Strollerderby

I also heard he (Joe/Sam) is not even registered to vote.

I agree with you. It is amazing to me that multimillion dollar corporations can loophole their way out of paying any taxes at all. As much as it is tempting to feel for a guy like the hypothetical Joe, I think even on 61% of $250,000. (which, pardon my lousy math skills, would be $152,000 a year)that he won't be starving to death with no home or access to reliable health care. I think he will be okay.

Oh wow, what a farce!  So, the life lesson here, boys and girls, is never give into the temptation of wanting to get on TV and show this uppity presidential candidate a thing or two.  It may lead to utter humiliation and an audit.  Ouch.

Seriously, people.  Do you not have more to do than bash this man because he's not voting for "your guy".  Leave him be.

Personally, if I was lucky enough to be able to work hard enough and earn more than the average "joe", i would prefer to be the one to decide whether I wanted to pitch in more to help and if so, where to give my money to. Why does the government get to decide that? Is this country headed for socialism? To me, that is a scary thought.

My family has been through some hard times, and when things are better, I'll happily share with those who have less, through taxes and through charities.

Not that I think that the USA is headed for socialism (you'll never let THAT happen!), but why is it such a bad word? Are we humans so greedy that we can't give a portion of what we earn to keep our country running and help the people who need it?

Then again, I'm a Canadian- what do I know?

Wow, Ann.  Regardless of your income, once you pay taxes, you don't get to decide where your money goes.  "Here Federal Government, take my taxes, but only use the money for funding school programs."  I don't own a car, and I would prefer not to fund highway repairs, but that's not how it works.  And really, if we were to allow everyone to decide how much taxes they prefer to pay, do you honestly think anyone would be paying anything?  The reason the government gets to decide that, is because that's the government's job--taxation, legislation, law enforcement, and a slew of other things all fall under the government umbrella of responsibility.  If you don't like it, then use your vote to elect officials whose beliefs more closely represent yours.

It is also interesting that you ask if "this country is headed toward socialism?"  I'm sure you may have heard of this little $700 BILLION dollar government bail-out.  Max Weber, a German economist (and a critic of socialism), had warned that allowing the government to maintain a certain level of control of the economy would result in "an iron cage of future bondage," ie. the government totally owns our asses.  Wowza--isn't that what happened with the bail out, because government intervention in the economy doesn't seem like a free market system to me.

What is a scary thought is that people latch on to certain phrases and talking points and throw them around without thinking about what they are really saying.

Progressive taxes are nothing new. I don't know why since Joe the Plumber stepped forward, some people are acting like they never heard of such a thing.

bravo, km!!

Just a point of note:

  Raising the tax rate 3 percentage points is not a three percent increase in taxes.  That change amounts to an 8.33 percent increase in tax obligation.

  But also it's not really an increase in taxes.  Legislation for the 'temporary' Bush tax cut included a requirement to review and vote again in 2010 (I think that's the right date).  So the rich and glamorous say it's a tax increase to end their temporary relief bill, but in fact that's all it does (end the temporary relief given to those who think the poor are living off the public gravy.)

Oh, no! Socialism! Run!!

Wait, why is socialism scary?

Bravo km!

And Tahini, Obama did not bring up Joe the Plumber's name. McCain did. Over and over and over. I think it was like 23 times in that debate. The Republicans brought on this media firestorm surrounding him, not Obama.

It is interesting and sad that so many seem to condemn people and ideas with so little understanding of either, i.e. socialism is always bad, unfettered free market capitalism is always good. In fact, in countries such as Sweden, Findland, Denmark and Holland, all countries with democratic (the kind where elections are regular and fair) socialist systems have infant mortality rates, life expectancy rates along with virtually every measurement of individual happiness and contentment levels that exceed the same measurements in the U.S. Perhaps some of the reason is that these countries all have health care and quality educational systems available to everyone, a package of services that in this country is available only the wealthy, lucky or the rare exception.

Unfettered free market capitalism as increasingly practiced in this country during my lifetime on the other hand has taken us from a post WWll situation in which the average CEO made about seven times the salary of the average worker to where we are today in which the CEO's make literally 1,000's of times more than the average worker. We are now to the point where the top 1% in this country receives about 25% of the income and controls 40-50% of the total wealth. To see where such a disparity of wealth leads, we have only to look at the bananna republics (the countries, not the chain stores) in South America and some of the struggling countries in Africa. Hmm, democratic socialism looks pretty good to me.

If we are to be a great country or even simply a reasonably democratic one, we have to be able and willing to adjust to the new realities established by the current world's population, resource requirements etc. and to recognize that ideas that may have been good in previous generations are no longer adequate for either our country or our world. Ideas such as employers should be the primary provider of health care and education should be totally under local control along with other sacred cows, have like the internal combustion engine passed their prime. In previous times, these were good ideas that on the whole took us to a historically high level of freedom and prosperity, but they have now passed the point of diminishing returns, are now on the down side of the bell curve and it is time we recognized these realities and adjusted accordingly.  

The internal combustion steam engine is obsolete? Say it ain't so, Joe! ;)

My dad would have loved your dad, Shannon. (I love him too. ^_^)

People that make more money also consume more natural resources (which arguably, we all own), and place more strain on some public services (roads, policing, etc.). It's reasonable that they should pay a little more just to offset their greater impact on shared resources, even if they have no interest in helping anyone else.

Your dad rocks, Shannon. Can he come and explain some things to my dad? (They live near each other...can I hire him?) Oh, and Sara's comment is really a great point, too.