No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

@Foxfyre,

How do you dispute what are the credible source?

If you want to question Reuters, be my guest.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

All I'm saying is dispute the numbers with a credible source if you can guys. Otherwise talking the assigned company line just keeps you in step with all the other kool-ade drinkers.

What "assigned company line" are you referring to? It seems that you are not prepared to accept any idea contrary to yours and you are simply protecting your ego.

I suspect your criteria for credible sources aligns neatly with your conclusions. If it doesn't agree... find a source that does. That source will be credible, until it disagrees with your conclusion.

Then it's time for a new source.
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote: "Sorry, but I'll take the Tax Foundation's analysis any day of the week over something Reuters put together."

Reuters didn't "put together" anything. It was the U.S. GAO that compiled the facts from U.S. tax records upon the request of a U.S. Senator.

http://www.gao.gov/

http://www.gao.gov/press/peerreview_cleanopinion.pdf

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Thanks, Debra. I was just catching up on this thread and was going to post the same thing.

0 Replies

Guys I don't have any problem with the GAO. I only have a problem with using an interpretation put together by a Reuters reporter trotted out as proof that corporations don't pay enough taxes. So far I still haven't seen anything credible to dispute the Tax Foundation's conclusion. The fact that some corporations don't have a tax liability in some years does not in any way dispute the Tax Foundation's analysis. Even Reuters seems to suggest that in most years corporation do have a tax liability. I had already conceded the point that for various reasons any business may not show a profit in any given year.

So what's your point?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Well, isn't that nice. Fox doesn't have any problem with the GAO; only the interpretation by Reuters. If that's the case, we should get Fox to provide us with her interpretation.

The tax rates for the countries with the highest GDP are US, Japan, UK, and Germany.

However, corporate tax rates like individual tax rates can be reduced by various strategies that many wealthy individuals as well as corporations use to lower their tax rates or pay nothing.

Fox seems to make all kinds of assumptions without really providing any evidence for her claims.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

But you have not defined "much much higher" Brandon. I asked you to once and you blew it off .

What is considered much much higher? 10% higher? 25% higher? 50%higher?

It's a judgement call, but there is such a thing as treating one person substantially worse than another, even if I cannot easily define substantially. I can say that I expect people to be treated fairly and have it be a meaningful statement of principle, even if I don't care to give a definition of "fair." If the whole question were up to me, I'd exempt the very poor (which I also won't define for you) from paying any taxes, and tax everyone else at the same rate (percentage of income). At the very least, the wealthy shouldn't be forced to pay a much higher percentage of their income than the middle class. It comes under the heading of basic fairness.

You appear to think you've done something very clever by reducing every argument to word games, but, the truth is that it only shows that you're unable to engage in a simple, honest debate, head on of your ideas versus someone else's. I'm waiting for your simple statement of why it is indeed alright to tax the wealthy at a much higher rate than the middle, but I suspect that all you're able to give is another technical comment designed to distract.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

That's the issue in a nutsell, Brandon. Thank you.

The question is: What is the moral justification for taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than the less wealthy or middle class?

Similar to that is the question that I have never been able to persuade a liberal to answer:
"What is the moral justification for confiscating property from Citizen A who lawfully earned/acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B who didn't?"

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

That's the issue in a nutsell, Brandon. Thank you.

The question is: What is the moral justification for taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than the less wealthy or middle class?

Similar to that is the question that I have never been able to persuade a liberal to answer:
"What is the moral justification for confiscating property from Citizen A who lawfully earned/acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B who didn't?"

I've rarely been able to persuade one of them to give a straight answer to this either. They just call you ignorant, or make some similar attempt to distract from the fact that they haven't answered.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The question is: What is the moral justification for taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than the less wealthy or middle class?

Simple answer: because they can afford it without making much of a difference to their standard of living.

Simple answer: because the country needs that money to keep functioning as a fiscally sound entity.

