Posted by MikeT23 on 12/7/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):
This thread makes me look brilliant.   I figured out this tool's game a month ago and blocked him so I wouldn't be tempted to argue.    Others are just now figuring it out. 

"Brilliant" is a reach.  "Less dim-witted than usual" might be more accurate.

Same difference.  More or less. 

This thread makes me look brilliant.

This is the hardest I've laughed in quite some time.

I figured out this tool's game a month ago and blocked him so I wouldn't be tempted to argue.    Others are just now figuring it out.

There is no game. I'm simply attempting to dismiss incorrect interpretations of things I've said, which has unfortunately distracted from the real argument. 

This really should be over unless someone wants to try arguing the main point again, but I think everyone but me has thrown up the white flat on that one.

My God you're delusional.

No, I'm brilliant.   Or less dim-witted than usual.   Same thing.

My God you're delusional.

If you think I'm wrong, you should be attempting to show the flaws you believe exist in my argument. If you are unwilling to do that or cannot do that, then you have no basis upon which to claim I'm wrong in the first place.

This isn't meant to be insulting, but I'm honestly disappointed in you. Insisting I'm delusional does nothing to help you, because I could insist the same of you and we're back at square one. It's a fallacy of argument that is a waste of time, and based on other things you've said before, you should already know that. I thought you were better than that.

No, I'm brilliant.   Or less dim-witted than usual.   Same thing.

At least now you're being mildly entertaining, as this made me laugh again. That's an upgrade for you, as before you just acted like a child with a temper tantrum with your ridiculous insisting everyone should post the way you want.

So keep insisting you're brilliant and and I'll keep laughing, at least until that becomes boring (which may not be long but I'll let it ride until it does if you will).

I, and many other people, made logical, well-reasoned points that demonstrated the flaws in your argument.  Your basic response was "because of things I understand, and you couldn't possibly understand, your points are wrong and mine are right.  I'm not going to tell you what those points are, exactly, but believe me - they exist."  You can't argue with that ridiculous point, and since you stick to it so strongly, and continue to make assumptions about human nature that are wildly off base, there's really nothing left but to concede that you are, in fact, quite deluded, and give up trying to be reasonable with you.  You've made that utterly impossible.

I, and many other people, made logical, well-reasoned points that demonstrated the flaws in your argument. 

You attempted to do so, and each time I systematically took apart each point you made. I showed you how your perception of these "flaws" wasn't accurate.

You can make as many "logical, well-reasoned" attempts as you wish, but if someone shows how you didn't really make the point you thought you did, then you didn't really accomplish anything. That's what happened here, but you refuse to see that. If I took your previous tactic, this might be the time I'd suggest you were being delusional. Just so you (hopefully) don't misinterpret, that last was just a bit of ironic humor given the true nature of the situation here, not an actual attempt to say you're delusional.

Your basic response was "because of things I understand, and you couldn't possibly understand, your points are wrong and mine are right.

No. That was never the case. I attempted multiple times to explain the inaccuracies in what people were saying and when they still did not understand, it was THEN that I gave up on trying to explain it.

You're trying to generalize the situation and make it seem like I didn't offer any real points when in fact I did.

I'm not going to tell you what those points are, exactly, but believe me - they exist.

Wrong. I made several points that people didn't understand and made several attempts to explain the points.

You're trying to make it seem like I didn't make any points, and if you honestly believe that's true, then you need to go re-read them.

and continue to make assumptions about human nature that are wildly off base,

No, they're not, and I've explained that MANY times. Again, you need to re-read what I've said or stop making these ridiculous statements claiming to know what I've said when you clearly don't.

Let's be honest here. People have given up because they know they can't win, but no one wants to say that. Even you refuse to debate the points at hand and want to bow out with an attack on me when you have clearly demonstrated you haven't even read the vast majority of this thread.

If an army were to fight a war the way you and several others debate, they would charge valiantly onto the field of battle and thrash madly into the opposing army until they encountered the least bit of resistance, then run away and hide in the hills only to shout they never wanted to fight in the first place because fighting is stupid and besides that the opposing army is just being ridiculous. No, they'd yell, they aren't afraid and could easily defeat that army if they wanted to, but they don't want to fight because that wouldn't be reasonable. They were never defeated, either, they just chose to run and hide and give up the land they were originally fighting for. But they didn't really lose, because the other army is just unreasonable in their position and they could defeat them if they wanted but they just don't want to fight.

Unless you want to charge back onto the field of battle and engage me in the real debate again, it's over. You gave up, you lost the land you were fighting for, and you can hide in the hills all day and claim otherwise and I won't care because I'm the one standing on the battlefield with my hand held high.

Bis:  no one's talking to me anymore so I win.

Bis:  I won  because I say I won.

He's blocked, but I can only guess that's about what's happening here.

dahs, you're wasting your time....

If nobody's talking to bis any more, don't we all win?

An interesting opinion article in the December issue of AARP Bulletin.

The writer suggests that the tax code is virtually incomprehensible, partly because what exactly constitutes "income" has become extraordinarily difficult for tax purposes.  Untaxable income inside IRA's/401(k)s, employer-provided health befefits, and interest on municipal bonds are "untouchable" for income tax purposes, and income from dividends or capital gains are taxed quite differently from wages or business income.

