Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

I know I make you angry for the simple fact of arguing an opposing viewpoint, but really.. stick to my arguments and do your best to leave out the ad hominems. 

What ad hominem?  You said that regular people don't invest in companies and earn returns.  This is categorically untrue of anyone who has a bank account, retirement 401k or even (in an indirect fashion) buys auto insurance.  Pointing out that you have made an untrue statement isn't an ad hominem.  It would be an ad hominem to say that you are an idiot.

[Sirus]

So what I'm getting out of NinjaBoot's stance: Some people are just better or just plain luckier then others when it comes to making money, they should pay less in taxes because "Trickle Down" Ideology and "They Deserve It".

Did I get it right?  I think the basic idea is, most people here don't agree with that sort of thinking... at least on your level.

No, why should they have to pay an increasing amount of tax? 

They already pay the highest rate of tax in the Nation, this is why the stats I showed from wikipedia showing the income states reflect this. 

This, unfortunately, doesn't involve talking about why the need is in the first place to take so much tax.  Oh, something about government spending too much money?

I'm sorry, how is 11% (Romney's tax rate) higher than 26% (Obama's)?

[Glowcat]

I know I make you angry for the simple fact of arguing an opposing viewpoint, but really.. stick to my arguments and do your best to leave out the ad hominems. 

What ad hominem?  You said that regular people don't invest in companies and earn returns.  This is categorically untrue of anyone who has a bank account, retirement 401k or even (in an indirect fashion) buys auto insurance.  Pointing out that you have made an untrue statement isn't an ad hominem.  It would be an ad hominem to say that you are an idiot.

Only if you didn't address the actual argument. Verbal barbs != ad hominem. It might be a jerk-ass move at times, but it's not a logical fallacy.

[lemon10]

So what I'm getting out of NinjaBoot's stance: Some people are just better or just plain luckier then others when it comes to making money, they should pay less in taxes because "Trickle Down" Ideology and "They Deserve It".

Did I get it right?  I think the basic idea is, most people here don't agree with that sort of thinking... at least on your level.

No, why should they have to pay an increasing amount of tax? 

They already pay the highest rate of tax in the Nation, this is why the stats I showed from wikipedia showing the income states reflect this. 

This, unfortunately, doesn't involve talking about why the need is in the first place to take so much tax.  Oh, something about government spending too much money?

I'm sorry, how is 11% (Romney's tax rate) higher than 26% (Obama's)?

First off, Obama isn't really a good person to look at the income of, because while Romney does make tons of money, Obama does as well and is also securely in the top 1%. That said, the amount Romney pays in taxes is obscenely low.

And ninjaboot wasn't talking about Obama or Romney, he was talking about the rich as a whole, ignoring those who are manipulating the system to pay a small amount of taxes (not quite sure why he is ignoring them, but he is).

[Sirus]

So what I'm getting out of NinjaBoot's stance: Some people are just better or just plain luckier then others when it comes to making money, they should pay less in taxes because "Trickle Down" Ideology and "They Deserve It".

Did I get it right?  I think the basic idea is, most people here don't agree with that sort of thinking... at least on your level.

No, why should they have to pay an increasing amount of tax? 

They already pay the highest rate of tax in the Nation, this is why the stats I showed from wikipedia showing the income states reflect this. 

This, unfortunately, doesn't involve talking about why the need is in the first place to take so much tax.  Oh, something about government spending too much money?

I'm sorry, how is 11% (Romney's tax rate) higher than 26% (Obama's)?

First off, Obama isn't really a good person to look at the income of, because while Romney does make tons of money, Obama does as well and is also securely in the top 1%. That said, the amount Romney pays in taxes is obscenely low.

And ninjaboot wasn't talking about Obama or Romney, he was talking about the rich as a whole, ignoring those who are manipulating the system to pay a small amount of taxes (not quite sure why he is ignoring them, but he is).

I know Obama is well off, but his and Romney's tax information are easy to get ahold of since it's public. I'm not about to post my own tax information for comparison :/

[NinjaBoot]

That's the average salary. But where's the median?

Indeed, I certainly wouldn't mind my average salary being a few million a year! :O

You don't have an "average" salary. You have an individual salary. You do know the difference between the average mean and the median, and why it's important here, don't you?

Yes I do, thanks for pointing that out! 

Whats wrong with letting people enjoy the wealth and success they have created for themselves? 

What's wrong with enabling others to try and make something for themselves as well?

Nothing, I haven't specifically argued against it. 

[NinjaBoot]

I know I make you angry for the simple fact of arguing an opposing viewpoint, but really.. stick to my arguments and do your best to leave out the ad hominems. 

What ad hominem?  You said that regular people don't invest in companies and earn returns.

I asked why they wouldn't do so.  As in, what are the reasons they do not?  This is not me not knowing, it is me getting you to acknowledge why people would be unable to do so, so it wouldn't be me talking about the obvious reasons as to why they would be unable to do so. 