Simple answer: because the people of America long ago decided that this was fair and just.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The question is: What is the moral justification for taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than the less wealthy or middle class?

Simple answer: because they can afford it without making much of a difference to their standard of living.

Simple answer: because the country needs that money to keep functioning as a fiscally sound entity.

Simple answer: because the people of America long ago decided that this was fair and just.

Cycloptichorn

Don't you believe in equal protection under the law, or at least something close?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

How does one's standard of living make a difference and what authority does the government have to decide what standard of living a person may have?

What criteria is used to define 'fiscally sound' and what authority does the government have to benefit any individual as a part of that?

I am one of the American people and I can find no justification for you to have the ability to take what I have lawfully earned and use if for your own personal benefit.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The question is: What is the moral justification for taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than the less wealthy or middle class?

Simple answer: because they can afford it without making much of a difference to their standard of living.

Simple answer: because the country needs that money to keep functioning as a fiscally sound entity.

Simple answer: because the people of America long ago decided that this was fair and just.

Cycloptichorn

Don't you believe in equal protection under the law, or at least something close?

Of course I do. All people are treated equally under our taxation laws; all people are subject to the same gradated scale of income taxation regardless of their personal aspects. Silly dodge on your part.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Joe the plumber is worried about taxes, because he owes back taxes, and he doesn't have a license to buy a small plumbing business. He doesn't have the money to buy "any" business. Three strikes and you're out!

And this guy is complaining he has to pay taxes? LOL

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The question is: What is the moral justification for taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate than the less wealthy or middle class?

Simple answer: because they can afford it without making much of a difference to their standard of living.

Simple answer: because the country needs that money to keep functioning as a fiscally sound entity.

Simple answer: because the people of America long ago decided that this was fair and just.

Cycloptichorn

Don't you believe in equal protection under the law, or at least something close?

Of course I do. All people are treated equally under our taxation laws; all people are subject to the same gradated scale of income taxation regardless of their personal aspects. Silly dodge on your part.

Cycloptichorn

Graduated means un-equal.

1 Reply

He did respond to the questions though, Brandon. That's more than most liberals are willing to do. He didn't answer any of them, but he did respond to them.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Joe the plumber is worried about taxes, because he owes back taxes, and he doesn't have a license to buy a small plumbing business. He doesn't have the money to buy "any" business. Three strikes and you're out!

And this guy is complaining he has to pay taxes? LOL

The personal qualities of this one man don't invalidate general principles about fairness.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

He did respond to the questions though, Brandon. That's more than most liberals are willing to do. He didn't answer any of them, but he did respond to them.

Yes...sort of...except he said that all people are equal in being on the same graduated income scale, which is to say the list of how people are treated unequally.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

And for your "fairness" doctrine, what exactly are you trying to tell us?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

How does one's standard of living make a difference and what authority does the government have to decide what standard of living a person may have?

One's ability to survive definitely makes a difference. You can take much more in taxes from the rich, than the poor, for taxing the rich does not materially impact their lives the way that taxing the poor does; many who ride the edge of viability, as citizens, would be severely impacted by rises in their taxes; the rich suffer no such problems and will live lives of luxury even under higher taxation.

Quote:

What criteria is used to define 'fiscally sound' and what authority does the government have to benefit any individual as a part of that?

The US government is entrusted with the authority to make those decisions by the citizens who elected representatives into office. We have granted them the ability to make decisions that benefit our society as a whole, not individuals.

Quote:

I am one of the American people and I can find no justification for you to have the ability to take what I have lawfully earned and use if for your own benefit.

Tough titty, Fox. The American people disagree with you and have done so for a long time. It is immaterial if you wish to be a tax denier, in the fashion of ICan; you will abide by the decisions of the American people because they have the force of law behind them. And nothing you can say or do will change our progressive tax scheme. Which you know. So why this waste of breath on your part? Railing against reality is the new Conservative way.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know