Patriotic Millionaires -Whoa, wait. Give? money???

[Bowfinger]

And 100% of the lefts talking points.

"I know you are but what am I?" Really? That's the best you can do, that lame playground retort? Do you have any original thinking skills whatsoever? With all due respect, you are way, way out of your league here. You should go back to Free Republic where such handicaps are cherished.

 

[child of wonder]

How many here would put their credit card # into a strangers iPad?

 

[michal1980]

"I know you are but what am I?" Really? That's the best you can do, that lame playground retort? Do you have any original thinking skills whatsoever? With all due respect, you are way, way out of your league here. You should go back to Free Republic where such handicaps are cherished.

Scared of me aren't you. You keep wanting me to go away.

P.S.

I was right with my statement.

The left is 100% emotional.

 

[Bowfinger]

Squawk! Mickey want a cracker! Squawk!

The left is 100% emotional.

That is indeed the talking point, and you nutters parrot it well, no matter how many times it is objectively proven to be bird shit.

/cracker

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Bowfinger pwned yet again................LMAO!!!!!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Bowfinger pwned yet again................LMAO!!!!!!

Dream on sweetie. It's so much easier for you than reality.

 

[cybrsage]

Alright let's look at it another way: Don't they have enough money to give the poor? They should either start a charity or shut the fuck up.

Most rich people give a LOT of money to charity. The lion's share of charitable giving is done by the rich.

 

[cybrsage]

Are the people demanding the tax increases also demanding their own taxes be increased? From the article the answer seems pretty obviously YES. Did you even read the link?

This is so easy to understand that I'm sure even you can get a handle on it.

Those specific individuals refused to show their credit card numbers on national television. Most people would call that smart.

We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves. Why are you pretending this is not true.

 

[fskimospy]

Those specific individuals refused to show their credit card numbers on national television. Most people would call that smart.

We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves. Why are you pretending this is not true.

I'm seriously having trouble wrapping my head around what you're trying to say. This thread is about how millionaires who went to Washington refused to write a check to the treasury as an unrelated non-tax donation.

You then said it was easy to call for taxes to be raised on other people that the individual wouldn't pay. Considering if these people were telling the truth they would most certainly be paying the taxes they were calling for, your comment was bizarre. If you're trying to make the claim that most people calling for higher taxes on the rich aren't going to be paying those taxes themselves.... okay. That has absolutely nothing to do with this topic though, and you weren't even coherent enough to mention that you were going off on a tangent.

So I guess what I'm saying is if you were just randomly yelling things about taxes unrelated to the thread, I apologize for assuming that you were speaking on topic.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves. Why are you pretending this is not true.

You "know" this ... how? Where's your DATA to prove this? What objective evidence do you have to support your emotion-based presumption?

This is my point about the right (generally speaking). They love to pontificate about how they are driven by facts, yet they rarely demonstrate it. Instead they just spout the same dogma they've accepted on faith, without ever validating it objectively. Any attempts to provide them with conflicting data are then ignored. In other words, their beliefs come from emotions (again, generally speaking). Somebody else jump in here, but as I remember it, there have been scientific studies corroborating this.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm seriously having trouble wrapping my head around what you're trying to say. This thread is about how millionaires who went to Washington refused to write a check to the treasury as an unrelated non-tax donation.

My first few posts were done without being able to see the video. It would not open for me. I assumed this thread was about the general public.

I can open it today (no idea why it would not open before).

After watching it, I can only surmise these guys are idiots. Not for not wanting to show their credit card numbers on national TV (that is smart), but for not walking the walk.

They are not already voluntarily doing what they demand be forced by law.

 

[fskimospy]

My first few posts were done without being able to see the video. It would not open for me. I assumed this thread was about the general public.

I can open it today (no idea why it would not open before).

After watching it, I can only surmise these guys are idiots. Not for not wanting to show their credit card numbers on national TV (that is smart), but for not walking the walk.

They are not already voluntarily doing what they demand be forced by law.