This is categorically untrue of anyone who has a bank account, retirement 401k or even (in an indirect fashion) buys auto insurance.  Pointing out that you have made an untrue statement isn't an ad hominem.  It would be an ad hominem to say that you are an idiot.

Yeah, it seems I failed in my use of an ad hominem!  (Guess that makes me an idiot, but we already know that right?)

[NinjaBoot]

So what I'm getting out of NinjaBoot's stance: Some people are just better or just plain luckier then others when it comes to making money, they should pay less in taxes because "Trickle Down" Ideology and "They Deserve It".

Did I get it right?  I think the basic idea is, most people here don't agree with that sort of thinking... at least on your level.

No, why should they have to pay an increasing amount of tax? 

They already pay the highest rate of tax in the Nation, this is why the stats I showed from wikipedia showing the income states reflect this. 

This, unfortunately, doesn't involve talking about why the need is in the first place to take so much tax.  Oh, something about government spending too much money?

I'm sorry, how is 11% (Romney's tax rate) higher than 26% (Obama's)?

3 million in taxes vs 450k in taxes?

[NinjaBoot]

I know I make you angry for the simple fact of arguing an opposing viewpoint, but really.. stick to my arguments and do your best to leave out the ad hominems. 

What ad hominem?  You said that regular people don't invest in companies and earn returns.  This is categorically untrue of anyone who has a bank account, retirement 401k or even (in an indirect fashion) buys auto insurance.  Pointing out that you have made an untrue statement isn't an ad hominem.  It would be an ad hominem to say that you are an idiot.

Only if you didn't address the actual argument. Verbal barbs != ad hominem. It might be a jerk-ass move at times, but it's not a logical fallacy.

Yeah, it seems I was a bit too quick on the gun, ontop of being completely wrong.

[NinjaBoot]

So what I'm getting out of NinjaBoot's stance: Some people are just better or just plain luckier then others when it comes to making money, they should pay less in taxes because "Trickle Down" Ideology and "They Deserve It".

Did I get it right?  I think the basic idea is, most people here don't agree with that sort of thinking... at least on your level.

No, why should they have to pay an increasing amount of tax? 

They already pay the highest rate of tax in the Nation, this is why the stats I showed from wikipedia showing the income states reflect this. 

This, unfortunately, doesn't involve talking about why the need is in the first place to take so much tax.  Oh, something about government spending too much money?

I'm sorry, how is 11% (Romney's tax rate) higher than 26% (Obama's)?

First off, Obama isn't really a good person to look at the income of, because while Romney does make tons of money, Obama does as well and is also securely in the top 1%. That said, the amount Romney pays in taxes is obscenely low.

And ninjaboot wasn't talking about Obama or Romney, he was talking about the rich as a whole, ignoring those who are manipulating the system to pay a small amount of taxes (not quite sure why he is ignoring them, but he is).

I believe I addressed the fact of reforming the tax system as to eliminate these kinds of tax cheats. 

Even if you close every single loop hole and prosecute every single tax cheat, the rich still end up paying the majority of taxes in America. 

Even if you increase the taxes on the rich, it is still not going to bridge the gap between taxation and spending.

[chaoticag]

Can we please try compressing your arguments into one post in possible? Running into post after post after post again and again does come across as a little obnoxious.

You can use the insert quote button to add in a quote, then edit it down, and if you want to separate arguments into distinct sections, you can use the horizontal rule button, found on the right of the insert bullet point number.

Otherwise, if you thought of something you want to add, use the edit button. The topic will report that something new was posted, but it also stops the topic itself from being bumped until someone else has something new to say.

[mainiac]

I asked why they wouldn't do so.  As in, what are the reasons they do not?  This is not me not knowing, it is me getting you to acknowledge why people would be unable to do so, so it wouldn't be me talking about the obvious reasons as to why they would be unable to do so.

They do, as I keep repeating.  This is a verifiable fact.  Anyone with a 401k or a bank account is engaging in exactly this sort of behavior you seem to think they can't engage in.

[Aqizzar]

I'm sorry, how is 11% (Romney's tax rate) higher than 26% (Obama's)?

3 million in taxes vs 450k in taxes?

Because it's a percentage?  I've been honestly trying to stay away from this, but it's flippant nonsense like this that make it clear to me you are either totally incognizant of your own arguments, or you're just being obnoxious for its own sake.  There is nobody, sure as shit no economist, on the face of the Earth who would consider raw gross total more important than rate.

Romney pays less taxes than Obama.  There is no way to dance around that fact.  That Romney pays more total dollars is irrelevant, because he acquires vastly more dollars, hence 11% (3 out of 30ish million) versus 26% (450k out of 2ish million).

[DJ]

Clearly the fairest thing to do would be flat taxes across the board, ie everyone pays the same no matter their income.

[scriver]

That's not very fair at all, poor people have more need of their money than rich people.