Originally posted by uzlessWell, let's see.
Obviously..nor are you an economist.
The price of gasoline goes up so it costs him more to transport his goods to market. Should he NOT raise prices since his costs have gone up?
Of course he should. All costs, whether they are taxes, transport cost, raw material costs, or labour costs. THEY ALL GO UP! They are ALL just COSTS.
Why treat taxes a ...[text shortened]... a coffe bean tax of 10%. Hell with you, I ain't buying coffee from you no more!"
😕
So, now it isn't just his taxes, but rather his taxes and the cost of transportation that has gone up (are you blaming this on Obama's tax plan as well). If what he was charging wasn't covering his costs, then obviously he should raise his prices. However, if he is still covering his costs, but raising his prices will cost him business, then should he raise his prices? In order to maintain his profits he will have to raise his prices high enough to compensate for the lost business. Doesn't sound as if he will be in business for much longer.
However, if he keeps his prices where the are and accepts that his profit margin will be slightly lower, but he will maintain a booming business, then perhaps raising his prices would be a bad move.
So, in your economists mind, what would be his best bet, close up shop because his profit margin is lower or maintain, not making as much of a profit but still taking home a pretty hefty amount, approximately $190k after taxes?
Originally posted by NemesioA dishonest contractor. What a surprise!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp
It turns out that 'Joe' is not a licensed plumber to begin with. He owes
back taxes. He lies on his facebook page about being in the local
plumbers union. And under Obama's plan, he would face a tax cut.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYup, the NY Times has the story.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp
It turns out that 'Joe' is not a licensed plumber to begin with. He owes
back taxes. He lies on his facebook page about being in the local
plumbers union. And under Obama's plan, he would face a tax cut.
Nemesio
Gee, a republican who doesn't want to follow regulations? Hmm, who'd a thunk it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“All contractors are licensed, and he does not have a license, either as a contractor or a plumber,” the union official said, citing a search of government records. “I can’t find that he’s ever even applied for any kind of apprenticeship, and he has never belonged to local 189 in Columbus, which is what he claims on his Facebook page.”
According to public records, Mr. Wurzelbacher has been subject to two liens, each over $1,000, one of which — a personal tax lien — is still outstanding.
And his question to Mr. Obama about paying taxes? According to some tax analysts, if Mr. Wurzelbacher’s gross receipts from his business is $250,000 — and not his taxable income — then he would not have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut."
Originally posted by uzlessGiven this information, how plausible is it that he would make an
Yup, the NY Times has the story.
Gee, a republican who doesn't want to follow regulations? Hmm, who'd a thunk it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“All contractors are licensed, and he does not have a license, either as a contractor or a plumber,” the union official said, citing a search of government recor ...[text shortened]... ve to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan, and probably would be eligible for a tax cut."
acquisition that would result in his having an income of greater than
$250k?
Looks like the hypothetical 'Joe the Plumber' would benefit from Obama's
tax plan, and the real 'Joe the Plumber' has been cheating the system
within his own party.
What a poster boy for Republicans to embrace!
Nemesio
Originally posted by CliffLandinLet's think about Cliff's business a little more.
So, let's say that he is making $300k in profits. He currently pays $105k in taxes, correct? So, under Obamas plan he would pay $117k. So, instead of making $195k a year, he would be making 183k.
I am certainly not an accountant, but that is my understanding of the tax plan.
Is this correct or am I way off base?
If I am correct would you find it ...[text shortened]... o further feather his nest? Sounds kinda stupid to me. But like I said, I'm not an accountant.
It makes a $300,000 profit per year. Let's say that its profits are 10% of gross revenue (which would make it a VERY successful small business). That means its gross revenue is $3,000,000 a year. So Obama's tax plan would result in a tax increase for this business of $1,500 or half of one percent of its gross revenue.
According to the DSR and others here, according to John McCain and according to Joe the Plumber that reduction of one half of one percent of its revenue would be utterly disastrous to the business quite possibly shutting it down.
What utter, hysterical nonsense.
Originally posted by darvlayNow that would be a good speech!
"...and to Joe the Plumber, if you're out there, I just want to add that Plumbers, and essentially Contractors of all kinds, all across this great nation of ours, are nothing more than petty crooks. 150 bucks an hour and you complain about getting ripped off by taxes?? GFY, little Joey. GFY."
- Barack Obama
Is the level of intellectual achievement or ability so very low on this site that no one can even hazard a guess as to the political pedigree of the following? Even after one hints that McCain has styled himself as an admirer of the author of these words?
What is the author saying, in terms of where he is on the political spectrum?
"The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.
"The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective -- a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.
"[O]ur government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. ... every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.
"... [T]he true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being.
"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.
"We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.
...
"I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law."
Originally posted by Scriabinhttp://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/teddy-roosevelt-socialist-advo.html
Is the level of intellectual achievement or ability so very low on this site that no one can even hazard a guess as to the political pedigree of the following? Even after one hints that McCain has styled himself as an admirer of the author of these words?
What is the author saying, in terms of where he is on the political spectrum?
"The absence of eff ...[text shortened]... orporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law."
Yes: Teddy Roosevelt.
I must confess to finding you occasionally amusing with your pompous little visits and repeated jibes as to the lack of intelligence to be found here.
The thing is ... I've never seen too much intelligence displayed by you.
Instead of doing a nice little cut and paste and making your standard (ironically) condescending remark, why don't you take a walk on the wild side and offer some pearls of wisdom on the topic.
Heaven forbid we find out you have no clothes ...
