Look, you made a claim about the relative burden on the French middle class (truly you have a dizzying intellect) and kept pointing to the tax rates on the middle class and the VAT.
Don’t you get that to support your claim of the relative burden, you have to show evidence of the relative burden? E.g. the burden of one compared to the other?
So, when asked for evidence, you come back with a doc about changes in progressivity over time. It’s so far afield of your.claim that it smacks of post hoc desperation.
Then challenge them. Oh that’s right, you have been doing that in every thread. So how is anything going unchallenged?
Every claim at the SDMB needs to have something to back it up, be it liberal or conservative, or any other flavor for that matter. We do not take any assertion as gospel if there is nothing to substantiate it. This is SOP for intelligent debating. If you want to add a fact to the debate, be prepared to back it up, or be prepared to have noone listen to you. This is not unique to this board or to liberals. Anyone that wants to engage in an intelligent debate should welcome this standard, otherwise how do you separate fiction from fact? Just take your word for it? Like you would take anyone else word for anything, right?
You really have a bad case of conservative persecution complex, you know that?
No, just making an observation. Cites are provided when requested, I just notice they aren’t requested for most liberal claims. That’s not persecution, it’s just a recognition that apparently you guys don’t hear many opposing arguments in the political threads. The science threads are obviously different and adhere to a higher standard.
Well then why don’t you request them instead of crying about having them requested from you.
We aren’t going to change the rules of the board just because you feel like everyone is picking on you.
Why should they be held to a higher standard? Why are political discussions different? Why do you think its ok to post unsubstantiated things in political threads?
You cited the middle class tax rates. For all we know, the upper class tax rates are much higher, refuting your claim that the burden falls mostly on the middle class. But, you knew that.
I don’t cry about it when it’s an extraordinary claim. I bitch about it when it’s an obvious one. It makes me wonder. Have the liberal Dopers really been under the impression for years that Europe’s tax systems tax the middle class less than ours yet somehow provide such generous welfare states? Really? That should have been the most uncontroversial statement on this thread.
I’m not offended at being asked for a cite, I just wonder at the kinds of things you ask for cites for. And don’t ask for cites for.
I don’t need a rule change, I just wonder at what you guys don’t know when really commonly known things are things you are unaware of. As I said in a previous thread, the internet has not replaced the need to learn and remember things.
Neither is it something that happens here. You are hallucinating it. To start with, the word “obvious” does not mean what you seem to think it does. Neither does the word “laughable.”
It never ceases to amaze me how often RWs show themselves to have a world-view which is not merely detached from reality, but the inverse of reality, as we know it here on the planet with the blue sky.
Upper class taxes are higher than in the US. But the proportion is not as high, and there are fewer rich people due to less income inequality and lower per capita income.
Bottom 90% tax rate US vs. France: 18-36
Top 1% tax rate US vs. France: about 35-60.
So middle class taxes are twice as high, upper class taxes less than twice as high. Still higher, but it points to a system reliant more on regressive taxes than progressive taxes.
I guess that’s true from your point of view. I recently saw a rant about the rich that was so fact-free it was incredible. I didn’t challenge it, what’s the point? No one else did either, more likely because they agreed with it.
But don’t worry. I’m watching you. I’ll challenge the next weird claim one of you makes without a cite.
Yes, please do. That’s a much better option than whining about getting asked for one yourself. Its also better than saying that everyone that doesn’t think the way you do doesn’t know obvious things:
and its better than saying that your opponents don’t feel the need to learn or remember things.
Do you really think that everyone that disagrees with you has sub-standard intelligence and/or intellectual laziness? Way to hold your opponents in contempt there. Makes me wonder why you’re here posting so much if you have no respect at all for those that your conversing with.
Why keep “debating” with this person? In post #69 he supposedly provides “cites”, when for all I know it’s just a bunch of random characters he dreamed up. I mean, “about 35-60”!? What the does that even mean? Hell, the use of the word “about” ought to raise a red flag. Presumably, if he knows what he’s talking about, he would have precise figures.
I said about, because the figures in the cite don’t break it down by 90% and 10%. they break it down by 90%, top 5-10%, top 5-1%, top 1%, and top .01%.
Which you’d know if you were actually interested in the cite.
Yeah, the President got unfair flack when he said, “The private sector is doing fine.” Well, it’s not doing fine, but it is recovering on schedule, about as fast as it did during the Bush years.
However, the public sector relies on the private sector for financing. The public sector is already spending at an unprecedentedly high rate. I’m not sure how the government could plausibly borrow more than it is now. According to the Reinhardt-Rogoff thesis, we’re almost at the point where debt becomes a serious drag on growth:
Didn’t realize we were restricted to considering only the facts the OP listed.
[ol]
[li]Gas prices twice the 2008 lows[/li][li]65.7% of 16 and over participated in the labor force in 2009, current rate is 63.8% - so it’s not just official unemployment is high, millions have just given up (BLS numbers)[/li][li]It takes $106.58 to buy what cost 100 in 2008 (BLS calculator)[/li][li]Home ownership rates at 15 year lows[/li][li]Foreclosure rates are high and don't seem to be easing (some states are basket cases - Nevada, Florida, California[/li][li]Home values have stagnated[/li][li]Food stamp program is twice as big as it was 4 years ago[/li][li]Social security out > in years before anyone predicted[/li][li]Wages[/li][li]Debt[/li][li]Federal spending[/li][li]Deficit[/li][/ol]
So I come up with a success rate of a whopping 32.5%.
Not only that, but evidently the president has the power to dictate the wages that private companies pay their employees. I did not know the president had this power.
Good to know, now I know who to contact when I want to ask for a raise.