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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Maybe some of us are sick of being shaken down by the government in the form of taxes. Those of us who make more, give much more. My family literally work for Uncle Sam for 4 months out of the year, and the dems want to make it 6 months in the name of "fairness.
An increase of 3% on income over $198,000 will not force you to work for for another two months. Another two days, maybe?
Let me be clear...yo
Thanks, Whatshop! You beat me to the punch.
Sunny555 - So, you and/or members of your family make $250,000 plus a year? My heart bleeds for you. I'm struggling at $60,000 and can't imagine how some of my neighbors are living on less. ALL of us work for Uncle Sam for a certain amount of time each hour/day/week/year -- and guess what? We get quite a bit for it. In fact, if Obama asked me to pay a little more in taxes, so that our infrastructure (remember that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis, those levies that collapsed in New Orleans?) could be repaired and expanded, I would be honored to do so. Why? Because he's asking the wealthiest among us to share in those costs of improvement.
Living in this country is not a free-for-all, folks. We all have responsibilities. That includes those who have been monetarily successful.
Thank you.
If you believe that takes are a shakedown by the government, should we not be paying taxes at all? Where do you propose the government get the money to keep the infrastructure of the country moving and stem the downward spiral of the economy? Would further lowering taxes on those who control a vast majority of the wealth do anything but push us further into debt?
1. There is an argument to be made that you have MORE value out of your taxes, as a rich American your assets are much better protected by the system than those of a poorer person.
2. The premise of progressive taxation is that the wealthy will have more 'expendable' money left over after paying necessities than a poorer person. According to WikiAnswer
3. Would you rather that angry mobs storm your house and take what they need by force, or would you rather share before that happens. Only common decency and the 'government' would keep anyone from taking your wealth away by whatever means they have. For someone whose family is now homeless due to job loss, I think that common decency is going be increasingly irrelevant. Its in your own self interest to help others escape desperate straights.
4. Jesus would help the poor. Will you dare to name your belief after him, and knowingly do the opposite of what he preached? What kind of afterlife do you think you will earn by that?
You probably get MUCH more than you think. Here's a short list...
Military
Police
Fire protection
Public schools (even if you don't have a child in school, don't you want everyone else educated so they can work for a living just like you do?)
Paved roads, streets, and highways
Ports - sea and air
You get your share of access to these things and more. You may not get a check from the gov't, some gov't cheese, or some other direct handout... but your pay-in has VALUE.
Indeed, we need to grow up. The vast majority of us will never be wealthy in our lives. That is our reality. Just look around at the masses of ordinary people. The mindset that valorizes the rich and grants them the privilege of not bearing their fair share of society's burdens is an odd one indeed. It has to be the same mindset that caused us to look the other way when our fellow people were used as slaves for generations. Somehow it was OK because it made some people wealth!
Great article. There are so many wealthy people in this country who do understand the principle of helping those still struggling. Many of those people post here at HP.
I don't have a lot of patience with wealthy folks who whine about their taxes. When the system is fair for everyone, all Americans prosper. Average wage earners can afford to buy that widget you got rich inventing, and can take their families to see that movie you're in. They can take that vacation and visit your theme park and stay in your swank hotels. They can buy your latest cd and trade in their old car for a new one.
Paul Newman is one of the greatest examples of the idea that we are our brother's keepers. A quarter of a billion dollars made selling products with his name and face on them, and all of it given to charity. And quess what? He still had plenty of money to lead the good life of a man who reached the American dream. When you compare Newman's life well lived to the wealthy whiners crying about taxes, you can see that it isn't wealth by itself that corrupts. It's the addiction to wealth we call greed.
P.N. was super-rich. We're talking millions and millions. The people your candidate wants to tax are not nearly in that category.
They most certainly are. the top 1% in this nation owns 90% of the wealth and earns more than the the bottom 50%. It is a greater disparity than existed leading up to the great depression, there is a corollary. Give rich fat cat thieves any excuse to and they take the money and run, that is why the financial system is collapsing. Wake UP! you are living a lie!
You can live as generously as he did - at your level. he was a great role model.
What are you talking about, sunny555? The people Obama will raise taxes on ARE the super rich, and he's only raising them a lousy 3%. The same rate they paid when they got richer during the boom years under Clinton. Turn off Limbaugh and Hannity, and read a newspaper for chrissake!
"Joe" the "Plumber" had a selfish fantasy, and in his fantasy world, he doesn't want his fantasy money taxed.
