Millionaires and Billionaires shouldnt pay a penny in taxes!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You are intentionally ignoring and obfuscating my rather simple point, which was that you characterize the 1800's as some sort of shangri-la, all because there was no income tax. I have not implied that such taxation is a savior (one of your many, MANY straw men), merely that your claim that doing away with it would be beneficial for the working poor and 'middle class' is absurd. Your argument is based around a revisionist, idealized past, that overlooks enormous inequity. I would say this was due to ignorance, but you seem pretty smart, so I'm guessing you are intentionally ignoring it.

I look forward to your next articulate obfuscation, as always.

Your friend, Stan.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Who do you think you're kidding? The obfuscation is yours and am I going to have to re-post that absurdly histrionic post of yours prognosticating anarchy and road decay, not to mention conflating income taxation with all taxes? The obfuscation is wholly yours. Rather than simply admit that the United States was not awash in anarchy without income taxation, and rather than admit that roads were being built and kept in repair before income taxation, instead you have attempted to make this about the working conditions of children in the 1800's.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah, yes, the 'i know you are but what am i argument'.

An oldy but a goody.

It's a shame you waste so much time engaging with someone who you clearly find to be so below your threshold.

Ah, the 1800's. Good times.

Originally posted by elitegamer23
think of all the jobs that would be created if we didnt ask the job creators to pay any taxes.
we would have so many jobs that the whole nation would be employed.

wages would skyrocket because of all the jobs that the job creators would create that we could actually raise taxes on the middle class and poor because they would have so much money. many people in the middle class and lower class could become job creators themselves because they would also have so much money.

any tax cut for the job creators will simply not be enough. that is just keeping another job from being created.

to save america and the working class and poor we must have jobs. reduce taxes on the job creators to zero and id bet you see 12 million new jobs created in no time. after those jobs are filled more job creators will be created and they will create more jobs and america would be great again.

AS much as I think this post was in jest; I can see it becoming reality in the not too distant future for exactly the reasoning set out in the post.

reply to post by stanguilles7

Ah, the 1800's. Good times.

Of course, what you're attempting to now do is avoid the pointed question I asked you in regards to your statement: "But who would flourish is the part that might require some more analysis i suspect you arent willing to ponder."

I directly asked you if you were afraid the poor and middle class would flourish without income taxation and asked this question because it was not trouble at all to demonstrate how well the rich are doing today with income taxation. Instead of answering that question you took your usual route which was deflection.

Why do you think that the only way Congress can tax is through "income" taxation and why do you believe this form of taxation ensures the kind of people you approve of flourishing and prospering and finally, why do you believe income taxation led to child labor laws?

reply to post by elitegamer23

think of all the jobs that would be created if we didnt ask the job creators to pay any taxes.
we would have so many jobs that the whole nation would be employed.

Can't tell if serious or satire.

Did you get this from The Onion???

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Of course, what you're attempting to now do is avoid the pointed question I asked you in regards to your statement: "But who would flourish is the part that might require some more analysis i suspect you arent willing to ponder."

I directly asked you if you were afraid the poor and middle class would flourish without income taxation and asked this question because it was not trouble at all to demonstrate how well the rich are doing today with income taxation.

Yes, clearly i am afraid the poor and middle class will flourish with no income tax.

Where did i say anything about the rich not doing well today? Oh, right, I didnt.

Why do you think that the only way Congress can tax is through "income" taxation

I dont.

and why do you believe this form of taxation ensures the kind of people you approve of flourishing

I dont.

and prospering and finally, why do you believe income taxation led to child labor laws?

I dont.

These are all your own misrepresenting my point, which you have latched on to and insist upon re-iterating as if i actually stated.

You have an interesting debate style, that repackages someone's argument into parameters you can disagree with. These are known as straw men. I know you know this. You do it very well.

reply to post by stanguilles7

These are all your own misrepresenting my point, which you have latched on to and insist upon re-iterating as if i actually stated.

Of course, instead of clarifying your point you answered thus:

I dont.

And:

I dont.

And of course:

I dont.

You've spent far more time talking about me and my debating style than my arguments. Such a strategy generally does not win debates.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Night Star

 

You are an elf. What does an elf know of human affairs? All I know is the rich always get richer and the poor get poorer.

Link is not an elf, he is an Hylian! Get your fact straight, wench! : )

awesome!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

These are all your own misrepresenting my point, which you have latched on to and insist upon re-iterating as if i actually stated.

Of course, instead of clarifying your point you answered thus:

I dont.

And:

I dont.

And of course:

I dont.

You've spent far more time talking about me and my debating style than my arguments. Such a strategy generally does not win debates.

edit on 2-8-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Actually, im spending the majority of this 'debate' pointing out that you are misconstruing my points with your straw men. My comments about your debate style are, on average, an aside meant to match your won.

Since i previously answered all your questions, you seem to have run out of ammo.

