Ok, here goes, read carefully

Post #337,626 by beepster 12/24/10 5:19:52 PM Reply	Ok, here goes, read carefully the three of you have given your opinion on what is fair. That is EXACTLY what it is, your opinion. Yes, the wealth gap is widening. Whether this is good or bad >remains< your opinion. Remember, this is not about your >opinion<...this thread is here because someone decided that there is an >objective standard< of >fair< taxation. And, of course, he's asked me to prove the objective standard that he claimed existed. Naturally. If such and objective standard exists, then why do we constantly tinker with credits here, rates there, deductions here, holidays there....we should be fixed at that measurable, objective rate where the ideal, measurable balance is struck. Because, simply, there is no objective standard of fair taxation. And the system of layering tax upon tax upon tax (local, state, federal, use, fica, et al) and all of the ins and outs of what should get a credit, what should be subsidized, what shouldn't, et al has created something where pretty much no one, when asked will think any part of it >fair<...let alone believe, even remotely, that there is some "objective standard" that this system can be judged against. Got it? Do I think that Bill Gates should pay a higher rate than Ashton. Yep. BUT THAT IS JUST AN OPINION and NOT an objective assessment of tax fairness. Got it boys? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,628 by drook 12/24/10 5:44:20 PM Reply	I have read carefully. You are carefully misrepresenting. Who brought up "objective"? That would be AScott, back here -- http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=40723 The wealthy aren't overtaxed by any objective measure. That was in response to you, back here -- http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=40721 Half the country is still getting a really good deal. So he was explicitly saying that there is no* objective measure* by which the wealthy are overtaxed. He was refuting your statement that half the country -- the poor half -- are getting a "really good deal". That's classic rhetorical misdirection. Take your opponent's point and claim it as your own, then require that he prove the opposite. That's not honest debate, that's bullshit. So to take this back to the original point: You have asserted that the poorest half of the country are getting a "really good deal". AScott refuted that, saying that there is no objective standard by which you can make that claim. Now that we've established that Scott is denying an objective standard, what else do you have to support your assertion of a "really good deal"? Because it seems like your only argument is that since there is no objective standard -- which was Scott's point, remember -- that we should take your opinion over ours. -- Drew
Post #337,632 by beepster 12/24/10 5:57:28 PM Reply	BS back-atcha a really good deal is not an objective standard. They pay zero income tax, so government benefits back to them based on that are "free". Unless, of course, you think getting something for free is a "bad deal", I don't think my statement was a stretch. To come back with "The wealthy aren't overtaxed by any objective measure" implies, rather directly, that there is some objective standard to base that upon. I didn't give any objective standard, I simply said getting something for free constitutes a really good deal. And I'll stick by that opinion, every day, twice on Sunday. So saying that AScott is denying an objective standard when he was the one that brought that into the discussion is, um, misrepresenting his argument (wouldn't you think?) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,630 by Another Scott 12/24/10 5:50:13 PM Reply	Backacha. Let's review. I simply said: The wealthy aren't overtaxed by any objective measure. You know this. You can't point to the national statistics that exist and refute that. If, say, you could point to some table at FRED that showed that the share of national income and wealth held by the top 2-10% is smaller now than it was in the 1950s, one could then, in principle, tie that to federal taxes and say, "See, the rich are overtaxed." But you can't. The rich's share of income and wealth is the largest since the 1920s. They're not over-taxed by any objective measure. http://elsa.berkeley...pincomes-2008.pdf (9 page .PDF). It's not an Opinion. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating that isn't an argument. Show me where I'm wrong. Oh, I, and DeLong's excerpt, and the Saez paper above, didn't use the word "fairness" either. HTH. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #337,633 by beepster 12/24/10 5:59:51 PM Reply	Please tell me the exact, objective standard that represents over vs under taxation. Don't make me do it. It wasn't my statement. Pointing to something in 1950 implies that you think taxation in 1950 was the exact, objectively measured and correct level of taxation? Is that it? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,635 by Another Scott 12/24/10 6:50:26 PM Reply	This isn't complicated. Please tell me the exact, objective standard that represents over vs under taxation. Don't make me do it. It wasn't my statement. "It" wasn't mine, either. Read me in my posts. Those who say the rich are paying to much, and need, for example, the "Bush tax cuts" to be continued for them, need to make the case. I said they can't based on national statistics and the history of those statistics that I know about. Prove me wrong. It might make an enlightening discussion. Pointing to something in 1950 implies that you think taxation in 1950 was the exact, objectively measured and correct level of taxation? Only to someone who lives in a binary world. This isn't complicated. Me: The water level in the reservoir is rising and the rate of rise is increasing. Beep: That doesn't mean that water is accumulating! That doesn't mean that we should do anything about the strength of the dam! There's no objective standard for water levels! It's not fair to talk about water levels! You can't prove the water level 5 years ago was under- or over-optimum! :-/ I've asked you to show me where I'm wrong. Show me some numbers that indicate the rich are overtaxed if you think they are. The case might be pretty strong if there were national statistics to support your side (rather than, say, just anecdotes). I'd be interested in seeing it. Rather than doing so, you want to turn this into an argument about semantics of "objective" and "fairness" and "overtaxed". Yes, "overtaxed" is not a numerical comparison. Oh, you've cut me to the bone. Funny, though, most people who engage in discussion of these topics seem to understand what it means.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #337,641 by beepster 12/24/10 11:16:26 PM Reply	Apparently it is too complicated for you. Its your quote. Your statement. Now you are disclaiming it. YOU brought "objective" into this discussion. The only person needing to make a case here is you. And the case is by what objective standard by which you measure overtaxed vs undertaxed. I know its your OPINION that "rich" people don't pay enough. I want to know the objective measure by which all of this is determined. As for your dam example..pretty poor actually. Laws of physics govern that. How much the dam can hold, flow through versus flow behind, etc. Trying to tell me that taxes are the same as that. Yer funny. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,645 by drook 12/24/10 11:56:11 PM Reply	The sound of a red herring fapping ... fap fap fap -- Drew
Post #337,648 by beepster 12/25/10 12:36:23 AM Reply	You have a problem with definitions, then. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,646 by Another Scott 12/24/10 11:56:52 PM Reply	Take a break from reading me for a while. You need it. :-)
Post #337,649 by beepster 12/25/10 12:37:09 AM Reply	No, not really. This is a pretty straightforward case of you distancing yourself from your own words. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,650 by Another Scott 12/25/10 12:53:26 AM Reply	...__oo00OO00oo__...
Post #337,651 by beepster 12/25/10 12:55:39 AM Reply	Michelle...ma belle... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #337,636 by Ashton 12/24/10 7:07:09 PM Reply	Will gladly supply an Objective definition of 'fairness' just after you supply an Objective definition of love. . . . Next ... we can do crass, perhaps move on to phrases ... like, studied obtuseness? (Reason trumps 'logic' -- especially digital logic -- any old day, IMO.)
Post #337,642 by beepster 12/24/10 11:16:54 PM Reply	Why are you telling me this. Tell it to nother. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!