McCain wants Joe the plumber to spread the wealth...but does it work that way?

@spalladino (17891)
United States
October 16, 2008 1:43pm CST
McCain wants to give tax breaks to businesses so that they can hire more people and "spread the wealth around." Now, I may not be a business owner but I do know enough to know that more money in the pocket of the business owner does not automatically translate into more jobs for Americans. Let's take a plumbing business since everyone is so focused on Joe. If a currently operating plumbing business has a customer base that requires the owner to have at least six plumbers available, he'll have six plumbers on the payroll. If, under a McCain administration, he gets a tax break which puts more money in his pocket, that in no way translates to an increase in his customer base or a need to hire more employees. No business is going to hire additional employees unless the consumers create the need for more. All the tax break for businesses does is to put more money in the owner's pocket. Meanwhile, the middle class, who still can't afford to pay for a plumber, continue to do their own plumbing repairs. Do I have this right or is there some reason why businesses would hire additional employees they don't need and spread that wealth around?
5 people like this
15 responses
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Joe is supposed to spread some of that money back into the pocket of the people who helped him bleed it out of the rest of the country. Gatta love those kickbacks don't you know!
2 people like this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Given half the chance at a few ritch CEOs & polititians.....
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Oooh, now I get it! I know a few folks I'd like to kick.....
2 people like this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Guess I got excited there. My spelling went to pot.
2 people like this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
16 Oct 08
I've got a very interesting post on the way to my blog about Joe the Plumber (whose first name is actually Samuel...no idea why he uses "Joe" instead--"Sam the Plumber" sounds equally 'folksy', don't you think), and I'm going to cross-post it here. Your argument here is a specific example of a more general one I've made in the past to people crying out against Obama raising taxes on even just the upper couple percent: how can you make money with your business if the consumers are too broke to buy your product (or in this case, service)?
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Oct 08
As expenses have continued to rise; gas, food, utility bills, more people are holding off on things like routine vehicle maintenance, making major purchases, taking vacations and dining out. I live in Florida and tourism is very important to us. It's not looking very good so far this year. My truck could use new tires but we're putting that off. It's the consumers who drive the economy, not the business owners. Can't wait to read about Sam!
3 people like this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
16 Oct 08
New tires...Heck I'll be running on mine till I'm on the rims ( probably even a little afterwords ).
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Ah clarus he isn't even a plumber LOL There's a good article in the Columbus Dispatch about him. Here you go you can blog some more about him LOL http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/16/ajoe.html?sid=101
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
17 Oct 08
I think you have slightly misunderstood; if Joe pays less tax then Joe spends more cash. More cash spent stimulates the economy creating jobs in providing products or services for Joe all the best urban
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
17 Oct 08
No, the real question is who is better at creating jobs, government or individuals all the best urban
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Oct 08
But the real question is will any of that money reach us.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
17 Oct 08
I don't know if that's true either. Just because someone gets a tax break or tax relief or for instance - a stimulus payment - does not mean everybody necessarily spends that. A lot of consumers are clearly worried and holding onto anything extra they get right now. Even people who usually spend freely are not doing that, even if they can.
1 person likes this
@WATARIKENJI (1534)
• Philippines
17 Oct 08
Nice argument, tax cuts for businesses should be selective.Its not applicable to all. Same thing with other taxes. Those who have much to spare should be given the honor of paying bigger taxes. Agree?
2 people like this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
17 Oct 08
It would be good to have it relative to your income, yes, in terms of both business and personal. Also, people who are the worst off don't necessarily deserve things for free either, that's where all the tax money that people with higher incomes is going - to support the people who have nothing but they don't give back either. For instance if they feel they deserve free education for their kids, then there should be some volunteering or something else they do in order to obtain it. Nobody should be able to get something for nothing while passing the bill onto others.
