Romney pays 15% tax rate

[Francesca R]

It supports my claim that the wealthy receive disproportionately more tax expenditures than the poor. It is evidence in support of my opinion that the wealthy benefit more from government

You've just had it pointed out to you via the White House, the OECD and your Supreme Court that tax expenditures are not government spending, nor even a "benefit coming from government". They are simply the absence of tax.

Obviously no proof can reach you. Must be wonderful to be always right with no evidence.

 

[Bri]

You've just had it pointed out to you via the White House, the OECD and your Supreme Court that tax expenditures are not government spending, nor even a "benefit coming from government". They are simply the absence of tax.

That's actually not true, particularly of refundable tax credits. But that is precisely the justification for them, and the reason that they're easier for lawmakers to implement than a direct expenditure.

Again, if the government gives you a tax credit of $1000 for each cat you own, can you tell me the actual difference between that and sending you a check for $1000 for each cat you own?

Obviously no proof can reach you. Must be wonderful to be always right with no evidence.

I've provided evidence for anything I've claimed to be fact rather than opinion. I've provided evidence for my opinions as well, but it's certainly not irrefutable evidence if that's what you mean (that's why they're opinions rather than fact). You may disagree, but that's a different matter.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

1. If the all-in provision of the state benefitted the wealthy much more than the poor, then shrinking the state would address gross inequality. I don't see any fans of distributional equity (which includes myself) calling for that.
2. If the assets/income of the wealthy were "largely" due to the provision of the state, then taxing away that "large" surplus should not distort the incentive to produce output. You may believe it would not--to test it you would need to specify that "large" proportion and then it would be possible to compare countries where the tax burden was close to this with those where it was higher/lower.
3. If the model for taxation is "according to benefit received", then this is individualistic and not collectivistic. Copied over to all state-funded activity (EG healthcare) would result in the truly needy being hammered into poverty and destitution. I see nobody advocating this rationale for healthcare (and it is not the model in any country with a universal health system). It is internally inconsistent to argue this (false, IMO) premise in respect of income/assets and not in respect of other public goods that the state provides.

An untrue complaint. See above and earlier in the thread.

(enumeration mine)

1. Non sequitur, false dichotomy, straw man. 3rd option Helping the rich helps the poor it just helps the rich more.
2. Again, non sequitur, helping the rich helps the poor.
3. Non sequitur. One more time, it's in the best interest of the poor for the state to help the rich.

See what I did there? Unlike you I addressed the points directly and demonstrated why your argument is fallacious.

There has not been any counter to them, from you or another.

They have now been countered. They are thoroughly fallacious.

 

[Neally]

Regardless, Bill Gates owes a certain amount of his wealth to the fact that he lives under the government that he lives under, and likely wouldn't be wealthy had he lived under a significantly different form of government. Therefore, Bill Gates has benefited from the government under which he lives, and has a great deal to lose should that government go away.

And both Microsoft and Bill Gates pays more than the poor. That doesn't justify or quantify a progressive tax rate.

 

[Bri]

And both Microsoft and Bill Gates pays more than the poor. That doesn't justify or quantify a progressive tax rate.

I disagree that benefiting disproportionally from government doesn't justify a progressive tax rate. Nobody said anything was entirely quantifiable.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

And both Microsoft and Bill Gates pays more than the poor. That doesn't justify or quantify a progressive tax rate.

We are a society. We succeed or fail because of the policies we make as a society. No one gets rich in a vacuum. Societies cost money. Wars, the most expensive military on the planet, the social services that make for a flourishing society, these cost money. In the past people, via govt, paid for infrastructure, R&D, education, trade agreements, intellectual property investigation and enforcement, etc. These things cost money. Someone has to pay. The rich are rich, in large part because of these things. We can't continue to go increasingly in debt forever to finance these things. So either cut them or raise taxes to pay for them. The rich have the means to finance the social mechanisms necessary for future industrialists, business ventures, entrepreneurs, etc. Since the social services have been shown to be negatively correlated to decreased well being and decreasing standards of living and economic instability then be careful what you cut.

 

[RandFan]

So either cut them or raise taxes to pay for them.

Sorry for the false dichotomy. Or do some combination of both.

 

[mhaze]

the social services have been shown to be negatively correlated to decreased well being and decreasing standards of living and economic instability then be careful what you cut.

BRILLIANT!

If we give people piles of money then THEY ARE BETTER OFF!

Wow! That's so simple.

And it's free stuff.

Man, that free stuff it TRULY FINE!

Let's Git Us Some!

 

[Francesca R]

See what I did there?.

Recognised for the risible retreat that it is.

 

[mhaze]

Quote:
LOL. Now a tax deduction is "benefit"?

Of course it is. If you get a $250,000 tax credit ....
-Bri

How about you stop talking about things that you don't know anything about, like taxes.

Seriously.

Tax credits are not tax deductions.

 

[RandFan]

Recognised for the risible retreat that it is.

First off, I have no emotional investment in our discussion. There is no need for such rhetoric and argument by assertion is fallacy. Your post does not consist of an argument and does not address my claim that your argument is fallacious.

So lets review. Facts:

• You claimed all arguments in support of the proposition that the rich benefit more from govt spending than the poor are fallacious.
• I provided an argument made by George Lakoff.
• I asked you to identify the *fallacy in that argument.
• You did not identify any fallacy.
• Instead you posted a counter argument.
• That argument was riddled with demonstrable fallacies.

One more time. I don't care that you don't accept the proposition. I care that you insist that a valid argument cannot be made to support the proposition. I care that you assert that reasonable people must disavow any and all arguments in favor of the proposition on account that they are prima facie fallacious. That you cannot identify the fallacy is problematic (counter arguments, even if they are logically valid, don't render their counter fallacious).


