Parable of the Poor and Rich Plumber

The days since the last presidential debate have been preoccupied with efforts to give satisfaction to "Joe the plumber." As everyone who follows the election knows, Joe Wurzelbacher presented himself to Barack Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio as an average American with reasonable doubts about Obama's tax program.

The Obama plan reduces or leaves untouched the income tax on persons earning less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Above that amount, it would tax the earner at a slightly higher rate.

Wurzelbacher, at present, earns far less than a quarter of a million; but in the conversational exchange that has made him famous, he imagined himself as a successful plumbing entrepreneur, sitting atop a yearly income of $300,000. What then? Would I, he asked Obama, be required to pay higher taxes than someone earning a tenth as much?

Obama gave the honest answer. He added that the jump from 36% to 39% need not seem very onerous to a prospering businessman; and (he repeated) the increase applied only to Americans whose earnings place them in the top five percent. Throughout the exchange, Obama was clear, patient, and full of details. Mastery of a policy to which he has once committed his name is among his major strengths as a politician. Thus far, conciseness is not. His listener in Ohio seemed to be trying to remember his own next line or somehow to regain a foothold in a conversation that had taken so wide a turn.

The length of the encounter was surprising. Obama seems here to have surrendered to the professional deformation of every gifted speaker--the illusion that if only you stay in the argument long enough, you can persuade anyone. It was this belief, too, that gave scope for his use of the phrase "spread the wealth around." And those were the words the McCain-Palin campaign seized upon. The words are now taken to supply all the evidence anyone needs that Barack Obama was a "socialist" all along, a reckless democrat who would gladly level the deserving rich with the undeserving poor.

The truth is that Obama in Ohio spoke the language of American democracy, which has always included a perception that wealth is a form of power, and that stupendous inequalities of wealth produce an undemocratic inequality of power. His questioner, angry in anticipation that he could not hold onto all of the $300,000 he might hypothetically earn in a year, spoke the language of righteous self-interest; and he cited as his irrefutable authority "the American dream." If I follow that dream, said the Joe of today, hoarding the wealth of the Joe of tomorrow, why should I ever pay a higher tax?

Obama's answer was simple and Christian. Once you have been helped by a tax break to prosper and to grow relatively rich, it seems fair to give others lower down the ladder the same chance that once helped you.

We Americans suffer from a self-imposed immaturity. It goes back to the Reagan years and the dream of unregulated commerce--of great riches to which all eventually will surely rise; of a gambling society in which every citizen always wins his bet against an unbreakable bank. Joe had swallowed that dream. Obama, by contrast, with his suggestion of a small adjustment toward a graduated tax, was explaining the realism of the progressive tax that began with Theodore Roosevelt.

And yet, when Obama evokes a society in which you begin by working for someone else, pass on to work as your own boss, and end by employing others, he is going back further than Theodore Roosevelt. This was a favorite topic with Abraham Lincoln, a politician whose ideas of labor and progress were memorably captured in his Address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society (September 30, 1859). "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world," said Lincoln, "labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." That the prosperous employer should assist the beginner was a natural corollary, for Lincoln, of his understanding of non-slave labor. Selfishness or, as he called it, "self-interest" was a symptom of a slavish mind, and incompatible with the high morale of democracy.

Is the American dream a selfish dream? Obama's questioner in Ohio seemed to believe that it was, and that it was always meant to be. It is clear the McCain-Palin campaign is doing everything it can to encourage that belief. In the latest ads, they are cultivating the fear of "socialism" much as Barry Goldwater in 1964 cultivated the fear that Medicare was a harbinger of "socialized medicine." This is a subject on which Americans some day soon will have to choose between Goldwater and Reagan, on the one hand, and Lincoln and Roosevelt on the other; and it is a consequential choice: between a selective dependency on government which cuts out the uses of government for persons less well off than oneself, and acceptance of the value of limited government that does "for a community of people" (as Lincoln said elsewhere) "whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves--in their separate, and individual capacities."

