Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Computers Used to Find Info on "Joe the Plumber"
After Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio gained fame as "Joe the Plumber" in the course of the current presidential campaign, it seems that he's drawn more than idle curiosity from people with access to what should probably be confidential information. An anonymous reader writes with a story from The Columbus Dispatch that "government insiders accessed Joe the Plumber's records soon after the McCain-Obama debate. 'Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate. Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.' Welcome to 1984."
This stuff isn't just happening in the UK.
Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
....as JoeTheAnonymousCoward. Average Joe said over a cup of Joe today that he learnt about AC too late, but that maybe others could learn from his mistake.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Welcome to 1984, or welcome to a world (just like 2007, 2006, and 2005) where curious people with access to confidential information sometimes abuse it without meaning harm?
I don't think there's any reason to assume malice here, I think stupidity is good enough. This kind of thing happens all the time when famous people check into hospitals and medical residents think it would be clever to pull their file.
This seems more likely to be plain old stupidity than it does evil government influence.
Did they find Simon the Invisible Unicorn? (if you don't know the reference, watch the SNL spoof)
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
So, do you think that there are three people, quite rightly, trembling in their boots at the moment? Shouldn't be too hard to find. And if it is shame on the organisations.
.
Of course all that information that in that vast government database won't be abused by curious government workers. Whatever gave you the idea that it would?
The fact that it is people (who are always going to be curious, even if not malicious) who have access to these records means that they aren't going to be private. (Not to mention, I've got something to hide ("I like to watch") that I don't want the spooks to know about.)
I wank in the shower.
This is what happens when you "speak truth to power" to a Republican. Oh wait, never mind...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That those who would have afforded the Bush administration total power would suddenly wince when that power is used against them.
This is my sig.
Something like seven people in the State Department were caught looking up passports of people without permission. I lost track what happend to them, though I recall some lost their jobs.
As interesting (and also not surprising at all) is the quote from the article,
The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch
Why anyone would trust any online system with anything that could cost them a job, impact their credit, prevent them from receiving health insurance, prevent them from being considered from a job, put-your-privacy-concern-here, etc.... is beyond me.
Sure it will be secure, sure it will....
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.
I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?
"Joe the Plumber" is kind of a lie on a lie. Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not) being held down by the Man (he's not) who will get screwed by Obama (he won't). And that self-deception has been magnified by McCain into yet another mass Republican Cognitive Dissonance(TM)-- a national party lie standing on the shoulders of one small man's lie.
Good luck in November, guys.
Did Joe the Plumber make over 250k last year? Will Obama be giving him a tax break, totally invalidating McCain's point about Obama raising JoeThePlumber's taxes?
That wasn't the point of Joe's question. Joe stated he wanted to buy a business and hoped that his hard work would bring in more than 250K. Obama stated that he wanted to take that success and spread it to people that made less than Joe hoped to make with his business acquisition and hard work.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
No, I read he made about 40K. I think Joe & McCain's point was that if you work hard, and do manage to make 250K+ you should be able to keep the fruits of your labors instead of "spreading the wealth".
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
If a small business owner employs people who make less than 250k a year, then tax breaks for his employees essentially translates into that the boss doesn't need to pay as much to keep them on board. So tax breaks for workers do help the small business owner.
God spoke to me.
Seriously, this insanely stupid "It's against our freedoms to be taxed" idea is insane.
You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.
These things need to be funded. The people who benefit from said things should fund them with some of their earnings because they are able to earn the money in the first place due to the services provided by said country.
And don't start that 'Well I don't use X or Y services, so why should I have to pay for it?' bullshit. If only the people who used X service paid for it when they used it, well... how the hell would social security work? You can't well pay for that when you need it, because you don't have the money in the first place.
People like you, and Joe the Plumber are either seriously selfish and don't see the common good in everyone being helped in a prosperous nation, or seriously dense in that you just don't get how it's fair, and instead just see the simpleton's equation of: I earn money, it's mine, not yours.
Or both.
Seriously, grow up, stop saying anything you don't like is 'Infringing on your freedoms', because it's not, you're just being selfish.
Either 1984 has become so diffuse that all it means is badness+database, or the summary is badly confused. 1984 was all about a scenario where the state had ubiquitous control(with force of law) over information, which was used against everybody all the time. The state in 1984 was oppressive, and not one I would consider legitimate; but it ran "by the book" as it were. In this case, we have a much more prosaic example of certain individuals illegally accessing a celebrity's records, against policy, on an ad-hoc basis.
Such situations are bad, and I hope the perps will be punished, and they are (yet another) reason to oppose the creation of Giant Exploitable Databases(tm); but they have very little to do with 1984. If you simply must have a dystopian cultural reference, try Brazil.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
Basically, they're harboring the same sort of dreams that keep hundreds of thousands of young men banging away at amateur sports, even though the odds of making the cut are similar. It's this sort of dream that has the positive result of driving working people to succeed, but also the mixed results from overwhelming supporting the national GOP, whose policy goals use - but do not help - these grassroots supporters.
