Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America

[Coronita]

maybe those of you complain about unfair wealth distribution is to the rich should spend more time working…

i don’t complain about how unfair it is for rich to get tax havens, therefore I can waste my time freely… 🙂

I’m kidding. Actually, I’m waiting for long builds in between.

[livinincali]

[quote=harvey][quote]
I’m completely amazed at the idiots that believe the Dems are some sort of heroes for the people that will save us all from the evil GOP which is trying to enslave us all.[/quote]

BTW, we have a new record for “weakest strawman” on this thread. Didn’t take long.[/quote]

Unfortunately the quoted comment isn’t even close to a strawman so I’ll go with weakest understanding of what a strawman is.

Because there’s a lot of people whom don’t understand what a strawman is. From wikipedia

[quote]
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
[/quote]

For more information please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

[Anonymous]

[quote=livinincali][quote=harvey][quote]
I’m completely amazed at the idiots that believe the Dems are some sort of heroes for the people that will save us all from the evil GOP which is trying to enslave us all.[/quote]

BTW, we have a new record for “weakest strawman” on this thread. Didn’t take long.[/quote]

Unfortunately the quoted comment isn’t even close to a strawman so I’ll go with weakest understanding of what a strawman is.[/quote]

Aw c’mon. It’s not probably not a perfect textbook example of strawman, but you might wanna read your own definition before you cut and paste:

Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

I think the phrase “… the idiots that believe the Dems are some sort of heroes for the people that will save us all from the evil GOP which is trying to enslave us all” might be a tad of a distortion and oversimplification. And perhaps there is a reference to a fictitious persona?

So we can argue semantics, or we can stay on point:

Do you agree with the claim that those who favor higher taxes on the wealthy to close the budget deficit are “idiots that believe the Dems are some sort of heroes for the people that will save us all from the evil GOP which is trying to enslave us all.” ?

I don’t.

[briansd1]

[quote=harvey] Allan consistently supports no candidate and advocates no specific policies, while consistently disparaging the opinions of others.
[/quote]

And according to Allan, Obama is always a loser even when he wins. Then he goes on about Pyrrhic victory and long term consequences for the country.

An athlete might win a gold medal today. But long-term she might sacrifice her health, fertility and longevity. Pyrrhic victory? Perhaps. But that doesn’t take away from the hard work and the win.

The problem is that Allan is a conservative; but the can’t support any conservative who is running right now. So his fallback is “they are all the same.”

BTW, I never said, nor do I believe, that my side is 100% right. But my side is definitely better than the other side. And that’s good enough for me to support who I support.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]maybe those of you complain about unfair wealth distribution is to the rich should spend more time working…

i don’t complain about how unfair it is for rich to get tax havens, therefore I can waste my time freely… 🙂

I’m kidding. Actually, I’m waiting for long builds in between.[/quote]

Which side started this thread and doing the bitchin’ here?

Like I said before, the idea that taxes should be proportional to population is stupid.

Taxes should be proportional to the economic benefits and wealth obtained from the society that provides such benefits. Based on that, the rich don’t have any good reason to bitch.

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1]
But my side is definitely better than the other side. [/quote]

How’s that for oversimplification?

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1]
Taxes should not be proportional based on population, but is should be proportional based on the share of the economic pie.

If you go dutch to a restaurant, each person does not pay the same. Each person pays according to what he gets. If you get the lobster and wine, you should pay more than the person who only gets a salad and water.[/quote]

So you support a flat tax?

[briansd1]

[quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
But my side is definitely better than the other side. [/quote]

How’s that for oversimplification?[/quote]

I’ve provided reasons for the difference.

Yes, Democrats are the same as Republicans right down to ending the War in Iraq, to ending don’t ask don’t tell, to affordable care, to protection of a woman’s right to choose, to regulation of the banks that caused the financial crisis, to the Dream Act, to saving American automakers, and on, and on…

Republicans? They are still focused on looking back and reversing and repealing the New Deal, the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, etc… Sorry man, those are settled issues and contrived issues to distract the masses of Republican voters who lack education and critical thinking.

[briansd1]

[quote=mike92104]

So you support a flat tax?[/quote]

No, a flat tax does not reflect taxes proportional to the share of the economic pie.

[mike92104]

[quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
Taxes should not be proportional based on population, but is should be proportional based on the share of the economic pie.

If you go dutch to a restaurant, each person does not pay the same. Each person pays according to what he gets. If you get the lobster and wine, you should pay more than the person who only gets a salad and water.[/quote]

So you support a flat tax?[/quote]

Now THAT’s a Straw Man!

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104]

So you support a flat tax?[/quote]

No, a flat tax does not reflect taxes proportional to the share of the economic pie.[/quote]

So you want to tax people based on what they already have rather than income?

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
But my side is definitely better than the other side. [/quote]

How’s that for oversimplification?[/quote]

Yes, Democrats are the same as Republicans right down to ending the War in Iraq, to ending don’t ask don’t tell, to affordable care, to protection of a woman’s right to choose, to regulation of the banks that caused the financial crisis, to the Dream Act, to saving American automakers, and on, and on…
[/quote]

Wouldn’t these also be contrived issues aimed at your side of the aisle? I know you’re touting them as some great accomplishment in defeating those evil republicans, but aren’t there sounds arguments the other way for each of those (except for don’t ask don’t tell which I think points out some of the hypocrisy of the repubs)?

[briansd1]

Tax policy should be based on the wealth and income of different groups so that, statistically, the burden to support the government and infrastructure of society is proportionate to wealth and income.

The reason is because society as a whole creates the wealth for the people who benefit from it.

So, if you benefit from 25% of the wealth that society creates, it’s only fair that you pay 25% of the taxes that support that society.

Actually, the richest should pay more because the benefits of additional wealth is greater. For example, the benefits of owning private planes, helicopters, yachts, enjoying private islands, owning castles, trips into outer space, access to powerful people, etc. are worth marginally more, IMO.

[Anonymous]

[quote=mike92104][quote=mike92104][quote=briansd1]
Taxes should […][/quote]

So you support a flat tax?[/quote]

Now THAT’s a Straw Man![/quote]

Strawman or not your question about Brian supporting a flat tax is a pathetic waste of time, as you know he does not support one.

Responding to your own quotes is a pretty lame also, even if you did correctly identify your own argument as a strawman.

This thread has succumbed to stupidity, as one group wants to actually discuss specific tax policy with specific goals (i.e. balancing the budget) but their voices are drowned out by those crying about “fairness” and being “punished for success” (what an idiotic phrase, btw.) or the old pablum: “all politicians suck.”

My position for the federal budget is basically to implement the Simpson Bowles plan. It’s a workable solution and I believe that Obama is the most likely to make it happen in the next presidential term (unlike Romney who wants to increase military spending and cut taxes, WTF?)

So what’s your position?

And before anyone says “tax the poor,” please do the fucking math first.

[briansd1]

Like I said, mike, they are not the same to me. And I pointed out why.

You seem to agree with me here that Democrats and Republicans are not the same. That was my point.

[Author]

Posts