As mentioned in a thread on the Stump, Joe Plumber isn't a big concern for Obama because he is not a registered voter:

www.politico.com/.../The_Joe_file.html

Obviously he cares a lot about this election.

Here's an extended conversation between Joe and Obama.

www.youtube.com/watch

Obama goes into substantial detail and he is straight with Joe that, yes, he will probably have to pay 3% more if he makes that much. What's surprising is that in John McCain's world, a person making a quarter million is considered some struggling laborer. I guess that would make sense if you had too many houses to keep track of.

McCain's right that people like Joe will provide more jobs and do more to rehabilitate the economy if they're not hit with tax increases; and Obama's rhetoric about "redistribution" is chilling to anyone outside the Vanguard of the Proletariat echo chamber as personified here by Cohn.

On the other hand, McCain demonstrated his "out of touchness" by riffing on Joe's alleged seventy-odd hour work weeks, demonstrating an appalling lack of understanding of of the real world which any homeowner who's ever had to actually find and hire a plumber should easily be put off by.

Leaving aside for the moment that Joe is apparently not registered to vote (per POLITICO), and thus won't be voting for McCain, Obama, Barr, Nader, or the Man in the Moon, a business that takes in $250,000 does not necessarily have under the tax code $250,000 in revenues, nor by a long shot does its owner have under the tax code $250,000 in income.  In other words, Joe's potential tax situation is an unknown.

Considering all the attention this anecdote is receiving, a few basic facts are missing.

Dan

I own a small business with 2 employees and revenue greater than $250,000.  I'm not anxious to pay more tax, especially given the uses to which my tax contributions have been put in the Bush era.  But I just have to say that the notion that a small incremental change in tax is going to cause me to not hire a third employee is just ridiculous.  You hire an employee when you have too much work - too much untapped revenue - for the employees you already have.  It's just unfathomable to me that additional tax of a few thousand dollars on top of the hundreds of thousands a small business like mine already pays would seriously make any difference in decisions about creating new jobs.  And I sure would like to be able to get health insurance for my team.

I'm with Robert Powell. I wonder if McCain has ever dealt with a plumber. Growing up in military royalty, I think the plumber showed up on time and got it right the first time. The plumbers I know don't put in 70-hr. weeks, they have lifestyles more like Todd Palin. I do know a number of single women working two jobs who work 70-hr. weeks. Imagine how they're going to cope over the next few years, especially when they lose one of those jobs.

Joe the Plumber, another Fisher-Price solution to an adult problem. They really think they're talking to idiots, don't they? It worked for Reagan, I hope it doesn't work this year.

By the way, if McCain wasn't so real with his anger (I actually kind of like it, it's real) and was more of a fraud (actor) like Reagan, he could have scored many more points with smiles, wit, and an air of bemusement. Reagan vs. Obama: That would have been a titanic struggle.

BTW, as Obama is saying, his tax situation even on the high income folks is no worse than it was in the 'golden age' of Reagan. He's simply letting the cuts that under Bush helped transfer so much wealth to the rich, and gave them a sense of entitlement, leading to the meltdown we are living through now.  He is also pandering with the middle class tax cut, agreed. And in the long run, that will have to be offset, my bet by carbon taxes, but that's wishful thinking...

Revenue?  Revenue is the top line - you pay taxes on the bottom line.  If Joe's business generates a profit of $250,000 after deducting all the costs of materials, labor, and overhead, then Joe's revenues must be quite a bit higher.  I would guess Joe bills and collects revenues in the neighborhood of $1 million in order to generate that $250,000 profit.  I'm having trouble feeling sorry for the guy.

It was dishonest of McCain to bring up Joe anyway - the real beneficiaries of McCain's economic voodoo make a lot more than Joe the Plumber.  And the intended beneficiaries of the Obama plan make a lot less.  So why focus on Joe?  Because looking closely at who benefits is a losing proposition for McCain.

Neil

I'm always struck that people immediately jump to the 'redistribution' argument when relative taxation levels change. Redistribution compared to what? If I'm making 50k/yr, then in today's climate, I pretty much need all of that to make ends meet. If I'm making $50m, maybe not so much. So the question becomes, who benefits from the government the most? I would argue the $50m guy gets more protected by the military, benefits more from the government regulation of the stock market, and management of natural resources which he clearly uses more of, gets preferably highly trained workers for his factory from the education system, has a well-regulated transparent market to sell his products in, etc. To not 'redistribute' taxes would have to be a fixed amount (NOT percentage) per capita. So poor people would send everything they make and rich would send in their pocket change. That's the only scheme that doesn't 'redistribute'.  Next is the 'take from the rich and give to the poor' Robin hood argument, that somehow healthcare for instance is accused of. But then why are major corporations arguing for something to change? Why are the automakers complaining? If you want a level playing field with foreign countries that cover their populaces, then don't we need to subsidize care? And won't the ultimate cost to society be lower then when we aren't treating the uninsured in the emergency room? Lest a rich person feel that doesn't affect them, let them have a heart attack in a busy downtown area, and be taken to an ER with a 6 hour backlog. So, how about an exemption on some amount and then a 'flat tax'? Unfortunately, the tax required would be so high that again we are hammering the poor. So then we are left with our 'progressive' tax code. But lately, with capital gains and dividends tax reductions, and the regressive social security tax, rich people again are actually taxed at a fairly low level across all income, and when their access to tax avoidance schemes is factored in, as Warren Buffet says, he's paying less than his secretary. Why is tax on return on capital somehow lower than return on labor? The supply siders used to argue that no one wanted to work because the tax rate was so high that the additional income wasn't worth it. But now that's all ok, but the investors don't have incentive to invest because their taxes are so high?  Hmmm....