Luke, help me take this mask off
because Mr. Wurzelbacher has his name misspelled in the Social Security database, it would be assumed that he misspelled his name on his voter registration form. In Ohio, people that misspell their names or addresses, or have lost their homes and failed to update, or list a place that does not qualify as a "legal residence" in legalese like a dormitory, may be sent provisional ballots. These usually are not counted in the general election.
The Supreme Court had ruled against Ohio GOP measures, but on technical grounds or something, and now the Attorney General of the Department of Justice is probing whether or not they should be sent those provisional ballots. It's sad that Mr. Wurzelbacher had his privacy invaded, but in reference to the Republican argument, he did have something to hide.
So at 40k per year income, Joetheplumber could actually make six times as much as he makes now and still get a tax cut from Obama. SIX TIMES. Is six times a plumber's income rich? Well, almost according to Obama, and I would agree. Seven times a plumbers income -IS- rich.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
Uh, sorry but that's a distinction without a difference. All graduated tax policies "spread the wealth". For the last 8 years the wealth has been spread upwards. The middle class "spread" it up to the rich. It was not accidental. Here's an article from 2001 saying that's exactly what Bush's tax policy was doing.
Obama's policy is about spreading the wealth back to the middle class as opposed to spreading it to the top 1%. This results in overall job growth and a stronger economy. A rising tide lifts all boats, not just yachts as Warren Buffett put it.
Low level enlisted personel reported listening in on superiors private conversations through the warrantless wire tapping laws. Who knows how many other fucked up bureaucrats spend their days getting themselves off listening to conversations that citizens of the US should have the expectation to be private. And before we say if you don't have anything to hide, remember that Sarah Palin cried like a little girl when her account was hacked and wasted huge amounts of federal dollars looking for the person who did it. If you don't have anything to hide...
In fact I wonder how much of this economic meltdown is caused by the realization that there are no more corporate secrets. Every communique can be intercepted by some disgruntled government worker and be sold to the highest bidder. How much of the meltdown is caused by the realization that Obama might become president, and therefore all the good old boys who were used to breakin' the law, might now be on the ass end of warrentless wire tap. Such abuse of power was OK when a drunk frat boy had the keys.
And let's look a old Joe. The most that will happen to these government worker bees is that they get fired, on assumes, which is OK because this is not the worst that these government workers did to old Joe. Reportedly, someone typed in his name wrong. If the Republican party had their way, Old Joe would not have been able to vote because he drivers license would not have matched his voter registration card . This disenfranchise is reportedly due to a "clerical error". We are now giving low level bureaucrats the power to at least attempt to disenfranchise voters. Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch of voter registration cards came in from a republican area, and the clerk decided to misspell every few names, knowing that a law such as the republicans want to curb voter fraud might at least disenfranchise a few of them?
We really need get back to the constructionist ideals of this country, where those that will trade freedom for security deserve neither.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
One would do well to actually read 1984 (as opposed to just scream its title every time the Right does something you don't like).
1984 was an comment by Orwell on the Communists. Orwell, himself a socilaist, learned to hate and fear the Communists after the Spanish Civil War.
Big Brother was an obvious stand-in for "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
In 1984 you will see: ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
* The Ministry of Truth, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent Reugter's Photoshopping of pictures from the Israel/Lebanon war; Dan Rather's falsification of documents)
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the politically correct language redefinition we experienced in the 70s/80s e.g. "differently abled" for "handicapped", in Sweden "husmor" replaced by "hemmafru" or their English cognates "housewife" with "stay-at-home-mom")
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "homosexuality is something you are born with" and "homosexuality is a personal and private decision"; or "racism is always wrong" and "affirmative action is the right thing to do")
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"
We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.
Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.
Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.
"IT Test account". Shared by a bunch of different offices. Looks like whoever did the search was smart enough to muddy the waters a bit.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
"Funding the government" does "spread the wealth"; it's not like the government throws money in holes. The money goes to gov't employees, contracts, social security, medicare, farming subsidies, corporate bailouts, etc. All of which "spread the wealth" to some segment of the population; it's just a question of what part of the population and under what guise the money is spent.
This is clearly the work of the union, posing as a government employee. They found out he wasn't a member and have initiated a smear campaign against him. The most insidious thing is that they're blaming the democrats for it!
Fact: The plumber unions secretly run the stonecutters guild, which in turn secretly runs the world.
My toilet is overflowing, they're onto me...
I'm a small business owner, and while we do well over $250K/year in revenue, I don't make more then $100K/yr. I don't believe I should be paid any more then my highest paid employee. Let's assume though that I did take more than $250K out of the business a year (which is what you'd have to do to hit the $250K limit Obama talks about). I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).
It's reasonable to assume the purpose of these unauthorized accesses were to try and dig up dirt on Joe. Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe. Joe supports McCain, thus I don't expect any public outcry at all over this at all.
