Problem is, they’re *not *looking at the same facts, or even at facts at all. In many cases, it’s just the Frank Luntz / Fox / GOP talking points you have laid out for us repeatedly here. That there are so many people who would rather cling to comforting fantasies is truly frightening.
When that’s the case, of course it’s necessary to expose it. It’s how this fighting-ignorance stuff works.
Debaser,
He’s not talking about people who have come to a different conclusion based on facts. He’s talking about people who come to a conclusion without facts or with incorrect facts.
And yes, it is sad to live in such a society. I guess from your viewpoint you also live in such a society but it’s the Obama supporters who are being irrational. Or are you prepared to say that they know the true facts but have simply come to different conclusions than you?
Maybe it’s eight. You can’t just throw out claims like that and expect people to believe them.
I won’t accept those figures without a cite but I am prepared to believe that it’s a large number; possibly even that large.
Regardless of the number, if they do call it that and if they do dislike it, it’s only because they’ve been led to believe that that is it’s name because of constant repetition by certain media outlets, and they dislike it because they’ve been allowed to believe that it will affect them when the reality is that the vast majority of them will be unaffected by the estate tax.
I’m sure he will. It’s his job to frame things like taxes in as negatively a way as possible. If that means using foolish pejorative terms that appeal soley to emotion and not to logic, then I’m sure he’ll have no problem with it.
I reject your 60% and also your 40% as being vastly overreaching. And because a number people call something by a foolish and insulting name does not mean that those people are correct. You seem to be engaging in argumentum ad populum here. Whatever number of people routinely use the term “Death tax”, those people are still wrong to do so.
As the saying goes, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
As has been pointed out, the fact is, the term “death tax” was coined by a Republican in order to demonize proponents of the estate tax, and re-frame the argument. It’s a strategy as old as time itself, and it stinks. It is not a rational way to debate. It is strictly term designed to appeal to emotion, not to facts.
In other words, people who have come to a different conclusion than you.
Yes, I am prepared to say that. I find it extremely troubling and odd that don’t think I would. I disagree with all sorts of people on all sorts of issues. That doesn’t make them all evil, stupid or irrational. Mostly it’s just that they have different priorities than me.
I don’t think it’s sad that we live in a society where people can disagree. I do think it’s sad that so many in our society feel the way that you do about anyone who disagrees with them.
I’m not making a claim. I’m admitting that I don’t know the number. But I do know that it is a large amount of people.
My point is that the term isn’t going anywhere so you might as well get used to it.
I disagree with pro-life people. I don’t think a zygote is a human life, so I don’t agree with the term “pro-life”. However, it would childish and stupid of me to argue with that term in an abortion debate because they obviously feel differently than I do and they get to decide for themselves that to call things.
Help your argument, this does not.
Thank you for being at least one person who gets this.
Cite for this? I’m perfectly aware of the numbers involved as this thread has proven, yet I’m still opposed to the tax. Do you not think there are others like me?
Calling the estate tax a death tax implies that it is a tax on the dead, which further implies that the penalty for non-payment is not being allowed to die. I’ll support that.
Putting the above differently: calling the estate tax a death tax is something other than forthright.
What’s insulting about it? Who is insulted?
For that matter what’s foolish about it? It’s a tax that happens upon someone’s death, so the name does make logical sense.
Why is it wrong? Are pro-choice people wrong to use that word? Are pro-life people wrong to use that one? Should every topic have a neutral, arbitrary name that isn’t an attempt to frame the issue? That might work for a debate forum such as this one (but probably wouldn’t). It certainly won’t work in the real word with people that you can’t control.
People are going to call it what they want to call it. Trying to stop them is futile.
Yes. What’s factually incorrect with the name?
Indeed. Saint Cad pulled this “in other words” nonsense on me yesterday.
Yes, it’s easier to argue against someone if you change the words they said to something they didn’t say. And yes, those are technically other words. But at that point, you’re arguing against other words, not their words.
Actually, I more meant that Debaser seemed happy to equate “people who came to a different conclusion than you” with “people who come to a conclusion without facts or with incorrect facts.”
Yeah, that was a bit snarky of me. But it truly does seem that many posters here think that the only way people could disagree with them on this issue is if they have incorrect facts or have been brainwashed by conservative media.
So it’s not like I’m making this up with no cause.
Yeah, because conservative posters never have this happen to them! Seriously, I spend half my time in these threads taking the words out of my mouth that other people have put there. There are more than one poster who I can’t respond to at all because they are so bad at this it derails the entire thread.
I agree it’s a problem on both sides, but I don’t think you appreciate how bad it gets when the numbers are against you. I don’t know why people have so much trouble just responding to what people actually post.
No.
No.
(Sorry. I just don’t know how else I should respond to this. He seems to be arguing against something other than what I said.)
I’m not trying to stop them. Far from it.
I merely contend that when people are discussing politics or policy, and use pejorative terms such as “death tax”, that means that I will tend to discount what they have to say, because it is apparent that they are not interested in honest debate, but would prefer to appeal to emotion rather than to logic.
For me, this would be true, for example in political debates where anyone uses the terms “Rmoney”, “Mittens”, “Obummer” or “zerobama”
By all means, let folks continue with “death tax” nonsense. It helps me discern which comments to take seriously, and which to ignore.
Do you think marriage is a human right?
Do you want heirs to >$5m estates to know the dignity of work?
You have the right to own and enjoy property and the state has the right to levy a variety of taxes upon that property. There is no human or divine right, recognized in any modern country, to unencumbered generational transfer of wealth.
Didn’t you embarrass yourself enough in the last taxation discussion where you displayed your ignorance of; marginal tax rates and the effect of reinvestment in the calculation of taxable income?
You really think those are in the same category? Really? “Death Tax” is in the Republican candidates official platform. Obummer and other insulting childish things you mention never would be.
I agree that there are such insulting and silly words. “Tea Baggers” comes to mind. But to argue that “Death Tax” falls into this category is off the mark.
“Death Tax” is in line with other “issue framing” labels like “defense of marriage” (anti-gay), “pro-choice” (pro-abortion rights), and so on.
In my opinion it’s silly to put “Death Tax” into the former category.
But if you truly don’t listen to the opinions of anyone who uses terms like “Mittens” and “Tea Baggers” why do you read this board? That’s half the content!