Tax Choice On NPR

[Xerographica]

You have entirely too much free time on your hands.

Let's compare...

Xero: 1,143 posts
osan 9,394 posts

Guess how much time I'm allocating to my reply to you. And then guess how much time I allocated to my reply to billvon.

The sad fact of the matter is that you can't share a single example of you attacking real economic ignorance. Instead, you just alluded to some "bigger" or "realer" problem.

If what I'm hacking at is not the root of the problem... then do everybody here on this forum a huge favor and clearly fucking articulate what you believe to be the actual root of the problem. Don't waste our time alluding.

 

[osan]

Let's compare...

Xero: 1,143 posts
osan 9,394 posts

Guess how much time I'm allocating to my reply to you. And then guess how much time I allocated to my reply to billvon.

The sad fact of the matter is that you can't share a single example of you attacking real economic ignorance. Instead, you just alluded to some "bigger" or "realer" problem.

If what I'm hacking at is not the root of the problem... then do everybody here on this forum a huge favor and clearly fucking articulate what you believe to be the actual root of the problem. Don't waste our time alluding.

Jesus, what a childish response.

You have a nice day and believe whatever you wish.

 

[TheTexan]

I would choose to contribute my money to the IRS, because I love paying taxes. Makes me feel like a great American.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I would choose to contribute my money to the IRS, because I love paying taxes. Makes me feel like a great American.

You sir are a patriot.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...economic ignorance...

Seems to me the problem is not economic ignorance, but just ignorance.

This first scenario, for example, isn't even set up properly. Even if you accept that a progressive tax is equal and there are only three choices, then this example is still not logical.


I crossed out what is logically wrong, and inserted corrections in red:

Let's think about the Koch brothers in a tax choice system. Here are three possibilities...

A. They don't pay their fair share of taxes = less influence in the public sector.
B. They do pay their fair share of taxes = more the same influence in the public sector.
C. They pay more than their fair share of taxes = even more influence in the public sector.

So would liberals prefer A, B or C?

Liberals prefer emotion over logic.





Here is another absence of logic, this time enunciated by Elizabeth Warren.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Conspicuously absent for her scenario is the help a person got from family, friends, clergy, and--gasp!--his own intenstinal fortitude. Her singular idea of help is only from the state.

Sorry Elizabeth, but everybody paid for those roads, school, and police. That means it's a wash. We all built the roads, but some people made a factory with those roads. Some people worked at the factory. Some people worked somewhere else.



Conclusion for me:

The rest is just mental masturbation that could be summed up in a question posed to the defeatist: Would you rather get gored by a 6,000 pound rhino, or chomped by a 6,000 pound hippo?