Re: Sleeping in Light
- From: dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven)
- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
"Carl" (cengman7@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dlmgkf$3q3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> So, refusing to flat tax rich people simply refuses to allow then to
>>>> wallow in their greed. I'm fine with that, and it is indeed " fair ".
>>>
>>> Here's the thing...every time I hear a justification to tax the wealthy
>>> more, it's done by villifying them.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> It is incorrect for you to assume the position that because proof (that
> had not been previously requested) has ot been pre-emptively offered
> does not exist.
Wrong. It IS appropriate of me, or anyone, to treat as *sweeping* a claim
as you made to be baseless *unless YOU can offer proof of it*.
Your claim, your burden to prove. Period.
> I would point you to the archives of this newsgroup...particularly a
> conversation I had with Josh a few months back. Your own comment that
> the rich "wallow in their greed" would be another example.
It might be... IF I were speaking for ALL people ( I'm clearly not ),
and IF I had actually said that about ALL rich people.
Since my comment was *limited* to rich advocates of Flat Tax, clearly
I was NOT speaking of " ALL " rich people. QED.
> If we all had to do a complete research project on every opinion under
> the assumption that the other person will accept no common ground as a
> basis of conversation then only the most pedantic and polemical people
> would bother.
If you wnat to make as sweeping claims as you made, its solely your task
to back them up. If you refuse to even try, well, I can only conclude
that even you don't believe and respect your own claim, in which case,
I am under AbZero obligation to believe and respect your claim any more
than you have shown that you... don't.
> In my opinion, it suits a conversation better to express one's opinions
" No one is entitled to their opinion. They are only entitled to an
*informed* opinion. " Harlan Ellison.
> and
> then after the person states his opinion, *then* challenge the facts that
> are the basis of that belief if it's warranted by the conversation or is
> mutually enjoyable to do so.
Wrong. BOTH parties offering sweeping views, carry the burden of proving
their own ones.
> Second...It is certainly fair to ask me to cite any statistic that I
> offer. I have no problem being challenged in such a way.
You made an " all " claim. " All " IS a statistic, as it is a claim of
100% totality.
> Third, I was discussing my experiences.
When you say that " all " such claims for progressive taxation are based
on casting rich people as greedy, that NOT discussing your experiences.
> Is it your position that no one
> (other than youself above) has ever made a value judgement and called the
> rich "greedy?"
Straw Woman: No, it is my position that I have heard many cases for
progressive taxation made that in no way dissed an level of income earner.
Remember; YOU made the " all " claim, which is disproven by even ONE
" not-all " example.
> I will accept the premise (without proof) there are many greedy
> rich people, but not that all rich people are greedy
Thats good, as I never said any such thing. I *specified* my statement
with the qualification that rich people *pushing for flat taxes* are
greedy, as such tax regimes clearly would have them paying WAY less.
> (or even most).
> In Josh's opinion a few months ago he stated that there were only 3 or 4
> exceptions and apparently I knew all of them.
I am not responsible for Josh's comments, and, as I do not recall this
one, I will not comment on it, either way.
> What I was trying to get to was that I think that stereotyping the rich
> as being a number of nasty things seems to be used a number of times as
<laughs> NO, dude, you did specify " *every time* ". Don't try to weasel
away from your earlier claim. Unless you wish to prove me exactly right
in criticising it... <g>
> justification to the public for taxing them more. If your experiences
> differ, that's fine...but it is inapropropriate to dismiss mine.
Its also " inappropriate " to project yours onto a wider field.
" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
> I know that the positions I take on this board may tweak some people's
> sensibilities, but I've said a number of times (and repeat to remind some)
> that I often take opposing views simply to challenge people's belief so
> that I learn why people think the way they do. No offense is ever
> intended.
No " offense " was taken. Only your extreme and fallacious claim was
trounced.
>> Perhaps you only read check out stand rags. I, OTOH, read a wide variety
>> of journals where tax policy comes up, and I cannot recall even one such
>> reference.
>
> First, please recall the context..'Every time that I hear..."
