• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The biggest straw man

The Great Zaganza said:
But consider this:

Paul Allen is awesome at business, so we want him to work for as long as possible.
But if his dream is, say, 5 yachts, then he can quit as soon as he has the money to buy them.
So in order to make the most of his talent, we should tax him heavily, thereby delaying the moment when he has saved enough money to sail into the sunset in style.
Click to expand...

Because leftists live in fantasy land and ol Paul is going to let you have your way with him?
 
TraneWreck said:
What do you mean, "perfectly fine"? You think policy should be based on a series of unprovable claims?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking politics, but life. If someone wishes to assert something really stupid, but unfalsifiable, I'm just going to go on reading my book. It is the falsifiable stuff I'm going to call them out on.

I'm not really politically active, so I can't really comment about policy.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm not talking politics, but life. If someone wishes to assert something really stupid, but unfalsifiable, I'm just going to go on reading my book. It is the falsifiable stuff I'm going to call them out on.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's how we should have responded to your post?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It makes more sense than the Libertarian folly that lower income tax makes people work more.
Click to expand...

Well there is a certain percentage that works best. No one is going to work being taxed 100%. It would be nice if government could settle on a number and leave it alone.
 
TraneWreck said:
What do you mean, "perfectly fine"? You think policy should be based on a series of unprovable claims?
Click to expand...

The idea that there is a level of income which is enough and the rest should be taken by tax and redistributed is an unprovable claim. It's an ideological position.
 
xjx388 said:
The idea that there is a level of income which is enough and the rest should be taken by tax and redistributed is an unprovable claim. It's an ideological position.
Click to expand...
And quite depressing at that. I remember writing a huge check to the federal government for some property sold, what was so depressing was knowing it was going down a rat hole.
 
xjx388 said:
The idea that there is a level of income which is enough and the rest should be taken by tax and redistributed is an unprovable claim. It's an ideological position.
Click to expand...

If that's ideology, then it all is. The idea that any tax should happen, the idea that there should be a government at all, the idea that you deserve to keep anything you make...

No, that's a silly frame. The question is how to best organize a society. Certainly, there will be some values that are advanced that people may disagree on, but there is ample empirical evidence to guide the discussion.

I get whey Glibertarians would want people to think it was all about ideology, after all, empiricism rejects every point they've ever put forward, but ideology is less important than factual reality. It's simply a matter of fact, for example, that single payer nations spend less per capita on healthcare than the US does. What you do with that fact may depend on ideology, but it's perfectly possible to move from a factual understanding of the world to principles of good government.

Or we can play the brain in a vat game.
 
TraneWreck said:
The question is how to best organize a society.
Click to expand...

That isn't always the question. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes the question is if you think Bill Gates will feel sad if he had to pay more taxes and there isn't a broader point.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That isn't always the question. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes the question is if you think Bill Gates will feel sad if he had to pay more taxes and there isn't a broader point.
Click to expand...

Haha, and sometimes a cigar was a poster defending something, a higher top marginal income tax rate, by pointing out that the downside - rich people paying more - wasn't much of one as they would not be affected by such a change in a way that should concern us.

You took his phrase literally and seemed to imply that we should be worried about the number of yachts Paul Allen can buy when determining the tax rate.

What a strange defense you've developed: Oh, I was posting something that had nothing to do with anything.
 
TraneWreck said:
Haha, and sometimes a cigar was a poster defending something, a higher top marginal income tax rate, by pointing out that the downside - rich people paying more - wasn't much of one as they would not be affected by such a change in a way that should concern us.

You took his phrase literally and seemed to imply that we should be worried about the number of yachts Paul Allen can buy when determining the tax rate.

What a strange defense you've developed: Oh, I was posting something that had nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, I took the question literally. I definitely did not imply anyone should be worried about Paul Allen's yachts. Saying he is going to be down about it or I empathize with his feeling he needs them has nothing to do with policy.
 
logger said:
Do you really think he'd miss it? Lol

Quite telling and he is a rabid leftist, why doesn't he just give it to you?
Click to expand...
I don't want his yacht. I can't afford the moorage.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
Well there is a certain percentage that works best. No one is going to work being taxed 100%. It would be nice if government could settle on a number and leave it alone.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting a 100 percent rate. We were talking 50 percent. And people will be arguing about what is the right tax rate forever. It is reasonable that it changes over time as conditions change.
 
logger said:
I was reminded of our Hollywood elite who in times past idolized Chavez and his socialist Venezuela. Losers like Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte. But it seems the upper classes had enough of having their land seized and being forced to work for nothing.

In my country poverty is a choice, the state gives for free all the tools a person needs to get out.
Click to expand...

jimbob said:
What did Ducky do wrong, apart from getting ill?
Click to expand...

logger said:
Not in reality again? We have quite the safety net!

There isn't any sinking in this country.
Click to expand...

logger said:
Oh it would be fantastic that we wouldn't have one single Ducky in the country.:rolleyes:

What the hell is one ******* example supposed to show? Should I send in my government donation now?

Just pure leftist emotion is all your side runs on.
Click to expand...

A single counterexample can disprove a claim that something doesn't exist.

Medical bankruptcies are a problem - about 75% of bankruptcies in the US before the ACA were partly due to medical costs, and of those, the majority had insurance at the start of their medical treatment. What did they do wrong apart from getting ill?


ETA: We don't have this problem in the UK, and my government spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on healthcare than your government. In other words, more of your taxes are spent on healthcare than mine.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
ETA: We don't have this problem in the UK, and my government spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on healthcare than your government. In other words, more of your taxes are spent on healthcare than mine.
Click to expand...

Another fun fact: in countries with UHC there is far less tort litigation. Provide UHC and the damages in most accident cases decrease rapidly.
 
acbytesla said:
No one is suggesting a 100 percent rate. We were talking 50 percent. And people will be arguing about what is the right tax rate forever. It is reasonable that it changes over time as conditions change.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the US has had marginal tax rates of over 50% in the past. In fact, it may be the best way to MAGA!
 
Dr. Keith said:
Just to be clear, the US has had marginal tax rates of over 50% in the past. In fact, it may be the best way to MAGA!
Click to expand...


. We had marginal tax rates above 50 percent from WWII to 1982. We had 90+ rates in the 1950s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom