Joe Wurzelbacher comments on Senator Barack Obama's tax policy
Earlier I presented the video of Senator Obama as he spoke to a plumber about his tax plans. I discussed how I thought his answer fall flat when considered in the real world. The implications of his tax plan will not benefit the public, nor the economy in my opinion. But the plumber in question had his own answer about what he thought of the question, ‘How will your tax plan affect me?’
Not the American dream. That says a lot. A common American that provides jobs to others and works for a living. That’s who the Democratic tax plans affect. Not the CEO’s and multimillionaires that the polispeak ads and stump speeches try to convey, just people in the house next to you.
How normal is this part-business owner? Is he a mega wealthy tightwad that is unpatriotic as the Democratic ads, and potential VP Senator Biden would call him?
He lives in a home that is worth between $90,000 and $140,000 and can’t buy a bigger house because he can’t afford it. Sounds normal to me. Sounds like the people in Binghamton. Sounds like some of my readers too. And he doesn’t like what the Obama tax plan will mean to him. And as a result to his employees.
So is Senator Obama Robin Hood? Not according to this man. In perhaps the best description I have heard yet. About taxes he states clearly that Robin Hood stole from the greedy rich. Not just the rich, but the greedy to give to the poor. Small business owners are not the greedy rich that have been discussed in the media and Democratic pundits. They are not the people that the Obama tax plan would like you to believe. They are your neighbors and bosses.
In effect, what Obama is promising is that if you strive and save to be able to live the American dream of owning your own business and home, you will be punished for that achievement. That is the potential of an Obama Administration.
Does that in any way sound like a positive for the economy? Does that in any way sound like a benefit to 95% of paycheck earners?
The economy has finally taken center stage in the Presidential election. It’s finally on all the voters mind. And the Obama campaign has strived to tie Senator McCain to President Bush on this and other subjects. In that attempt they have obfuscated what the real effect of their proposals will mean.
Don’t believe me? Listen to Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber and small business part-owner. Because if the tax plan of Obama doesn’t work for him, it means that employees will ultimately be hurt as well as the economy. And are you really voting to make things worse or better in a world that doesn’t react in a vacuum?
Labels: Joe Wurzelbacher, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, small business, tax policy
posted by M. Vass @ Wednesday, October 15, 2008
9 Comments
9 Comments:
The following comments come from 1800blogger.com where I am a contributing author.
Tom Stockwell Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 1:33 am e
I owe this “Joe” a 6-pack! All that he has to do is name his favorite beverage that comes in a 6-pack, and he gets a gift certificate mailed to him by his choice of medium.
Tom Stockwell
Ft. Worth, TX
P.S. The Miller Brewery can be seen from my driveway.
Aunti Propaganda Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 11:43 pm e
Can you do the math?
Anyone earning under $150K, benefits greatly from the Obama plan. A typical $50K earner, can expect about $3K in cuts. For a $100K earner, both plans are virtually the same.
For those earning over $250K, your tax situation would be the same as it was under Reagan.
So how do you weave “redistribution” or socialist scare lingo into what was good enough for Reagan?
The esteemed Economist Magazine, the only magazine Sarah Palin claims to have read, polled 683 top US economists a couple weeks ago about the candidates economic plans. 80% of the responders rated Obama favorably. Nearly 80% rated McCain’s plans fair to poor.
McCain’s ricochetting proposals didn’t help. He sounded a bit better rehearsed tonight. But as I listen to him speak about job creation through energy independence, it sounds recently memorized, desperate, not reassuring. I don’t get the impression he has any real vision behind this empty statement.
When it comes to his pro-nuclear power stance. I have only one question for him. Why does McCain consistently vote against storing reactor waste in Arizona? If its so safe, why not in his back yard?
Nuclear is appealing in many ways, except when you get to the very dicey proposition storing it pristinely for 500,000 years. It can be recycled to a point, but eventually it has to be stored safely and nowhere near the water table for half a billion years. Anyone got a non-risky solution? Until then, perhaps we postpone that nuclear reactor suggestion.
