What really eats me up... Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
"Because they can afford to" is about as valid a reason as "because I said so".  Which is not very valid.  Repeating it over and over does not make it any more valid.

Discussing this with bistiza is like trying to argue with an irrational five year old.  It's a complete waste of time, and one just keeps spinning in circles because he keeps going back to "because they can afford to" without any rational justification.
11/13/2012 1:21 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And now you've figured out why I blocked him. 

Life is better if you can just slice a little dumbassery out of it.
11/13/2012 1:58 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/13/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
"Because they can afford to" is about as valid a reason as "because I said so".  Which is not very valid.  Repeating it over and over does not make it any more valid.

Discussing this with bistiza is like trying to argue with an irrational five year old.  It's a complete waste of time, and one just keeps spinning in circles because he keeps going back to "because they can afford to" without any rational justification.
I think the rational argument is that, if you're going to increase taxes on anyone, you increase them on the rich because they can afford it. But that starts with the premise that taxes should be increased. Which they shouldn't, at least not right now, when the economy hasn't recovered and demand is still a problem.
11/13/2012 2:08 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
FWIW, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy if it was presented with an argument of "because they can afford it more than anybody else".  But throughout the campaign, and even after (within the past week), Obama hes made repeated references to the wealthy needing to "pay their fair share".  Which to me clearly comes across as pandering to the rhetoric of class warfare, which was one of the underlying themes of Obama's campaign.

Perhaps it's asking too much for a little bit of honesty and transparency from our elected leaders.
11/13/2012 2:19 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I think there is ample evidence of class warfare from both sides.
11/13/2012 2:20 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
I think there is ample evidence of class warfare from both sides.
Really?  Can you expand on that?  And if you do find such evidence, do you think it's equally (or close to it) from both sides?
11/13/2012 2:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm assuming he's talking about entitlement cuts.    If not, he's just talking out his ***.
11/13/2012 2:31 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
tecwrg,

I already explained the rational behind "because they can afford to", but I'll summarize for you once again:

Every tax dollar paid by someone who is incredibly wealthy can represent one less tax dollar which must be paid by someone who can't even afford to pay their heating bill. While, say, $100 may mean next to nothing to the wealthy individual, it could mean the literal difference between life and death for someone who can now afford to eat, pay a utility bill, or whatever. So if a wealthy person is made to pay, again say $100 more in taxes, to relieve that burden from someone who is far less able to pay it, then it should be done.

Obviously not all situations will be this dire or dramatic, but the point is the same. Those with the means to pay should be paying more to ease the burden on those who have less means to pay. That's what paying your fair share is all about.
FWIW, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy if it was presented with an argument of "because they can afford it more than anybody else". 

*rolls eyes* That's exactly what I HAVE been arguing.

The fact that they can afford it more than anyone else is WHY it's part of them paying their fair share.

As for class warfare, I think the wealthy are constantly at war with the middle and lower classes, and they have the power to fight it on their terms by using wealth to keep control.
11/13/2012 2:36 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
About a year ago, I posted the "What's a fair share" question. ( www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx ) The thread went for 48 pages or so, and not one single person from a progressive/liberal/leftist (whatever word you want to use) side of the issue could define it.  Not one.

If you're going to argue for a fair share, don't you think it's reasonable to define the target?  It may also be reasonable to find out whether what you are proposing actually accomplishes what you want it to do.

Bis is just one of many, including our president and every other leader (or even layman I've talked to in person) questioned on this matter, to refuse to define what they want.  The only rational choice left is that they simply want them to pay more - no matter what they're paying now.  It's not driven by logic and rationality, but by emotion.

And yes, I understand you want a progressive code (which is what we already have).  I understand 3rd grade math.  I also understand that in order to shoot for a target, you have to locate one.  What's the target?
11/13/2012 2:46 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
"Those with the means to pay should be paying more to ease the burden on those who have less means to pay. That's what paying your fair share is all about."

"The fact that they can afford it more than anyone else is WHY it's part of them paying their fair share."

That is the FAIL in your argument.  You keep going back to the same "if they can afford it, they should pay it" argument.  But you're unable to back it up with a reason beyond the argumentative equivalent of "because I said so".

If I'm at the checkout in the grocery store, and the person in front of me pays $3.29 for a gallon of milk, yet I'm charged $3.99 for the same gallon of milk because I'm told that "you can afford it", is that fair?
11/13/2012 2:52 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Well bis, I gotta hand it to you.  You are persistent.  So, time permitting (which it really doesn't), I'll try to be persistent too...

What's a fair share?  What do you hope to accomplish with raised taxes on the rich?  More government revenue?  More of the burden going to the top (whatever number) percentage?  What if things go opposite of what you expect?  Would you then be willing to reduce tax rates?

In the interests of time, you can find some of the points I'd want to make on pages 6 and 9 of that thread (and lots of other spots too).


My fair share of someone else's money is not defined by how much of it I want.
11/13/2012 3:04 PM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by silentpadna on 11/13/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2012 2:20:00 PM (view original):
I think there is ample evidence of class warfare from both sides.
Really?  Can you expand on that?  And if you do find such evidence, do you think it's equally (or close to it) from both sides?
The entire "half the country doesn't pay taxes" rhetoric is class warfare.


“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

Buffett
11/13/2012 4:17 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Buffett is not a reliable source for any information like that.   Dude has a bigger agenda than Obama.

What does Michael Moore have to say?

11/13/2012 4:32 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 4873 (0)
Hall of Famer
478 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by silentpadna on 11/13/2012 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Well bis, I gotta hand it to you.  You are persistent.  So, time permitting (which it really doesn't), I'll try to be persistent too...

What's a fair share?  What do you hope to accomplish with raised taxes on the rich?  More government revenue?  More of the burden going to the top (whatever number) percentage?  What if things go opposite of what you expect?  Would you then be willing to reduce tax rates?

In the interests of time, you can find some of the points I'd want to make on pages 6 and 9 of that thread (and lots of other spots too).


My fair share of someone else's money is not defined by how much of it I want.
Income redistribution. 

If you earn it, and I don't.... you should be forced to give me some money.

It's the liberal way.
11/13/2012 7:27 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Progressive income taxes are income redistribution. It sounds like a bad thing but it's not the boogeyman conservatives make it out to be. 
11/13/2012 7:50 PM
◂ Prev 1...12|13|14|15|16...34 Next ▸
What really eats me up... Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.