Now if the tables were turned and it was an Obama supporter who was having his/her info illegally accessed...well, I don't have to describe the media orgy that would occur, do I?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).
Furthermore, it is a marginal tax increase. That means it doesn't apply to any of the $250K that you took as income in order to get to the $250K point. At roughly 3% it really is quite minor in absolute dollars for anything under $300K or so - roughly $1,500 extra taxes on $300K than now.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
Hope and change indeed.
I've always been a believer in opt-in economy. Just mark huge swaths of land as "government-free" counties. No government means: no roads, bridges, water treatment, fire stations, EMTs, hospitals, or regulated utilities. You buy the land, you move there, you're on your own.
Then, all of the libertarians declaring that government is intrinsically evil can negotiate with utility companies to run power lines, open restaurants without any health inspections, and do their work without OSHA or fire regulations. After a few decades you would find that they had done something remarkable, and that is formed their own government with exactly the same rules.
A kid dies from salmonella poisoning from the burger joint - now health inspections are mandatory. Four men die in a fire in a building that had no fire suppression system, and now that's a requirement. The company firehouse is done away with because they bungled their badging system, and let someone's business burn to the ground who was actually a member. A local court system developed after blood feuds threatened to throw the whole county into chaos, and it's now illegal to conceal firearms after a judge was assassinated. Voting regulations have been established after the banker buys four consecutive elections, which resulted in all road construction projects benefitting his new housing development... I could elaborate, but you probably get the point.
Government is a necessary evil, but not all governments are evil. The only thing that turns a state into a negative entity is when concentrated power, economic chaos, or external military invasion takes the power away from the population, which does occur much of the time. The solution is not to take the resources of the nation place it outside the grasp of it's population, but exactly the opposite. In my experience, I've had much better relationships with local (albeit small) government utilities than I have with AT&T or any other large corporation, mainly because the top of the chain ends within a few miles of my business - I can go talk to (or berate) the person in charge. The top of the chain of any large corporation is simply unreachable, and the AT&T rep doesn't really care if my phone service is reliable or not - where else am I going to go? And if we have four phone companies running lines, how long before three are swallowed by the one with the most money? And if you regulate the monopolies, what's the difference between local governmental control (notice I didn't say federal) besides greasing the pockets of useless executive boards?
People like Joe the Plumber don't understand that part of the infrastructure of the united states is the working population. If those workers have a safe neighborhood, reasonable pay, and voluntarily pay extra taxes to socialize industries that perform poorly under free markets, the whole economy is better for it. Not only because the basics of the western world will be less expensive, but because entrepreneurs will be incentivized to tackle new ideas, instead of swindling money out of decades old problems that have already been solved. If corporations weren't busy creating inefficient markets for the sake of making more money, we'd still have many things that europe has kept - functioning mass transit systems, lots of investment in education, low poverty rates, more equal distribution of wealth -- that is a measure of the health of an economy, by the way -- and the right to organize in unions.
Or, you can be concerned by paying an extra 4% of tax, only on money earned over 250,000 per year.
By the way, where is Fred the Accountant, asking McCain why he supported Roe v. Wade in 2000? Or why he wants the Federal Government to legislate what marriage is? Or why Falwell was no longer an agent of intolerance? Or why he said in 04 that taxing the wealthy a bit more was okay? The truth is, Joe the Plumber wouldn't be able to get close enough to ask McCain or Palin a question. Anyone perceived as someone other than a die hard supporter is turned away, or threatened with arrest for carrying signs that say: "McCain = Bush."
One very, very rarely makes an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars in a year solely through one's own hard work. One usually makes it by leaching, to some degree, off the hard work of others. (The exceptions are mostly matters of dumb luck - a superstar performer getting "discovered", for example.)
And the answer to the GP's question is, yes, Joe (who is not really a plumber, under city of Toledo regulations) would get a tax break even if he owned the business, as will the vast majority of small businesses, assuming an Obama victory and that his plan goes ahead pretty much as stated.
In our capitalist system, the government does a tremendous amount to help those who have wealth, get more. It's so basic to the system we rarely think about it, but how much concentration of wealth would there be without government-issued corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents? Not to mention a reserve banking system that lets privately owned banks make money out of thin air, and an economic policy that uses the DJIA as a measure of economic success.
These government actions and policies are so successful at concentrating wealth that the top 20 percent own 90% of all financial wealth. And it stays in the family; the U.S. has lower intergenerational mobility than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway or Denmark
The small effects of progressive taxation and social spending - spreading around the wealth that other government policies helped concentrate - act as a (small and inadequate) governor on the machinery of state capitalism.
Now, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the system.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
By charging the business that employees the low income people, and the business that the low income people buy things from, higher taxes. Can you spot the flaw in the plan?
