Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only to someone who has no clue as to the meaning of the statement. Actually, it is spot on. It is very easy for one of the richest men in the world to say "raise taxes" because it is not going to affect their lifestyle in the least. Tell that to someone making $500,000 and you will get a completely different story.
It is precisely because I understand the implication, that I called it fallacious. You see, how easy it is for Warren Buffet to say it has no barring on the underlying logic behind his position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Their lifestyle WILL be effected, and they dont want to hear someone who couldn't spend his whole weekly paycheck even if he wanted to, tell them that it is alright to raise taxes.
Who cares what they want to hear, the question is what is best for the nation as a whole. Often the government has to step in and do what is best for the nation when individuals only want to do what is best for them.
It is precisely because I understand the implication, that I called it fallacious. You see, how easy it is for Warren Buffet to say it has no barring on the underlying logic behind his position.
No. It is not fallacious because the tax doesn't effect him the same way as it does the $500K guy. It is no different than the $500K guy saying that we need to raise taxes on the $5K guy, because, after all, the $5K guy is rich compared to several billion other people on the planet. "He is rich just like me so we should raise both of our taxes (EQUALLY!) for the betterment of the country."
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Who cares what they want to hear, the question is what is best for the nation as a whole. Often the government has to step in and do what is best for the nation when individuals only want to do what is best for them.
We are not talking about what "the government" is saying. We are talking about a multi-billionaire who could put his money where his mouth is and give the government ALL of his money right now if he really wanted to. That would be best for the country. If Buffet wants to add new tax brackets for billionaires, hey, I can get behind that, but as long as he is paying the same or less on each dollar earned as the 6 figure earner, he is not in any position to speak for them.
Hey, isn't it always you tax-and-spend types that are always saying that tax cuts and increases affect one more, the lower one's income is? Isn't that your whole argument for the progressive tax system? And aren't you arguing exactly the opposite now? Very convenient.
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 12-07-2010 at 02:53 PM..
No. It is not fallacious because the tax doesn't effect him the same way as it does the $500K guy.
Yes it is a fallacy because how much it effects him is irrelevant to the actual argument, its just a ad hominem, in particular a circumstantial ad honimen.
We are talking about a multi-billionaire who could put his money where his mouth is and give the government ALL of his money right now if he really wanted to. That would be best for the country.
You are confusing assets and income, Warren Buffet has billions in assets, he does not earn billions in income a year. It wouldn't be in the best interests of the country for him to hand over his assets to the government. But Warren Buffet is going to donate all his wealth when he dies, so he does practice what he preaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
If Buffet wants to add new tax brackets for billionaires...
You are again confusing wealth and income, we have an income tax not a wealth tax. Having a "tax bracket for billionaires" makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Hey, isn't it always you tax-and-spend types that are always saying that tax cuts and increases affect one more, the lower one's income is? Isn't that your whole argument for the progressive tax system?
I don't know is it? That isn't my "whole argument", in fact, its not my argument at all.
Yes it is a fallacy because how much it effects him is irrelevant to the actual argument, its just a ad hominem, in particular a circumstantial ad honimen.
You are confusing assets and income, Warren Buffet has billions in assets, he does not earn billions in income a year. It wouldn't be in the best interests of the country for him to hand over his assets to the government. But Warren Buffet is going to donate all his wealth when he dies, so he does practice what he preaches.
You are again confusing wealth and income, we have an income tax not a wealth tax. Having a "tax bracket for billionaires" makes no sense.
I don't know is it? That isn't my "whole argument", in fact, its not my argument at all.
I am not confusing assets and income. I think it is a fair assumption that someone with tens of billions in assets earns a great deal more in income than someone who makes $500K. To say otherwise is disingenuous and nothing more than an attempt to shift the argument away from it's original premise.
How much it effects him is NOT "irrelevant to the actual argument". In case you have forgotten, our argument was about the airplane analogy. The airplane analogy is completely, 100% about how it effects him. It said that an anorexic asking for narrower plane seats is like Buffet asking for higher taxes. The narrower plane seats effect the anorexic very little, and the suggestion that they should be more narrow is very easy for them, and inconsiderate of people who may be fat.
