting]

I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.

[patientlywaiting]

I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.

[an]

[quote=patientlywaiting]I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, our tax system is not a black and white system, where you’re either wealthy or you’re broke. It’s not as black and white as Lord and subjects. There are many who are actually in the gray area.

What do you consider wealth? Is it income you get from your W-2 or is it $ you made from investments? By your logic, if your family make $100k or above, you’re in the top 85%, should you pay 85% of hte taxes as well? Remember, median household income in America is around 40-50k. That’s dual income making that much. To many people, if your family make over $100k, you’re wealthy and are in the top 85% already. Is a family making $100k in Manhattan wealthier than a family in Omaha making $60k?

[an]

[quote=patientlywaiting]I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, our tax system is not a black and white system, where you’re either wealthy or you’re broke. It’s not as black and white as Lord and subjects. There are many who are actually in the gray area.

What do you consider wealth? Is it income you get from your W-2 or is it $ you made from investments? By your logic, if your family make $100k or above, you’re in the top 85%, should you pay 85% of hte taxes as well? Remember, median household income in America is around 40-50k. That’s dual income making that much. To many people, if your family make over $100k, you’re wealthy and are in the top 85% already. Is a family making $100k in Manhattan wealthier than a family in Omaha making $60k?

[an]

[quote=patientlywaiting]I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, our tax system is not a black and white system, where you’re either wealthy or you’re broke. It’s not as black and white as Lord and subjects. There are many who are actually in the gray area.

What do you consider wealth? Is it income you get from your W-2 or is it $ you made from investments? By your logic, if your family make $100k or above, you’re in the top 85%, should you pay 85% of hte taxes as well? Remember, median household income in America is around 40-50k. That’s dual income making that much. To many people, if your family make over $100k, you’re wealthy and are in the top 85% already. Is a family making $100k in Manhattan wealthier than a family in Omaha making $60k?

[an]

[quote=patientlywaiting]I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, our tax system is not a black and white system, where you’re either wealthy or you’re broke. It’s not as black and white as Lord and subjects. There are many who are actually in the gray area.

What do you consider wealth? Is it income you get from your W-2 or is it $ you made from investments? By your logic, if your family make $100k or above, you’re in the top 85%, should you pay 85% of hte taxes as well? Remember, median household income in America is around 40-50k. That’s dual income making that much. To many people, if your family make over $100k, you’re wealthy and are in the top 85% already. Is a family making $100k in Manhattan wealthier than a family in Omaha making $60k?

[Author]

Posts