I was working on a project where I had to be given access to a state's law enforcement computer system, which was the access point for their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the US National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and several other systems. I had to watch a videotape and read and sign a document promising all sorts of hell if I ever abused my access by, say, running someone without cause. One real-life example was a cop who would notice an attractive woman go by on the road and run her license plate to get her home address, where he would subsequently show up. I was glad to see that they had such strict policies. Anyone who uses their access privileges to stalk or attempt to dig up info on someone should be prosecuted.
>>>This wealth will allow them greater buying power which will mean more customers for Joe.
Imagine if NOBODY paid income taxes unless they earned 1 million dollars (the real rich people). They'd still pay all the other taxes (sales, electric, phone, cell, gasoline, natural gas), so they'd be contributing to society, but not income tax. That would REALLY give customers more money to spend.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Obama has claimed 95% of people will receive tax cuts. However, 40% of people pay no income tax to begin with. If you read the fine print on his tax plan, they'll receive their "tax cut" as more welfare, earned income credits, etc. That's not cutting taxes, it's redistributing wealth.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I have a feeling that the actual number of people who understand exactly how marginal taxes work would be shocking and disappointing. I can recall several conversations where people sweated making more money -- they were concerned that the tax increases would have them ending up with less.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I find that impressive, that they're keeping an audit trail of everybody who accesses a record in the DMV database.
We have this thing called the Data Protection Act, which the US does not have.
In fact, not only does the US have data privacy laws, it has had them since the 1970's. It took the UK nearly a quarter of a century to catch up.
Has anything private been released? If not, I don't see a problem. Yes, if you make yourself a public figure, you'll get scrutinized, but so what?
If this guy had had outstanding warrants or was behind on his child support, of course, the responsible agencies should find out about it and do something about it. Can you imagine what kind of headlines they'd get otherwise? "Deadbeat Dad on TV--Bureaucrats Asleep".
Welcome to 1984
If this were 1984, then there wouldn't have been much of an election for him so speak out in.
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Joe was basically a miracle for McCain, resurrecting his campaign in a way McCain's people couldn't have done, putting a face on the people Obama's higher taxes would hurt.
Obama's already dismissed Joe ("I don't know any plumbers who make $250K"), trying to make people forget Joe's whole point (he wants to make $250K but is afraid of doing it because of how he'll be taxed). It isn't working.
I think Obama's minions are trying to get some dirt on Joe to discredit him, just like they tried with Sarah Palin's emails, and failed.
"Joe" was a plant. I have little sympathy for him. He was brought up by McCain to try to be the example he couldn't actually find for some 'small guy' being screwed over by Obama's plan.
He was not a plant. Obama showed up at his house for crissakes. How dare Joe walk outside to see what all the fuss is about, and ask questions about Obama's tax plans, that the media should, but isn't asking. Like, how can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when nowhere near 95% of Americans actually pay net taxes?
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit strange that the one person McCain uses as an example in the last presidential campaign, someone he brings up over and over, lied about everything about his situation?
I think it's strange that the media has done more digging on a plumber (oh my, he doesn't have a permit to be a plumber - oh noes!) than on the presidential candidate the plumber asked a question of. Every fucking story reporting this - other than Fox News, of course - was attacking Joe for not having a permit/license (a revenue-raising device by greedy cities), for owing taxes, rather than actually addressing the merits of the question Joe had the temerity to ask. Real journalism there, don't ask Obama, "yeah, what about your tax plan hurting small businesses?" Instead, the media defends Obama and shoots the messenger!
Obama has been running for president for two years, and some plumber asks a more digging question than any mainstream media reporter has asked the whole time. No wonder you got suspicious. After all, this is supposed to be a coronation, not an actual election.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You don't mind giving up a larger portion of YOUR property if you had over X amount. Thanks for speaking for everyone else by approving of tax to redistribute wealth.
Here's an idea, if you like higher taxes but don't want to fund things you don't believe in: support a charity or philanthropic organization you DO support. That's your right, since it's your property.
My property is mine. I've been endowed with certain inalienable rights...namely life, liberty and property. Don't sign me up for YOUR redistribution plan.
You know...the world is organized pretty well already. If you like communism (the government deciding what IS yours), there are communist countries. If you like free enterprise, there are free market countries where you can live. Why must Obama and all the leftists insist on spreading socialism worldwide? Because "a communist is someone who has nothing and is eager to share it with you." (Churchill).
Ps. I'm a guy that makes about 11 bucks an hour. I'll succeed and fail on my own hard work, initiative, and ambition. I don't want your entitlements now, and I don't want to compulsorily pay for someone else's entitlements later.
THL phish sticks
I'll grant that sole proprietors get dicked in a variety of ways,
Actually the sole proprietor, along with S-corps, get a pretty wide variety of benefits. Overall, the smart self employed can deduct many things that an employee cannot. The savvy businessman can make much of their mileage tax deductible. Sure you pay both sides of FICA, but you're also getting paid what you "bill", which is a lot more than what wages are (generally 200% to 400%).