The American dream has sometimes meant the selfish gamble that everyone takes and that all expect to win. But of the American dream when it comes in this questionable shape, we ought to begin to be wary. Not because all dreams, like all hopes that assist people in living their lives, are not to be sympathized with, but because it is possible for a platitude to acquire such an air of sacredness that the mere mention of it aborts all understanding and all thought.

Comments

[gadfly55]

Joe owes Ohio $700, Joe doesn't have a licence to work as an employee plumber in private residential construction. Why bother with tax, qualifications, regulations, planning standards, licences or laws because it constrains individual liberty and initiative? Why bother with education, language, literacy and culture because it constrains individual expression ? Why bother with truth, standards of proof, peer review, judges, or precedent because it imposes restraint upon individual achievement? Yet, this is the culture now permeating millions of vacant minds in America, and no one can cope with its consequences for the next 30 years.

[JScott]

Yup, it's the from the John Stossel school of thought.

[Overd0g]

Agreed. Why does a plumber need a license? That's dumb. If the govt. didn't license plumbers, plumbers would form associations and license themselves (as other trades have throughout recorded history). The other stuff you mention is just a meaningless word salad that departs far from the original topic.

[MikeLee7125]

Do you really want somebody unlicensed and not bonded working on your water, sewage and gas pipes?

[jotunloki]

no Joe owes Ohio $1200. Joe doesn't pay his property taxes. He probably feels that's socialism too.

[ElSidd]

People who might make less than $250K per year:

1. Policemen
2. Firemen
3. Plumbers
5. Construction workers
6. Paramedics
7. Nurses
8. Teachers
9. DMV, and most other Gov-mint workers
10. Unlicensed Plumbers
11. Other emercancy service
12. And yes some services for the poor.

In a large case, these are the people who Joe/McCain/Palin don't want to "spread the wealth" to.

I say let Joe keep his "money". Should there be a natural disaster in Holland Ohio, let Joe spend of his wealth for the road repair, emergency services. Should God forbid something happens to Joe, Mrs Joe, Lil Joe jr, or their property, let him hire his own police force to find the perp. Don't call us. For goodness sakes Joe what if a war breaks out? or some more religious nut tries to blow something up? who ya gonna call? Should my toilet over-flow..... I know who I aint callin!!!

This is a joke. McCain, Palin, Joe..... all a very bad joke with no discernible punch-line in sight.

[gadfly55]

Joe can move to the wilderness in Alaska and take payouts from Palin.

[Gabbie]

When Joe is too old to work or maybe disabled whom does he expect will take care of him. Isn't he separated? He better be on good terms with his children otherwise good luck,Joe. Seeing that he doesn't believe in paying taxes then he shouldn't expect Social Security. If all these areas whereby Joe can rely on to help him should he become destitute then Joe can only look to living on the streets or ask John McCin for a hand-out. Come to think of it McCain being seventy-two he won't be around by the time Joe reaches retirement age. Good Luck,Joe!

[Overd0g]

He can buy insurance for natural disasters, as it should be. Then only he bears the burden, not taxpayers in some other state.

[gadfly55]

Can Joe understand progressive taxation? Incredible that Republicans unashamedly defend reducing tax on the super-rich because they create jobs, although the wages and benefits are being reduced relentlessly to pay more to the ruling class. Only in America is this argument conceivable as a political argument with potential to motivate support, on principle, with those whose own self-interest is diminished. For sure and certain, these fools will now, once and for all, be defeated in their ignorance and hysteria. Let's not mince words, and not try to be disagreeable with those with whom we disagree, because the political masters of these sheep have caused untold death and misery to countless people throughout the world, and sown deep weeds of division between their own citizenry. The United States demostrates dangerous political immaturity whose consequences have created the current collapse in confidence in anything American.

[Overd0g]

He understands it. He just doesn't regard it with fondness like you do.

[McMurdo]

Somewhere on the political/economic spectrum between socialism and oligarchy, there is an optimal zone in which a limited amount of redistribution produces the best results for the overall welfare of the country and its' citizens. If we were already in that optimal zone or on the socialistic side of that zone, then we would and should be concerned that more redistribution of wealth was leading to socialism. In the current situation, however, given that the current distribution of wealth and income is more highly concentrated than at any time since 1929, any redistribution of wealth and income from rich to poor at this time is not so much a move towards socialism as it is a move away from oligarchy and towards an optimal distribution.

