Taxes, Riches and Duty.

[Comrade Tortoise]

N ow to elucidate my position clearly so martin doe snot keep accusing me of "knee-jerk libertarianism"

Do I agree with the wealthy are not doing their duty to society through payment of taxes?

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree whty should pay more taxes than they currently do. No because I do not subscribe to the notion of prima facia duties to society. Rather my notion of moral/ethical duties is based upon the concept of utility and social contract. It is not in the social contract (nemaly the constitution) that the wealthy must pay proportionatly more than the poor or middile class. HOWEVER, they still SHOULD because doing so would benefit more people than it harms. We have a massive budget shortfall that congress is not doing jack shit about. This will harm our economy in the long run. We can shift the burden to the lower and middle class because even a tax increase of a few percent could hurt them.

The wealthy make enough money that even a moderate increase will not hurt them (they may have to wait an extra month for that new yacht. oh boo hooo), but would help balance the budget conciderably (with the help of a spending cut, the plan for which I laid out in a previous post), nor would such an increase pass along a significant increase in consumer prices. Hence, such an increase should be done. However the increase should not be so large, naturally, as to initiate a significant increase in consumer prices or layoffs in order for those businesses to make up the shortfall. If that were to happen the policy would do more harm than good.

THAT make everything nice and clear for you?

[SirNitram]

N ow to elucidate my position clearly so martin doe snot keep accusing me of "knee-jerk libertarianism"

Have you ever considered I might be being my usual analytical self, as opposed to simply slapping around labels willy-nilly? Or does this run against your desired narrative?

Do I agree with the wealthy are not doing their duty to society through payment of taxes?

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree whty should pay more taxes than they currently do. No because I do not subscribe to the notion of prima facia duties to society. Rather my notion of moral/ethical duties is based upon the concept of utility and social contract. It is not in the social contract (nemaly the constitution) that the wealthy must pay proportionatly more than the poor or middile class. HOWEVER, they still SHOULD because doing so would benefit more people than it harms. We have a massive budget shortfall that congress is not doing jack shit about. This will harm our economy in the long run. We can shift the burden to the lower and middle class because even a tax increase of a few percent could hurt them.

The wealthy make enough money that even a moderate increase will not hurt them (they may have to wait an extra month for that new yacht. oh boo hooo), but would help balance the budget conciderably (with the help of a spending cut, the plan for which I laid out in a previous post), nor would such an increase pass along a significant increase in consumer prices. Hence, such an increase should be done. However the increase should not be so large, naturally, as to initiate a significant increase in consumer prices or layoffs in order for those businesses to make up the shortfall. If that were to happen the policy would do more harm than good.

THAT make everything nice and clear for you?

Do you even know why I spoke up against you? Or have you decided it will best fit into your persecution-based narrative that it's because I didn't understand you?

[Comrade Tortoise]

Martin, I make no claims to understand you. But the wording you chose led me to believe that you either have some sort of computer program you use to pick out little details you dont agree with, were merely being contrarian/analytical, or didnt understand my position.

SO I chose to rule out one major possibility. See, accusing me of "knee jerk libertarianism" and "making excuses for the rich" does not lend itself to being analytical. If there is a flaw in my reasoning, point it out by all means. But dont then go on to accuse me of a position or methodology you know full well I do not use/hold.

[SirNitram]

Martin, I make no claims to understand you. But the wording you chose led me to believe that you either have some sort of computer program you use to pick out little details you dont agree with, were merely being contrarian/analytical, or didnt understand my position.

SO I chose to rule out one major possibility. See, accusing me of "knee jerk libertarianism" and "making excuses for the rich" does not lend itself to being analytical. If there is a flaw in my reasoning, point it out by all means. But dont then go on to accuse me of a position or methodology you know full well I do not use/hold.

When one analyzes a pattern and identifies it, it is perfectly analyctical to call a spade a spade. You can whine that this is being 'contrarian' if you desire, but that does not make it so. You made a number of false and foolish claims, and I picked them out to smash. This requires no special computer program, merely a functioning brain and being literate in English.

At every step I understood your position. I objected to your statements, and them alone. The problem is you acted like a total moron. And then you accused me of doing what you were.

I spoke very clearly when I used the word 'profiteer'. And you have debated me enough to know I don't go for some stupid subjective word-hunt.

You dither and winge about defining things to a point of absurdity. And, to top it off, you fling around 'Rabid weasal' as a label on me. Why? It helps your stupid little 'I'm being persecuted' narrative. Not because it's honest. Because I used words you were too dim to grasp and points you couldn't wave a hand away from.

When I point out you have been consistantly knee-jerking, what do you do? In classic projection, you throw the label onto me. Am I supposed to be impressed? Or cowed? Sorry, negatory. You can backtrack and winge and quote, but it runs deeper than whether they are paying enough taxes right now. It revolves around you buying into the supply-side voodoo and supporting it in the beginning. It's the winge 'It's okay to make a profit' when profiteering is brought up. You either didn't know the damn word, or you were just knee-jerking at the concept that someone might complain about making a profit.

You've become less libertarian, but you're kidding yourself if you think you've shed it all.

I love how you claim I can't be being analytical. It'd work better on someone who is actually capable of dropping all analysis from his thought processes. So when a miracle stem cell treatment for neural damage is out, and I get on the list, then we can see how I look when I'm not analytical.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I spoke very clearly when I used the word 'profiteer'. And you have debated me enough to know I don't go for some stupid subjective word-hunt.

ANd you should know me well enough by now to know that I like knowing EXACTLY what another person is saying. I have had to many problems literally talking past eachother in a debate that then disolves into a pointless screaming match over what in reality, was no disagreement.

Asking for definitions for me, is covering my bases.

You dither and winge about defining things to a point of absurdity. And, to top it off, you fling around 'Rabid weasal' as a label on me. Why? It helps your stupid little 'I'm being persecuted' narrative.

Well to be fair, you have favorably compared a rabid weasel to yourself on at least on occassion that I can remember.

Again definitions are base-covering for me. I like to be absolutely sure of the claim I am evaluating so that I dont run into translation problems. Just because I know you, does not mean that I know what your exact position is. And I dont want to talk past you.

It revolves around you buying into the supply-side voodoo and supporting it in the beginning.

OK, I think we need to sit down and have a conversation about economics. By no means am I a supply side economist. I dont think eother supply or demand side economics adequatly explains the way our economy works. Both the supply side and the demand side are, in my view, inextricably linked and each of them reacts pretty much equally to the other. Hurt the suppliers and the demanders suffer the increased prices. Decrease wages and the suppliers suffer from the lack of people being able to afford their products so the prices drop (usually) and they make less profit than they otherwise would.

etc etc

[SirNitram]

Your support of Bush's tax cuts and claiming they'd made the money back sounds exactly like the screed generated by the supply side voodoo doctors. Ergo, the pattern fit, and thus the reply.

As for definitions, fine. But if you see 'profiteer' and write 'profit', you are being dishonest. If you were skimming and saw 'profit' where 'profiteer' was written, you should immediate that post haste.

As for me and weasals, that's when I'm having fun with a victim. As requested, I play nice in other fora than my own..

[Comrade Tortoise]

WHich is again, why we should sit down and make sure we know what our positions are...

ANd I did see profit at first. it was a mistake in hind sight but I thought it best to let the misread go, and continue with the main point.