I hold very little regard for business people who complain about taxes. I run a small business (S-corp), 5 years old, with 4 employees. Yes, taxes suck but guess what - I don't pay all that much. I get to put away over $15k a year into retirement accounts. My wife, who works 10-15 hours a week can put away another $15k. We get the child tax credit even if she doesn't work "enough" because she drives a company car and about 50% of the automotive expenses get put on her W2 as "income".We pay taxes on that...but they really just go to getting the CTC back.
As a bonus, I take a reasonable salary and then everything else that comes in is "profit," taken as an owner's draw and not subject to FICA.
Part of being in business is having someone who can make the right decisions. My wife just so happens to have been an accountant for a decade, and has done some HR. My accountant, who gets $700-$1000 a year from me, makes sure we're paying all the taxes required, and taking all the deductions we are allowed to. Heck, I get to write off $100k a year in capital expenses if I have the income to use. Quite honestly, if I get to the point where I'm making - no, profiting - $250,000 a year after all expenses, I'm not going to be bitching about paying an extra 3-4% of the dollars over $250,000. It's just not something I'm going to waste time worrying about.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
One very, very rarely makes an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars in a year solely through one's own hard work. One usually makes it by leaching, to some degree, off the hard work of others.
One very rarely makes an income solely through ones hard work - any income what-so-ever.
It's not a matter of who is leeching from whom either.
Let's take a farmer. She does all the work of raising her crop of tomatoes and getting it to market. No leeching there, she doesn't get government farm subsidies, she just works. But, whatever she makes for selling her crop, it depends in large part on having roads to transport it. It's not that she's a leech, nor lazy, but if she had to transport those tomatoes over a dirt path, in a little hand cart hewn from wood on her own land, and repair that cart within her own little toolshed every time it breaks, she would make a whole lot less, trading with only her immediate neighbors.
She could buy her truck from a private business, and get it worked on by a private garage, and she could drive on privately owned (toll) roads. Or she could drive on state roads, and at least in theory, get her truck serviced at a state owned facility. She could rent space from a for-profit farmer's market, or create a non-profit co-op with fellow farmers to buy land to establish a farmer's market at a good spot, or for that matter, be taxed by the state for the privilege of setting up at any wide spot along the state's roads. Which is more efficient, which benefits her and/or other people the most, varies widely. It's not a one size fits all solution, where private alternatives are always more efficient.
Who is John Cabal?
The fact is that Obama is waging his campaign on a platform of class warfare.
Obama's tax plan favors the middle class (i.e people making less than 250K a year), which means probably includes you, certainly me, and certainly also "Joe the plumber". Joe's hypothetical about buying the business he works for would in fact be helped by Obama because his taxes right now would be lowered - he can save more towards his dream. If Joe wants to complain about having his (hypothetical) marginal income above 250K taxed at a higher bracket, then why is he not complaining about having a tax CUT before he gets to that level? He just wants to TAKE relative to the status quo, not give back?
Given that the middle class would do better under Obama than McCain, it's just as valid to refer to McCains tax policy as class warfare, except that under MCain it's the middle class that are suffering relative to the wealthy, rather than vice versa.
Personally I perfer the Obama alternative - give me a tax break now while I'm making less than 250K, and I'll gladly repay it via higher taxes should I be fortunate enough to make it to that income level.
What Obama supporters (of which I count myself one) don't seem to get is that this Joe guy is the issue. He's not. Tear him down as much as you want, it doesn't help your case one bit.
The thing is, the only reason why the Right grabbed onto this was not Joe's question, but Obama's answer. That "Spread the wealth around" soundbite has been a goldmine republicans trying to invoke scary images of Karl Marx. And to be fair I think this was a major gaffe on Obama's part. Personally, I don't want to spread the wealth just for the sake of it. People that work hard to acquire their wealth under a fair system shouldn't be punished for being wealthy. But it needs to be a fair system.
Obviously Obama misspoke - I don't think he intends to implement marxism. But that's the perception that some people had and that perception is what needs to be attacted by the Obama camp.
This effort to vilify and discredit "Joe the Plumber" is disgraceful. The man asked a damn question. Obama should have done a better job answering it. Period.
Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.
Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.
So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.
If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.
You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...
And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.
Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.
Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The best part about a democracy is you get your opinion and I get mine. We'll see who wins on the 4th. Best of luck to your viewpoint, but I think there are far more people who are tired of getting fucked then those who make 11 bucks an hour and prefer your view of things.
Besides, Obama will be raising everyone's taxes. He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years. When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.
That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton. I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.
Utter nonsense that's been debunked over and over. Quotes are false, info's bad, and you're just hoping that enough people don't bother to look at all and just take what you say at face value. You even threw in the old "I'll get modded down for saying the truth!". Unfortunately for you, it seems more likely you'll get modded down for being full of shit.
Karma: Contrapositive
Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe
Reasonable if you're a moron, maybe.