If you want to move on to a new discussion, just say so, but dont try to change the original argument into something that it isn't, just because you dont have a defense.
You are again confusing wealth and income, we have an income tax not a wealth tax. Having a "tax bracket for billionaires" makes no sense.
Wealth is not income. However, wealth usually can create quite a bit of income. Even a 1% return on one billion dollars is ten million dollars. That's quite an income right there.
Wealth is not income. However, wealth usually can create quite a bit of income. Even a 1% return on one billion dollars is ten million dollars. That's quite an income right there.
I'm pretty sure he understands this. He has no real argument against the content of the statement, so he is arguing the way in which it was said.
I am not confusing assets and income. I think it is a fair assumption that someone with tens of billions in assets earns a great deal more in income than someone who makes $500K.
Of course you were, hence your comment about a "billionaire tax bracket". How much income someone with billions is going to realize is going to depend on them, I made no comment about how much your typical billionaire realizes in income each year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
How much it effects him is NOT "irrelevant to the actual argument". In case you have forgotten, our argument was about the airplane analogy.
Nope I haven't forgotten the fallacious analogy. Anyhow, trying to discredit Warren Buffets position because he has money to pay for any tax increases is indeed a fallacy, if even after citing the exact fallacy you still don't get it then I'd seriously suggest reading a book on logic.
Wealth is not income. However, wealth usually can create quite a bit of income. Even a 1% return on one billion dollars is ten million dollars. That's quite an income right there.
You appear to be similarly confusing wealth and income. One can build wealth without ever paying taxes on it, you only pay income tax when you realize the income. So even though Mr Richie may have increased his wealth by 10% one year, that does not imply he is going to pay income taxes on that 10%, he will only pay taxes if he realizes the income. Furthermore the wealthy are much more likely to pay capital gains taxes than income taxes.
But this what distinguishes the wealthy from the slave class, they don't have to have an income, they can live entirely off capital gains.
But this what distinguishes the wealthy from the slave class, they don't have to have an income, they can live entirely off capital gains.
We have a slave class? People who cannot choose for whom they work? Who are not allowed an education? Who cannot vote and have had basic human rights taken from them?
People who are forced to work without pay? (I do know some who are paid without work.)
And they only difference between the slaves and the wealthy is that the wealthy live off capital gains?
OK. Maybe there is something I don't understand here. I thought that if the rich person used the capital gains to live off he must have "realized" them. You're saying he can use the gains - live off them - without "realizing" them? (Then at what point do gains become income?) If that is true, then maybe that is what needs to be fixed.
We have a slave class? People who cannot choose for whom they work? Who are not allowed an education?
We don't have a legal slave class, but we have people that look very much like slaves. Of course there is no clear dividing line, as you go up the social-economic ladder people have more and more options. Climbing the social-economic ladder is difficult and few make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sll3454
And they only difference between the slaves and the wealthy is that the wealthy live off capital gains?
No, but this is the key difference, the wealthy don't need to work. That is, their income is no longer tied to their labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sll3454
OK. Maybe there is something I don't understand here. I thought that if the rich person used the capital gains to live off he must have "realized" them. You're saying he can use the gains - live off them - without "realizing" them?
No, there are two separate issues. Firstly the gains are only taxed when they are realized, secondly (long term) capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income and its essentially a flat tax.
But there are other issues as well, really it is only taxable income that is at issue here. The wealthy are going to have millions in tax-exempt bonds and other tax shelters.
When you combine all these issues, the correlation between high wealth and high taxable income isn't that strong. Certainly the wealthy have a high taxable income, but they are only going to realize what they need. Hence their income is going to look modest in relation to their net worth. In contrast the upper-middle class and everyone below realize the vast majority of their earnings with the possible exception of what they put in retirement accounts.
Anyhow, the wealthy have created all sorts of myths that keep the peasants at bay. You know, how if you increase taxes on the wealthy people are going to lose their jobs, the wealthy are the job creators, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
