|
On August 17 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:
Someone explain to me why we should take Buffett's word as gospel. His analysis of the tax situation is piss-poor (anecdotes and post hoc ergo proptor hoc galore), and I happen to agree with him that taxes for the rich should increase. This is called an appeal to authority. Maybe the fact that we put him on a pedestal for being an extremely wealthy person is a symptom of the overall problem?
Way to think independently TL'ers.
An appeal to authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Surely if you're going to be cute with debate lingo you know this fact, yes? Warren Buffet is espousing a legitimate standpoint, thus, the "appeal to authority" is warranted.
A fallacious appeal to authority would be a situation in which an expert stated something - unsubstantiated - and was then cited as an example of outright truth.
|
Someone take this entire thread out back to the wood shed and shoot it. Young people you cannot afford to be this stupid. Literally.
|
On August 17 2011 10:08 RebelMusic wrote:
Someone take this entire thread out back to the wood shed and shoot it. Young people you cannot afford to be this stupid. Literally.
It is amusing watching an entire thread of middle class people rage over rich people who actually pay taxes not paying enough taxes when they don't even bother to rage over the millions of people not paying taxes at all.
Warped backwards mindsets 4eva.
|
On August 17 2011 09:23 denzelz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 09:19 Leporello wrote:A little graph that I think is enlightening. Look at 1982. Reagan drastically cut income taxes across the board (with a little extra for the higher brackets), and concurrently, we see massive deficits and the start of our debt trend. Did spending double during the Reagan years, or did taxes get cut in half from 70% to 30%? Because that's when our debt trend really started - the national debt more than doubled during Reagan's years in office. If Republicans could answer that question truthfully while looking at a graph like this, well, they wouldn't be Republicans. Spending didn't lead to us borrowing trillions of dollars. We've had social security and social programs before 1950, when this graph starts. The only real spending inflation has been in our military. What did happen besides spending increases was massive, massive trends of tax cuts with no alternative revenue sources. Government gets less revenue, can't balance the budget, and we're forced to borrow. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Eyr8t.jpg) Also, we see in 1992-1994 the debt growth declines for a few years. Did we cut spending on social programs during those years? Not really. We mostly simply raised taxes on the most solvent people in our country, who easily afforded it. I agree with this. Austerity programs don't work in the long term. The whole idea behind deficit spending is that you are expecting the economy to grow faster than the debt. Cutting social program does nothing to simulate the economy and the few hundred million that you cut every year is NOTHING compared to how much wealth a healthy economy like the USA can generate. This is why stimulus programs are used. Even though they incur a huge debt, you are hoping that the surge of money will jumpstart the economy. Macroeconomics does not always work the way we want, obviously as we see now, but when Conservatives blast the stimulus program, what they are really blasting is the mechanics of capitalism. In that, they are hypocrites. What works is adding revenue to the government that can fund sustainable social programs. It is like taking money from the investment of these billionaire and then INVESTING that money in the government. It is an idea that should be seen as both patriotic and fiscally sensible.
Remember people, when discussing economics, completely disregard real world events that directly contradict the point you are trying to make. Such as England's Thatcher era, the Solidarity Movement in Poland which involved 'shock therapy', Russia's 300 days To The Market (Russia's version of shock therapy), and China's 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics'.
Stimulus programs are only an economic version of morphine. Most of the time they get the job done right up front but they don't stitch up your split open abdomen and the more you use them the less effective they are.
|
On August 17 2011 10:10 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:08 RebelMusic wrote:
Someone take this entire thread out back to the wood shed and shoot it. Young people you cannot afford to be this stupid. Literally. It is amusing watching an entire thread of middle class people rage over rich people who actually pay taxes not paying enough taxes when they don't even bother to rage over the millions of people not paying taxes at all. Warped backwards mindsets 4eva.
Something worse happening doesn't turn a wrong into a right.
|
On August 17 2011 10:10 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:08 RebelMusic wrote:
Someone take this entire thread out back to the wood shed and shoot it. Young people you cannot afford to be this stupid. Literally. It is amusing watching an entire thread of middle class people rage over rich people who actually pay taxes not paying enough taxes when they don't even bother to rage over the millions of people not paying taxes at all. Warped backwards mindsets 4eva.
this thread is talking about the rich and taxes, maybe you should start a thread about ppl cheating the IRS?
|
On August 17 2011 10:10 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:08 RebelMusic wrote:
Someone take this entire thread out back to the wood shed and shoot it. Young people you cannot afford to be this stupid. Literally. It is amusing watching an entire thread of middle class people rage over rich people who actually pay taxes not paying enough taxes when they don't even bother to rage over the millions of people not paying taxes at all. Warped backwards mindsets 4eva.
Lol. You're not going to get anybody that actually knows half an ounce about this issue to take that bait. What did you do, get that line straight from Fox News? Sure, the words are factual. "Millions don't pay taxes". The content, however, is meaningless. Get real. Do you really think it's that simple? You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to bother spending 15 minutes explaining to you why that is a worthless point, only to have you get nowhere and remain in your current state of mind.
|
On August 17 2011 07:04 BuddhaMonk wrote:
It's funny how those attacking Buffet for "cheating" the government out of estate taxes are blatantly ignoring the actual point that the richest in the U.S. actually pay the least amount in taxes as a percentage of their wealth.