Aunti Propaganda Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 11:43 pm e
moderation or censorship?
Aunti Propaganda
Thank you for writing.
I like the argument that you have made. It sounds great. Except it doesn’t work at all in my opinion.
But before I get to that let me mention a quote that I recently received at my Youtube channel on the video in this post.
I hardly find that to be ‘socialist scare lingo’, though I do enjoy the attempt to discredit my thoughts. And as to redistribution, the actual statement was “spread the wealth”.
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. —Thomas Jefferson”
Now as for your math. I am no economist. I am not an academic working from theory. I am a former stockbroker – for a decade – and I am a business owner. I have worked with and advised average joes and multimillionaires, and more often than not I have created more wealth than lost.
I have also discussed my expectations of the economy and stockmarket for years now. A quick search under american economy michael vass or economy 2008 2009 should allow you to see some of my more recent thoughts. And you can search and find even older thoughts. In each case I have run about 70% correct if not more, each time months in advance of the actions that occurred.
I say all that to tell you this. I believe it to be fact that no matter how much is declared to be saved by the Obama tax plan, in a downtrending economy his increased taxes will negatively impact the American economy and lead to higher unemployment and inflation.
“Now this scenario is overly simplified, given. [A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.] But the theory is sound. So please explain to me where the higher taxes benefit the 95% of people that receive a paycheck? They will get more money, but fewer of them will be working - and working less hours with higher expectations at that.”
I invite you to review this simplified but I expect accurate view of the Obama plan. I may not be an economist but I don’t see the error in this math. Nor have hundreds of business owners I have discussed the matter with. Nor has this plumber. And all of us do see how this will negatively impact workers ultimately.
As for the use of nuclear power, it seems that super green nations like France and others have no problem with it. They seem to agree with it’s use and storage of waste. And they have had no major problems, just as the multiple ships in our Navy have not.
Storing the waste is a question, and there are many answers to that question. Too many to address here. So that too is not as big an issue as you would like it to seem.
Lastly, you imply there is censorship or moderation. I am insulted by that thought. Without the use of derogatory, vulgar, racist language there is no comment that ever would be, or has been, censored on any site I control. Excuse me, I forgot to exclude spam too.
So to imply such a statement is wrong. For that I would like to receive an apology. Because any delay is simply because comments are checked by a human being to ensure spam, and foul language are not inflicted upon readers. And human beings do need sleep.
Tom,
Thank you for writing. I too think that Joe deserves a reward. He has done something that 90% of the major news media has refused to do. Ask a tough question and demand an answer from Senator Obama. This kind of questioning should have happened long ago.
Another comment from 1800blogger.com
Sally C Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 10:36 am e
Thank you Joe for being informed!!
I’m a mom at home -w- my kids. Our family is making sacrifices to do this. I read the specifics in the tax plans - not just the charts you see on the news & online. The middle class has to wake up regarding Obama’s plan. In addition to discouraging productivity as we saw in Joe’s discussion, Obama’s plan discourages moms from staying at home because it rewards double-income families by paying up to 50% of daycare costs (so under his plan our family would be eating a lot more rice & beans while paying for double income families’ Pizza deliveries - there is nothing to support stay at home moms - so much for womens’ rights!!). If this isn’t socialist I’d like to know what is!! We won’t be voting based on the tax plans; however this is one example that sheds light on Obama’s ability to pull the wool over our eyes on taxes & everything else.
Aunti Propaganda Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm e
Thank you so much for posting a dissenting opinion. My admiration blooms.
Unlike Joe, I am a small business owner.
(Joe said he aspires to buying one but he is a tax scofflaw with a state personal income tax lien against him and wasn’t at work this morning when he crankily told ABC reporters he wished he’d been born in the South and admitted he’d mistakenly joined the Natural Law Political Party once — which turned out to be a peacenik group in favor of legalizing drugs even though “natural law” is a White Supremacist catchphrase). LOL.