1 person likes this
@philjas (1134)
• United States
16 Oct 08
This is what bothers me about Joe the Plumber's reaction to Obama's answer to his question: “I’ve always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question . . . for once instead of tap dancing around it. “And unfortunately I asked the question but I still got a tap dance . . . " A tap dance? I watched the video of the entire conversation between him and Obama, and I think Obama gave an excellent, articulate, and completely honest answer. It may not have been what Joe wanted to hear, but a tap dance around the issue? Hardly! Joe (or Sam, is it), is a Republican and was leaning towards McCain in the first place when he went to the Obama rally. His question was more of a statement, "You're plan is going to raise my taxes, isn't it?" Obama didn't lie, he explained how his plan is going to work. Joe the Plumber now admits he doesn't make $250K a year (he really only expects to someday), he doesn't actually have a plumbing license, but he still thinks it's wrong for different people to be taxed at different rates (sorry, Joe, but we do it that way already, we have done it that way for eons.) The thing I liked best about Obama's conversaton with Joe was that he ended it with, "Even if I don't get your vote, I'll still be working hard for you." But Joe apparently wasn't impressed. I believe he's a conservative who pretty much had his mind made up to begin with. McCain probably realized that and that's why he kept bringing him up in the debate. I disagree with Joe's political views but I feel sorry for him, McCain did him a disservice by making him an instant celebrity like this; the guy had reporters camped out at his house overnight. And now I'm sure the Republicans will point to any negative thing liberals say about Joe and call them evil for harrassing the guy. But McCain started it, using the guy to try to save his desperate campaign.
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Oct 08
I suspect Joe was a plant and one that didn't work very well for him or the McCain camp. Kennyrose, you are so seriously uninformed it's sad. The poooor business owner who has to pay for all those buns and burgers....have you ever heard of the term Cost of Goods Sold? I'm sure you haven't because you know nothing about business and less about taxes.
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Oct 08
Good point chameleonsdream. The auto industry is very good example of how the loss of the customer base has a very negative effect on business.
2 people like this
• United States
16 Oct 08
It's a shame that Obama didn't have the real facts about how much Joe makes, because his answer would have been a completely honest "I'm going to help you realize that dream of making $250,000 someday by cutting you a break today." And kennyrose, I'm so glad you brought up the whole line of dominoes that gets affected when I can't afford to buy a hamburger. If I don't get to keep more of my money, I have less to spend on your products. That's precisely what's happening to the automobile makers right now. They're not laying off workers because they're paying too much in taxes. They're laying off workers because WE don't have enough money to buy their product. As far as Joe goes, I completely agree with you philjas. I think he's just a hardworking decent guy who's trying his best to get ahead. I doubt he expected to be part of a 'media moment' when he asked Obama that question, and frankly, McCain is the one who completely misstated who he is in trying to turn him into one of his hardworking American heroes.
2 people like this
• United States
16 Oct 08
So what would Joe the Plumber do with the money he saves on taxes with McCain's plan? According to his interview this morning, he'd like to buy a boat. Guess you could stretch that to concede that since he has more money to spend, he's providing a market for other goods and services - but then you're stretching it to the point where you have to concede that if you give the tax breaks to more people, then more people have money to spend (or save) and stimulate the economy. It makes the same kind of sense that deferring taxes on income left overseas until it is brought home makes. Wouldn't you think that it makes more sense to tax income invested overseas and exempt income invested here at home?
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Joe the plumber. I was listening to KMOX radio in St. Louis this morning, it was the Charley Brennan show. I don't know if Charley is a republican or democrat, here is what was said. A plumbing representative from "Joe the plumber's" city of Toledo, said he doubted that Joe was actually a plumber. It seems they have the same law on the books that we have in our town. You have to be licensed to be a plumber. Joe neither has a license and he is not a union member there is no record on the books that shows he has a license or is in the plumber's union. I wonder if Joe is a fan of McCain and just posed as a plumber to stir things up. Or, could he be a republican plant? Ok, so Joe buys the other guy out and takes over his business. He is now looking at a debt that he has to pay off, he is going to have a lot of overhead. There are going to be a lot business expenses and he is going to have to pay his help. How in the world is going to have a net income of over $250,000? He won't be paying any additional tax under Obama's plan, who is he trying to fool?
