WWTBAM Bored

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth." Karl Marx would be so proud....

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl= ... a=N&tab=wv#

dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

ne1410s wrote:dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

If this plumber does make over 250K a year, then more power to him. I'm sure he works hard and long for that. And under Obama's plan, people can work less hard and fewer hours to make as much as his after-tax income, and they get to do it at his expense. Why don't we just rename the Democratic Party the Socialist Party? It would be a much more accurate name.

And if you believe Obama's plan that he is only going to raise taxes on those making over 250K, then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Well, if you call a plumber to your house he tells you how much something costs to repair and you pay it.

If you take your car to a mechanic to get it fixed, you pay it.

Many times people go to an Emergency Room and see a doctor and for some reason they don't feel obligated to pay the bill.

I am not dissing plumbers and mechanics, there is something wrong when people value their contributions to society more than a physician's contribution.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Well, if you call a plumber to your house he tells you how much something costs to repair and you pay it.

If you take your car to a mechanic to get it fixed, you pay it.

Many times people go to an Emergency Room and see a doctor and for some reason they don't feel obligated to pay the bill.

I am not dissing plumbers and mechanics, there is something wrong when people value their contributions to society more than a physician's contribution.

???

ne1410s wrote:dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

Lawyer wakes up one morning to find water all over his bathroom. He calls the plumber, who comes out and spends an hour fixing stuff, then hands him a bill for $300.

"$300 an hour? Holy crap. I'm a LAWYER and I don't make $300/hour"

Spoiler

"Neither did I, when I was a lawyer"

ne1410s wrote:dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

What Palin did was NOT a windfall profit tax but increasing rolyalties from oil taken out of government land. It had nothing to do with how much money the oil companies made, only what they paid for the commodity.


But why introduce the truth into the debate?

bit:

What Palin did was NOT a windfall profit tax but increasing rolyalties from oil taken out of government land. It had nothing to do with how much money the oil companies made, only what they paid for the commodity.


But why introduce the truth into the debate?

Yeah, no, I call bullshit. Spin it all you want, it was a tax.

ne1410s wrote:dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

The guy said he was buying a company. I'm guessing that he's not expecting to make $250,000 purely from his own efforts as a plumber, but in part by enjoying a markup on the time of his employees.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Presumably he's on the hook for their salaries (and benefits?) whether he finds clients or not. He's taking an economic risk, so I don't have a problem with him enjoying the profit. But I also don't have a problem with restoring his tax rate to the rate he paid during the Clinton Administration so that his employees can enjoy a tax cut. --Bob

ne1410s wrote:bit:

What Palin did was NOT a windfall profit tax but increasing rolyalties from oil taken out of government land. It had nothing to do with how much money the oil companies made, only what they paid for the commodity.


But why introduce the truth into the debate?

Yeah, no, I call bullshit. Spin it all you want, it was a tax.

Man, I don't like to agree with BiT on poltics, but the bs is on you.

You are the one who included the term "windfall profits" tax - that is different from an extraction tax.

Bob78164 wrote:

ne1410s wrote:dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

The guy said he was buying a company. I'm guessing that he's not expecting to make $250,000 purely from his own efforts as a plumber, but in part by enjoying a markup on the time of his employees.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Presumably he's on the hook for their salaries (and benefits?) whether he finds clients or not. He's taking an economic risk, so I don't have a problem with him enjoying the profit. But I also don't have a problem with restoring his tax rate to the rate he paid during the Clinton Administration so that his employees can enjoy a tax cut. --Bob

If said employees were actually going to get a tax cut that's worth a damn, I could almost agree with you.

ne1410s wrote:bit:

What Palin did was NOT a windfall profit tax but increasing rolyalties from oil taken out of government land. It had nothing to do with how much money the oil companies made, only what they paid for the commodity.


But why introduce the truth into the debate?

Yeah, no, I call bullshit. Spin it all you want, it was a tax.

You are wrong, but what else is new. Read the legislation. It is called a 'tax' but it is increased rolyalty. Oil taken out of private land was not subjec to the 'tax'. It is simply a royalty adjustment on a co-owned project.

You can call it a tax but it is a royalty.
You can call Obama a visionary, but he is a socialist.

gtg:

You are the one who included the term "windfall profits" tax - that is different from an extraction tax.

And if the price of oil had gone down? The price skyrocketed and she wanted her piece of the action. Tax is a tax is a tax. And, btw, you can never go wrong disagreeing with bit on anything.

ne1410s wrote:gtg:

You are the one who included the term "windfall profits" tax - that is different from an extraction tax.

