The Final Debate
Last night was the third and final presidential debate this year, and it was probably the most interesting, and best moderated. Tom Brokaw seemed powerless to maintain any control in the second debate; Jim Leherer was decent, but didn’t seem to demand answers. (Gwen Ifill allowed Sarah Palin to get away with declaring she wouldn’t answer the questions asked, and did nothing when Governor Palin proceeded to use her response time to make unrelated talking points.) Last night, Bob Schiefer was pretty good. He did the best job maintaining focus, which is a tough task considering how rambling politicians can be.
John McCain was finally animated. I think he did much better for himself sitting at a table than he did in the “town hall” format that was supposed to be his strong suit. But I think for all his fustiness, he didn’t do himself much good. He constantly brought up “Joe the Plumber”, and criticized Senator Obama, declaring that under Senator Obama, Joe would pay more taxes, and have a tougher life. The papers are all over this story today, and it’s amazing how quickly Joe’s actual circumstances have been brought to light, and how incorrect Senator McCain was. Even if Joe owned the business he would like to own–and that isn’t probable any time soon, since he doesn’t have the money, and apparently isn’t licensed–given the annual revenue of that plumbing business, Joe would do better under Senator Obama’s proposed tax plan than he would under Senator McCain’s.
Now, I know that Senator McCain and Republicans like to protest that it isn’t fair that people should be “punished” for doing well, and have their taxes raised. I understand that, on first glance, this seems punitive. But, I look at it this way: the middle class–which drives the American economy–needs the break more than those making over a quarter-million dollars. And, in any event, for those making more than $250,000, their taxes only go up for the portion above $250,000. So, if Joe the Plumber did make $275,000, he might pay a couple hundred more dollars (it’s much less than $1,000) in taxes, but those extra taxes will allow the government to pay for things like bank bailouts that rich investors seem to be demanding, and will give the middle-class a break, which it needs. Real wages have gone down over the last eight years. Food any gas are much more expensive than ever before.
The argument that businesses create jobs when they pay lower taxes is wishful thinking, in my opinion. Businesses exist to make as much profit as they can. A business paying lower taxes–especially if it’s a small business that–isn’t going to hire more people simply because they saved a couple thousand dollars on the tax bill. That’s just more profit for the owner. Decades of experience have shown supply-side economics do not work they way advertised by Republicans. All it does is leave massive budget deficits. But, if you give the middle-class the tax break, the vast majority of people will have a little extra money in their pockets, and, unlike the rich, the middle class will actually spend that money, and small business will reap the rewards, and the entire economy does better. That is so much more logical.
And, as for the argument that this is all class warfare, I say that’s phony. Taxes are the price of civilization. Joe the Plumber apparently doesn’t agree: he owes Ohio back taxes. Maybe he wouldn’t had Senator Obama been president. In Joe’s present circumstance, he’d pay less under Obama’s plan. I’d bet you would, too. And if you’re one of the people who would pay more, congratulations on all your success. I’m sorry that you’re paying a little more, but I’m confident you’ll get by. And some soldier in Iraq will have body armor thanks to you.
Filed under: Cost of Living, Current Events, Politics on October 16th, 2008
Dana, I don’t think you really missed this part of the exchange between Joe Plumber and Obama: “I think when we spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. You know, from each according to his means, to each according to his needs. What a concept! I think The One came dangerously close to saying what he really believes. I’m just sayin’.
Love you.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
CN,
Check out FactCheck.org’s analysis of the Wall Street Journal’s article:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html
Here’s an excerpt:
“Congressional Budget Office figures show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving ‘a federal check’ through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That’s true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit ‘welfare.’”
I know from my own personal experience that in the days when I was super-duper poor I still paid taxes. And for a person that makes so little, even $600 in tax liability is still a lot of money. For a poor person, $600 might be a month of rent, or what it costs to get some prescription medication (remember that people that make minimum wage almost never receive health benefits). $600 is many weeks of child care that will allow that person to maintain employment.
I don’t *like* the idea that successful people feel punished for their success. But it is an indisputable fact that there are poor, suffering people in this country, and as it stands, the deck is stacked against them. It hurts everybody when people in our communities are losing their homes, and losing their jobs and losing their savings. I am reasonably well off now: I own my own house and I have a good job and I have health insurance. I wouldn’t mind paying a little more to help others. It doesn’t hurt me very much now that I’m successful, and as someone who has received public assistance, I know how much it helps.
There seems to be confusion about whether Obama is taxing net or gross incomes over $250,000 but small businesses, with employees, have gross amounts over that and take home little net because of huge overhead costs.
I will probably never make close to $250,000 a year at any point in my life but I don’t want to jeopardize the people who do and who can afford to pay me to work for them. They’re the part of society that make donations and invest. That quality of life is really what Obama would want to make available to everyone but will take away once they’ve achieved it. Doesn’t that seem ugly?
Ughh! I will be so glad when this election is over: I will devote exactly one post to the results and then move on. Politicians are never very effective anyways.