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Buy a boat??? I thought poor ole Joe was worried that he wouldn't be able to afford to pay his employees if he had to pay higher taxes...but with the savings he can afford to buy a boat? Yep, that sounds fair to me. NOT!
2 people like this
• United States
16 Oct 08
Okay, guys, maybe I'll be proven a total idiot for this but - having read the articles about him in both the Columbus Dispatch and the Toledo Blade, as well as heard a lot of unadulterated bullpuckey in comments to other news stories, here's my take on it. Cut the guy a break. Who is he? From what I read out of his own mouth and out of what can be verified, he is a single dad trying to raise a 13 year old son on his own. His divorce papers show that he made about $40.000 a couple of years ago. He's working his butt off with another guy in a two person company, does not hold a plumber's license because he was told that his employer's license covers him as long as his employer is on the premises with him. When he interviewed for the job, he and his employer talked about the possibility that he might someday be able to buy out the business. He didn't pay his property taxes a couple of years ago - not good, but not a lynchable crime. We've all been in over our heads. I believe that he is a genuinely concerned person who disagrees with the entire concept of a progressive income tax, and is afraid that Obama's plans - not just his tax plan, but many of them - are a step down the road to socialism and the government running your life. I don't believe he was a plant, I don't believe he's related to Keating of Keating 5 fame, and I don't believe the Republicans put him up to it. What I do believe is that in answering him, Obama used a phrase that sent alarm and AHA! Gotcha! bells ringing through the conservative media. I believe that it was caught on tape because for pity's sake, none of the candidates go to the bathroom without a camera crew tagging along these days. Someone caught that phrase, jumped out it, and spread it around. McCain turned Joe into a caricature of who he WANTS him to be - Joe isn't going to buy his business next year - he said he hopes to someday buy his employer out. It's McCain's exaggerations and his attempt to turn Joe into one of his warm folksy just-like-us heroes - it's that story that's being debunked on the net - and this guy is being put through the wringer over it. And seriously? Joe and I may disagree ideologically, but any guy making $40k a year and struggling to raise his kid on that is a hero to me, even if we don't share the same opinion. He IS registered to vote, his name is misspelled on his registration card. He doesn't have a plumber's license but it sounds more like a case of his employer stretching the law than him being a skeezy criminal. He is very probably NOT related to the Keating-5 Wurzenwhatever - he does not own a construction company and an investment company and what I'm seeing being written about him is right up there with the kind of bullpucky I usually see directed at attempts to prove that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a phony. Lay off the guy - he exercised his right to free speech and is being crucified because he got turned into a political symbol.
2 people like this
@cutepenguin (6430)
• Canada
17 Oct 08
I don't understand this either. On the other hand, tax breaks for businesses might make it easier for businesses which are on the brink - you know, just barely making it - to survive or even businesses which are moderately successful to expand. I've never really understood the trickle down theory of economics.
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Oct 08
Tickle down economics is economics as should be, not as it really is: that is the reason that you cant understand it.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
17 Oct 08
It's too bad that we can't make more things as they should be - that would be the answer to all of the problems we are experiencing now. Everybody understands how things SHOULD be but it would take an act of GOD (not of congress) to make those things happen.
1 person likes this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
16 Oct 08
No, you've got it right Spalla. And that's not even accounting for the greedy employers which will "hoard" money for themselves. We don't have a shortage of businesses -- yet. We are, however, losing customers. PART of this is bad business mojo, but the rest is circumstances like foreclosures, high prices for basic parts of living, waste, jobs not being able to or wanting to employ people (at least for reasonable amounts of money), as well as more complicated things like inflation and predatory bank practices. It's not so simple that you just allow businesses to keep more of their money. In small business, a little more money's appreciated by doesn't equal much, and big business has a tendency toward bad policies and practices. The businesses can take care of themselves, it's the people that need the help. So...to make it short, I think that that's a flawed approach to things. He might think it's logical, but like you pointed out...it just doesn't translate at all.