Don't bore him with details and actual facts from reality.
Unfortunately, some people have bought into the idea that the American dream is, "I get mine and screw everyone else." They haven't taken heed from the results of extreme inequality and unbridled greed we are dealing with today. We all lose in these conditions.
The American dream ends at 250 but in a few years you can bet it will be less.
Another of Joe's fantasies is that rich people got that way because they "worked hard and earned it." Some do -- but most of the super-rich (cf. Paris Hilton, Cindy McCain) made their money the old-fashioned way: They inherited it.
Interesting article. What you describe as a "self-imposed immaturity" is actually something quite different. It is a self-imposed delusion whereby every American expects to be rich. Surveys show that college students consistently overestimate their likely future income. Republicans have cultivated this belief because certain voters seem to favor tax policies that favor who they want to become, rather than who they are. This is not to say that there is a problem with creating a world of strivers, looking to better their lot. However, it does lead to the perverse result that a significant number of people favor policies that are adverse to their own interests based on a small likelihood that they will be benefitted down the road.
Bingo. There are plenty of psychological studies showing that people would rather have an incredibly long shot at winning a huge prize than much better odds of winning a more modest one. That's the principle that makes state lotteries work,
On the first day of my introductory tax law class, the professor walked to the front of the room and said, "Anyone who said that they wouldn't have done something or other because of the tax burden placed upon it obviously didn't want that something or other too much. Now, let's discuss the concept of basis."
How's this: go to your company's building and count the corner offices. If there isn't one for every employee you might begin to consider that not everyone gets to be the boss. If you work for a small business, ask yourself how many "boss's" offices there are in your company. Same outcome. Not everyone will become the CEO. Not everyone WANTS to be the boss. Not everyone is capable of being the boss: intellectually, emotionally or based on merit.
And guess what? That's OK. Not everyone OUGHT to be the boss. We OUGHT to live in a world where every person is able to make a living and provide for their family.
In the last 30 years contempt for working people has increased as rapidly as executive salaries. There is a feeling that, if you aren't rich, you deserve degradation. The idea that only rich people "matter" has supplanted the idea that everyone matters. People who might be comfortable vote ruin upon themselves in the hopes that some day they will be among the rich.
Witness the TV show, "Get rich or die trying," which might as well be titled, "If you're not rich, why aren't you dead?"
Of course a society in which everyone is rich is impossible, whereas one in which far fewer are among the poor is a real possibility. And the media keep telling us this is wrong. And they are lying.
How many times are we told in the Bible to take care of the poor? I read elsewhere that Joe the Plumber had been on welfare at one time in his life, yet he doesn't feel the need to help others.
Actually it is the most constant injunction of Jesus, to take care of the poor. The Christian Right hold that the most important injunction is empty belief without works.
Great commentary. Well, the Republicans have a wealth distribution plan too, but it includes making the wealthy more wealthy, and distributing that wealth to the already rich, so they can take work out of the country. and then, well, you all get it.
I have often thought that anyone who accepts public assistance should have the opportunity and responsibility to pay back all or a portion of the amount they took out of the public still.
I know many medical students, dental students, law students, etc, who rely on public assistance during their schooling, without being expected to pay it back once they are among the top 1% of wage earners worldwide. It doesn't make sense.
Such a program could be self-funding. People would take out what they need when they need it most, and pay back in once they are back on their feet.
The flaw in your argument is that people today didn't "become rich" due to a tax cut. They didn't "become rich" due to government assistance. If they did, then EVERYONE would do the same and be wealthy. Obama's proposition proposes the wealthy BECAUSE they are wealthy, not because the government made them wealthy.
Such a program could be self-funding. People would take out what they need when they need it most, and pay back in once they are back on their feet.
That program does exist. When one earns enough to be among the top1% of wage earners, they pay income taxes so that the fund gets replenished and the next person in need can get assistance.
This is not Socialism, it is how our Democracy works.
The government may not have made them wealthy, but the government did allow them to become so.
The citizens also allowed them to, and in many cases helped them to.
Rich people like to threaten Ayn Rand style they will pack up and leave if taxes get too high, but I haven't seen much of that actually happening. Sure jobs may be sent overseas, but the the money makers seem to like it here in the US pretty well. Could that be because US government stability and good infrastructure that allows a very comfortable and secure lifestyle among its citizens?
Hmmm... am I willing to pay for that? Or would I rather have it handed to me via more debt or undue burden on lower classes? Slaves! That's the ticket...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