It seems to me, dbhuff, that "redistribution" is just the new code word for Communist, and talking about how the opposition wants to redistribute wealth is a euphemism for calling them a "commie, pinko bastard". I think what supports this interpretation the most significantly is the lack of legitimate discourse, some of which you have provided, on the issue beyond identifying those who want to "redistribute".

If BO increases unemployment benefits and raises payroll taxes then Joe will get a bigger bill.  What's more, Joe will be less apt to hire if he is uncertain how long he may have to pay unemployment taxes on anyone he let's go.  

Also, net income of 250,000 on revenues of 1,000,0000 does not translate into personal income of 250,000 unless you want to take all of your capital out of your business.  Contracting requires significant amounts of money for indeterminant time periods i.e. generals pay subs when they get their money.  Joe probably pays himself significantly less, and revenues of 1,000,000 are fairly common in 2-3 men shops.  Most of these guys have 50% or more of their money on the street everyday and take substantial risks.  

Oh, and to boot, since Joe is white male, he can pretty much forget about contracting for any govt. or municipality.

Oh, and to boot, since Joe is white male, he can pretty much forget about contracting for any govt. or municipality.

The statement "You can certainly argue that it's wrong, on moral grounds, to tax wealthier Americans" misses the point. Until the Reagan administration, the US had a progressive tax system in place. In other words, those with the least ability to pay taxes, paid very little or none at all. Those with the greatest incomes generally paid the most. You can certainly argue that the tax ranges in that system may have unfairly punished the biggest earners and was in need of reform. However, the so-called Reagan "revolution" turned the entire system on its head, radically reducing or eliminating taxes on the the wealthiest earners and corporations, and shifting the tax burden off onto the upper, middle, and low income tax brackets.

Obama is clearly taking the first steps to restoring the much fairer system of progressive taxation. As Warren Buffett has noted, when his secretary pays a greater percentage of her income in taxes than he does, something's radically wrong.

It sounds like Joe the Plumber is just an anti-tax guy who does not have much facility with math. The tiny amoung of additional taxes he might pay under Obama's plan should not have any serious effect on his business.

Really, dean?  Are all those white men I see doing state contracting around Augusta, where I live, albino?  

But I get your main point.  When, oh WHEN will the injustices perpetrated upon white men end?  

I'll admit that I've been irritated by the focus on Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment.  It seems intuitive to me -- we all pay taxes of varying amounts, and this money goes to different things.  Every dollar of tax that I pay constitutes "spreading the wealth around," unless we're operating on some sort of fixed-amount tax as dbhuff suggests above.  Accusations of socialism are absurd.

Though, I suppose that when you've got nothing else left to say, why not accuse Obama of being a closet socialist?

CNN's Greatest Political Team in the History of the Universe seemed to think that the Joe the Plumber line didn't play very well with independent Ohio voters.  Here's hoping that they're right.

I grew up in Cincinnati, and knew all kinds of Joe-....-.......

Too many were like Joe in "Joe", the character played by Peter Boyle in John Avildsen's film.

Enough with pandering to angry white males. I'll tell you who's working 70-hr. weeks - Too many single women working two jobs, and kids to feed.

RP fulminates:  "Obama's rhetoric about "redistribution" is chilling to anyone outside the Vanguard of the Proletariat echo chamber as personified here by Cohn."

Could we turn down the volume of the hyperbole here, please?  Wealth redistribution is a perfectly normal function for a government and society with a capitalist system, provided that wealth creation doesn't suffer.  Wealth redistribution can happen in many sensible ways, including taxation to a modest degree to enable important services to be provided to all citizens.

The fact that we all drive on the interstate -- i.e. that it isn't a graded hierarchical right predicated upon the amount of tax we paid -- is a type of wealth redistribution.

Jon has very shrewdly asked whether Joe the Plumber is the same as Joe Six-Pack. Couple of points I feel

Democrats, generally speaking, need to explain to the American people why progressive taxation is fair.  For too long they have assumed that it is self-evident, or been afraid to bring up the subject of taxes.  Meanwhile they have allowed the right-wing think tanks to control the terms of the debate so that the average voter has little capacity to discern fact from propaganda.  Related, why isn't Obama directly talking about cost v. revenue?  Supply-siders like McCain talk about cutting cost, but they cut revenue at a

higher rate than they cut costs.  The American people can understand a balance sheet; I think Obama and the dems would benefit by showing a graph highlighting McCain's budget cuts vs. revenue cuts.

Jonathan,

Joe the Unlicensed Plumber:  Not to overegg the flan, but it appears that Joe is not a licensed plumber, pulled the $250,000 number out of thin air, and has been previously cited for failure to pay taxes.

Start here:  www.washingtonmonthly.com  and check out Jake Tapper at ABC.

Dan

I am confused as to why the previous 8 years of tax cuts on the wealthy don't count as class warfare.  And why ending those measures counts as class warfare.  It's technically correct that they were not a tax hike on one group versus another, but at a very real level, you are taking money away from someone (i.e. young people of all economic backgrounds earning in the future), and giving it to the wealthy.   All deficit spending takes from the future earnings of today's youth, but in the case of the Bush tax cuts, it's not even robbing Peter to pay Paul- it's robbing Peter to make a gift to Paul, who hopefully in the grand scheme of things will allow you and me to make more money if our country doesn't collapse under the weight of its debt.  The fact that there is a reasonable economic theory backing it up doesn't make it less redistributive.

The fact that it is irresponsible to cut taxes in time of war (says John McCain, as well as many other reasonable people) is a separate, and valid point.