So, I'll ask again, what is the logical error in the argument by Lakoff that I provided?



*Fallacy is an error in logic and not simply a false proposition

 

[Neally]

These things cost money. Someone has to pay. The rich are rich, in large part because of these things.

We all benefit and we all pay. The wealthy pay more by virtue of making more. Your narrative contains nothing supporting a progressive tax.

 

[RandFan]

We all benefit and we all pay. The wealthy pay more by virtue of making more. Your narrative contains nothing supporting a progressive tax.

Yes it does.

1. Healthy and flourishing societies are negatively correlated to nations without all of the benefits I listed.
2. It's in everyone's best interest to have a healthy and flourishing society.
3. The wealthy benefit the most from that flourishing society.
4. Placing a larger burden of taxes on the pour to avoid deficits will harm those who don't profit as much from society.
5. Therefore: only a progressive tax can pay for that healthy and flourishing society.

Neally, like I said to Franscesca, I really don't care if you agree with me. I don't care if you challenge my arguments. Please to identify false premises or errors in logic.

 

[Bri]

Tax credits are not tax deductions.

I was talking about tax expenditures in the post to which Neally was responding, Neally switched it to "tax deduction," and I failed to notice. Of course, my point still stands that, yes, tax expenditures (including tax deductions) benefit those who qualify for them.

Anyway, thanks for your input. Useful as always.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

Therefore: only a progressive tax can pay for that healthy and flourishing society.

Please to identify false premises or errors in logic.

Easily. Claim by assertion and false dilemma. 1 - 4 do nothing to support your case for progressive taxes.

 

[respect]

[*]The wealthy benefit the most from that flourishing society.

Such a claim involves a lot of value judgements. If you go strictly by net worth this may be true. But alternatively, look at many past societies (and many societies around the world now). One, again invoking some value judgements, could argue the other way.

Let's look at feudal lords and serfs for an example. Feudal lords had wealth and tremendous political power over serfs. Serfs had nothing compared to what the poor (and middle classes which largely didn't exist in those situations) have now. They didn't have social safety nets, laws designed to protect their labor compensation and safety on the job or anything of the sort. Attempts to gain any sort of political power faced potentially being put down with lethal force. And the poor (and middle classes) now have a much greater chance of improving their lot than in many past societies where your lot was determined by your family.

This isn't to say the wealthy do not benefit from modern society, but to say, relative to many alternatives, one could argue that the living standard of the poor is much more increased than the wealthy. In a land of "free" education, (somewhat) free healthcare, minimum wages, worker protection laws, social safety nets, etc, etc etc are today's Western poor not much better off than the poor of the past and in many other modern societies? Compared to the rich, who are still free to enjoy lavish lifestyles, but if anything, seem to have less political clout and power over others than they used to?

Note-I am not arguing against progressive taxation here, rather saying that I find claims that the rich benefit more than the poor in modern society to be questionable.

 

[RandFan]

Easily. Claim by assertion and false dilemma. 1 - 4 do nothing to support your case for progressive taxes.

Where is the assertion and where is the false dilemma? What do you mean 1 and 4 do not support my case? #1 and #4 both directly support #2.

 

[RandFan]

Easily. Claim by assertion and false dilemma. 1 - 4 do nothing to support your case for progressive taxes.

I want to make this clear. I don't simply assert fallacy as that is intellectually lazy. Please note that I didn't simply accuse Francesca of fallacy. I explained why there is a fallacy.

1. Non sequitur, false dichotomy, straw man. 3rd option Helping the rich helps the poor it just helps the rich more.
2. Again, non sequitur, helping the rich helps the poor.
3. Non sequitur. One more time, it's in the best interest of the poor for the state to help the rich.

1. Francesca's conclusion does not follow from her premises.
2. It's a false dilemma because there is another option that Francesca has excluded. She excludes the fact that helping the rich ALSO helps the poor so, her straw man, reducing aid to the rich would help the poor, is false and that's why no one is arguing for that. The argument in support of the proposition does not predict that.

At risk of beating a dead horse, I don't care if you disagree. I don't have the presumption that I can't be wrong. I'm not so arrogant. I'm happy for you to show me an error. BUT SHOW ME. Don't just assert it. Tell me where the error in logic is. Saying 1 and 4 don't support the conclusion doesn't tell me if or how they are assertions or if or how they are false dilemmas.

 

[Unabogie]

I almost made a new thread for this, because it's just too ridiculous for words. But Romney is now claiming that since corporations are taxed at a nominal 35% rate (even though we know many big corporations don't pay anywhere near that), if you add THAT tax to his measly 15% tax, then his actual tax rate is “really closer to 45 or 50 percent.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/01/romney_actually_i_kind_of_pay_50_tax.php?ref=fpblg

Now come on. If I pay my 25% tax rate, then I pay for some groceries and the cashier pays 20%, is his tax rate actually 45% if you add mine and his together? And if I get my money from a corporation who hires my company, can the cashier add 35% to his total and claim he's paying a 70% rate?

Mitt Romney is a fraud. The guy doesn't have an honest bone in his body if he thinks this will work for him.

 

[Cain]

I almost made a new thread for this, because it's just too ridiculous for words. But Romney is now claiming that since corporations are taxed at a nominal 35% rate (even though we know many big corporations don't pay anywhere near that), if you add THAT tax to his measly 15% tax, then his actual tax rate is “really closer to 45 or 50 percent.”

This only proves that George Costanza was a marine biologist since he did remove the obstruction. I'm gonna play Operation before I go out tonight, and tell everyone I'm a doctor. Next week I'm gonna be a real-estate mogul!