You assumed a thread titled 'Patriotic Millionaires' was about the general public?

You assumed this OP:

Looks like those top 1% ers that say the government should tax us more aren't actually willing to give more.
Liberals? Check
Hypocrite? Check

That specifically stated they weren't members of the general public... was about the general public? You need to read/think better before you write.

Of course they aren't voluntarily doing what they wish to be required by law. As already mentioned in the beginning of this thread, taxation is a collective action problem. Just as if you believed that driving on the left side of the road was a good idea or invading Iran was a good idea, you would not unilaterally begin carrying out this policy without everyone else buying in too because it would be pointless. This is not a difficult idea to grasp.

This is a frequent argument made by people on the right, and it is unbelievably dumb.

 

[cybrsage]

You "know" this ... how? Where's your DATA to prove this? What objective evidence do you have to support your emotion-based presumption?

This is easy, I will start with the common sense approach and grab actual data if you need it still.


Fact (A): 99% of the population is not part of the 1%.
Fact (B): People are calling for raising taxes on the rich.
Assumption (C): The rich is defined as those who are in the 1%
Assumption (D): You already know the first two facts and assumption.

Posit: We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves.

Since 99% is vastly more than 1%, and A, B, C, and D are true, then the Posit is also true.
In order for the Posit to be false, one or both of the assumptions must be false. You simply need to show that the rich are not defined as those who are in the 1% or that you did not know A, B, and C are true (or both).

Remember, the 1% starts at earning $344,000 a year (or somewhere in that ballpark area).

 

[cybrsage]

You assumed a thread titled 'Patriotic Millionaires' was about the general public?

Yes. Already said that once. If I say it thrice will you believe it, or is twice enough? 😉

Of course they aren't voluntarily doing what they wish to be required by law. As already mentioned in the beginning of this thread, taxation is a collective action problem. Just as if you believed that driving on the left side of the road was a good idea or invading Iran was a good idea, you would not unilaterally begin carrying out this policy without everyone else buying in too because it would be pointless. This is not a difficult idea to grasp.

Those things hurt other people, so they are not valid examples. Try using examples that do not hurt other people, but help them instead. Lets try:

I want everyone to be forced to give money to charity, but I refuse to give money to charity.
I want everyone to be forced to clean up trash in parks, but I refuse to clean up trash in parks.

I am sure you can come up with more on your own.

This is a frequent argument made by people on the right, and it is unbelievably dumb.[/QUOTE]

 

[thraashman]

Scared of me aren't you. You keep wanting me to go away.

P.S.

I was right with my statement.

The left is 100% emotional.

And 89% of statistics are made up. I have repeatedly in P&N used that factual thing known as math to prove why a liberal stance on something is correct. And if you want a non-emotional FACT. The top 1% control 43% of wealth but have a total tax rate of 21%. The bottom 50% control only 2.4% of all wealth but have a total tax rate of 6.7%. The truth is the rich pay a disproportionally small amount of taxes.

People want you to go away because you're apparently an intellectually dishonest ideological jerk.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ clutter removed ]
Posit: We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves.

Since 99% is vastly more than 1%, and A, B, C, and D are true, then the Posit is also true.
In order for the Posit to be false, one or both of the assumptions must be false. You simply need to show that the rich are not defined as those who are in the 1% or that you did not know A, B, and C are true (or both). ...

Sorry, that's a non sequitur. Your logic is wrong. Your posit is an unproven, emotional presumption, unsupported by fact or sound reason. While it is certainly true some people are unwilling to pay more, there are many people who recognize the United States has financial problems and are willing to pay more to help solve them ... as long as this increase applies to everyone in similar circumstances. (We call these people responsible adults and patriots.) That they may call for higher taxes on the 1% does NOT suggest they are also unwilling to accept higher taxes personally.

You continue to make an emotional argument - "We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves." -- while providing no factual data to support it. That you try to rationalize this through flawed reasoning is irrelevant. My point remains.

