Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
If I hear about Joe the Plumber one more time...
I might punch someone. Did anybody else notice that by the end, McCain referred to him as his "old buddy" Joe the plumber? WTF? McCain hasn't even met the dude! Sorry, had to get that out of my system.
Honestly, I was confused by the whole Joe the Plumber thing. As I understand it, Obama's plan would raise income taxes on individual income over $250,000. So why would Joe not be able to hire employees? Those are expenses deducted before Joe ever gets money. Doesn't Joe only get a tax increase if he is personally taking home $250,000, after expenses? I'm pretty sure that Joe could set up some sort of corporate form for his business (he should anyway, to protect his house from business debt) and pay himself a salary of $249,999.
My other thoughts (these have probably been said, but I wasn't online during the debate):
-To use Paul Begala's words, McCain looked like Grumpy McNasty.
-Was McCain wearing lipstick? Seriously, his lips looked freakishly pink.
-I wish Obama had been more forceful with McCain on the Ayres stuff. McCain said he can't control what some fringe people say. Obama should have looked him in the eye and said, "I'm not talking about the fringe, Senator. Your running mate said I am palling around with terrorists. That is false and dangerous."
-I was LIVID when McCain brushed off Obama's discussion of the Ledbetter case and the Ledbetter Act as simply "a trial lawyer's dream." McCain has yet to present ANY alternative to the Ledbetter Act to guarantee equal pay. If I were a one-issue voter, this would probably be my issue. I am supposed to have equal protection under the law, so why would I ever vote for someone who would deny me that protection?
Re: If I hear about Joe the Plumber one more time...
Have I ever told you that I heart you?
Perhaps I looked at the debate a little too much from my lawyers lens, but I couldn't stop thinking that if I behaved in court like McCain behaved in the debate, I'd either be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned. The level of disrespect he showed blew me away.
I don't get that either. If he hired sub-contractors, wouldn't that lower the business income even further? If I hire an illustrator to do some work for my design business, that's an expense just like utilities, office space, insurance, design supplies, lunches with clients, etc. I don't get taxed on the money I spend for all that stuff. My "salary" is a lot lower than the total of all the payments that come in. I'm sure a plumbing business would have plenty of expenses.
I feel like McCain and his plumber buddy seem to be conflating income with revenue. I mean, I realized I sucked at FedTax class and I'm just happy I passed, but even I know there is a big difference between the two.
I want a Joe the Plumber t-shirt after last night. He's the most popular plumber in America! haha
Obama's plan would raise income taxes on individual income over $250,000.
It's $200,000 for individuals. There are IRS rules that allow small business owners to declare business income on a personal income tax return. That's why McCain and others keep bringing up the fact that Obama will raise taxes on small businesses - b/c many don't pay corporate income tax (although Obama wants to raise that too), the owner pays personal income tax on the business revenues. Taxing a small business more means less money to hire/pay employees.
I don't give a sh!t about the ledbetter thing and I'm pro-equal pay for equal work. Obama thinks McCain's spending freeze is a hatchet? That act was a hatchet. McCain doesn't have to personally present an alternative. Obama hasn't presented any alternative or lobbied for a compromise either even though it's clear the senate isn't going to pass it as is. Being against one act doesn't mean he's against equal pay it just means he's against that particular legislation, which I would have been too if I were in Congress.
Wait, so what is your answer to women in the position of Lilly Ledbetter?
Yeah, for sole proprietorships, you file with your personal tax return, so basically, profit from a business that you solely own counts toward your income and loss from that business counts against it.
So, I lost $5k when I produced my play. Sucks, but that's a relatively small loss for a nyc production. So that $5k was subtracted from my income on my tax return, putting me in a lower tax bracket. If the number had been positive (ha!), it would have added to my income.
We can reasonably improve the statute of limitations without effectively eliminating it and letting 3rd parties or anyone "affected by it" sue.
Even if you are formally a small business, filing as an individual, you can still deduct business expenses from your total income. It does not equal more taxes for the small business.
I know we've discussed ledbetter many times, and we'll not agree, but aren't you equally upset with McCain's opposition to it? That it is simply for trial lawyers? He doesn't talk about how the bill was a bad bill on a real problem. He even said that women need more training not more pay. That doesn't bother you?
I'm mad at all the debates for not having any time for ledbetter, roe, and those types of issues. So, both candidates, in the one time they could speak on it, had to spit out as much as possible without expounding on it at all. Hardly fair to either.
Yeah, I understand that about sole proprietorships. I just don't believe that rolling back the Bush tax cuts will kill small businesses. They didn't die during the 90s. And while I realize this isn't something that federal income tax policy deals with specifically, but any business that could come close to doing $250,000 worth of business really needs to set up some sort of corporate form. If not, the owner is setting himself up for huge personal losses from lawsuits or business debts.
A tax rate increase = more taxes.
That's my point. If he has a problem with the bill, then he should be specfic about the problem. And frankly, saying he supports equal pay is nothing but empty words if he does nothing to help guarantee it. McCain actually said that the only - the ONLY - people who would benefit from the Ledbetter Act would be "trial lawyers and others in that profession." That is patently false. Workers who could recover back pay would benefit.
McCain's always talking about his record and how we should trust him because of his record. Nothing in his record shows that legislation to guarantee equal pay would even be on the radar in his administration.
No one is suggesting it will kill small business. It will just hurt them. In this economy, with unemployment rising that is something we can't afford. No small business is going to make a corporation if it means paying way more in taxes, which is what would happen. Legal protections are nice and all and obviously desirable, but not it it means draining all possibilities for profit b/c of the increased tax structure. Which reminds me again of why Obama's plan for corporate taxation is so bad.
