Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

[tyr_13]

Appeal to emotion noted. Medical bills suck, but the rent and utility bills still come due, oh and the cost of running the government too.

The problem of poor people dying under your proposal if they happen to get sick is an appeal to emotion fallacy?


That's just sick. I'd tell you to get help, but I bet your medical plan doesn't cover psychiatric care and the bills might make it harder to pay your taxes.

 

[Ladewig]

With the exception that someone making $914,000 doesn't spend all of their money on goods and services. It's a dumb plan.

I wasn't trying to praise the plan. I was just pointing out if $14,000 gets a big rebate, $24,000 gets a medium rebate and $914,000 gets no rebate, it is a progressive tax plan.

 

[leftysergeant]

A little complicated but it does meet the definition of a progressive tax plan.

So, did the dude say where the money was going to come from to give out these reimbursements?

Seems to me that this will only work until you run out of other people's money.

 

[Ladewig]

So, did the dude say where the money was going to come from to give out these reimbursements?

Seems to me that this will only work until you run out of other people's money.

This site: http://www.fairtax.org/ claims 23% (with no exemptions) is revenue neutral.

I have not run the numbers myself.

 

[leftysergeant]

This site: http://www.fairtax.org/ claims 23% (with no exemptions) is revenue neutral.

I have not run the numbers myself.

I am not even sure that those drongos have, either. Nor, assuming that they had, would i assume that they included all of the relevant numbers.

They show a bit of confirmation bias, you might have noticed.

 

[Neally]

The problem of poor people dying under your proposal if they happen to get sick is an appeal to emotion fallacy?

The claim of people dying if they have to pay a 9% sales tax is an unsupported claim, and an appeal to emotion fallacy.

That's just sick.

If you can't handle rational debate without using fallacies, maybe you should hang it up.

 

[varwoche]

Granted the meaning is similar, but the way Cain put it was much less abrasive. You or I don't know if he was deliberately lying or responding to using the term "ignorant".

Ignoring this truly inane, hyper-literal parsing surrounding the word ignorant, will you at least concede that Ron Paul portrayed Cain's statements on the Fed accurately, and that Cain grossly misrepresented those statements in his reply to Paul?

 

[Neally]

Ignoring this truly inane, hyper-literal parsing surrounding the word ignorant, will you at least concede that Ron Paul portrayed Cain's statements on the Fed accurately, and that Cain grossly misrepresented those statements in his reply to Paul?

I already said the meaning is similar, which does make Paul's representation accurate, but not literal, and I think Cain probably reacted to the word "ignorant" in claiming he was misquoted as he in fact never used that word.

 

[varwoche]

I already said the meaning is similar, which does make Paul's representation accurate, but not literal, and I think Cain probably reacted to the word "ignorant" in claiming he was misquoted as he in fact never used that word.

Your apologies for Cain amount to:

He ducked the substance of Paul's challenge, and reacted like a pompous infant based on a hyper-literal nitpick.

And you too are ducking the substance based on a hyper-literal nitpick -- still. (My bad; I shoud have realized that my disqualifier would be ignored.)

 

[tyr_13]

The claim of people dying if they have to pay a 9% sales tax is an unsupported claim, and an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Marvelous attempt to move the goalposts there.

If you can't handle rational debate without using fallacies, maybe you should hang it up.

If you're trying to get me so disgusted with your sick argument that I give up and you can claim victory, you're trying in vain.

 

[Neally]

Marvelous attempt to move the goalposts there.
If you're trying to get me so disgusted with your sick argument that I give up and you can claim victory, you're trying in vain.

I've done no such thing, but if that's you best response, you should hang it up. Trickys claim was that,
"It would essentially sentence poor people to death if they got ill. That doesn't bother you even a little? Are you really that cruel? "
which is an unsupported claim and appeal to emotion.

 

[tyr_13]

I've done no such thing, but if that's you best response, you should hang it up. Trickys claim was that,
"It would essentially sentence poor people to death if they got ill. That doesn't bother you even a little? Are you really that cruel? "
which is an unsupported claim and appeal to emotion.

Which isn't the same as 'people dying if they have to pay a 9% sales tax,' and yes, I went back further than Tricky's to find out specifically what was being talked about just to be sure.

That's the second time you've told me to 'hang it up' in as many posts.

 

[JudeBrando]

I don't know so I'm asking. If that's you, is your avatar really "look at my long hair"?

 

[Neally]

Which isn't the same as 'people dying if they have to pay a 9% sales tax,' and yes, I went back further than Tricky's to find out specifically what was being talked about just to be sure.

Go back to #285. Tricky argued for tax breaks for people with medical bills. I argued against it say that the flat tax should be applied without exception and it went from there to his lame appeal to emotion, "sentence poor people to death" statement.

That's the second time you've told me to 'hang it up' in as many posts.

Honestly, if you can't follow the discussion, you should hang it up, and that makes it number three.

