Random Arguments & Strawmen #15

Haven't seen Pennsylvania in the news this AM but Florida is there.

Florida voters sue for recount
USA Today

Oooo... Paged!

Home of the best gas station to stop and piss when travelling from where I currently live to my hometown, more like.

No they don't. The pay taxes, that doesn't mean they have a tax burden, your reasoning for this is poor.

You could also actually place a tax burden on these companies if they have a certain number of jobs overseas vs. In the US. That would make it more beneficial for them to have their companies in the US. There are definitely multiple ways to skin this cat and none of the answers will be good enough for either group in the argument. So really a fair compromise should take place that doesn't make the government a lapdog to corporate owners.


Not sure what you are getting at here? Their conclusion is that % wise the wealthy are paying their fair share and sometimes more while the less wealthy have a negative net tax.


The point is that if they own 35% of the US wealth, they should pay 35% of the tax, if we were going to operate on a "fair" % based tax.


That is the pivot point for each position. They simply disagree one what "fair" is based on their perspective. Like your perspective:


This is the problem, and where we will eternally disagree. I also don't think anyone that is for tax fairness has wanted to rob the pockets empty of CEOs but alas, any point I make on this will just bounce of your stubborn shell. It is a human issue but one that the greedy will always have a hard time understanding.


Just going to reply to the rest of your post here. What are you arguing? I'm not saying the companies are in the wrong. They are a business and it is their prerogative to try and make as much money as possible. I'm simply saying that we need to close up any exploitable tax loopholes. I'm not sure why you are against the government having more money do you not think people should have a right to live? Do you not believe in the Declaration of Independence?


I get how that may seem like a strawman, but that is the point of this debate to begin with. This is what things like welfare and medicaid are all about. They are human issues and when people fail to take care of others then we turn to the government. There is a reason capitalism cannot exist in its purest form but strives in a modified form with some government control.

Most people don't sit there hoping to get free money from the government and steal from the rich. They want to live, they want others to live happily. It is hard to take money from the working class because every bit of their money is used while the wealthy often have an abundance of money that isn't used.

[Edited for formatting to make a little less wall o' texty - Meshi]

I guess Trump said something about the government contract with Boeing and the liberal media are outraged of course.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-boeing-air-force-one-232243

An uninformed opinion tweeted out and stocks go down? Where is the harm in that?

Smokescreen for the money he's going to cost people by leaving his brat and mail-order bride in NYC and splitting more time between the two himself.

You're taking the words at face value. There is an actual economic definition to the term that perhaps you don't understand:
"In economics, tax incidence or tax burden is the analysis of the effect of a particular tax on the distribution of economic welfare. Tax incidence is said to "fall" upon the group that ultimately bears the burden of, or ultimately has to pay, the tax."


This is a mathematical fallacy and makes no sense.

You're a smokescreen !

Actually I think he is right 4 billion for some jets to visit countries that hate us seems a bit much...

Would you *** please knock it off with the text walls or move it to pm. It's really really really really really really *** annoying.

How annoying?

This annoying:

Michigan

You know, I'm actually more scared for this country if The Donald were to lose in a recount.

It really wouldn't be pretty. I'm afraid a lot of people would hurt.

Years of peaceful power transfers will vanish like a fart in the wind.

It's 2016 can we have once election without a damn recount. It isn't 1916 when they probably had to vote by using a quill or some *** !

Say what you want about Mr. Simmons, but he's helped more people in this world than any *** politician

Personally, I say you should have to vote with a quill! On a paper ballot you have to read!

You can't read? You can't vote!


...I feel like this would disqualify a lot of people on both sides and maybe that's not a bad thing.

*** me. Did I just have an evil thought?

Never. He gave them false hope ! You can't dance your way to happiness...well maybe you can...

Interesting to say the least.

No but you can stop eating donuts and dance your way away from obesity-related disease processes!

No reason to stop eating donuts think of all the bakery jobs we would lose !

You will be ok. Its a forum not twitter.







How? I don't see how its a mathematical fallacy at all, nor how it doesn't make sense. You can explain.

Also the definition of Tax Burden has been used incorrectly to even the post I originally quoted so I'm working with the literal definition that was being used and not the economic one. Thanks for correcting me and no one else though.

Um...let's see here.

"tough ***"

Yeah, that's where I'm going here. Point to the teacher where the man touched you rules where explaining things is against rules.

Alright class, let's stay on topic here before I scratch my nails on the chalkboard.

You do and I'm going to have my first Nik moment of reporting a mod!

How does one stay on topic, when there is no topic to begin with.

This is a politics and religion thread. Not a jump on each other's throats thread.

So basically don't do the latter and you're golden.

Can I be silver?

What is your definition of a "tax burden" then? Because it sounds different than the rest of the world.


You could. Have to get it passed through Congress first. You can't enforce tax laws if there is none there.

But haven't you learned from the Obamacare fiasco? What you are proposing will force these companies outside the US and into other countries, physically. Some way to try to preserve jobs by running large corporations out of the country...

It means that I'm not sure you understand their argument, as stated below:

Are you proposing that they pay less than what they actually do?

Because it's common knowledge that the 1% wealth owners pay 45.7% of all federal taxes. They own 35% of all US wealth (according to you), but they pay 45.7% of all federal taxes, according to multiple sources (IRS included).

Like I said before, I don't think you understand the argument people make on the progressive tax issue.

My point is honestly, fair is an empty word used by people who will never understand the true meaning of it. Fair, in reality, means what one person thinks should occur. Fair, in society, will never exist, because what one person thinks is fair will never align with another person's definition of the word.

Let me reemphasize this point: Tax loopholes are very rarely defined as what they are, because very few people can even define what a loophole is, much less observe and identify a loophole.

Nearly all tax laws are written and enforced the way Congress (at the time) intended it. When the 99th Congress wrote the tax law we have in place (mostly), they intended it for the way it is being run, and has been corrected a few times (in totality) throughout the years to reemphasize what that specific Congress intended to do when they wrote the law.

Section 179 is not a loophole
Section 168(k) is not a loophole
Section 2555 is not a loophole
etc, etc.

Those are the 3 most common "loopholes" people identify with when they claim to be loopholes, but they work exactly as intended!

Wait...a.....second....

Do you honestly believe that these companies, these people who are considered wealthy, that they all have all that cash on hand at all times?

Haven't it occurred to you that the value these people have are not monetary value, but a specific, intrinsic value known as "net worth"? Trump doesn't have $3.7 billion in cash on hand...ever. Most of the value he has is in the properties he holds (Trump Tower, various resorts, some casinos, goodwill (intrinsic goodwill, but this is an accounting term, and is hard to define and value. Think of it as the value of a name), etc.). I would highly doubt he would have on hand at any time any more than $100k. If he does, then he is an idiot because he could be using that money to work for him in terms of stock/bond investments (short term), land investments/property investments (long term), convertible treasury bonds (cash equivalents), or other interest bearing accounts. Hell, even life insurance can be converted into cash pretty easy.

When you see a rich person, I guarantee you that you can't just go up to them and demand half of their money right there and then, because almost all of it isn't easily convertible into cash. All of that is being used in investments, which creates more cash for them in the long run. That, my friends, is the secret to being wealthy.