Doesn't matter, and in any case, lets see some proof of *that*. Human
memory is often selective, and you pointed that out to me, about you
V/ the other chap defending Mox. Now, lets see if you can live up to
what you wanted me to live up to: Challenge your own memory and
perceptions.
> Second...I sense that things have the potential (not that they have) to go
> downhill and start moving in a personal direction. I hope that doesn't
> happen. It will make the discussion meaningless and valueless...and I
> don't want that to happen.
OK.
> Please don't make any asssumptions on my reading habits. My bookshelf
> contains a wide variety of books..ranging from the Shakespeare to
> Synergetics (Buckminster Fuller), Asimov to Cecil Adams, Lao Tsu to Mathew
> Henry. I have NEVER implied anything about your character or suggested
> that your reading habits (or anything else) are somehow inferior to mine.
Again, you're ASSuming that " reading " is a synonym for " being factually
conversant on this particular topic. ". Its not.
I took a lot of polisci and policy cources in university, and while my
life took me in other directions, such issues are a major part of my
continued areas of personal study and research. As they are core components
of two of my other interests, space and naval matters, both of which are
keenly affected by a nation's ability to pay for them.
Let me know when you've read any serious studies on progressive taxation.
I colclude that you have not, as I have yet to read one which does anything
like what you claimed " all " such cases for progressive taxation do.
> I ask that you please do me the same courtesy.
Only if you show evidence of having done your homework; Respect is earned.
>>> They're always greedy and (from a previous
>>> conversation) unworthy, robber barons, etc.
>>
>> Ibid. If you want to make such extraordinary claim, then the sole
>> burden of *proving them* is yours, too.
>
> You're honestly taking issue that the rich are referred to in this way?
No, only with YOUR claim that " all such cases for progressive taxation "
refer to them in that way.
Stop moving your goal posts; Its dishonest.
> http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/BB/Selfish-GreedyRichII.htm
>
> Do your own Google for the term "greedy rich" and you'll find thousands
> of sites.
Irrelevent to the issue of cases made for progressive taxation.
That was another move of your goal posts, BTW. Again, most dishonest of
you.
> I can't recall
Thats the operative part; IT is a subjective and NOT factual claim.
As I prefer to deal with factual claims, I have no choice but to disregard
this non factual one.
> a single Democratic Senator ever saying that the rich should
> get tax cuts too. I can't recall (though there might be some) instances
> of a Democratic Senator every saying anything positive about the rich as
> a class. Can you find any?
Why ? Are Democratic US Senators " all " of the proponents of progressive
taxation ?
> Just curious.
Irrelevantly " curious ". Satisfy your own, on your own.
> This is all a trivial side point of the issue we had been discussing.
Indeed, and a misdirecting one that you brought in.
> I'd be just as content to move on...your choice.
No probs; Merely admit that you were... trolling away from your
still *unsupported* " all " claim...
>>> If it is indeed fair...then please specify the exact (non-arbitrary) tax
>>> rate that's fair starting at exactly what (non-arbitrary) income level in
>>> an argument that has nothing to do with emotional arguments.
>>
>> Ah, you want context free figures, aka Enron class accounting.
>
> Now you're villifying by association, no?
No.
> Also, please note that I was speaking of personal taxes, not corporate
> ones.
" A difference which makes no difference, IS no difference. " James
Blish.
> All I'm looking for is a set of rules that is equally applied to everyone,
> accounting for the case of the poor and needy (who can't pay taxes
> anyway). I was simply looking for the rationale behind what makes a "Fair"
> tax system.
And, thats what you were given. Its nobody's problem but yours if you
didn't like it...
> To associate such a desire wirh Enron is (IMO) reachng quite a bit...but
> of course your opinion may vary.
Enron was a Ponzi scheme. Fat taxes are a Ponzi scheme. Do the math.
> I recall the quote "If it can't be expressed in numbers, it's not science,
> it's opinion."
Well, that wasn't one from me, so I'm not responsible for it.
Take your own advice and try to rememeber who said what to you, OK ?
> In this case I haven't heard a non-emotional reason to tax the rich at a
> higher rate than the middle class, so is it arbitrary?
<laughs> Wrong, you were given several.
> Is arbitrary ever fair if it treats people inequitably?
Yes.
>> I will say that among the differences in Canadian
>> and US tax policy, is that there are differences in the range of things
>> that the taxes are used to pay for. So, in a nation that provides, as
>> Canada does, no additional charge national health care to it's citizens,
>> one would expect that the tax rates charged to similar ranges of income
>> will differ from those where such a tax paid for service doesn't exist.
>
> Certainly. It is an entirely different (valid and healthy) discussion as
> to what services should be provided by the govt and therefore taxed for.
Yet, we here don't permit rich people to " line jump " by proffering cash
for medical treatment... So, are we " fair " ?
>>> The arguments that I've heard in the past are "They don't need the
>>> money." which has nothing to do with whether or not it's fair.
>>> Emotionally gratifying perhaps.
>>
>> Also, utterly *irrelevent* to taxation issues.
>
> Exactly my point.
Well, you were the one making the emotional case. I merely punctured it.
>>>> No, whats the societal benefit of that " one rate " ? Exactly. There is
>>>> none, unless you're rich, when it gets you loads of money back. IOW,
>>>> Trump class greed. Which is hardly " fair "...
>>>
>>> I'm not searching for a social benefit for one rate. Fairness does not
>>> imply social benefit.
>>
>> Why not ?
>
> Because that seems to imply that the masses have a right to take as much
> from the individual as they want for the "Common good."
Ah, theres your problem, you suffer from a gross INability to see
proportionalty. You're stuck in " black/white " dualistic absolutism.
The proof that that fallacy is a fallacy is that, between 1 and 100
there are not two points, but 101 full numbers, and any number more
than that of fractions.
> Such decisions seem to result in an end result that is
> (in my own opinion) not fair to the those whose property is being seized.
Now, thats the loon fallacy of " taxation is theft ". Wrong. Again.
> For instance, there was a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court that
> took a family's property (that they had owned for something like 40 years)
> so that the city could give the property to
> a hotel developer in order to provide jobs for the city.
The Eminent Domain case. I know of it. So what ? Are you suggesting that
SCOTUS is infallible ?
And, you've just violated ( once again ):
" The plural ( Or, singular ) of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
> If you're arguing that fairness does imply social benefit, are you arguing
> Mox's point?
Nope.
> (Disclaimer...I'm only aware of a quick summary of Mox's view).
OK.
>>> I'm looking for a non-arbitrary reason why it's fair..
>>
>> If you mean for flat tax, again note that I am arguing *against* that
>> miasma of greed...
>
> Of course, but I also note that you are using an emotional argument,
> not a statistical one. I infer from that only that a flat tax violates your
> sense of fairness, which I take no issue with.
No, it also violates the idea that, when dealing with UNAVOIDABLE social
costs to a society, that treating the rich and poor the same way would
FIRST demand that we PAY them both the same, from the get go.
Doing one step, while evading the other, is seen, rightly, as being...
*dishonest*.
> Please note that I am not suggesting the rich pay less in taxes. Again,
> I'm simply
.... fixated on an absulute one number stanard for all, as I want to
treat all with the same costs, as those who state that both the rich
and the poor have the same right to sleep under a road-bridge...
> looking for a system that treats all taxpayers the same,
You keep claiming this, without either an understanding why this is
impossible, beyond basic rates of taxes ( Rates are menaingless if everyone
earns the same wage; Only different wages make rates of taxes necessary
in the first place ), and without showing ANY societal benefit for this.
So, if you want to argue this on the basis of your religion, well, thats
outside of my areas of expertise. Consult a priest, or Steve Forbes.
> without
> justifying that any group pay a greater percentage because of emotional
> justifications. It's still dancing around the issue of fairness.
The only one " dancing " is yourself...
> <snip>
>
>>> I'm not trying to pull anything from the poor. Take the first $X and
>>> make
>>> it tax free. Pick a reasonable point based on the cost of living.
>>
>> Cost of living where ? Manhattan ? Omaha ? Uttumwa ? All have greatly
>> different costs of living. So, you're already blown at this point...