I employ 2-5 employees depending on our workload. I have run both candidates’ plans past my accountant. In my personal income, neither candidate offers me much more. Slight advantage to Oabma. Under McCain I’d actually pay $100 more.
For my business, which has taxable profits in excess of $500K, the bite would increase about $3K. All things considered, that would not cause any contraction in my business or discourage me from growing or hiring. Paying $200K now or $203K later? No biggie. It’s a 1.5%.
I’m happy to accept that under when my fellow citizens making say $50K will be getting Obama tax breaks of $2,500-$3,000, which is ~6%. If you’re making $50K, $3,000 is a nice bonus.
One note on a McCain claim: while statutory tax rates are 35-40%, the explosion of loop holes results in most companies actually paying about 1/2th of that. Many of the top 275 Fortune companies paid ZERO federal taxes in at least one of the past three years.
The corporate tax laws need urgent changing. Many are not carryign their fair share. McCain used to be for closing tax loopholes, when did he flip-flop on that?
I am concerned both candidates may be hold oversimplified views.
But for middle class folks earning under $250K, Obama is the clear choice for a better tax plan with lower taxes for most of us.
Aunti Propaganda,
You may not believe it but I do enjoy well thought out dissenting views. It helps to keep me honest, and well informed. And while I may be a bit boisterous in my defense of my views I do not wish to insult.
You pose a great argument in favor of Obama's tax plan. And I admit that I find more credibility in your accountant’s view than that of various economists.
While I am glad that the Obama plan seems to work for your company, I do not see it working for mine, nor many others. And as I mentioned, many other business owners do not see the benefit you state you may receive.
In addition I again go back to the thoughts of one of the Founding Fathers of this nation Thomas Jefferson, who does not agree with the thought of wealth redistribution. I too do not agree with the Government imposing an arbitrary ceiling to the success I might receive. And once Government has started on that path, what is to prevent them from ultimately dictating exactly how much each of us may earn – in essence a socialist or communist ideal.
I am not calling Obama a communist, but his ideals do reflect that ideal and can ultimately lead to that.
I agree that the corporate tax code needs to be changed. And I do not believe that in cutting taxes McCain has given up on reform or changed his position. Lower corporate taxes, which do stimulate growth and new jobs, does not mean a lack of reform nor a refusal to eliminate tax loopholes.
As for the comments you claim about Joe the plumber, I ask that you provide links to credible sources confirming what you have stated, and/or video of these statements. Without that I cannot give any weight to the accusations you have made.
And I ask why you have injected racism into this subject. At no point was race a factor, and in discussing taxes it has no real place. While I have no difficulty discussing the issue of race in America it does not belong in a discussion of taxes. To do so weakens both subjects. This is the second time you have deflected the primary conversation, and I must state that it presents a lack of confidence in your position.
Aunti Propaganda Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm e
I am puzzled how “wealth redistribution” enters into this?
Progressive tax plans are not new. We have one now but it is less progressive than at other times in American history.
They were advocated by McCain’s hero and role model, Teddy Roosevelt. They’re not about “redistribution,” — a loaded word dripping with communist/socialist overtones — they are about being equitable. Progressive taxes (giving breaks to those less able) are about helping to maintain a level playing field for an upwardly mobile middle class. I want my kids to have a shot at greatness and wealth, but if the rich get richer while the poor (and now middle!) get steadily poorer, then neither mine nor yours have quite the chance I did 30 years ago.
I believe in the American Dream. I am a product of it. Obama is also a product of that and he has the plans to preserve it.
I am also perplexed by your use of the word “accusation.”
I merely report something ironic. Joe W. appears to be a tax scofflaw! He is so seriously delinquent in his taxes that there is a tax lien filed against him. It’s funny. The tax “expert” is a tax deadbeat!