What's to say he will pay "way more" in taxes? That's what accountants are for
He could be a Sole Proprietor or LLC and still file as an individual, gaining legal protections while avoiding being taxed twice over. If he bought this plumbing business that makes 250-280K, you don't think that total would be lowered significantly once expenses are deducted? This guy is not going to end up with anything near 250K as personal, taxable income at the end of a year. What am I missing?
Re: McCain's comment. Of course I don't care that he said it would benefit trial lawyers. I agree with him! My biggest problem with that bill is that it went way too far - effectively eliminating the statute of limitations and allowing anyone affected by it to sue. That is a trial lawyers dream.
Re: their records. I want congress to enact tort reform, tax reform, entitlement program reform, and a host of other issues. The fact that neither McCain or Obama have ever personally championed any of those issues in the legislature doesn't bother me b/c it's not the job of one particular candidate to have been a leader on every important issue. It's not a one man show. So no, I don't care that McCain hasn't spearheaded a statute of limitations reform. I wouldn't have either, not b/c I don't care, but b/c it's just one of a hundred things on a list of priorities. Speaking of leadership...
The Dems control both houses of congress. Where is the Dem leadership on the Fair Pay Act? Talking about it? Is that the best they can do? They don't need republicans to pass that bill. Yet they haven't done a damn thing to try to fix the issues with that bill and get it passed. For someone who supposedly champions women's issues where is Obama's leadership? At least McCain isn't lying that he is a champion of the issue while doing nothing about it. It's the Dems that are trying to have it both ways. They proposed a bill they knew wouldn't pass just to make themselves look good in an election. If they really cared about that Fair Pay Act it wouldn't be buried away in a committee never to see the light of day until the next election.
I assumed that $200k amount he was talking about was profit. My play made $10k in donations and ticket sales. It cost $15k to produce. I don't say 'I made $10k producing my play!' Though, maybe I should - sounds more successfuly that way. But it's also misleading b/c people don't talk in terms of revanue, they talk in terms of gross profit when they're saying 'we made x amount this year'.
I'm sorry but I'm not interested in setting up roadblocks for small business owners. Forcing them to hire an accountant to get out of paying higher taxes is exactly what's wrong with this country's tax system. It's punitive, it wastes resources, and it encourages people to take advantage of loopholes. It also encourages politicians to make more loopholes. Why on earth are we setting a bar for business owners to fall under in order to escape a punitive tax structure? That's the opposite of what we should be doing. We need to encourage growth in business, now more than ever. I have no idea what Joe the Plumber's business costs and it's not our job to speculate what his tax situation is. He said buying the business would put him over the $250K mark and we know there are other successful small businesses that would also be affected by Obama's tax plan. Joe is a perfect example of why Obama's tax plan is so wrong. People have this image that Obama's plan only hurts the Warren Buffets of America. Well, it doesn't.
But that's just it - he didn't say it would benefit trial lawyers. Back when the bill was up for a vote, de said it would ONLY benefit trial lawyers. And that, my friend, is simply not true. McCain has not engaged in any kind of nuanced discussion of the bill. Hell, you've discussed it with more seriousness than he has. The way he brushed it off last night was infuriating. He's concerned about the rising costs of litigation and the problems associated with it, fine. But last night, he showed NO compassion for the people who have been paid discriminatory wages and are unable to recover back pay. I've seen him show plenty of concern for businesses, but NONE for Lilly Ledbetter.
Did Obama show the type of concern you wish McCain had? (I will assume yes.) Obama hasn't done a damn thing to get that bill passed, so his so-called concern is hollow. Why would anyone want McCain to be equally disingenuous? McCain has other priorities and doesn't put on a dog and pony show to make you think he's a leader on this issue when he clearly isn't. If McCain showed concern you would just be infuriated at him for political expediency. And you should! But why is Obama getting away with being a champion in rhetoric only? Where is your Dem congress that supposedly cares so much about women's issues? I'm sorry to say this but no one in congress cares about this issue outside of an election season. I hold the people who say they care more accountable than those who are honest that they don't.
Well, actually, he did vote for cloture on the bill, so again, that would be false. Would I like him to do more? Absolutely.
I don't really get what you are saying. Deducting business expenses from income, having a variety of legal protections available and hiring an accountant = roadblocks??
Personally, I don't know how I could have a small business without those things.?Hiring employees isn't the only way SB owners help the economy.?Since I can deduct expenses, I feel freer to spend money on my business. SB owners buy a lot of stuff and hire people (like accountants!) to perform needed services... helps keep other small businesses running.?
I don't get what you're saying! Obama is proposing raising the tax rate and your solution is not to file business income on an individual tax returns? Corporatizing a small business has serious drawbacks for small businesses. It's the wrong decision for most of them which is why they don't. Joe the Plumber is already deducting business expenses. His whole point was that expanding his business would increase his tax burden which then prevents him from reinvesting that money back into the business, in whatever form.
Well if Joe Plumber is making 250K *after* deducting expenses, then what the hell is his problem?? He's doing mighty fine. Sheesh. Take some of the 250K and buy another vehicle... take on a few more jobs and subcontract with another plumber... do some marketing and place an ad in the paper. What exactly is preventing him from making any of those investments??
This is the point though. It's not the job of a government bureaucrat to decide what's "fine." Nor is it the job of a government bureaucrat to tell a small business owner what to spend business income on. Do you want a senator coming to your job and telling you how to do it? I think not. Neither does Joe the Plumber. People should be encouraged to make money - businesses and in individuals. Taxing successful people more creates a disincentive for success, something that hurts everyone including the government. The point of the tax code isn't to equalize income, which is what it's turning into. And that's scary.