1 person likes this
• United States
18 Oct 08
Oh I am just a teenager, I just got plenty of sense when it comes to business -- I do help my family stay afloat, so it wouldn't do if I didn't! Besides, economics I consider to be a fun subject (because it's so complex, mostly.) so I read alot about it...even though it's kinda depressing today lmao. Anyway, thanks! Exactly, Mommyboo. Even if SOME businesses do, do just that -- passing along the benefit/relief to their costumers, it's spotty at best. Not even fifty/fifty chance as far as how many of them would do that, anyway. As for gas stations, well they have it tough most of them. They can't control how the products they sell are priced when they buy it and therefore only have marginal control over the end price that you and I buy it at. SOME of them are greedy, plenty of them don't want to sell it for super expensive due to compassion or at least in knowing that they could lose business and therefore profit (not that this offers them much of a choice in the end anyway, they can't not sell it for what they sell it at or else they shut down). It's tough. And oil's going down mostly because demand is shrinking because everyone's freaking out because of the economy (and justly so). The big oil guys are kinda arguing and a bit scared themselves. ...I'm going on now, though. It's not a cookie cutter world, there's blanket circumstances and then there's unique circumstances which crop up. Understanding the blanket circumstances is generally a good idea, but without bothering to dig a little deeper things can always be missed. And as McCain himself has said, he doesn't know as much about economics as maybe he should know.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
17 Oct 08
I second that. Many 'greedy' employers indeed do and will hoard money and NOT pass those savings to the consumers at all. With a plan to give businesses tax breaks, there has to be a stipulation that they also give CUSTOMERS price breaks or it will not do anything toward helping out any average citizen. Prices of everything except gas are climbing, and I am sure this is happening because businesses do not want to take a cut in profits. I believe they HAVE to take a cut in profits or eventually risk going under. I don't know about you but I'd rather take a small cut in profits myself than have to fold, I don't understand why others wouldn't agree.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Oct 08
Are you sure you're as young as you say you are? You're one smart cookie, Paranoia.
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Oct 08
Trickle-down economics, or more precisely, "voodoo" economics have never worked and they won't work now. It's amazing to me that poor people would rather have business get all the breaks! Like big oil companies, for instance...poor Exxon only had a rise of 14% in the 4th quarter of 2007; $11.66 billion in net profits. Yes, McCain! Let's give them all the tax breaks they need. Poor things! You are absolutely right, it would not profit old Joe or Sam or whoever he is to hire any more plumbers. That is definitely not how it works.
1 person likes this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Are you kidding? That's exactly the plan they wanted. His crew has sold out to the big oil companies ( which you should have known when he brought in a VP from a state that has done nothing but ). Give big oil a bigger break & maybe they'll help line his pockets some more.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Oct 08
I'll betcha the McCain camp knows it, too, but they had to come up with a different plan even if it was a boneheaded one.
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Oct 08
Well, this IS the camp that came up with the idea of buying failing mortgages from the banks at FULL FACE VALUE with taxpayer money, THEN renegotiating the mortgages at current market value of the home - so the banks don't lose any money. Using the house I live in as an example (not my house, not my mortgage - I rent), it sold to the current owner for $365,000 two years ago. It was just re-appraised at $156,000. Under the McCain plan, the bank gets off scot-free and the taxpayers get stuck with a $209,000 loss. And for the record, the bank turned down an offer of $150,000 on it (based on some work that the house needs) because it was too much of a loss for them to take. Yep, we'd actually lose more than the house is worth - and couldn't sell this at a profit until the house's value more than doubled again.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
17 Oct 08
Businesses will opt to continue to make a profit at the expense of having enough employees to do the job best. All businesses clearly want to make a profit and they will cut corners everywhere else in order to do that, even if they try to say they won't. Tax breaks to them will not relieve the trouble for the average American family, no way. It would be better to tell businesses they can only make a certain percentage of profit and that they must pass the savings onto their consumers. If every single business had to until the economy recovered, then nobody would be hurting (as badly) as people who disagree with this idea might think. If I had a business of course I would want to make a profit BUT I would make a reasonable profit, not scalp people for it by marking up my prices way high as most businesses clearly do!