Ignore the message, attack the messenger.
Source?
|
On August 17 2011 10:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Lol. You're not going to get anybody that actually knows half an ounce about this issue to take that bait. What did you do, get that line straight from Fox News? Sure, the words are factual. "Millions don't pay taxes". The content, however, is meaningless. Get real. Do you really think it's that simple? You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to bother spending 15 minutes explaining to you why that is a worthless point, only to have you get nowhere and remain in your current state of mind.
I'm not trying to argue the witch hunt and bandwagoning going on against rich people in this thread. I'm simply saying that logically it makes more sense to have a 15 page thread about something that is overall more important and would make a bigger impact on our debt problem...
I just find it funny that you kids are all over Buffets nuts about this when in the past he has actually argued against higher taxes for the rich repeatedly.
Thats all bromato.
|
On August 17 2011 10:05 domovoi wrote:
Some of these people do have a point. If Warren Buffett is concerned about the fiscal health of the United States, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more taxes? Why does he instead donate the vast majority of his wealth, making much of his income tax-exempt? At some level, Warren Buffett believes his money is better spent in his hands than in the hands of the government, and that's the same talking point that the right uses. Talk is cheap.
I'm going to make a Starcraft analogy because people don't seem to understand why this is logically flawed:
Let's say that Flash makes the claim that Terran is OP and should be nerfed. Of course, he doesn't stop playing Terran. Then a whole bunch of people (Terran players/fans mostly, of course) call him a hypocrite because he keeps playing Terran.
Can anyone name the fallacy his critics are engaging in?
|
On August 17 2011 10:18 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Lol. You're not going to get anybody that actually knows half an ounce about this issue to take that bait. What did you do, get that line straight from Fox News? Sure, the words are factual. "Millions don't pay taxes". The content, however, is meaningless. Get real. Do you really think it's that simple? You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to bother spending 15 minutes explaining to you why that is a worthless point, only to have you get nowhere and remain in your current state of mind. I'm not trying to argue the witch hunt and bandwagoning going on against rich people in this thread. I'm simply saying that logically it makes more sense to have a 15 page thread about something that is overall more important and would make a bigger impact on our debt problem... I just find it funny that you kids are all over Buffets nuts about this when in the past he has actually argued against higher taxes for the rich repeatedly. Thats all bromato.
See that's the ironic part. That's what is so mind-fuckingly stupid about this "but these poor peeps dunt pay tax" bit. It's not nearly as pressing of an issue as the upper 1% tax issue. Don't obfuscate what's important by bringing up a problem that only sounds more important if you word it in a certain way. Don't do that shit. Let Fox News do that shit - but please, do not perpetuate it if you want a brighter outcome.
|
On August 17 2011 10:10 Retry17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:08 RebelMusic wrote:
Someone take this entire thread out back to the wood shed and shoot it. Young people you cannot afford to be this stupid. Literally. It is amusing watching an entire thread of middle class people rage over rich people who actually pay taxes not paying enough taxes when they don't even bother to rage over the millions of people not paying taxes at all. Warped backwards mindsets 4eva.
Lol? What millions? The people on welfare? Try coming up with an actual argument with substance rather than some hipsterish trash "I'm too cool for this" attitude.
|
On August 17 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:
Someone explain to me why we should take Buffett's word as gospel. His analysis of the tax situation is piss-poor (anecdotes and post hoc ergo proptor hoc galore), and I happen to agree with him that taxes for the rich should increase. This is called an appeal to authority. Maybe the fact that we put him on a pedestal for being an extremely wealthy person is a symptom of the overall problem?
Way to think independently TL'ers.
How about because what he's saying is independently verifiable? Capital gains taxes are either very low or non-existent. Top level earners earn most of their money from investments as opposed to income. Both of these are facts that are independently verifiable and mean that the super rich pay a lower effective tax rate on what they earn than the middle class.
This is the main point of his article, and is something that many people are saying not just Warren Buffett.
|
On August 17 2011 10:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:
See that's the ironic part. That's what is so mind-fuckingly stupid about this "but these poor peeps dunt pay tax" bit. It's not nearly as pressing of an issue as the upper 1% tax issue. Don't obfuscate what's important by bringing up a problem that only sounds more important if you word it in a certain way. Don't do that shit. Let Fox News do that shit - but please, do not perpetuate it if you want a brighter outcome.
I don't see how its a pressing issue at all. Further taxing the rich or further taxing the poor doesn't fix anything because the reason for America's debt problems is simply out of control government spending with taxes that they already had, coupled with mind-numbingly stupid decisions regarding domestic policy.
