Please Raise My Taxes

Damocles said:
I don't miss it, I reject it. We should not punish or attempt to limit success to make you feel better. If you feel you make too much and want to pay more, the IRS will gladly accept your check.
Click to expand...

He doesn't feel HE makes to much and HE wants to pay more, HE thinks that his INCOME GROUP makes too much and DOES NOT PAY ENOUGH. APPLES AND ORANGES. You are mentally retarded. This is a fallacy upon fallacy. The right should all be shot.

And if you reject the free rider argument then you're just retarded. You reject common sense because you are an extremist ideological nutjob who just can't see common sense. There would be NO good done to the world if he chose to raise his own taxes, the only good that would be done would be if his INCOME GROUPS taxes were raised, you willfully ignorant mentally retarded prick.
 
Watermark said:
He doesn't feel HE makes to much and HE wants to pay more, HE thinks that his INCOME GROUP makes too much and DOES NOT PAY ENOUGH. APPLES AND ORANGES. You are mentally retarded. This is a fallacy upon fallacy. The right should all be shot.

And if you reject the free rider argument then you're just retarded. You reject common sense because you are an extremist ideological nutjob who just can't see common sense. There would be NO good done to the world if he chose to raise his own taxes, the only good that would be done would be if his INCOME GROUPS taxes were raised, you willfully ignorant mentally retarded prick.
Click to expand...
Yes he does. He feels he makes too much and that everybody else should feel the same way, that if they don't they should be forced to anyway.

It's rubbish. Total garbage.
 
Damocles said:
Yes he does. He feels he makes too much and that everybody else should feel the same way, that if they don't they should be forced to anyway.

It's rubbish. Total garbage.
Click to expand...

I believe you are incorrect. He is not saying he and he alone is making too much more taxes. He is saying he and everyone in his income bracket is making too much and should pay more taxes. He doesn't say everybody else should feel that way - however, his income bracket did vote for Obama. You are attempting to eliminate the collective connotations.
 
Watermark said:
I believe you are incorrect. He is not saying he and he alone is making too much more taxes. He is saying he and everyone in his income bracket is making too much and should pay more taxes. He doesn't say everybody else should feel that way - however, his income bracket did vote for Obama. You are attempting to eliminate the collective connotations.
Click to expand...
I understand what he is saying, Watermark. He is saying that because he feels he makes too much (and by extension everybody in his bracket, duh) we should change the laws to suit how he feels.

Again, the best solution is: If he feels he is not paying enough in taxes, he may write a bigger check and send it in. Be the example, start donating the money to the government he feels is the most benevolent and best place to donate.

And again, I reject his idea out of hand as it punishes the success of others, decreases the incentive to be that successful and create jobs for others. It is a poor idea, based on how he feels things should be.
 
Damocles said:
I understand what he is saying, Watermark. He is saying that because he feels he makes too much (and by extension everybody in his bracket, duh) we should change the laws to suit how he feels.

Again, the best solution is: If he feels he is not paying enough in taxes, he may write a bigger check and send it in. Be the example, start donating the money to the government he feels is the most benevolent and best place to donate.

And again, I reject his idea out of hand as it punishes the success of others, decreases the incentive to be that successful and create jobs for others. It is a poor idea, based on how he feels things should be.
Click to expand...



He just has an opinion on policy. Just like anyone else. Any opinion on policy is "someone trying to force others to live as they feel". Find a new nit, bro.
 
AssHatZombie said:
He just has an opinion on policy. Just like anyone else. Any opinion on policy is "someone trying to force others to live as they feel". Find a new nit, bro.
Click to expand...
Yes, I reject his opinion, but I do it based on a bit of learning from history. It was already tried. Punishing the wealthy for being successful is not a solution that will stimulate the economy. In fact it will work quite the opposite.

And my solution forces nobody to live as I live. It even allows him to feel good for giving what he feels would be the right amount to the government. I prefer to donate cash to non-profits.
 
Damocles said:
And again, I reject his idea out of hand as it punishes the success of others, decreases the incentive to be that successful and create jobs for others. It is a poor idea, based on how he feels things should be.
Click to expand...

It's not about punishment.

The negative effects of progressive taxation do not nearly overcome the positive effects, and anyway, there is huge diminishing returns to providing more and more money to the already-rich anyone. It is better for us all to collect most of the money society needs to operate from the rich.
 
