Just one blogger's comment, but very perceptive . . .

[Michael Tee]

 . . .  and clever:

<<I thought John McCain was more effective and coherent tonight than in the previous two debates. He mostly controlled the terms of the debate, in part by defining the average American as a plumber who earns more than $250,000 a year.>>

It's funny, an obvious insight that everyone missed and yet it just nails McCain's argument and at the same time shows the absurdity of it.

sorry, the reference - I forgot to cut and paste, but it's Jonathan Chait, a hufpo blogger.

[richpo64]

The most interesting perspective most people get from this his how utterly ignorant liberals are about business AND how they will personally attack ANYONE who dares to ask a simple fucking question.

The guy asks a question and he's dragged off by the Gang of Three Truth Squad.

[Michael Tee]

<<The most interesting perspective most people get from this his how utterly ignorant liberals are about business AND how they will personally attack ANYONE who dares to ask a simple fucking question.

<<The guy asks a question and he's dragged off by the Gang of Three Truth Squad.>>

The guy just sounds like a plant.  How come any black voter can be investigated as a potential fraud at the polls, but I can't even suspect Joe of being a plant?   And as it turns out, he's a phony and either a scofflaw or an actual criminal, depending on how the Trades law is worded.  Well, if my whole contention is that McCain and his entourage are crooks and frauds, why can't I show that their supporters come from the same kind of people that they are?  Did I invent the politics of negative personal attacks?  Ever hear of the Lewinsky Affair?  Ever hear of Swift-Boating?

[sirs]

<<The most interesting perspective most people get from this his how utterly ignorant liberals are about business AND how they will personally attack ANYONE who dares to ask a simple fucking question.  The guy asks a question and he's dragged off by the Gang of Three Truth Squad.>>

The guy just sounds like a plant.  

*must fit template....must fit template*

[Brassmask]

<<I thought John McCain was more effective and coherent tonight than in the previous two debates. He mostly controlled the terms of the debate, in part by defining the average American as a plumber who earns more than $250,000 a year.>>

I agree.  I also found it weird the way McCain kept congratulating "Joe" on his being "rich".  Was he being sarcastic?  Was he seriously saying that "Joe" was "rich"?  I couldn't tell.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<I agree.  I also found it weird the way McCain kept congratulating "Joe" on his being "rich".  Was he being sarcastic?  Was he seriously saying that "Joe" was "rich"?  I couldn't tell.>>

I think it goes back to McCain's earlier definition of "rich."  Nobody's rich unless their annual income is at least $5 million (or as McCain pronounces it, "five mee-yun.")  McCain's message was that this guy was just another Joe Six-Pack and not one of the rich, because he was "only" earning a quarter-million a year.  See, if THIS guy is Joe Six-Pack, then all the REAL Joe Six-Packs think, "He's one of us, McCain's on HIS side, so McCain must be on OUR side."  So a crooked politician who's really for the rich enlists a bunch of working-stiffs who mistakenly think he's on their side.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The real Joe the semi-plumber is unlikely to make any $250K per year, and I would think that within six years, anyone who wanted to attain the rank of journeyman plumber should have done so. I imagine that Joe is a lileable sort of guy who likes to embellish the truth and probably is rejoicing in his 15 minutes of fame.

I don't see any reason to consider him a plant so much as considering McCain to be a bit of a dunce for swallowing his rather bogus tale whole.

[Plane]

. . .  and clever:

<<I thought John McCain was more effective and coherent tonight than in the previous two debates. He mostly controlled the terms of the debate, in part by defining the average American as a plumber who earns more than $250,000 a year.>>

It's funny, an obvious insight that everyone missed and yet it just nails McCain's argument and at the same time shows the absurdity of it.

sorry, the reference - I forgot to cut and paste, but it's Jonathan Chait, a hufpo blogger.

A majority of working Americans are employed by guys like Joe. Two or twenty at a time.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't see any reason to consider him a plant so much as considering McCain to be a bit of a dunce for swallowing his rather bogus tale whole.>>

No, nor do I at this point.  The original blog had the guy possibly connected to Charles Keating.

<<A majority of working Americans are employed by guys like Joe. Two or twenty at a time.>>

Yeah, but less than 5% of the Joe-type employers are taking home over $250K per year.  Their overhead eats into their bottom line, and as XO has pointed out, good accountants can keep what's left under $250K by expensing a lot of arguably personal expenditures.

[BT]

Obama's plan is a fraud. He can't give a tax cut to 85% of working families, and now you guys advocate that those who earn 250k file fraudulent returns.

[Michael Tee]

<<Obama's plan is a fraud. He can't give a tax cut to 85% of working families>>

Why not, if the increased taxes on the higher income brackets make up for it?

<< . . . and now you guys advocate that those who earn 250k file fraudulent returns.>>

Boy are you naive.  I'm advocating nothing.  That is a description of standard operating procedures already in practice in every small business in every civilized country.  Work from your home?  Expense a fraction of your heating, lighting, groundskeeping, etc.  A good accountant will tell you how much.  Expense your travel, go see a trade show or attend some plumbing convention.   Holy shit, do I have to spell this out for you?

BTW, fraud is a criminal offence.  If the IRS doesn't believe you're entitled to all the deductions your accountant says you are, that's a matter for your accountant and the IRS to straighten out between them.  NOBODY is talking fraud.  Nobody is being charged with fraud. 

Fraud is faking invoices for expenses that were never incurred.  Neither XO nor myself ever would advocate fraud.  You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Plane]

<<I don't see any reason to consider him a plant so much as considering McCain to be a bit of a dunce for swallowing his rather bogus tale whole.>>

No, nor do I at this point.  The original blog had the guy possibly connected to Charles Keating.

