Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong, I stated it was theft for the gov't to unequally take. In this case it is in the form of "progressive" taxation of labor.
The government is always going to 'unequally' take, if for no other reason than that people differ on what the definition of 'equally' would even mean - but even if not for that reason, than for the one that probably over 95% of Americans are in favor of some level of 'inequality' in taxation.
Yes, "concentration" is an emotional issue and falls more on the moral side.
No, it's not. Like pretty much any issue, it can have emotions occur with it, but it's not 'an emotional issue', other than in your propaganda. It's a factual issue, with effects.
Calling it emotional is merely your attempt to pretend you have shot it down without actually having anything to say of importance on the issue.
You are assigning "harm" to this supposed concentration. :roll:
Yes, that's an opinion that can be debated, not an 'emotion'. You apparently argue that there's harm in restricting the concentration. That, too, is an opinion.
I did not say the desire for more wealth wasn't emotional.
No, but you didn't try to pretend you had disproven the argument in favor of unlimited wealth (let's be accurate, the dispute is about unlimited wealth, not merely 'more' wealth, which both sides agree is good) by calling it 'emotional'. You display a double standard on the use of the word.
Now, let's watch you try to switch the topic from my pointing out your inconsistency, to you trying to put words in my mouth that I said people shouldn't be able to act on their 'desire':
However, who are YOU to say someone shouldn't be able to act on that desire?
I do not desire the wealthy to have more wealth, but then again, I'm not obsessed with what others have so I won't impede them. It's their choice - not yours or the gov'ts.
As I said, I'm all in favor of there being a certain level of inequality, which is productive for society. I'm against extreme concentrations of wealth that harm society, for the reasons I've stated. You are apparently so bad at political discussion, that the best you can do are weak, transparent attempts to misrepresent what others say so you can argue against straw men, such as the child-like fallacy that concerns about excessive concentrations of wealth are 'obsession' and 'jealousy' - you are lyijng and slandering with such statements.
So you don't think taxes are redistribution of wealth?
There's always an element of re-distribution, but it's not the primary purpose.
And it can be complicated to trace the effects. For example, universal healthcare for workers would also help the wealthy by cutting their business expenses for healthcare, through giving them a healtheir workforce, by improving the consumer base to spend more, and so on.
I do not oppose taxation - I oppose taxation that is unequal and lacks choice. The founding fathers seemed to understand this...
Your side frequently indulges in hyperbole by referring to any tax they don't like as 'taking their money at gunpoint', a phrase that refers to all taxation.
But let's take you at your word and discuss what you say - can you define "equal" taxation? Does that mean everyone pays the same dollar amount? Or the same percent of income? Income from all sources, including capital gains? How about exemptions for things like blindness or home mortgages? Why is your definition of 'equal' right over others'? Why do you defend shifting taxes yet further off the wealth, which is what most supposed 'equal' tax structures would do?
You keep trying to pretend the founding fathers are on your side, but you haven't even articulated any theory about this. What do you mean they 'understood' equal taxation?
And what do you mean by 'choice' in taxation, much less what the founding fathers did to agree with you about it? Are you referring to the 'choice' of purchasing under a sales tax?
Since when is 'choice' some essential element of a tax system? I'd think that that's pretty irrelevant, compared to it being efficient, 'fair', and so on.
BTW, I have no desire to read a book by a guy who basically promotes class envy.
You never get tired of spouting your straw man, do you?
David Cay Johnston is the Pulistzer-Prize winning tax reporter for the New York Times. His book is not promoting class envy, it's informing the read about our tax system.
Your passion for remaining ignorant is despicable.
How do you like that shot? Nope haven't read his books, don't care too because I've read things by people like him.
I think I answered the first question, but the second is no surprise, and reflects why you spout such ideologically-based ignorance.
I would not even comment on it except you think you had to make a point of it.
Yes, I make a point that you would benefit from getting a little idea what the hell you're talking about, and the point stands.
Likewise - I suggest you refrain from comment if you are only going to shoot the messenger like you did in this thread - which was my original point here.
I'll shoot messengers that deserve shooting, and he does. You STILL have yet to provide any evidence that the attack on the messenge was wrong.
And as you do constantly, you misstate the issue. The phrase 'shoot the messenger' refers to not wrongly directing the consequences for a bad message at an innocent messenger who had nothing to do with the message, instead of at the proper target, the source of the message.
In this case, Deier is not some innocent messenger being attacked, he's the CONGRESSMAN who is ESPOUSING the view himself. There is no 'innocent messenger' involved; it's not as if I blasted some newspaper who reported his comments. I'm blasting the policymaker himself.
The fact is you are implicitly asserting that he's some reasonable policymaker who is simply putting out a well-intentioned idea for discussion, and by doing that, you are in opposition to my claim that there is an entire industry - see the Cato Institute for one - around trying to reduce the taxation on the wealthy, who use propaganda institutes to create plans to try to trick the public, and they have agents like Deier who are charged with pushing them through our democratic system. I'm pointing out the pattern of behavior involved, that they put out countless variations of the same basic thing, plans to cut taxes for the wealth, with any color of makeup applied to try to sell it.
The thing is, my claim is correct, and denials are not. You don't argue with any facts, because of that - you have not answered my challenge to show me the (R) tax plans since GWB took office which do not cut taxes for the very wealthy, and stand up to scrutiny on that point, rather than parrot the lies of the Cato types who try to say that 'lower tax rates on the wealthy actually costs them more in taxes' and such other propaganda.
I'm saying that people like Deier have lost any benefit of the doubt to have their 'tax proposals' taken as if there was no history of putting out bad faith plans for the one purpose of cutting taxes for the wealthy. Since he acts as a paid agent for the very wealthy and behaves so predictably, as do his cohorts on the right, he deserves to have that said about him and not to have a 'clean slate' pretending his proposal might be something completely different each time.
You're so confused that you can't tell the difference between pointing out patterns, with claiming patterns for no reason; between shooting messengers, and shooting bad leaders.
Wow, talk about "
Facebook
Twitter