Let's think about it. When Joe made his comments he was just some shmoe. It was McCain's campaign, not Obama's, that decided to make this guy into a walking symbol of tax justice. They've literally been calling their campaign the "Joe the Plumber" tour for a week or two. So prior to this all happening (1) Obama had no reason to think the guy mattered much (2) of course McCain's campaign checked the guy out, they'd be nuts not to.
To elaborate on the second point: imagine the McCain campaign didn't check the guy out before they built a campaign around him. And then, god forbid, he turned out to be a tax evader/child molester/check kiter/whatever. Two weeks before the election the negative press could very well have ended the entire campaign. None of those campaign workers would ever get a job again. So yes, they did check him out. They may not have done it this way (illegally)--- perhaps they hired a PI or did a standard criminal background check. But I give them enough credit to assume that they're not total idiots.
On the other hand, I have to admit there is a legitimate counterpoint to this argument. After all, McCain didn't check Sarah Palin out at all before they built a campaign around her. So maybe they are that stupid.
Ps. I'm a guy that makes about 11 bucks an hour. I'll succeed and fail on my own hard work, initiative, and ambition. I don't want your entitlements now, and I don't want to compulsorily pay for someone else's entitlements later.
You're already paying for them. In the 1980s the Republicans raised the Social Security payroll tax to be substantially higher than what's needed to pay for existing retirees. Then they massively cut taxes for the wealthy and started spending the extra Social Security tax income to make up for the shortfall. Since SS taxes are only on the first $90k of income, they fall disproportionately on working people, so this is a beautiful way to redistribute wealth from people like you to the wealthiest americans.
Thank god you're not voting Republican this year. Nobody could possibly want that sort of redistribution.
You do know a government is in place for the benefit of the people
Lets go down the list of the biggest socialist regimes in history. The Soviet Union...check. Their nationalization of all private property and gov't distribution of everything from jobs, to schools, to health care, to cars places them at the leftest of the leftists. And the communist party was for the benefit of the people? Ok.
North Korea....oh, check. Kim Jung-Ill gives a fuck about his people? Or does he just like being in charge? His collective farm system works SO WELL that NK needs regular shipments of...everything?
Communist China (before they moved to the more profitable fascism). Mao "benefitted" over 45 million Chinese into the ground.
We can keep going. The truth is: In capitalism, man exploits man, and in communism it is the exact opposite. The difference is I have some choices and property in capitalism and a chance to change my station in life with enough hard work.
I agree with you that corporate welfare is a problem. I dislike government-owned corporations as much as i dislike corporation-owned governments. If Jefferson where here he'd probably mention a "wall of separation" between corp and state.
And yes, the world IS organized pretty well. You can choose from every form of government you can think of. You can even join a hippy commune and have your own. But you leftists seek to homogenize the world into 1 class, the poor. And that my friend is an absurd attempt to remake the world.
THL phish sticks
The parent making an accurate point is moded down.
The response, which completely misses the point, is moded up.
The difference? The accurate one is from the right. The inaccurate from the left.
Slashkos. Welcome.
Factcheck.org is a propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. Get real, dude.
But you were hoping enough people would look at your href and say 'huh. that other dude was wrong.'
Shouldn't you be out hassling people with Acorn pamphlets?
There is so much wrong with this post. I'll start with Joe.
Joe really IS a plumber. He does not have a license to be a plumber, but he doesn't need one because the company he works for has the license. Saying he is not a plumber is lying, because he IS a plumber. So stick it up your pipe!
Next, the question was not about if Joe would receive a tax break now. The question was if Joe would get boned if he made more than $250K. Sure, Joe's not rich, but he wasn't planning on buying the company to stay poor. Obama said he would take Joe's money and "spread it around". Can you tell me the difference between that and stealing? Better yet, why don't we simply have the police bus poor people to "rich" neighborhoods and let them decide what they want to take directly? What's the difference between that and Obama's plan?
In our capitalist system, the government does a tremendous amount to help those who have wealth, get more. It's so basic to the system we rarely think about it, but how much concentration of wealth would there be without government-issued corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents? Not to mention a reserve banking system that lets privately owned banks make money out of thin air, and an economic policy that uses the DJIA as a measure of economic success.
WRONG. You assume that the purpose of the government is to keep rich people rich. That's not the purpose. Let's say, for example, that the purpose is to bring jobs to a community that needs it. That community may give tax breaks to a company to try to entice it to move to a factory or whatever to this particular community. Now, remember, that the purpose is to generate local jobs. However, the owner of the company stands to make more money. So what does he do, he takes the offer and the town gets the factory and a lower unemployment rate. Was the purpose to make the owner rich? NO. Would he have moved his factory to this particular town if he didn't stand to make more money? NO. So him getting richer was an INCENTIVE to moving to this town that needed the jobs, not the purpose.