<<A majority of working Americans are employed by guys like Joe. Two or twenty at a time.>>

Yeah, but less than 5% of the Joe-type employers are taking home over $250K per year.  Their overhead eats into their bottom line, and as XO has pointed out, good accountants can keep what's left under $250K by expensing a lot of arguably personal expenditures.

Joe is ambitious , early in the process of becomeing an employer,if his ambition is fulfilled he will become a cog in the engine of progress perhaps employing a few at first and more and more over the years.

Obama's tax scheme will make him an employer of one or five in the same space of time that McCains ideas would make him an employer of five or twenty.

Repeat this iteration over the population and you have the diffrence between 5% unemployment and 15%.

I really think that the number who want a job is greater than the number who want a handout , so thus Senator McCain's style of leadership serves the people better than Senator Obama's.

[Plane]

Obama's tax scheme will make him an employer of one or five in the same space of time that McCains ideas would make him an employer of five or twenty.

 

By the way , I think that McCain can be improved on , if UniversePrince were president Joe would likely employ Thirty or Fifty in that same length of time.

[Michael Tee]

<<Obama's tax scheme will make him an employer of one or five in the same space of time that McCains ideas would make him an employer of five or twenty.>>

That is just totally false.  If Joe doesn't want to be taxed at a higher rate when he's reached $250K in personal income, then he's NEVER going to grow his business beyond that point.  As soon as he gets to $250K personal, he'll kick back and start to smell the roses.

Most tax codes that I am familiar with have a "notch provision" meaning that (using purely hypothetical numbers) if a guy makes 250K and pays 10% tax, but pays 20% tax if he's over 250K, at 250K he pays 25K tax and keeps 225K but at 251K he pays 50.2k in tax and takes home only 200.8K.  In other words, earning that last thousand dollars cost him the difference in take-home pay of 24.2K.  A "notch" provision freezes the tax payable as taxable income edges up past 250K until even when taxed at the higher rate, the guy will be taking home more than he'd have taken home if he had frozen his taxable earnings at 250K.

So take Joe, for instance.  If he hires more help, and his earnings increase, at first there's a dead zone where the increase in taxable earnings still leave him with the same take-home as if taxable earnings were still 250K.  Of course, Joe could bitch, "I'm grossing more, but it's not putting another nickel in my pocket."  True, but you're not losing anything and you are at the very least building equity in your business - - the more it grosses, the more it's worth, provided only that you maintain the same profit ratio.  As income continues to rise, it passes the "notch," the higher rate kicks in BUT Joe starts to see the increase in take-home.  Sure, as a percentage, it's less than it would have been before, but in absolute terms, the guy now has more disposable personal income than he would have had if he had failed to grow the business.  From that point forward, once he is past the notch, more revenue means more after-tax income in his pocket.

I assume businessmen are rational and expansion-minded.  If not, they will ultimately fail and don't belong in business anyway.  NOBODY who is rational and expansion-minded would refuse to grow his business if the opportunity for growth is otherwise present, simply because of higher taxes on higher personal incomes.  That is just pure bullshit.  I'm really surprised how McCain can get away with this mumbo-jumbo.

[Plane]

<<Obama's tax scheme will make him an employer of one or five in the same space of time that McCains ideas would make him an employer of five or twenty.>>

That is just totally false.  If Joe doesn't want to be taxed at a higher rate when he's reached $250K in personal income, then he's NEVER going to grow his business beyond that point.  As soon as he gets to $250K personal, he'll kick back and start to smell the roses.

Most tax codes that I am familiar with have a "notch provision" meaning that (using purely hypothetical numbers) if a guy makes 250K and pays 10% tax, but pays 20% tax if he's over 250K, at 250K he pays 25K tax and keeps 225K but at 251K he pays 50.2k in tax and takes home only 200.8K.  In other words, earning that last thousand dollars cost him the difference in take-home pay of 24.2K.  A "notch" provision freezes the tax payable as taxable income edges up past 250K until even when taxed at the higher rate, the guy will be taking home more than he'd have taken home if he had frozen his taxable earnings at 250K.

So take Joe, for instance.  If he hires more help, and his earnings increase, at first there's a dead zone where the increase in taxable earnings still leave him with the same take-home as if taxable earnings were still 250K.  Of course, Joe could bitch, "I'm grossing more, but it's not putting another nickel in my pocket."  True, but you're not losing anything and you are at the very least building equity in your business - - the more it grosses, the more it's worth, provided only that you maintain the same profit ratio.  As income continues to rise, it passes the "notch," the higher rate kicks in BUT Joe starts to see the increase in take-home.  Sure, as a percentage, it's less than it would have been before, but in absolute terms, the guy now has more disposable personal income than he would have had if he had failed to grow the business.  From that point forward, once he is past the notch, more revenue means more after-tax income in his pocket.

I assume businessmen are rational and expansion-minded.  If not, they will ultimately fail and don't belong in business anyway.  NOBODY who is rational and expansion-minded would refuse to grow his business if the opportunity for growth is otherwise present, simply because of higher taxes on higher personal incomes.  That is just pure bullshit.  I'm really surprised how McCain can get away with this mumbo-jumbo.

That is confuseing.

First you tell me that it is totally false , then you elucididate a process that freezes a business at a plateau , one I hadn't even thought of.


I was simply thinking that each time the government removes the value of an employees pay from Joes business , that is either one less employee he hires , or that much more he charges for his services.

I don't argue that the notch effect doesn't freeze a business from some expantion , but I think that makes my point better than yours.