And if the price of oil had gone down? The price skyrocketed and she wanted her piece of the action. Tax is a tax is a tax. And, btw, you can never go wrong disagreeing with bit on anything.

But Tex is right- it's not the same thing as Obama's windfall profits tax, which would be applied whether the oil companies profited from oil extracted from private lands OR public lands.

ne1410s wrote:gtg:

You are the one who included the term "windfall profits" tax - that is different from an extraction tax.

And if the price of oil had gone down? The price skyrocketed and she wanted her piece of the action. Tax is a tax is a tax. And, btw, you can never go wrong disagreeing with bit on anything.

I'm afraid I've gotta agree with BiT on this one. In economic effect, this isn't the state acting in its capacity as a taxing authority. It's the state acting in its capacity as a landowner. --Bob

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:

ne1410s wrote:dh:

A plumber asked Obama about why he would have to pay more taxes under his plan. Obama gave him an answer out of the communist playbook, telling him that he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Wow! A plumber that makes over 250K!! However, Obama did institute a windfall profit tax on the oil companies and spread the wealth to his constituents. No wait--that was Gov. Palin. My bad.

Lawyer wakes up one morning to find water all over his bathroom. He calls the plumber, who comes out and spends an hour fixing stuff, then hands him a bill for $300.

"$300 an hour? Holy crap. I'm a LAWYER and I don't make $300/hour"

Spoiler

"Neither did I, when I was a lawyer"

This reminds me of one of my fave episodes of Frasier when Frasier and Niles decided that they were going to be handy and fix their own leaking toilet. Which ended up with them having to pay two plumbers golden time on the weekend to fix the complete mess they made.

Come to find out, the plumber brothers had gone to school with them and they were feeling all superior about the guys who harassed them in school just being plumbers while they were psychologists. So Niles starts bragging to the one in his grade (a pre-Scrubs John C. McGinley) about his Mercedes, etc. John C. says 'oh, yeah, that's a good one, blah blah.' Incredulous Niles: YOU have an SL583 (I'm making up model numbers)?? John C.: Well, I used to but now I've got the LX48503. Niles: (gulp) The, the, the, BIG ONE???

Bob78164 wrote: Nothing wrong with that, of course. Presumably he's on the hook for their salaries (and benefits?) whether he finds clients or not. He's taking an economic risk, so I don't have a problem with him enjoying the profit. But I also don't have a problem with restoring his tax rate to the rate he paid during the Clinton Administration so that his employees can enjoy a tax cut. --Bob

The problem is that Obama chose to use a very unfortunate phrase "spread the wealth" in connection with what he proposed to do. To a whole lot of Americans, those three words sum up socialism and most Americans don't want "socialism" because they associate it with Marxism or Communism. As I've often said, I don't believe Obama is in any way a socialist and I don't expect to see much if any of these magical new tax cuts of his actually go into effect. His comments show what happens when he gets off his prepared speeches and actually tries to have a conversation with people. His lack of basic knowledge about how economics works trips him up again and again.

However, the Republicans haven't been able to make the Obama=socialist attack work and Obama has given them the best tool of all to use, the words coming out of his own mouth. I expect to hear McCain call him out on this in the debate tonight and for the clip to be a big part of the Republican attack the next three weeks.

bob#########:

I'm afraid I've gotta agree with BiT on this one. In economic effect, this isn't the state acting in its capacity as a taxing authority. It's the state acting in its capacity as a landowner. --Bob

And I respectfully disagree:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... tax07.html

Obama and the Dems always push this idea that we must raise corporate taxes, because the rich companies don't pay their fair share.

I think it's an easy concept to understand, so I don't know why more liberals don't get it:

BUSINESSES, COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. PERIOD.

If a business entity is faced with an increase in taxes, it has a few choices. None of them are just to pay the taxes.

1. They can raise the price of the goods or services they produce or provide. Then they take the money from that increase and turn it over to the government. RESULT: The customers or consumers of what they produce end up paying the tax increase in higher prices. Other companies that may need that good or service end up paying more for it, so they're forced to raise their prices to the end consumer (ie: you and me).
2. They can cut their expenses without having to raise the price of their goods or services. They can use that supposed savings to turn over to the government. RESULT: Chances are someone is going to lose their job.
3. They can seek to move their operations to a location where the tax rate is less. Or they can move parts of their business to places where it is less expensive to do so. That's why cities and states that want to attract commerce always LOWER their business tax rates. RESULT: Tax base reduction or Overseas Outsourcing.

