Here’s what Stink Fish Pot wrote:
“I identify with those who believe that … raising taxes is not the answer to every problem.”
I find this to be so asinine a comment, I will repeat it in a larger font. I identify with those who believe that … raising taxes is not the answer to every problem."
My questions to you, Stink Fish Pot, are:
Do you honestly believe that anyone thinks “raising taxes is the answer to every problem” ? I hope you do answer this question. I’m hoping, for the sake of your intellect, that you 'fess up that this strange comment was just snarky hyperbole. But perhaps it wasn’t; some of your more sincere-looking comments seemed about as strange. In any event, this sort of black-and-white thetoric (If you don’t favor tax cuts, you must be a Socialist) becomes very VERY annoying in an otherwise-adult conversation.
Are you even familiar with the “have you stopped beating your wife” loaded question? This was a very well known shorthand to describe a faulty rhetorical trick, but some responses make me think the usage is old-fashioned and unfamiliar to younger Dopers. In any event, no implication that you beat wife was intended, just as (I assume?) your implication that some “think raising taxes is the answer to every problem” was just rhetorical flourish with no meaning attached.
You can read about the “wife-beating” rhetoric here or here.
Nicely put. The OP’s proposal is not a new one at all. Conservatives often say things like, “If you think we should be paying more taxes, you go ahead.”
In fact, on environmental issues, this mentality may be much more common. Conservatives, at least those not interested in conserving the environment, will attempt to counter an advocate for environmental protection by suggesting that he should voluntarily give up driving, heating a home, flying in planes, etc. As if one cannot suggest that we should reduce energy consumption while not using a bicycle to power one’s own home.
Obviously, the point is that one home reducing its carbon footprint to zero cannot possibly make enough of a difference to address the scope of the problem. It is not hypocrisy to suggest that we should aim for change on a societal level while also not engaging in impossible self-sacrifice.
Septimus, I have no idea what a large portion of your post is trying to convey. But to answer your last question. No, I am not familiar at all with the “have you stopped beating your wife” loaded question. Am I supposed to be?
I’m not about to read any link posted to the wife-beating rhetoric, but thanks just the same for posting them.
There seems to be agreement that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And I can agree with that. The answer to fixing this problem is not legislation to raise taxes on people making x number of dollars a year. To truly tackle this problem, you have to close the loopholes in the tax code. You have to make it illegal to put money overseas, in a bank in the virgin islands, or switzerland, or where ever, that keeps the prying eyes of the US government from not only knowing how much money the person has hidden from the IRS, but doesn’t permit any sort of penalty for behaving in ways that circumvent US law. Until you close the loopholes and the legal tricks, the rich will continue to exploit them. And we are talking about the uber rich, not the $250K folks.
Get the legislative branch to make it impossible to circumvent US tax law, and money will start pouring in. But they won’t change the laws that protect the uber rich. Many of them are either part of the uber rich or have them to thank for their position in congress.
The system is corrupt. It has been for a very long time, and it protects the elite of this country regardless of what party banner they fly above their camp.
Actually, I think I’ve heard “if you don’t want an abortion don’t have one” more than the pay more taxes version. “If you don’t want X don’t do/have it” and “if you think people should X go right ahead” are almost always stupid arguments, no matter what X is because they always, always, fail to take the other side’s point of view about a serious issue into consideration.
How about a trade off? For every Democratic congressman that believes that we should pay more taxes and does so, a Republican congressman that believes that the government should be cut should take a pay cut. Fair enough?
My guess is that yours was rhetorical flourish and the answer No. But an explicit answer would be nice. I’ve given some Dopers the “benefit of the doubt” before and eventually learned that what they said, however bizarre, was what they believed.
May I ask if you’re American, and how old you are? If you tell us you’ve never heard the joke I’ll believe it, but some of us think it’s as familiar to Americans as Tom Sawyer or Paul Bunyan.
The U.S. has pushed, successfully, for Switzerland to assist the U.S. tax authority. Your conflation of “loopholes” with illegal evasion is confused, and your worldview is much too black-and-white. (And whenever someone blames poor tax revenue on “loopholes” one wonders what they think of the home-mortgage interest deduction “loophole”.)