These government actions and policies are so successful at concentrating wealth that the top 20 percent own 90% of all financial wealth [ucsc.edu]. And it stays in the family; the U.S. has lower intergenerational mobility than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway or Denmark [americanprogress.org]
First, consider the source. Next, if you believe that life is better in those countries, you are free to move there. I live here because I like it here. I like knowing that I stand a chance of getting rich one day without having the government steal it from me. That's why I'm here. If I wanted something different, I'd move. Which makes me wonder, assuming you are in the US, WHY? If Denmark or Norway is so much better, MOVE THERE! You can live there and be happy, and I can stay here and be happy. Why must you try to change my country to something else when you can simply go to that someplace else and leave my country the hell alone! I'm not saying "love it or leave it". I'm saying, go to where you are happy. I like Toyota cars, but I'm not going to try to force everyone around me to drive one.
Of course, I'm assuming that 1) you live here 2) you like the way things are in the countries you listed and 3) you are bringing the up to make us more like them. If I'm wrong on these three, disregard :-)
The small effects of progressive taxation and social spending - spreading around the wealth that other government policies helped concentrate - act as a (small and inadequate) governor on the machinery of state capitalism.
Now, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You're certainly ok to refer to the EIC as a poorer people's deduction or whatever. I usually assume that it's simply shorthand for not spelling out all the details. That's how you seemed to be using it.
It's just that, in this thread, I've already seen a couple of remarks about taxation above the 50% level that sound like somebody is simultaneously in one of the highest two brackets for the income tax, and still paying a full 15.3% as self employment tax. Since the Social Security tax tops out at about $90,000 income and stops being taken out on anything above, it's very unlikely for this to actually happen. I've also seen a post with the SEP counted as part of income tax, and apparently that poster thinks it goes into the general fund. It doesn't - the IRS just passes it on straight to the Social Security Administration, and it gives the payer credit for quarters worked just like regular social security taxes - if the whole social security system doesn't collapse, these people will get to draw on it when they retire or become disabled, just like employees. I've seen a claim that there are no tax advantages for S corporations, etc. Ive seen a reference to whole groups of states considering adopting a state income tax - most US states already have one, and none of the ones that don't actually have any legislation at present. There have been a few people discussing the bailout that have said if the recession deepens they think their state will need to adopt an income tax, but that's far from any official movements.
There's a lot of really bad tax advice being given out here (I've counted at least 30 posts with wildly incorrect claims), and a lot of political rants based on pseudofacts, so I'm in really critical mode. You certainly don't need to appologize for anything you've said.
Who is John Cabal?
Really? Well guess what happens when you call into question McCain's 5 crashed planes, tailhook or the fact that his Daddy being CINCPAC he got more "leniency" on Navy policy. Or that those that knew him in the navy thought he was as "spoiled brat".
Both of these fucktards have fucked us over in their time in office. However, Obama has only been there 4yrs. so he has time to "Change" He has not been there very long so if he leaves in 4more I'm fine with that.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
This is bullshit. Thousands of man-hours are spent investigating the lives and pasts of those who seek the Presidency. Not only the media but also the political opposition. The truth is there is nothing glaringly negative in Obama's past.
Say what? Here's a guy with a very brief resume, so we have to look into his past (less so that with McCain or Biden, since they have extensive record in public). So let's see the things the mainstream media has not dug into:
1) Obama rose to prominence through the Chicago Machine, a system so notoriously dirty it's a cliche. Where is the Palin-like digging into that?
2) Obama wears this community organizer thing on his sleeve as if it really means something other than partisan rabble-rouser. WTF did he accomplish?
3) What were and are his ties to ACORN, the wildly partisan and corrupt get-out-the-dead-vote organization?
4) What about his ties to William Ayers, in whose living room he essentially launched his political career. The Ayers who tried to blow up the Pentagon and only didn't get life in prison due to a botched investigation that got evidence thrown out. Rather than deny it, Ayers said on 9/11 his only regret was "not doing more."
5) Tony Rezko, slumlord, Obama buddy, and general scumbag. Where is the story investigating their ties?
6) Reverend Wright. Where is the penetrating investigation as to why Obama had his children going to this nutty racist's church. The guy he called his "spiritual mentor" who called 9/11 "the chickens coming home to roost." Already covered? Not quite. Obama gives one speech lecturing us on race, and the media nods in approval and drops it. Meanwhile, 25 years later we are still hearing about the "Keating Five" about McCain, something McCain has long since explained away as non-criminal error in judgment. That's fair?
7) Obama's advocacy for the CRA in pressuring and suing banks to make bad home loans. Relevant?
8) Obama's "I sent a letter" nonsense about the mortgage mess, while opposing McCain's reform bill in 2005. Sent a letter? My grandma could have done that. Where's the media scrutiny?
9) Obama's admitted drug use, likely a felony. Apparently off-limits, unlike Bush's supposed DUI two weeks before the election.
