--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > And I also think that the more you earn the more tax you should > > > pay, Joe already earns $250,000, how much more do you need? > > > > Oh, goodie, another contribution to my compendium > > of inaccurate statements about Joe the Plumber from > > the educated spiritually aware folks on this forum. > > > > Joe never said he earned $250K; in fact, he said > > what he earned wasn't even close. Turns out he made > > $40K in 2006, according to his divorce papers. > > > > What he told Obama was that *if* he eventually > > managed to buy the plumbing business he currently > > works for, and *if* that business ends up making > > over $250K *in profits*, so that his *personal* > > taxable income rises above $250K, THEN under > > Obama's tax plan, it looks as though he might pay > > more tax than he would under McCain's. > > > > (I think that's a fine idea myself, BTW.) > > > "joe" and his partner, who does have a plumbing license, > collectively took in $120,000 last year, joe got $40,000. > How exactly does Joe plan to buy out his superior without > any startup capital (he owes back taxes) and without whom > he is not allowed to work as a plumber since he is > unlicensed and start netting $250,000 per year?? The > guy's a fake.
He's an unrealistic dreamer, maybe, but not a fake. He never said he was going to buy the business *tomorrow*. In other interviews, he acknowledged that it would probably take him awhile to get capital together and that he wouldn't be able to buy the business all at once (he may have some agreement with the guy who owns it now to buy in gradually). of course a $40,000 per year worker does better under obama's > tax plan than under mccains. He never said otherwise. > It has nothing to do with "redistribution of wealth" which > refers to welfare and social security and such programs. Which may be why I didn't use that term, don'cha think? I used *Obama's* phrase--clearly audible on the video-- "spreading the wealth around." The greatest > redistribution of wealth in the history of the US has just > taken place in the past 8 yrs - never before in US history, > even in 1929, has wealth been so concentrated in the upper > 5%. Changing the tax code per obama would just move things > back to where they've been for most of US history. Notice > how the economy does during periods of extreme wealth > concentration, as in 1929 and now. US economic success has > to do with middle class rising to upper middle class and > entrepreneurs rising to millionaire status, not those with > $100 million rising to $1 billion. You're preaching to the choir if you're addressing me.