And worse– Joe W. lost his driver’s license according to the news breaks now being broadcast on news right now. They don’t say whether if it was excessive DUI’s, reckless driving, excessive points or refusals to pay fines.
You may check yourself in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=LN200701803-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0
After continuing delinquency, the state of Ohio filed the lien pf $1,1892.98 against Joe Wurzelbacher on January 26, 2007, and the payment remains outstanding. call the court clerk and they will be happy to confirm this as they did to me
It is Joe himself who injected race by speaking of his former political affiliation and how chagrined he was by his mistake. “Natural Law” did not in that case refer to the white supremacist ideology that it is the natural law for whites to be superior to other races and males to be superior to females. To further cement that free-associative theme, Mr. Wurzelbacher (or “burger” as McCain called him) added that he wished he had been born in the South.
It does go to the witness’s credibility. He’s got a motive for his spurious and contra-factual assertions. He doesn’t make over $200,000 and he is not a small business owner, nor is he in a position to become one. He just…..lied! He’s not an honorable citizen. Another case of improper vetting plaguing McCain.
You and I may be everymen — or women — of a type, but Joe isn’t. I dare say the average person is not against their parents receiving social security nor does the average good American join fringe political parties because they think they’re racist, I would hazard to assume you have not lost your driver’s lisesnse and most of us pay our taxes or we wouldn’t be discussing them here.
Bravo for you for having this forum.
For examples of the Natural Law position in white supremacist ideology I refer you to:
The Ideology of White Supremacy
James W. Vander Zanden
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Jun. - Sep., 1959), pp. 385-402
The Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right
Jeffrey Kaplan
pp.474, 485 and many others
Joe W’s testy admission of once having belonged to the Natural Law Party (which he apparently mistook as a white supremacist group) was in his televised ABC interview. I have seen various parts of it rebroadcast throughout the day. Perhaps a tape would be available from ABC.
In that interview, the snarlier, far less pleasant Joe also expounds on his distaste for social security.
The big secret? Obama is a centrist. He is to the right of the supreme court on the death penalty. He is opposed to same sex marriage. And I can keep going. The liberals in his party are very disappointed. His so called liberal voting record is primarily because Obama has been absent from a great many votes since beginning his campaign 20 months ago.
Free-marketers can relax. His chief advisers are Austan Goolsby and Jason Furman. Warren Buffet is on board his economic team. Other advisers are the brilliant former Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers. Also Laura Tyson and my favorite……Nouriel Roubin, the one who wrote on the 12 steps of systemic global meltdown in February. RGE monitor. Great macro-economic intelligence.
Aunti Propaganda,
I mention wealth redistribution first because it has been a main theme of the Democratic Party for some decades now. The other reason is that when Senator Obama states that Americans should be forced to "share the wealth" because he and his Party like the idea, he is speaking on that issue. Which I find unappealing and prone to create comparison to communism.
That goes beyond progressive taxes, which it is true we have today. And it is equally true that the main argument is how that progressive tax is aportioned.
While I agree that the youth should have a fair shot at attaining wealth, I do not believe it should be on my or anyone's back. In addition I do not believe that once thay have acheived success, after years of hard work, that they should be arbitraily penalized with a ceiling on what they can earn, nor having an unfair amount of their money being take for redistribution to whatever the current President believes is worthy.
Yes, Obama is a product of the American dream. I am as well. And each of us worked for the gains we have today, which is why we appreciate them and are so willing to try to ensure their saftey for the future. Because what is earned is appreciated, what is given for no reason is taken for granted.
As for accusation, I must be very stringent when a commentor states controversial facts. I had not seen ABC News, as some readers I am sure had not. And I was unaware of the facts you disclosed. Thuse they are accusations until they can be verified. So I thank you for providing me, and my readers, the opportunity to check for ourselves.
Now I don't care about the driving violations of the plumber. The tax issues are important and relevant to me. It does give a disposition and motivation for his question and comment. But it does not invalidate them or the answer he received.