He further writes that income has become "too slippery a concept to form the basis of taxation.  It is too mobile, too hard to locate geographically, too easily refined into different forms or masked in various financial structures.  Instead, taxes inevitably have to fall more heavily on things that are easier to define and locate, and that are unable to escape the tax collector."

He suggests that the two tax bases that are best suited to a new paradigm of tax collection would be consumption and real estate.  "The bulk of consumption consists of services that cannot be outsourced or automated; you can't go to China for a haircut.  And of course land and buildings can be easily located and taxed."

He concludes that while such a drastic reform would be complicated, politically contentious and time consuming, that unless the tax experts can somehow figure out how to revise the current income tax system to work equitably, the sort of tax reform that he is suggesting might be inevitable.

Not sure if I agree with this, but I thought it was worthy of discussion.

I disagree with it strongly for 2 primary reasons:

1) It incentivizes saving.  Saving is the responsible thing for middle class families to do, but on a systemic level saving shrinks the money multiplier and consequently contract the economy.  In particular if tax code were changed in a way similar to what is suggested here savings would be increased for the wealthy, for whom saving is not of personal relevance.

2) A corollary to my first point, and building off the 2nd point, the people who are best able to save money are those who make a decent amount of it.  It's not linear, but there is certainly some sort of correlation between how much you earn and what % of it you are likely to save.  Thus, making too much of the tax code spending-based generates a system that's basically inverted from the tiered system we have now.  People living near the poverty line, paycheck-to-paycheck budget type families, spend basically 100% of what they earn.  So they'd be taxed on 100% of their income.  People who make $2 million a year might spend 20-25% of that.  Obviously those people are going to get hit harder on the Real Estate end, but even so you'd either
     a) still be taxing the poor more heavily than the rich
OR
     b) tax Real Estate to the extent that it would heavily discourage home ownership amongst the middle class.  This comes back to my point 1, in which I oppose codifying legislation that promotes behaviors that are bad for the economy.  Declining interest in home ownership leads to reduced Real Estate values, difficulty selling properties, and a stall in new home building.  All of these are bad for the economy.  In this case it's not so great for the individuals either.  In the modern economy there are certainly better investments than homes, but the security associated with home ownership is still beneficial for most middle class families.

Bis:  no one's talking to me anymore so I win. Bis:  I won  because I say I won.

No. I stated my position and defend it with solid logic that no one was able to refute, while on the other hand I was able to successfully refute the points that were made (which were very few) in favor of other alternatives.

So unless someone wants to step up and find a way to suggest a real flaw in my argument and/or posit that another argument is somehow better and back that up with solid logic, then that is why I have won. It has nothing to do with me saying I've won but with the logic of how debate works.

If nobody's talking to bis any more, don't we all win?

Sure. Armies that run from the battlefield and hide in the hills and claim they never wanted to fight in the first place win all the time. The enemy is standing on your land and proclaiming victory, but if you shout from the hills that you don't care and they're delusional and so you're ignoring them, by all means, your army has clearly won that battle. *rolls eyes*

He suggests that the two tax bases that are best suited to a new paradigm of tax collection would be consumption and real estate. 

Interesting. There would be problems with implementation to be sure, but it could potentially be beneficial. There are a lot of variables involved, though, as there would be with any such major change.

Real estate taxes have long been a more fair method of determining who should pay taxes than things such as sales tax, which tax everyone an equal percentage.

I would be in favor of a tax based on net worth, where the more you are worth, the more you pay - with anyone caught hiding the value of their assets to face severe penalties so steep it would never be worth it to begin with.

It incentivizes saving.  Saving is the responsible thing for middle class families to do, but on a systemic level saving shrinks the money multiplier and consequently contract the economy. 

I agree with the principle of this point, but I'm not sure it would work exactly that way. Perhaps a way to get the middle class to save and give incentives to the wealthy to spend is the best way to go.

People living near the poverty line, paycheck-to-paycheck budget type families, spend basically 100% of what they earn.  So they'd be taxed on 100% of their income.  People who make $2 million a year might spend 20-25% of that.  Obviously those people are going to get hit harder on the Real Estate

This is why I am in favor of taxing net worth (again, with steep penalties for those who attempt to hide it in any way).

This way, those with high net worth (the wealthy) pay a greater percentage, and those with zero or negative net worth (there are many people with negative net worth, even those with jobs, etc.) would pay a low percentage.

It would need to perhaps have a modifier for income or something else to not give incentive for people to go into debt (zero or negative net worth) to lower taxes, but as we've discussed there is no "perfect" system and this would tax the wealthy more and solve some problems with the current system (though not without creating some snags, as any system will do).

Posted by tecwrg on 12/10/2012 6:05:00 PM (view original):
If nobody's talking to bis any more, don't we all win?

dahdebater is feeding his need.  

He's not feeding anything. If he did what I wanted, he'd either admit he's giving up and has lost or come out of hiding in the hills and trot back onto the battlefield and re-engage in the real debate.