So when Obama says that 95% won't have a tax increase, he's misrepresenting the truth. We will ultimately pay more. Under the current tax system, only the end consumer ever pays federal tax.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Obama and the Dems always push this idea that we must raise corporate taxes, because the rich companies don't pay their fair share.

I think it's an easy concept to understand, so I don't know why more liberals don't get it:

BUSINESSES, COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. PERIOD.

If a business entity is faced with an increase in taxes, it has a few choices. None of them are just to pay the taxes.

1. They can raise the price of the goods or services they produce or provide. Then they take the money from that increase and turn it over to the government. RESULT: The customers or consumers of what they produce end up paying the tax increase in higher prices. Other companies that may need that good or service end up paying more for it, so they're forced to raise their prices to the end consumer (ie: you and me).
2. They can cut their expenses without having to raise the price of their goods or services. They can use that supposed savings to turn over to the government. RESULT: Chances are someone is going to lose their job.
3. They can seek to move their operations to a location where the tax rate is less. Or they can move parts of their business to places where it is less expensive to do so. That's why cities and states that want to attract commerce always LOWER their business tax rates. RESULT: Tax base reduction or Overseas Outsourcing.

So when Obama says that 95% won't have a tax increase, he's misrepresenting the truth. We will ultimately pay more. Under the current tax system, only the end consumer ever pays federal tax.

You forgot:

4. They can accept lower after-tax profits. --Bob

ne1410s wrote:bob#########:

I'm afraid I've gotta agree with BiT on this one. In economic effect, this isn't the state acting in its capacity as a taxing authority. It's the state acting in its capacity as a landowner. --Bob

And I respectfully disagree:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... tax07.html

Here's the key quote:

Seattle Times wrote:The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.

Actually, there's an extent to which you're correct. Apparently (again according to the article), the payments are accounted for as state taxes on federal income tax returns. I strongly suspect, though, that the federal tax effect would be the same if they were accounted for as royalty payments to a private landowner. --Bob

If I were Obama's debate coach, and I were preparing him for tonight's debate, I would absolutely LOVE to hear John McCain try to throw "share the wealth" in my face. Because I would tell Mr. Obama to say the educated, Harvard Law Review version of "Oh yeah? Better to share the wealth than to share the debt, Mr. Savings and Loan and now Wall Street Bailout guy."

Spreading the wealth is a very American ideal. Heck, if we didn't invent the middle class, we sure improved on the idea. We didn't do that by inventing ways to keep the poor in poverty while the rich always got richer.

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's ideas on executing it, but anyone who thinks "spread the wealth" is unAmerican socialism is not a student of American history. Not that very many people are, any more.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Obama and the Dems always push this idea that we must raise corporate taxes, because the rich companies don't pay their fair share.

I think it's an easy concept to understand, so I don't know why more liberals don't get it:

BUSINESSES, COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. PERIOD.

If a business entity is faced with an increase in taxes, it has a few choices. None of them are just to pay the taxes.

1. They can raise the price of the goods or services they produce or provide. Then they take the money from that increase and turn it over to the government. RESULT: The customers or consumers of what they produce end up paying the tax increase in higher prices. Other companies that may need that good or service end up paying more for it, so they're forced to raise their prices to the end consumer (ie: you and me).
2. They can cut their expenses without having to raise the price of their goods or services. They can use that supposed savings to turn over to the government. RESULT: Chances are someone is going to lose their job.
3. They can seek to move their operations to a location where the tax rate is less. Or they can move parts of their business to places where it is less expensive to do so. That's why cities and states that want to attract commerce always LOWER their business tax rates. RESULT: Tax base reduction or Overseas Outsourcing.

So when Obama says that 95% won't have a tax increase, he's misrepresenting the truth. We will ultimately pay more. Under the current tax system, only the end consumer ever pays federal tax.

You forgot:

4. They can accept lower after-tax profits. --Bob

Right Bob. An ebbing tide lowers all ships. We don't need any growth in this country as long as the government is getting it's share. Did ANY of that make any sense to you? Think it all the way through.....

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Right Bob. An ebbing tide lowers all ships. We don't need any growth in this country as long as the government is getting it's share. Did ANY of that make any sense to you? Think it all the way through.....

Taxes buy services, flock. They buy regulations that maintain a level playing field, which in turn engenders confidence in the markets. They buy enforcement of those regulations as well. Those services may well be worth more than the cost of the taxes. If you think these things lack value (even to honest businesses that don't need to be told to be honest), try selling baby formula made in China right now.

I think that the American people (at least, those who aren't ideologically opposed to all regulation, all the time) are starting to viscerally understand the value of intelligent regulation in a way that, prior to the current financial crisis, they may not have before. --Bob