No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

What's the matter, Brandon. Afraid to show us what "you're" talking about? LOL

My take is that if everyone was taxed a certain percentage of what they made instead of a set amount it'd be fair to everyone. Say the wealthy got taxed 30% and so did the middle class, the middle class would obviously be paying less but it'd still be paying 30% while the weathly are paying more, it'd still be 30%. Win win

Brandon, I have posted over 50,000 posts on a2k. All I'm asking for you to do is show me the statements I made you claim I did. Since you "identified" them, I expect you to be able to cut and paste them here.

You continue to exemplify the fact that the board liberals usually function on the level of childish ad hominems, which I take to be indicative of the fact that they are unable or too undisciplined to actually defend their political opinions.

Oh, Brandon understands English, but he's still at the 3d grade level.

BTW, parados, thanks for that clarification. I'm sure it goes way beyond his grade level.

Brandon, I call a spade a spade. Your posts are full of BS. They are not ad hominems when you don't show proof or evidence for your statements. That's total BS. If you want to really have a discussion, be good enough to provide credible evidence that what you say have some support. Otherwise, they're just so much BS. That's not asking for much.

That's my writing that is in response to "your" posts that are full of BS. When you post something that has no credible evidence or support, I call it BS.

I've posted my response on "taxes." Here, I'll repeat for you now.

Obama's plan is to reduce taxes for all workers who earn less than $250,000, and increase taxes for those who make more than $250,000.

The above sentence is not constructed word for word, but the "meaning" remains the same.

Do you have a problem with my perception or interpretation of Obama's plan?

If so, state them.

Brandons logic is amusing. He is certain that OBAMA is favoring soaking the rich, yet he seems to realize that the wealthy have an unfair advantage with the present tax code. Does he want even MORE of an unfairness to be continued?
Despite that, he is in favor of a tax cdode change that is neither on M<cCain nor Obamas platform? Hes a Steve Forbes guy.

I dont think that either ceej or Brandon have had the responsiblity of doing a business start up (otherwise they would understand the credits and defeements and deductions one is allowed in the start up phase). Actually , it seems that they also miss the fact that Joe the Plummer is equally as ignorant (hes so dumb that he actually believes that hes gonna be taxed for the investment in a new business--perhaps thats why Joes fiscal life seems to be in somewhat of a chaotic condition). Until the tax misunderstandings get corrected by Joe, ceej and Brandon, we cant move this topic along to any new level. I see that ceej has launched into his all too familiar childish insults and Brandon is trying to divert attention from CI's right-on points.

Brandon, so what if we get ad hom with you, YOU are very dense about this topic my friend. Now thats not an ad hominem, its a FACT.

MAke believe that you are opening a business and do a plan and get some advice as to what your tax profile would be for at least 3 (and more likely 5) years .

Now the very wealthy (especially those who divert their ordinary income to be deferrals or cap gains) or other more sinister areas of "tax assisted wealth management", can accomplish so much by good tax management.

Now, please argue the opinion I actually stated.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now, please argue the opinion I actually stated.

So does that mean we should ignore what you actually say and instead guess what your opinion was?

...and I did advocate closing most loopholes. I said that in general the percentage taxed in a high income bracket shouldn't be tremendously higher than the percentage taxed from lower income brackets, except for the case of very, very low income, which should be exempt from paying tax.

I did reply to what you said. I asked you to back it up. You however claimed you didn't mean what you actually said. This leads to my question. If you aren't going to stand by what you actually say, how are we to guess what your opinion is?

I was referring to my post here
http://able2know.org/topic/124117-3#post-3441548

You made a statement then didn't back it up when asked. When pressed on the issue you change the meaning from what you actually said to something else so you could get out of backing up your statement. If you are allowed to do that for statements you quite clearly make then how are we to know what you ever mean vs what you say?

Every poster has the responsibility to back up claims he makes here or else not make them.

When he admits that he misquoted me, I may deign to discuss other aspects of the issue, or I may not. The point is that if he quoted me correctly, he can show it effortlessly by finding a post where I say it.

Backing up your assertions is your resposnibility[sic], not mine

It is one of the most fundamental rules of debate, that when a debater makes claims of fact, not opinion, he must be prepared to provide some citation to show that he did not simply make them up or exaggerate.

When he admits that he misquoted me, I may deign to discuss other aspects of the issue, or I may not. The point is that if he quoted me correctly, he can show it effortlessly by finding a post where I say it.

Like many liberals, you appear to be so afraid of discussing a political topic that you are willing to do anything to avoid it.