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.
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.
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.
You are still merely skirting the issue. You have the debating style of an academic. I spend a good part of my day taking complicated issues and trying to simplify them and make them understandable to the public.
Many academic/PhD types that I know try to do just the opposite. They take relatively simple concepts and try to make them as complicated as possible. They derive their relevance from being the "few" who understand their "specialty" and their exclusionary attitude. I get enough respect from my patients and colleagues that I dont feel the need to try to impress them with minutia. I dont feel the need to quibble over dangling participles, or redefine "billionaire tax bracket" into something other than what my opponent meant it to be. I dont feel the need to spout relatively basic Latin phrases and provide pointers to their meaning as if I am the only one who understands them without a dictionary. These are the tactics of someone who has something to prove. I have nothing to prove. I get respect all day long, and therefore, I can talk to "regular" people in a "regular" fashion. I dont have to show people how smart I am, and perhaps that is because the assumption is already there along with my title, but I can tell you that I am very glad this is the case. Trying to show the world how smart you are all the time must be exhausting. I dont envy you. I hope one day you get to the point where you dont feel the need to try so hard. I truly wish you the best.
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 12-07-2010 at 08:50 PM..
You are still merely skirting the issue. You have the debating style of an academic.
Really? What issue am I skirting? Sort odd that I'm "skirting issues" when I was merely pointing out that the logic behind the analogy was fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Many academic/PhD types that I know try to do just the opposite. They take relatively simple concepts and try to make them as complicated as possible. They derive their relevance from being the "few" who understand their "specialty" and their exclusionary attitude.
This is funny, you are now ranting about academics and how great you are...but I'm the one that is skirting issues.
And yes, clearly you have no need to prove your intelligence, that is why you just wrote an entire paragraph trying to insult me while praising yourself. But at least you're not still insisting that an obvious fallacy is kosher logic.
Really? What issue am I skirting? Sort odd that I'm "skirting issues" when I was merely pointing out that the logic behind the analogy was fallacious.
This is funny, you are now ranting about academics and how great you are...but I'm the one that is skirting issues.
And yes, clearly you have no need to prove your intelligence, that is why you just wrote an entire paragraph trying to insult me while praising yourself. But at least you're not still insisting that an obvious fallacy is kosher logic.
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.
So these are Buffett's real "guys like me." My original point is that there is a big difference between those super-wealthy and those with the $250,000 income who don't have the billions backing it up. (A multi-billionaire with an "income" of $250,000 would be in Buffett's category.)
What I object to is Buffett's "guys like me" statement including everyone with an income over $250,000.
(My highest gross income was under $50,000, I've always had enough, and I think that $250,000/year is a huge amount of money.)
So these are Buffett's real "guys like me." My original point is that there is a big difference between those super-wealthy and those with the $250,000 income who don't have the billions backing it up.
Sure there is a difference, but this says little about whether or not income above $250k should be taxed higher. I've never seen Warner Buffet imply that someone making $250k is on his same level.
Reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy would just increase the tax by a few percentage, I'd tax the wealthy much more than this. But $250k is not really wealthy, these people are still largely laborers (doctors, lawyers, etc) but increasing the tax by a few percent on income above $250k seems pretty reasonable. But it shouldn't stop there, there should be more brackets, for example 50% on income above $500k, 60% above $750k and 70% on income above million.
And yeah, $250k income is large. Only around 1.5% of households make that much.
I've never seen Warner Buffet imply that someone making $250k is on his same level.
. . .
But it shouldn't stop there, there should be more brackets, for example 50% on income above $500k, 60% above $750k and 70% on income above million.
And yeah, $250k income is large. Only around 1.5% of households make that much.
I just did a little searching, and I can't find Buffett implying what I thought he had. His "guys like me" quote was after saying that a $250,000 didn't make someone rich; I missed that the first time. (Or the article I originally read omitted it.) I withdraw my complaint about Buffett.
More brackets would be fine. (Major League baseball salaries will have to go up, though, to make up for it.)
His "guys like me" quote was after saying that a $250,000 didn't make someone rich; I missed that the first time. (Or the article I originally read omitted it.) I withdraw my complaint about Buffett.
When it comes to tax policy, economic policy, etc you can count on things being distorted and/or omitted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sll3454
More brackets would be fine. (Major League baseball salaries will have to go up, though, to make up for it.)
Not really, if the market could bare higher salaries then they should be in principle already getting them. Why would the players leave money on the table? The tax would largely come out of their pocket.
Not really, if the market could bare higher salaries then they should be in principle already getting them. Why would the players leave money on the table? The tax would largely come out of their pocket.
Have you ever heard of Scott Boras?
Different topic.
Have you ever heard of Scott Boras?
Different topic.
Not before you just mentioned him. I know very little about sports, not my thing.
But there is only so much money you can extract out of professional sports, at some point people won't buy tickets, companies won't pay for ads etc to support it. But as far as I know owning teams is not always about making money, for the ultra-rich its just another way to spend money. So in that case, the money may just come out of their pockets.
Sure there is a difference, but this says little about whether or not income above $250k should be taxed higher. I've never seen Warner Buffet imply that someone making $250k is on his same level.
Reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy would just increase the tax by a few percentage, I'd tax the wealthy much more than this. But $250k is not really wealthy, these people are still largely laborers (doctors, lawyers, etc) but increasing the tax by a few percent on income above $250k seems pretty reasonable. But it shouldn't stop there, there should be more brackets, for example 50% on income above $500k, 60% above $750k and 70% on income above million.
And yeah, $250k income is large. Only around 1.5% of households make that much.
Isn't 70% a lot? Why that much?
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.