>
> There's already a specific point below which a person isn't taxed.
> All I'm saying is that point could be adjusted upward if necessary.
So ? If we set the standard deduction at $12,000, is that " unfair " to
people making $13,000 ? Making $13,000,000.
Like Mox re books, you are seeking a Holy GRail of Absolute Fairness.
There... ain't no such thing.
>>> Tax at a constant
>>> rate on income above that point only...but pick ONE rate only rather than
>>> picking arbitrary rates out of the air and calling it fair because the
>>> wealthy are greedy.
>>
>> Progressive tax rates are NOT " arbitrary ".
>
> Picking arbitrary income levels to add additionaly arbitrary rates seems
> so.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> Either arbitrary or punitive.
Ibid.
>>>>> I'm not wealthy (but certainly a poor person might disagree) and so I'm
>>>>> not speaking for myself.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're in the economic demographic range that would be greatly
>>>> screwed by a Steve Forbes " Let the wealthy design tax policy; What
>>>> could go wrong for everyone else from doing that ? " Flat Tax Ponzi
>>>> Scheme...
>
> The wealthy lawmakers already define tax policy.
Yet, they have to face poorer voters every once and a while...
> You would have the poor define tax policy?
Man, you have to stop playing with your Straw Woman collection, when
posting... No.
> The whole point of having one
> set of rules for everyone that pays taxes is that no group gets treated
> "unfairly."
Yet, WITHOUT a SPECIFIC definition in NUMBERS of " unfairly ", it means...
NOTHING. It remains an empty platitude.
> It always seems
> perfectly reasonable and fair to let someone else pay more taxes.
" Seems " being the operative term.
Either deal with objective reality, or play with your subjective Straw
Women.
>>> I suppose that would depend on at what point a constant tax rate would
>>> kick in.
>>
>> So, screwing some is OK by you ? Fascinating... Insane, but fascinating.
>
> I was only suggesting that below a certain point you can't tax people. I
> believe you made that point already somewhere. You're saying that making
> someone who makes 3 times more than someone else pay 3 times more in taxes
> is screwing someone?
Yeah, the poorer guy. Examples: Earner 1: Income $15,000 Earner 2: Income:
$45,000. Take $2,000 from 1 and ( three times as much ) $6,000 from 2.
Now, 1 has $13,000 left, and 2 has $39,000 left.
Now, after both pay for basic shelter and food, does 2 still have three
times the cash that 1 does, or is it... more than 3 times ?
> You'd define as fair that a person making 3 times more
> that he or she pays 5 times more in taxes? How about 7 times more? What
> specific, non-emotional criteria do you use to get the multiplier?
See the Canadian Tax Codes.
> We simply disagree here....but I would never call you insane because of it.
Thats because you don't know enough to do so.
>>>>> I do find myself fascinated when someone discusses "fair" as an
>>>>> absolute or as a justification for some action.
>>>>
>>>> Well, go ask Mox why he did that. We didn't.
>>>
>>> I wasn't trying to point a finger at anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and thats most... evasive of you. Its dishonest to equally tar
>> many for what only one did.
>
> I wasn't evading anything, nor was I trying to "tar" ANYONE. I find such
> discussions interesting because I wish to try to remove the emotion from
> discussions of fairness.
<laughs> Impossible, because " fairness " IS an emotive term, and is used
as such, being as fluid and NON specific as it is.
> I also find such discussions fascinating because
> (as I've said on this board a number of times) I enjoy learning how other
> people think.
To what end ? Do you not see the greater understanding of an *issue* as
having even more value, or are you fixated on ad hominem views only ?
> I think (and I hope) that I have been consistent in this attitude with
> what I've written, and I don't recall criticizing anyone (other than an
> implication that vilifying the rich simply because they're rich is
> inappropriate).
Yet, in all that feel good soft Oprah-class squishyness, you have yet to
show an iota of concern about objective facts and numbers...
Well, I'll say this much; I am very glad that you have no say in any
economic policy making.
Andre
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- From: Carl
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- References:
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- From: Carl
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- Prev by Date: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Next by Date: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Previous by thread: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Next by thread: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