I could go on, but it doesn't matter. if you can't see that the media is so far in the tank for Obama for it's scandalous, I can't help you. Never before have I had lower respect for the media. To me, journalism is now up there with phrenology and astrology, a total, absolute scam. They are partisan hacks. 85% of the reporters cover Gore-Bush 2000 voted for Gore. I'll bet this year it's closer to 95%.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"Big government: bad!"...
Right? Ok, so next time one of your banks keels over due to greedy fingers of their 'managers', don't beg for government intervention. Let's see what you'll say after the economy collapses big time, eh?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
How many self-employed people do you actually know? I am self-employed, and I attend meeting at my local Chamber of Commerce, and local Apartment Owners Association, so I have met hundreds of self-employed people.
Personally, I do not recall meeting even one self-employed person who complained about an inability to achieve their business goals due to excessive regulation or taxes. I have had countless conversations and attended countless presentations about regulatory compliance, and these types of organizations are great in that capacity. They allow like-minded businesspeople to combine efforts and help each other out.
That said, there are very real effects of excessive taxation and excessive regulation. There are certain jurisdictions where I refuse to do business because the local governments make it less profitable. For instance, I would never purchase a building in NJ or MA or MD or CA because it's just too much of a headache for me. This is why apartments in those states cost way more than in states next door.
Taking this to the macro level, the United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world (second only to Japan). If you are an international corporation, are you going to set up shop in the US and employ US workers if you have to pay high US corporate taxes? Probably not, unless it is absolutely necessary.
There are politicians who complain about US firms shipping jobs overseas while simultaneously ensuring that corporate tax burdens remain excessive. What they don't realize, is that they could induce a lot of business activity into the US if they simply lowered corporate income taxes to be in line with the rest of the world, to take the tax code out of the business decision regarding where to operate.
If that's what you call daydreaming, that's fine. Personally, I think it's just educating those who don't realize that there are undesirable consequences to excessive regulation and taxation. We all have to pay the price in terms of jobs getting shipped overseas, and higher cost of goods and services paid locally. Hopefully others will see the humor in the fact that the very people whose jobs are getting shipped overseas are calling for more of the failed policies that caused the offshoring to occur. Ahh, but people do like to listen to a pleasant-sounding voice.
I've already come to terms with the fact that Obama is going to tax the ever-loving hell out of me (yes, I am part of the unlucky 5%). I'll be smiling, however, when people like you realize that you're next. Obama's writing checks that "the wealthy" simply can't cash.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
It's always good fun toying with my favorite slashdot stalker plasmacutter. He has such a cute passive aggressive name.
Let's see if we can get to the core here:
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
First of all, allow me to thank you for adding much needed, albeit unintentional humor to this election season.
Now, what the hell do you mean by "no standing"? Since when does a person required to have "standing" to ask a politician a question in public? I mean, what the hell do you expect? Should Obama have pulled out the FRCP and cited 12(b)(6) and said, "I'm sorry, Joe, it appears that you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as you are not, in fact, in possession of a small business nor capable of buying one at this time. As such, your question is dismissed with prejudice until such time as you own a business which has an income over $250k"? I mean, is this what you're talking about when it comes to "standing"?
Should we require the same of reporters? "I'm sorry, it looks like you, a male reporter, asked a question about abortion. I refuse to answer on the grounds that you lack standing as you are not a female. Come back to me after the sex change or whatever." Or, "that's a fascinating question about my healthcare plan, but it looks like you're an able-bodied person. So don't ask me any questions on this because you lack standing."
Joe - or Sam, or whatever - has "standing" by being a human being. Period. Perhaps he though too highly of himself. Perhaps he embellished. But it doesn't matter. If this complaint were going forth in a courtroom, of course it would be tossed out - standing actually, you know, matters there. But it is in the interest of every person to be able to ask a question of a politician in the United States even if there is no direct impact on the questioner. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, the person asking the question does not believe, as a matter of principle, that X should be done because it conflicts with his ideology Y on the matter.
And that's where the firearms question comes from above. It appears to have flown over your head - and boy, was that a shocker. Even a person who does not own firearms retains the right to question Obama about his firearms policies. Hell, even a convicted felon who is legally prohibited from owning a firearm and would never be directly affected (legally, at least) by a ban on high-capacity magazines can ask a question about these policies. Why? Because he has a right to hear an answer from his government or someone who wants to be a leader in the government on this issue.
I can claim that I'm the Queen of Sheba in a political question. It doesn't matter. It's the answer that deserves focus. And shifting the blame on the questioner is a sick, stupid tactic. Now, if you'd like to go through the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code - or, why not, have some fun and go through the FRCP - and find the place where we are required to have proper "standing" to dare ask a politician a question, please, be my guest. (Let me save you some time, though - you won't find it because it's not there.)
The guy asked a fair question. Obama, an unseasoned and untested politician, answered off the cuff in a way that a lot of people didn't like. That's what you get when you bring a minor league politician on board in a major national election. Deal.
standing, n. A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right - Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004