 

[leftysergeant]

Go back to #285. Tricky argued for tax breaks for people with medical bills. I argued against it say that the flat tax should be applied without exception and it went from there to his lame appeal to emotion, "sentence poor people to death" statement.
Honestly, if you can't follow the discussion, you should hang it up, and that makes it number three.

Maybe people just have a hard time following the logic, if you can call it that, in the arguements of anyone trying to support any aspect of a tax scheme that increases the burden on the middle class and impoverishes the sick while giving the rich a break.

 

[mhaze]

The code is complex because there is much variety in the way people live in the US. It's been tweaked for many many years. That's not to say that parts of it aren't outdated or blatently unfair, but to cry "It's too complicated" is a criticism hardly worth noting. What you are suggesting is starting again from square one, with all the square one mistakes and square one crudeness. That is a recipe for disaster.

Give us some details, Cain, like how you're going to handle things like deductions. 'Cause if you're not going to allow deductions of any kind, your plan is dead in the water.

This type of thing has been done before in other countries. Russia 1992 for example.

When you say that a plan is dead in the water because of people not liking it because it does not have their "special deductions", you are re-stating the problem of which something like the 999 plan is a solution.

When you state that there would be resistance to the 999 plan from entrenched interests (A) you are stating the obvious (B) in many of those situations, taxation net of bracket-deductions would go down.

 

[Tricky]

Go back to #285. Tricky argued for tax breaks for people with medical bills. I argued against it say that the flat tax should be applied without exception and it went from there to his lame appeal to emotion.

You can call it an "appeal to emotion" if you like, but having a lot of really sick or dying people is a reality if we make them unable to pay for medical care, and that is exactly what your plan would do. If you think this is a mischaracterization, then tell me what your plan would do for people who are poor and cannot pay for medical care. If you cannot, then you also cannot argue that your plan would "let them die".

Maybe we shouldn't get all emotional over poor people dying. I can see it is not a problem for you. Excuse me for not seeing it the same way. If that makes me "emotional", then mia culpa. But if you have no plan, then do not try to dispute the obvious conclusion that you are okay with letting poor people die.

 

[mhaze]

You can call it an "appeal to emotion" if you like, but having a lot of really sick or dying people is a reality if we make them unable to pay for medical care, and that is exactly what your plan would do. If you think this is a mischaracterization, then tell me what your plan would do for people who are poor and cannot pay for medical care. If you cannot, then you also cannot argue that your plan would "let them die".

Maybe we shouldn't get all emotional over poor people dying. I can see it is not a problem for you. Excuse me for not seeing it the same way. If that makes me "emotional", then mia culpa. But if you have no plan, then do not try to dispute the obvious conclusion that you are okay with letting poor people die.

In prior decades, there was a line item on the US 1040 tax schedule A, for medical costs. It was an allowed deduction if they exceeded 2.5%. That deduction was cut, and cut again. It's now 7.5%.

That means that if you make 70K, and have an adjusted taxable income after deductions of 50K, your can deduct medical expenses over $3750.

The gradual cutting into this deduction of the average man is just one of many ways that the tax code has gotten increasingly unfair. The reason is that "deductions" have become empty shells of real deductions that you can actually use and benefit from. Unpaid employee business expenses, car expenses, charity donations, deductions for local and state taxes have similarly been modified or cut out entirely.

At some point, (NOW, as far as I am concerned) the entire mess of IRS regulations can be tossed and replaced with a far simpler system. Yes, in doing that one can always find little niches where someone that used to benefit from something no longer does...and the reverse.

 

[Tricky]

I'm getting whiplash here. First you complain that deductions have gotten too difficult and too small. Then you suggest that the solution is to throw out all deductions.

But I don't buy the "simpler is better" argument. There is no "one size fits all" solution that can possibly deal with the myriad of situations that Americans face. The solutions may be difficult, but the solution is NOT to just throw everything away because "it's too HARD!"

 

[Neally]

Maybe people just have a hard time following the logic, if you can call it that, in the arguements of anyone trying to support any aspect of a tax scheme that increases the burden on the middle class and impoverishes the sick while giving the rich a break.

I'm sorry if you can't follow the logic of everyone paying their fair share.

You can call it an "appeal to emotion" if you like, but having a lot of really sick or dying people is a reality if we make them unable to pay for medical care, and that is exactly what your plan would do. If you think this is a mischaracterization, then tell me what your plan would do for people who are poor and cannot pay for medical care.

Medical care, housing, food, utilities or any other necessities are a separate issue from a flat tax. Come up with some other proposal if you like for help those people with those needs. Let's not try to fix all the worlds problems with the tax code.

If you cannot, then you also cannot argue that your plan would "let them die".

I actually can. The tax code is a separate issue from social services.

Maybe we shouldn't get all emotional over poor people dying. I can see it is not a problem for you. Excuse me for not seeing it the same way. If that makes me "emotional", then mia culpa. But if you have no plan, then do not try to dispute the obvious conclusion that you are okay with letting poor people die.

Pure straw.