If Joe and folks like Joe are so convinced that their financial success is completely their own rather than a combination of their efforts and the advantages of the social and economic infrastructure provided them by the country's taxpayers, then I suggest folks like Joe pull up roots and move to someplace like Zimbabwe, where they have little in the way of social or political infrastructure for taxes to be spent on. There, I am sure, these Joes' raw inate entrepreneurial skills will be able to flourish to their highest and best use. (sarcasm)

[Overd0g]

How do you know what the "optimal" distribution of wealth is? "Optimal" for what?

[Kerris]

Thanks for this article. I too noticed how Joe the Plumber, as my gran used to put it, spoke like it was his job to do the rich man a favor. The richest 5% in America are the luckiest rich class in the world, because only in America will the poor and middle classes fight tooth and nail for the rich's right not to part with a bleeding dime. Even if that means they, the poorer and middling classes, will have to pay out more money in the end. Anything so that the rich can keep their riches. The very idea that the rich can and should pay a bit more in % of their income than the poorer is terrifying even to the poorest who have imbibed the dictum that, "Hey, we could all rise to be wealthy one day! And we sure wouldn't want that wealth taken from us in more taxes, so we better vote now to protect the rich in case one day we become rich too!"

[Overd0g]

Let's put it this way. Some people don't believe that being poor gives one a license to steal. A tiny minority of people, admittedly.

[WillRoberts]

This would be a fun experiment. Go to any college campus and seek out left-leaning students. That shouldn't be too hard. Tell them out of fairness, the board of regents has decided to redistribute some of their grade points to those less fortunate. Tell them the board is going after the highest performing students first because they have the most to give. Sit back and enjoy the reaction.

[BARRISTER]

WillRoberts, your "point "is a non sequitur! Hannity and Rush are awaiting your return.
Adios!

[piul05]

Analogy is not your strong point, is it?

Anyway...M­r.Bromwich­, this was very pertinent article, thank you.

[Kerris]

This response plays right into the great myth.

[German Kahuna]

I think we both know what would happen. The thing is: your comparison is flawed. Getting some of the "high grade points" won't help the ones with less grade points get any smarter. They ALL already HAVE the opportunity to have the same high grade points.

You are taking the populist road by comparing that scenario to the "real world society" and the distribution of wealth. You are saying that people ALL have the same opportunities, but some just work harder. You are putting it as if the conditions under which you are born and raised have nothing to do with it. Do you understand what a plutocracy is? Try wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy (look at the second, the modern usage).

Believe me, the "Good Old Boys Club" of the wealthy establishment will always look after theirs and the rules for who gets permitted to the club are pretty tight, too. Ain't no "trickling down" here.
The mexican farm hand can work their butt off 14 hours a day and still never have the same opportunities as the people born into an elite environment.

[Overd0g]

Someday, the human race will understand that "working hard" is completely irrelevant to anything (except perhaps a good workout). All that matters is what you produce, and how shrewd you are at selling it.

[Gabbie]

This is a stupid analogy. When do you value the marks on a test to money. The way students use their blackberries or cell phones to crib their tests this wouldn't matter to them at all. If you were robbed of your test papers you wouldn't fight to prevent this as you would if you were being robbed of your wallet.

[Hank007]

Where the repubs have been geniuses, is in convincing the guy making $25k a year he needs to fight to protect the tax cuts for millionaires. Time and again, poor people in red states are bamboozled into fighting against gay marriage as a way to get them to fight the rich man's battles. Face it, Joe, you will NEVER be in a position where you clear a net income of $250,000. To stand on TV and argue how Obama is stealing your dream, makes you look like yet another patsy for the kajillionairs in charge.

The red states are the biggest recipients of welfare, and the blue states pay the most into the kitty. Only in America do most people vote directly against their own economic interests.