And as for the injection of race you again cross a fuzzy line. As I did not see the interview you mention, and having only seen the question he asked Obama, and the response he made to Neil Cavuto, I have only your comment to view it from.
If he is a racist it again goes to a motivation to vote against Obama, but it does not invalidate the question of how effective the tax plan is. Thus his dislike of Obama's plan is not spurious, though it may be unwarranted.
And to be more accurate, as I have found I was a bit inaccurate in my initial information, he is not a liscenced plumber, does not currently make over $250,000, and is reported as interested in purchasing the company he has worked for over the last 12 years.
His question to Obama did convey most of those facts, thus his question was not based in a lie.
And again you question his disparaging comments on Social Security, which I have not seen nor read. Even so, that has nothing to do with the credibility of the question of the effectiveness of a tax plan based in increasing corporate taxes. You come close if not over the line in discrediting him for reasons of a personal dislike of him and not the question at hand.
The President of the United States is President of all Americans, racists and tightwads alike. The President should not, and often cannot let their personal preferences interfere with what is the best interest of the nation and/or law of the nation.
Lastly you are incorrect in stating that Obama is a centrist. In every evaluation by an independant organization the actual votes Obama has made since entering the Senate, and while he was in office in Illinois have proven Obam to be the most liberal Senator. That is something Obama has not denied, and has played to during the Primaries. His moves to the center have occured as he secured the nomination, a tactic every Presidential candidate employs to be elected.
But it is equally factual to state that in comparison McCain is far closer to the center than Obama. He has a proven record of bi-partisan efforts in the Senate, has several allies in both political Parties, and has notably gone against his own Party to engage in laws he felt were in the nations best interest. Most forget that up until he started to run for President, and moreso once he lead the Republican Primaries, McCain was lauded by the Democratic Party. The same cannot be said by Senator Obama.
And while Obama has an impressive group of advisors, he makes the final decisions. And his record points towards issues that conservatives, free-market supporters, and business owners will have concerns about.
Comment as found on Presidential Race Blog
Dan
October 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Please, tell me how trickle down economics has worked? I only see grief and despair. Enlighten me?
Dan,
To understand what “trickle down economics” has meant to America you first have to understand what preceded it. During the Carter Administration the Prime rate was over 21%, which is the highest it ever was. That means that if you had a credit card that charged Prime plus the common 15% you would pay 36% total. Or in another way a mortgage would cost 25% for a person with perfect credit at a minimum. Productivity growth was under 1% for the nation.
Obviously this was a bad time to run a business or to just have to pay bills.
Regan’s economic plans, that were roundly hated by Democrats, brought down inflation and stimulated growth. It is because of these actions that PC’s became small enough to be used in home markets, and affordable enough for the average person (though they initially were only available to high end markets). At the same time there was growth in telecommunications that spurred the use of pagers and ultimately created the cell phone technology we use today. Without the change in economic plans investments into businesses from the top percentages of Americans would never have occurred and research into new technology – and thus creation of new businesses – would never have happened. In effect, without the new trickle down plans the internet would likely not exists, or in the form it does today at least.
So when people say trickle down does not work, they generally are misinformed or do not look at the proper timeframe. Economic policies take on average 6 – 9 months to start to effect business in general, and the full effect often is not felt for 2-3 years after a change is made.
If we cut the reason to invest in business, ala the double in capital gains taxes, corporations will not get the funds they need to research and develop new technologies and thus kill off new job creation. Further by increasing the corporate tax rates businesses will have to cut jobs and/or increase prices to maintain the same profit levels. That means either inflation or higher unemployment, or both.
The reality is that Senator Obama’s tax plans, including windfall taxation, are all reflective of policies enacted by President Carter. They did not work then, and in all likelihood will not work now. IF Obama is elected, and is enabled by Congress to pass all the plans he has, inflation will double, growth will drop in half, and unemployment will rocket and the nation will be far worse off than what any person complaining today (not without reason) experiences.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home