How about claim that I want the middle class to live in feces?

reply to post by stanguilles7


Do you need more time to figure out what your point is? So far, you have steadfastly declined to clarify what that point is.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Do you need more time to figure out what your point is? So far, you have steadfastly declined to clarify what that point is.

It's true. I've spent it all pointing out how much you are misrepresenting my points.

What, specifically, would you liked answered? that I havent previously responded to? I feel Ive been rather forthcoming with my responses.

But, in the meantime allow me to ask you some questions based on things you havent said. Sort of like you do to me: Why do you hate poor people? Why do you hate rainbows? Why do you want America to Fail?

reply to post by stanguilles7

What, specifically, would you liked answered? that I havent previously responded to? I feel Ive been rather forthcoming with my responses.

"I don't", and "I don't" and "I don't" do nothing to clarify your point. What was the point of conflating all taxes with income taxation, and if you weren't conflating income taxation with all taxation why did you make a post stating: "No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All."? To the best of my knowledge the only arguments of abolishing any kind of taxes were income taxes. Did I miss something and was your post made to no one in particular actually referencing some member or several who were advocating abolishing all taxation?

What exactly was your point?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

What, specifically, would you liked answered? that I havent previously responded to? I feel Ive been rather forthcoming with my responses.

"I don't", and "I don't" and "I don't" do nothing to clarify your point.

They were honest answers to your questions which intentionally framed my opinions and beliefs inaccurately, much the same as if i were to ask you'why do you hate kittens'.

What was the point of conflating all taxes with income taxation,

I didnt. Thats just what you keep SAYING I did. Although I'm beginning to suspect you dont knwow the difference between what i stated and what you want me to have stated.

and if you weren't conflating income taxation with all taxation why did you make a post stating: "No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All."?

Because i was serious. NO more taxes. Why do you hate freedom?

What exactly was your point?

That I love Freedom, America, and apple pie. Clearly, you hate these things.

reply to post by stanguilles7

That I love Freedom, America, and apple pie. Clearly, you hate these things.

Clearly you need more time to figure out what your point you claim I am "misrepresenting" really is. Take your time and come back when you've figured it out.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I stated my opinion very clearly in the first post of mine you responded to. You have since spent the entire conversation since belittling and misrepresenting my responses.

You have a habit of re-framing one's argument into false parameters, and then attacking that. It's fairly transparent, and wholy entertaining.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But since we're just making # up, why do you hate freedom? Why are you avoiding the question? Answer the question.

reply to post by stanguilles7

Agreed. Everything in the 1800's was super-nifty. That's when men were men and women were women, and children were free to work 80 hours a week, barefoot in a factory if they wanted. Good times.

Above is the reply you initially made that you are now claiming "very clearly" stated your position but it certainly doesn't clarify what you meant by the initial post in question. Why are you avoiding answering the question of what you meant by that? What are you afraid of?

Millionaires and Billionaires should pay much more in taxes than what they do now.

Why?

Because they costs all of us more money. There houses are bigger, there vehicles are larger, and tax payers pay the money for the infrastructure to support there homes and roads and bridges to support there cars/truck. Think of the extra police they need to feel safe from the ordinary rabble. Always lots of cops in Good neighborhoods. Think of the factories and manufacturing buildings and the infrastructure built by the government that supports there buildings.

A small doctors office has to have certain levels of electricity, gas, water, sewer, street improvements compared to a hospital. The poor and middle class don't build hospitals the rich do, so they should pay more in taxes to support the greater need of infrastructure that makes the hospital a reality.

Also think of foreign policy. The middle class and poor doesn't want any wars, but the wealthy surely do. They should pay much more taxes to pay for there war machine.

Nixon lowered the tax rate on the rich to 60%, this rate didn't seem to stop people from getting rich, it didn't stop the mega corporations from growing. Reagan lowered the tax rate on the rich to 28% and we have gone down hill ever since.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All.

Let it all crash. Starve the beast. Anarchy. And such.

Roads can crumble, militaries grind to a halt, social services cease. Sounds awesome. I'm sure everything would work out just fine.

Taxes are a normal and delegated function of government. I doubt any serious Constitutionalist or even level headed individual would ever argue that fact. In the model of the United States Constitution, taxes were to be utilized and collected for a specific set of functions: common defense (of the numerous states), postal roads, and other valid functions of the government as prescribed and ratified within the Constitution.

When one makes claim that taxes should be reduced, it doesn't mean that all taxes are bad. While some may despise them or even hate them, it has been the egregious and blatant manner in which our Federal Government has scooped up and expanded the power of taxation beyond the intended means that inflames and enrages many citizens.

On the Federal Level, it isn't their responsibility nor Constitutional duty to provide "social services", such programs are and should be, reserved for the States and the People to decide. Militarism existed even before taxes; as did roads. Heck even societies existed and flourished without an ever burdening taxation system.

Taxes do not make a society, the people do. However, when the State decides to tax the people, they are now the ones trying to mold society through taxation and the power that comes with it.

So you can coyly and not so subtly present your satirical argument that anarchy would ensue and roads will crumble, but it is nothing more than nonsense and lies.