Watermark said:
It's pointless to act out individually something that could only have the desired effect if acted out collectively.
Click to expand...
And it is pointless to act out what has already failed in the past, was corrected by Kennedy, and shouldn't be considered just to make the guy feel better. If he wants to feel better he can write a bigger check.
 
Watermark said:
It's not about punishment.

The negative effects of progressive taxation do not nearly overcome the positive effects, and anyway, there is huge diminishing returns to providing more and more money to the already-rich anyone. It is better for us all to collect most of the money society needs to operate from the rich.
Click to expand...
However it has the effect of punishment. Negative reinforcement for one of the necessary activities to get out out of our current bind is just plain stupid.
 
Waterdork, the upper-middle class people who voted for Obama voted against Bush's foreign policy - not to get waterboarded by the IRS.
 
Damocles said:
And it is pointless to act out what has already failed in the past, was corrected by Kennedy, and shouldn't be considered just to make the guy feel better. If he wants to feel better he can write a bigger check.
Click to expand...

You are connecting disparate ideas. Progressive taxation never failed. Kennedy lowered the taxes to 70%, not 50%, and the 50's were one of America's most prosperous times in any case.

If he wrote a bigger check, it would be sort of like being the only person in the entire world who knew about and wanted to enforce piracy laws. It would be pointless. You're willful failure to understand this simple concept precludes me from rationally arguing with you.
 
Threedee said:
Waterdork, the upper-middle class people who voted for Obama voted against Bush's foreign policy - not to get waterboarded by the IRS.
Click to expand...

How can you honestly say what "they" voted against? "They" are a bunch of people - not some mass that you can prescribe views on as you wish. The fact is, they voted for him in greater numbers than the MIDDLE-CLASS did, and the upper class was the only class Obama said he may raise taxes on. More proof that conservatisms tax cut necromancy is dead as an ideology.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Actually punishment is positive reinforcement.
Click to expand...
Punishment is negative reinforcement. If you do this, then we will effect you "this way".

In this case, if you are successful we will take your money at a much heavier level than any other person.

In another case punishment would be, "If you drive drunk, we will put you in jail."

Positive reinforcement is not punishment.
 
Watermark said:
You are connecting disparate ideas. Progressive taxation never failed. Kennedy lowered the taxes to 70%, not 50%, and the 50's were one of America's most prosperous times in any case.

If he wrote a bigger check, it would be sort of like being the only person in the entire world who knew about and wanted to enforce piracy laws. It would be pointless. You're willful failure to understand this simple concept precludes me from rationally arguing with you.
Click to expand...
No, punitive taxation at the highest levels failed. It especially fails during recession to tax too much on the people who hire others. Hoover tried two things that we know extended the Great Recession, first was protectionism, the second was raising taxes on the "highest earners". You most definitely can cause further layoffs and incentive to go elsewhere with higher taxes.

It wouldn't be like "the only person in the entire world" he could start a trend. Let him be an example, convince others of the awesome benevolent power of massive government. We tax, "this high" because we know it isn't punitive and make people have no incentive to succeed. If he wants to pay more he can, and he has every right to try to convince others to feel the same all without the force of government.
 
Damocles said:
No, punitive taxation at the highest levels failed. It especially fails during recession to tax too much on the people who hire others. Hoover tried two things that we know extended the Great Recession, first was protectionism, the second was raising taxes on the "highest earners".
Click to expand...

HAHA. Hoover both raised taxes and cut spending. He had little other choice to keep the government afloat without going into massive debt. The treasury basically forced this on them - deflation went to double digits in the 30's and they still held onto a tight monetary policy. The economy shrunk to such a massive state that the government could barely keep anything up even with massive taxes and huge cuts.

Of course, our treasury is wiser now, so we aren't headed to a great depression, but we still need to spend because we're in a deflationary trap that not even the fed can fix. And raising taxes on the rich just lets us lower taxes on the people who deserve tax cuts even more.
 
Damocles said:
It wouldn't be like "the only person in the entire world" he could start a trend. Let him be an example, convince others of the awesome benevolent power of massive government. We tax, "this high" because we know it isn't punitive and make people have no incentive to succeed. If he wants to pay more he can, and he has every right to try to convince others to feel the same all without the force of government.
Click to expand...

Arguing with a wall would be more effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top