Explain to this cool hipster kid how further income to the government through taxes without any other change will help in the slightest?
|
On August 17 2011 10:07 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:
Someone explain to me why we should take Buffett's word as gospel. His analysis of the tax situation is piss-poor (anecdotes and post hoc ergo proptor hoc galore), and I happen to agree with him that taxes for the rich should increase. This is called an appeal to authority. Maybe the fact that we put him on a pedestal for being an extremely wealthy person is a symptom of the overall problem?
Way to think independently TL'ers. An appeal to authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Surely if you're going to be cute with debate lingo you know this fact, yes? Warren Buffet is espousing a legitimate standpoint, thus, the "appeal to authority" is warranted. A fallacious appeal to authority would be a situation in which an expert stated something - unsubstantiated - and was then cited as an example of outright truth.
I don't know about these fancy dancy debate terms, but would the fact that Buffett's tax returns, as well as those to which he compares %'s, are not disclosed constitute a case "in which an expert stated something - unsubstantiated - and was then cited as an example of outright truth" ?
|
On August 17 2011 10:26 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:
Someone explain to me why we should take Buffett's word as gospel. His analysis of the tax situation is piss-poor (anecdotes and post hoc ergo proptor hoc galore), and I happen to agree with him that taxes for the rich should increase. This is called an appeal to authority. Maybe the fact that we put him on a pedestal for being an extremely wealthy person is a symptom of the overall problem?
Way to think independently TL'ers. How about because what he's saying is independently verifiable? Capital gains taxes are either very low or non-existent. Top level earners earn most of their money from investments as opposed to income. Both of these are facts that are independently verifiable and mean that the super rich pay a lower effective tax rate on what they earn than the middle class. This is the main point of his article, and is something that many people are saying not just Warren Buffett.
He's talking about his income and taxes that he pays. Please link me to where this is verifiable. It's not.
|
On August 17 2011 10:26 Retry17 wrote:
I don't see how its a pressing issue at all.
Then go read up on the issue. You aren't well enough informed to engage at this point. Come back when you understand more.
On August 17 2011 10:26 Retry17 wrote:
Explain to this cool hipster kid how further income to the government through taxes without any other change will help in the slightest?
Strawman! Haha. That shit works on high schoolers, maybe. I never said anything about " increase taxes without any other changes". Quote me - where did I say that? In fact, I said previously that "tax hikes AND government spending cuts" are necessary.
Get read. Then come back.
|
On August 17 2011 10:28 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:26 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:
Someone explain to me why we should take Buffett's word as gospel. His analysis of the tax situation is piss-poor (anecdotes and post hoc ergo proptor hoc galore), and I happen to agree with him that taxes for the rich should increase. This is called an appeal to authority. Maybe the fact that we put him on a pedestal for being an extremely wealthy person is a symptom of the overall problem?
Way to think independently TL'ers. How about because what he's saying is independently verifiable? Capital gains taxes are either very low or non-existent. Top level earners earn most of their money from investments as opposed to income. Both of these are facts that are independently verifiable and mean that the super rich pay a lower effective tax rate on what they earn than the middle class. This is the main point of his article, and is something that many people are saying not just Warren Buffett. He's talking about his income and taxes that he pays. Please link me to where this is verifiable. It's not.
Did you read his article? He's talking about capital gains tax.
|
On August 17 2011 10:20 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:05 domovoi wrote:
Some of these people do have a point. If Warren Buffett is concerned about the fiscal health of the United States, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more taxes? Why does he instead donate the vast majority of his wealth, making much of his income tax-exempt? At some level, Warren Buffett believes his money is better spent in his hands than in the hands of the government, and that's the same talking point that the right uses. Talk is cheap. I'm going to make a Starcraft analogy because people don't seem to understand why this is logically flawed:Let's say that Flash makes the claim that Terran is OP and should be nerfed. Of course, he doesn't stop playing Terran. Then a whole bunch of people (Terran players/fans mostly, of course) call him a hypocrite because he keeps playing Terran. Can anyone name the fallacy his critics are engaging in?
I guess I have a Starcraft Analogy too. Increasing taxes on the rich would be like a rule that says you get less prize money the more star leagues you win.
|
On August 17 2011 10:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:07 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 10:03 domovoi wrote:
Someone explain to me why we should take Buffett's word as gospel. His analysis of the tax situation is piss-poor (anecdotes and post hoc ergo proptor hoc galore), and I happen to agree with him that taxes for the rich should increase. This is called an appeal to authority. Maybe the fact that we put him on a pedestal for being an extremely wealthy person is a symptom of the overall problem?
Way to think independently TL'ers. An appeal to authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Surely if you're going to be cute with debate lingo you know this fact, yes? Warren Buffet is espousing a legitimate standpoint, thus, the "appeal to authority" is warranted. A fallacious appeal to authority would be a situation in which an expert stated something - unsubstantiated - and was then cited as an example of outright truth. I don't know about these fancy dancy debate terms, but would the fact that Buffett's tax returns, as well as those to which he compares %'s, are not disclosed constitute a case "in which an expert stated something - unsubstantiated - and was then cited as an example of outright truth" ?
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