[WillRoberts]

It must be out of a sense of fairness. There's some of those people left. It used to be very American to do for yourself and expect nothing from others. Unfortunately, we're degrading into a culture of people expecting handouts

[daddyG56]

If your line of thinking is taken to its obvious conclusion, there would be no middle class in America. There would only be the very rich and the very poor (AKA landowners and serfs). That model has failed worldwide. All governments, despite their respective politics, are in the business of redistribution of wealth. Of course, those who hate all government regulation, taxes and social programs don't see it this way.

Now, let me get one thing straight. Are those people republicans, or anarchists?

I feel that the most important functions of government (when boiled down) should be:

1. To protect us by taxing individual wealth to fund the military.
2. To help the citizenry.

The model of allowing the rich to take as much of the PIE as they want doesn't work.
Obama's tax plans will help the middle class.

[gadfly55]

You may not have noticed the billions of dollars in handouts from the government to the supercontractors in Iraq, or since the forties to the defense industry, or to agri-business. Little people in America pay more than any developed country for all essential services, such as health, education, public services such as water, sewers, refuse, roads, etc. The welfare provided would not keep you on the street, never mind provide a reasonable and dignified life. The largest amount of tax benefits goes to the smallest number of people in corporate sector, personally and collectively through the tax system, or directly through contracts with the government.

[wolfgangmo]

Thank you for talking point number 24.

Now back under your bridge.

[guillotine]

Mr. Bromwich, your parable is elegantly constructed.
If only reason could persuade those on "the other side of the aisle."
But there's a double barrier to your words getting through:
(1) There really seems to be a shortage of empathy among the financially fortunate; less charity (as a proportion of income) given by the wealthy than by the middle class. In part, the philosophical foundation for this attitude seems mixed up with notions that riches are the natural result of hard work and wise decisions, and in some way a sign of God's favor, while lack of riches implies just the opposite. (In this model, there's no allowance made for the many fortunes made from bad or even criminal behavior, or from dumb luck and the principle that "nothing makes money like money.")
(2) We have a national history of taking land, resources, labor from people and cultures who were here before or who couldn't fend off exploitation; so perhaps no wonder many cleave to the story of virtuously earned success. And the more you have been a taker from others, the sorer your conscience may be about the other shoe dropping, the worm turning, karma come calling, etc.

[neegerk]

I don't understand why this line of attack, that Obama "wants to spread the wealth around", resonates so well with the American public. Is it that people are just hopeful that if they ever actually do have a generous income then they won't have to pay taxes on it? Why does such a large percentage of the population object to this idea when they make less than $250,000? Do they not believe Obama's explanation that they wouldn't be affected? Do they not understand the explanation? Why does Joe the Plumber care that someone who makes 4 times more (or 40 times more) than him would have to pay more taxes? Why do people in Joe's position support a tax structure that just increases the gap between the haves and have nots? Speaking as someone who probably would have to pay more under Obama's plan, I figure that I can afford it a lot more than a family of four that makes 1/2 or 1/4 of what my family of 4 makes. It's not socialism, it's just fair. Those who are more well off are reaping the benfits of this system - why shouldn't they pay their fair share? For someone who has 7,8, 9 houses (who can keep track?) to say otherwise just frosts me!

If the Republicans object to taxes so much, why don't they stop getting us involved in wars that require a large, tax-funded military?

[daddyG56]

Last year, my boss got his federal tax refund check on the same day that his employees (all of whom make less than 1/10th of his income) were scrambling to pay their taxes on time. He makes way more than 1/4 mil. a year. Is this fair? I kinda doubt it.