1 person likes this
@gwoman2 (710)
• United States
17 Oct 08
You are sooooooooooo right!! Who the heck can afford a plumber nowadays? Thanks for the post, very interesting...I agree with you 110% ;-) ~G~
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Oct 08
Yeah, that says a lot about the current economy; it is more profitable to barter for what you need.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
17 Oct 08
Bartering for what you need is better all around, I'd rather trade something I can do for someone for what I need, that keeps the value equal. In this time, we need that, everything else is so backwards and skewed and upsidedown. You can't even get a burger and fries for five bucks any more and milk costs more than gas lol.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
16 Oct 08
Ok here's my question If these small business owners are smart enough to start a small business then why not be smart enough to set up an Llc? They are taxed like a corporation and have limited liability. I mean are they that stupid that they wouldn't spend $1,000 to keep their personal property safe?! Anyway, Joe the plumber isn't a plumber well not by my counties standards anyway and with all of my years in construction it would be hard for him to pass himself off as a plumber without a license in these parts.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Oct 08
Shhhh, Zeph...you'll scare the scare tactics away! LOL!
2 people like this
@Opal26 (17679)
• United States
17 Oct 08
Hey spalladino! I take the same way that you do! I don't see much point in what McCain is suggesting either. It doesn't make much sense to me at all! The money surely isn't going to get spread around anywhere. It will stay with the owner of the business, just like it does now which leaves the people who really need the money right where they are. They still will need more money and still will probably be out of a job too! So as far as I can see, it is all pointless and he is just talking in circles and saying nothing!
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Oct 08
I love how the folks who support McCain accuse those of us who could use a tax break lazy socialists wanting handouts yet they cry & moan about poor Joe the plumber because McCain told them to. What about Joe & Jane Average Citizen, struggling in this economy to make ends meet? God forbid they should care about their neighbors!
1 person likes this
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
16 Oct 08
I don't know exactly how McCain is planning to do this, or what form the tax breaks will take. I know that my county did that in the past to attract new business, particulary manufacturing companies. And it is great for local workers, one company came in and hired hundreds, maybe even thousands of local workers (I forget the most recent numbers). But I agree with you, just giving a business a tax break does not create new jobs!
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Oct 08
I believe this is different from tax incentives to bring in new business. Obama wants to increase taxes for the wealthy 5% and leave the rest of us alone. McCain wants to give tax breaks to the rich and continue to hope that trickle down economics will work even though it hasn't in the past. McCain says that business owners won't be able to hire more employees under Obama's plan because they will be paying more taxes but it seems to me that businesses, new or otherwise, don't hire more employees than they need. Logically speaking, if the middle class get the tax breaks like Obama's plan indicates, we'll increase our spending, keeping more businesses open and more people employed.
2 people like this
@morgandrake (2136)
• United States
17 Oct 08
As an ex-business manager, I can tell you that you never hire more employees than you need. The spread the wealth around theory is just a variation on the tickle down economics of earlier failures. It is economics as "it should be", not as it really is. It also ignores basic tax law. An tax increase for income over 250 thousand only affects income that one makes over 250 thousand; the first 250 thousand is taxed at the lower rate. So McCain is not concerned about Joe the Plumber, he is concerned about his rich friends. There is no reason that spread it around economics will work. It presumes that only people making more than 250 thousand create new businesses and jobs. In reality, unemployed people create more new businesses than any other group, and new jobs are created by natural demand. You can not jimmy the system even if you think that economics should work that way.