 

[cybrsage]

To prove me wrong, you have to show I am wrong. You cannot just say "you are wrong and must believe me because I said so".

I have yet to see huge throngs of people begging to have their taxes raised. You apparently have, so please provide proof of this.

In other words, support yourself. I have. I cannot show what does not exist, but since you claim it does exist, you can easily show it.

EDIT: To clarify, the part that does not exist is the people not calling for raising their own taxes. Since they are not calling for it, I cannot show them not doing it.

 

[PokerGuy]

You "know" this ... how? Where's your DATA to prove this? What objective evidence do you have to support your emotion-based presumption?

We know this because if all those people calling for additional taxes on the rich were willing to also raise their own taxes, they could easily make that happen. The reality of course shows that every group resists increases their own taxation, but mostly is OK with increasing other people's taxation.

 

[Ausm]

Posting in a red meat for RABID Republicans thread!

What this artlicle illustrates there are at least 2 dozen Republicans with a conscience...which is about 24 more then I previously gave them credit for.

 

[classy]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or financial guru to figure out that we didn't really start having very serious money issues until the Bush tax cuts. They are the single worst act of Congress in my lifetime and sadly it may be equaled by that dumb healthcare bill. We could lop off 1 Trillion by just getting rid of the healthcare bill.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Dream on sweetie. It's so much easier for you than reality.

LMAO!!! you just pwned yourself

 

[dank69]

Yes. Already said that once. If I say it thrice will you believe it, or is twice enough? 😉




Those things hurt other people, so they are not valid examples. Try using examples that do not hurt other people, but help them instead. Lets try:

I want everyone to be forced to give money to charity, but I refuse to give money to charity.
I want everyone to be forced to clean up trash in parks, but I refuse to clean up trash in parks.

I am sure you can come up with more on your own.

This is a frequent argument made by people on the right, and it is unbelievably dumb.

I'll try to explain the issue to you so you can understand it, but first answer one question for me. Why don't Republicans want to raise taxes on the 1%?

And why hasn't this thread been merged into the original one yet?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. Already said that once. If I say it thrice will you believe it, or is twice enough? 😉

Those things hurt other people, so they are not valid examples. Try using examples that do not hurt other people, but help them instead. Lets try:

I want everyone to be forced to give money to charity, but I refuse to give money to charity.
I want everyone to be forced to clean up trash in parks, but I refuse to clean up trash in parks.

I am sure you can come up with more on your own.

Wrong.

First, removing someone's wealth could certainly be viewed as hurting them.

Second, and far more importantly, whether or not something hurts someone else is completely irrelevant as to the nature of a collective action problem. It is either such a problem, or it isn't. Nothing else matters.

While this should be obvious, I guess I will ask you anyway to be sure we are clear on it. Does taxation require the participation of groups to be effective in modern society, or can the needs of taxation be accomplished by a single actor?

 

[Bowfinger]

To prove me wrong, you have to show I am wrong. You cannot just say "you are wrong and must believe me because I said so".

I have yet to see huge throngs of people begging to have their taxes raised. You apparently have, so please provide proof of this.

In other words, support yourself. I have. I cannot show what does not exist, but since you claim it does exist, you can easily show it.

EDIT: To clarify, the part that does not exist is the people not calling for raising their own taxes. Since they are not calling for it, I cannot show them not doing it.

Nice dodge, but that's not how it works. You keep asserting, as fact, that "We both know the vast percentage of people calling for more taxes on the rich are unwilling to pay more themselves." You're making the claim. You bear the burden of proof. Of course my point was simply that you are making an emotional argument, not a factual one ... something you continue to demonstrate for me. Thank you.

 

[Bowfinger]

We know this because if all those people calling for additional taxes on the rich were willing to also raise their own taxes, they could easily make that happen. The reality of course shows that every group resists increases their own taxation, but mostly is OK with increasing other people's taxation.

Make it happen how? You have a large Republican block in Congress that refuses to raise any taxes, no matter how deeply we dig ourselves into more debt.