[STILJON]

Let’s help Joe out.
The highest average pay for a plumber would be $60,000. Joe under Senator McCain’s tax plan you will get a tax cut of $319. Under Senator Obama’s tax plan you will get a tax cut of $1,042. When Senator Obama talks about spreading the wealth around he believes you should be the one getting that wealth. This will give you more money to help buy your own small business. Once you own that truck Senator Obama’s emergency lending fund will make it easier for small businesses to get low cost loans. Contrary to popular belief Senator Obama will eliminate all capital gains taxes on small businesses. If you have insurance Senator Obama will cut your healthcare cost by $2500 a year. If you can’t afford a private plan Senator Obama will make it possible for you to get the same coverage members of Congress get. If you would like to offer health insurance to your employees Senator Obama is offering small businesses a refundable tax credit of up to 50% on premiums paid by you on behalf of your employees. If you find success and are eventually making over $250,000 a year, your tax rate will go up some. The increase will be nowhere near enough to slow your business from growing. However, this will make it more possible for one of your employees to follow in your footsteps and start his plumbing business.
Good luck Joe.

[arsehanded2u]

From the original "Socialist," Theodore Roosevelt, you know Rethugs, the one who pushed for our progressive federal income tax policy that passed in 1913:

"The opposition to reform is generally well led by skilled parliamentarians, and they fight with the vindictiveness natural to men who see a chance of striking at the institution which has baffled their greed. These men have a gift at office-mongering, just as other men have a peculiar knack at picking pockets; and they are joined by all the honest dull men, who vote wrong out of pure ignorance, and by a very few sincere and intelligent, but wholly misguided people."

This quote is for all you lemmings repeating the Socialist talking point the last weak. By the way, If Barack is Socialist, so is every President since the 16th Amendment passed in 1913.

[OmnesOmnibus]

Socialism doesn't mean Stalin and Kruschev anymore. People are hardly afraid of it, and hardly give it much thought. People do look at Canada and think, wow I'd like to have their healthcare. Hurling the accusation at Obama really does show how old and out of touch McCain is. A campaign that would have been swell in 1958 looks very stale and antique these days.

[23000Days]

Want a real challege? Try to find a republican who would turn down a government check!

[23000Days]

Please try to get this straight, by seperating your emotions from your logic. When a commune is formed, it is a socialist endeavor; a community is the result; communities decide on projects that benefit most or all it's society (Infrastructure, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, schools, etc.); These social endeavors are true socialism.
For some reason, Americans refuse to realize this fact until society wants those who recieve the most from society to pay the most for it, then it's SOCIALISM!

[WillRoberts]

You may start thinking clearly if you include all the variables in your equation. Most of the highly compensated in this country have EARNED it. The benefits they enjoy are not merely recieved, but are EARNED. They already PAY through hard work, long-hours, and good decisions. Why should they pay twice through a progressive tax system? Your model is backwards.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

If you DON'T believe those highly compensated "...EARNED it" by also being a part of, and accepting the benefits of, a 'society' then you've chosen denial. Your automatic assumption that the not so highly paid never work hard or put in long hours is erroneous and somewhat bigoted. And also, we ALREADY have a progressive tax system. Rolling back the preznutz' tax cuts for the wealthiest, when that group most benefited from the policies of the last 8 years, to what was paid just a decade ago is not ANY new 'socialism'.

Your 'model' is a self-interested rationalization.

[jeanrenoir]

Americans have been corrupted by materialism and relative prosperity, not to mention a popular culture focus on nonstop narcissism. I had to visit Las Vegas on family business this past weekend and was appalled at the spiritual waste land it epitomizes. A huge percentage of Americans, much bigger than any in the developed world, is FAT, and uneducated, a lethal combination. So, yes, of course, the contemporary American Dream is simply the dream of MY becoming a fat cat. To hell with the poor and the "others" in general. Looking out for Number 1 is the American credo.

[leopoldmozart]

The canary in the mine shaft concerning this change in the American spirit was the change that occurred among the Evangelical Christianity in the mid-70's. A Christianity based on obedience to Christ, self sacrifice, helping the poor, and welcoming the stranger (I think of Billy Graham, Keith Green, Bill Bright, James Dobson when he was a child therapist, and the writings of Dietrich Bonhoffer) gave way to the gospel of health, wealth and happiness extolled by TV and radio evangelists, and Repubo-Christians like Falwell, Pat Robertson, and (recently) James Dobson. Right wing Christianity is sacro-narcissism, and really led the way for the rest of conservative America.