|
Joe the plumber............
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TommyfromLA |
Who gives a f***??? I think all plumbers would actually benefit from Obama... No plumber makes 250k a year....
Joe shut the hell up and stop bitching and moaning.. The Democrats are looking out for you. |
|
|
| tjpatel |
| quote: | | Wurzelbacher himself undercut the Republican message about him when he revealed he makes far less than $250,000 a year. "I don't make $250,000," Wurzelbacher said Sunday on "Fox and Friends." "You know, I've never even come close to that, nor will I. I mean, I'd have to work, I don't know, 10 years to get that kind of money, maybe more." |
|
|
|
| R!CH |
| joe has every right to bitch about the taxes he doesn't pay for work at the business he can't afford |
|
|
| bigherm |
| im a real plumber. make nowhere near 250k. enless you own your company. ill tell you this, i make more money on the side then i do at my job :conf: |
|
|
| element-y |
| The fact of the matter is he was trying to imply that not plumbers per say, but high paying jobs in general. So if a corporate owner gets more than 250k who hires a bunch of workers, if that guy gets taxed, he will cut back on some costs - costs at times = employees. THAT IS ALL. Media is attacking joe for nothing. WHO CARES if the man pays or doesnt pay his taxes or what state he is licensed to work in. Really, attack the man personally? Way to go media .. and morons. Oppose the idea fine, oppose the person without knowing them? Entirely unnecessary. And this issue really is all about two ways of viewing economic growth. So attacking one side over the other in an almost direct and personal level is ridiculous. Both have been proven to work and not work. You can argue the issue of economic growth, but attacking the person shows your level of intelligence...? |
|
|
| xenpro |
| The increase is 3 % of net income over 249 K ... all these guys need to do is show extra deductions, I mean if you do take home over 250 a year you better have a good tax man to be able hide a lot of it... so Joe can go ahead and dream all about the American dream the dream that will never come true ... that is what the republicans bet on .. they know most Americans are stupid when it comes to finances, why do you think they call small towns the "real America" .. they know those are the people they can deceive, people like Joe who will never see 250K in his lifetime, people like Joe buy a new ford truck and they equate it to living the American dream |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by element-y
The fact of the matter is he was trying to imply that not plumbers per say, but high paying jobs in general. So if a corporate owner gets more than 250k who hires a bunch of workers, if that guy gets taxed, he will cut back on some costs - costs at times = employees. THAT IS ALL. Media is attacking joe for nothing. WHO CARES if the man pays or doesnt pay his taxes or what state he is licensed to work in. Really, attack the man personally? Way to go media .. and morons. Oppose the idea fine, oppose the person without knowing them? Entirely unnecessary. And this issue really is all about two ways of viewing economic growth. So attacking one side over the other in an almost direct and personal level is ridiculous. Both have been proven to work and not work. You can argue the issue of economic growth, but attacking the person shows your level of intelligence...? |
first of all if you make $250,000/year, obama's tax plan increases your taxes by $7,500. second, a "corporate owner"'s salary has nothing to do with the payroll of the corporation he manages. third, corporate executives making $250,000/year take in anywhere from 50-100% of that value in stock options which are untaxed. with an income like that you probably own a million dollar house and a couple of nice cars along with good credit line and a portfolio to lean on. now if you're talking about small-business owners at that standard of living, then if $7,500 implodes your payroll by more than a tax break for 95% of america helps your annual revenue, then your business sucks and deserves to fail. |
|
|
| spinvinyl |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
third, corporate executives making $250,000/year take in anywhere from 50-100% of that value in stock options which are untaxed. |
absolutely untrue, stock options are taxed at the capital gains rate depending on how long you have held the exercised option. less than a year typically you pay around 30% tax, over a year around 15% tax. you can also lose your ass on taxes and options. many tech workers here in california had to pay more in taxes than they even made in income during the dot com crash. i didn't see the govt doing any bailout plans for those folks. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by spinvinyl
absolutely untrue, stock options are taxed at the capital gains rate depending on how long you have held the exercised option. less than a year typically you pay around 30% tax, over a year around 15% tax. you can also lose your ass on taxes and options. many tech workers here in california had to pay more in taxes than they even made in income during the dot com crash. i didn't see the govt doing any bailout plans for those folks. |
you're talking about the non-qualified options sold to non-executive levels of the company. those options are taxed when exercised at the income tax rate and the company gets the write-off so when the stock crashes, yea the little man is screwed. but at the +$250,000/year bracket you're talking about corporate executive salaries. executives have incentivized stock options with preferential tax treatment. they are only taxed on the gains of the options at the time they sell it while the value of the option at the time of acquisition is not taxed. no sale, no tax, no gain, no tax. when they do sell, the capital gains rate is 5-15% - less than half of income tax rate. the point is for executives making over a quarter million a year in salary, it's a tax shelter for earnings and a good way to drop into a lower income tax bracket. |
|
|
| spinvinyl |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
you're talking about the non-qualified options sold to non-executive levels of the company. those options are taxed when exercised at the income tax rate and the company gets the write-off so when the stock crashes, yea the little man is screwed. but at the +$250,000/year bracket you're talking about corporate executive salaries. executives have incentivized stock options with preferential tax treatment. they are only taxed on the gains of the options at the time they sell it while the value of the option at the time of acquisition is not taxed. no sale, no tax, no gain, no tax. when they do sell, the capital gains rate is 5-15% - less than half of income tax rate. the point is for executives making over a quarter million a year in salary, it's a tax shelter for earnings and a good way to drop into a lower income tax bracket. |
here's a good article explaining ISO's:
Taxes on ISO's
Do you have any information on this cap gains rate of 5-15%? I've never heard of a rate of 5%
Also I don't get the point of the 250k+ salary, there are many CEO's that make $1 a year in salary, ie Steve Jobs. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by spinvinyl
here's a good article explaining ISO's:
Taxes on ISO's
Do you have any information on this cap gains rate of 5-15%? I've never heard of a rate of 5%
Also I don't get the point of the 250k+ salary, there are many CEO's that make $1 a year in salary, ie Steve Jobs. |
details on the new capital gains rate:
Tax Provisions of the Jobs and Growth
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js408.htm
as an executive, you'd take most of your pay in options if your company is still in its growth phase - still innovating and making gains in revenue, profitabilty and market share. you'd take most of your earnings in salary if your company is reaching maturity or in decline. |
|
|
|
|
