Article was on "double taxation"

Post #351,406 by drook 11/28/11 4:23:57 PM Reply	Article was on "double taxation" The specific flavor happened to be dividends, but it's the same argument made for all the other instances. And now you're saying "support" means only votes and donations. I didn't mean it that narrowly, and you know that, but getting wrapped up arguing the point is a distraction. And you know that, too. -- Drew
Post #351,410 by beepster 11/28/11 4:49:00 PM Reply	Not a distraction at all its now pretty much the core of the discussion, as I've already agreed dividends are not double taxed. And no, it wasn't worth a column...especially one that made no new points in the discussion. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,417 by drook 11/28/11 5:45:56 PM Reply	Yes Whether it's worth a column is exactly the core of the discussion. It was my point. I raised it. That's what I'm discussing. You want to argue about what "support" means. You want to simply re-assert your original claim that it wasn't worth a column. As long as people keep re-asserting the same false claims, someone needs to keep refuting them. -- Drew
Post #351,420 by beepster 11/28/11 5:57:56 PM Reply	Then you shouldn't have said this... "People you support keep making stupid arguments that are easily refuted, but columnists shouldn't take the time or space to actually refute them." You brought up the support aspect, which I challenged...and have not linked to a current argument about this particular taxation point, the entire basis for which you say a current column is relevant. a google search of "double taxation in republican debates" leads only to a post where Cain's 9-9-9 plan is defended AGAINST claims that Romney made that his plan layered taxes. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,422 by drook 11/28/11 6:56:35 PM Reply	That's interesting After trying twice to qualify what "support" means, you just offered up the Republican debates. It seems you know what "support" means after all. -- Drew
Post #351,423 by beepster 11/28/11 7:04:24 PM Reply	Pedantic your assumption, as usual, was just that. And you used that assumption to make a point. And, as I've now shown you, both your assumption AND your point were incorrect. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,430 by drook 11/28/11 10:50:48 PM Reply	Okay, you win You're willing to move the goalposts more than I'm willing to chase them. -- Drew
Post #351,431 by beepster 11/28/11 11:02:33 PM Reply	I didn't move anything you said that "everyone is saying it" and so it needed a column. Turns out, no one is currently saying it. Bother for you. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,433 by drook 11/29/11 4:12:31 AM Reply	Yes, "everyone", that's just what I said -- Drew
Post #351,439 by beepster 11/29/11 8:06:45 AM Reply	ok, nit correction people I support, with the direct assumption that those would be Republicans. Believe follow on included members of Congress. If you show me 3 quotes from within the last month from candidates (R or D) or congressmen mentioning dividends being double taxed, I'll concede. Otherwise... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,442 by folkert 11/29/11 8:36:25 AM 11/29/11 8:39:35 AM Reply	This enough? http://abcnews.go.co...ght-on-substance/ http://www.decodedsc...sals-decoded/5519 http://online.wsj.co...560162304238.html There was only 5900 articles in the last month regarding this. Searching in News for the last month and for the following: "Double Taxation" Republican Candidate Edited by folkert Nov. 29, 2011, 08:39:35 AM EST Expand All History
Post #351,443 by beepster 11/29/11 8:50:32 AM Reply	Nope...reason First one is on Cain's plan and the critique of it. Second one I'm inclined to grant credit for, though it does not contain a quote of Newt saying this. Third is about elimination of tax on repatriated earnings...which is double taxation and keeps capital out of the country. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,457 by folkert 11/29/11 12:52:16 PM Reply	I just picked the first three that came up... Seriously there was over 5900 unique articles, you expect me to go through even a hundred to gather things up for you to refute your mantra? Sorry Beep... you can do your own work.
Post #351,481 by beepster 11/29/11 5:24:19 PM 11/29/11 5:24:46 PM Reply	You were doing drooks work, not mine Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Edited by beepster Nov. 29, 2011, 05:24:46 PM EST Expand All History
Post #351,447 by boxley 11/29/11 11:26:58 AM Reply	how about something not written by the attack left? the first link contains so many inaccuracies it could have been written by the whitehouse Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,451 by beepster 11/29/11 12:30:14 PM Reply	Re: how about something not written by the attack left? The first one isn't even about the subject at hand...its about the layering of taxes that is supposed to happen under Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Has nothing to do with investment taxes and/or repatriation taxes. 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!