There is no silver bullet to fix loopholes and evasions. What there is is steady progress in an imperfect world. If raising taxes on “the rich” would not cause the rich to pay more in taxes, then why is there such opposition to it?
There are so many things the government could do to lay the WHOLE issue of taxes to rest. Sure, there’s no free lunch, but the WHOLE tax system is a fraud just to keep the tax attnys and their kind gainfully employed. If we had a flat tax, or a national sales tax, with liberty and fair taxes for all, can you imagine the RICH may actually have to feel the pinch? We can’t do that! So, I say, support the “send a tax attny to the unemployment line” campaign!!!
Instead of raising taxes, how about eliminating foreign aid? That’s an idea that seems to have captured the imagination of my Rabidly Republican semi-wealthy sister and her Rabidly Republican semi to very wealthy friends. I don’t know the numbers but it seems to me that someone here basically proved that if we did eliminate foreign aid, the money saved would not be that significant. I wish someone would provide me/us with the projected savings that would result; I’d like to be able to bitch slap some of the people who seem to be convinced that eliminating foreign aid would be our salvation. Sorry for the high jack, if it is one, but I can’t find the numbers, probably because I don’t know where to look. And, for what it is worth, I doubt that eliminating all foreign aid would save all that much but I’m willing to be convinced or at the least to be a little less ignorant.
It is the most common example given to illustrate the “loaded question” fallacy. The question presupposes knowledge that is not in evidence (in this case the question presupposes as true that the person being asked beats his wife which has not been shown to be true in the first place).
In this context it is not meant to be taken literally but rather to illustrate a fault s/he perceives in your argument.
Well to flip things around, I identify with those who believe that cutting taxes is not the solution to every problem.
In 2000 GWB campaigned on tax cuts. The reasoning was the country was doing so gosh darn well (surplus!) that the money should go back to the people. In other words, good economic times = tax cut!
And yet, when the bad economic times roll in and tax revenues drop, what is the mantra? Oh yeah, more tax cuts. It certainly seems like a portion of the rabid right thinks that tax cuts are the solution to everything.
I just skimmed through this thread and may have missed this question: Why would Bill Gates and Warren Buffettt give up the control they have over their private charities to give money to the Government?
Better to cut tax deductions such as employer paid health insurance. This was one Obama idea I liked and one of the few things he suggested that would put pressure on lowering our medical costs. For those with best medical plans, there is no incentive to question the need of anything. There is no pressure on doctors to choose lower priced measure that are just as effective as more exensive ones.
Take my $50,000 stent. I won’t go into the details, but I was pressured to get it and some details were done in a way to give my local doctor and hospital their cut although it had to be done elsewhere. Note, there are studies that show drugs are about as effective as stents in avoiding heart attacks. So why with the stent am I taking 6 different drugs including the pricy Plavix that I wouldn’t need without the stent?
In many cases we could drastically lower costs while still providing as good or better care.
Then there is the sugar subsidy.
There are ways of taxing the rich without destroying job creating incentives.
To chime in with other folks: yes, you are. No shame in ignorance, but when you get involved in discussing something, devoting several paragraphs to it, but refuse to follow a link to learn more about it, that’s willful ignorance, and there IS shame in that. It’s a well-known cultural allusion that you should know about.
As for the proposal, I’m all for it, although I don’t figure it’d have much effect–as others have pointed out, it’s already in effect, only not printed right on the tax forms. It certainly does nothing to change the conversation about taxes, though.
The experiment is over. It has been proven that cutting taxes on the rich and corporations does not increase jobs. This experiment has gone on since Reagan and we have been in a steady decline since. Clinton put things back together for a while, but Bush whacked them apart.
Cutting taxes will increase employment is wrong.
I believe this is true. In fact, I’m sure it is true. I’d like to know just how miniscule it is in terms of dollars and/or percentage points. If I simply make this statement to the people I want to challenge, they will scoff and point to specific examples to prove that foreign aid is sometimes misused. I’d like a dollar and cents number but I don’t know where to find it. If you can point me to a number, I’d greatly appreciate it.
And I’m sure that David Duke thinks Pat Buchanan is “moderate” on his immigration stance. When Der Trihs thinks something is “in the middle”, you can rest assured that it is a howling storm of left wing insanity.
