“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
It's like when we're in a climate change thread, and someone says "yeah, but the climate's always changing, there's slight variations every year". That's just climate change denier bullshit, and that they can claim to be technically correct because those words can be used differently in another context is just a description of how they're being deliberately dishonest, not an argument that they aren't dishonest.
And they'd do the same "Oh, you didn't mean climate change, you mean climate change", and act aggrieved, just like you're doing here. It's the same dishonest nonsense.
And those stocks are taxed when sold. They are taxed when gains are realized.
Taking the ownership of taxes would have a major impact on 401k plans for normal folks.
We're literally back to my first post in this thread.
There's a very simple explanation for most of this; taxes are paid on the gains/losses when stocks are sold. If people want to try and tax gains/losses when they are held, then it would obliterate the 401k portfolios of tens of millions of Americans.
- - - Updated - - -
So, you've gone from me being an anti-abolitionist, to me being a climate denier. Your similes need work.
This is like me using a word, according to its definition, and you getting angry at it.
- - - Updated - - -
The federal government doesn't levee property taxes.
I also oppose property taxes.
- - - Updated - - -
Nope, I read it... once you finally provided the whole thing, and responded.
It's a loan against someone's property.
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
You're making the same arguments as those folks.
If you don't like that comparison, well, engage in self-reflection.
Also, just to be clear; I never called you either of those things. Pointing out that you make similar arguments is not the same thing. So, again, you're lying, here, basically. Hell, you know it, since you openly admit that you recognized those were similes, not allegations.
It's you changing the use of the word between two circumstances and pretending they're the same. And they are not.This is like me using a word, according to its definition, and you getting angry at it.
If all you meant was "the tax burden on the wealthy will increase", then congratulations, you've noticed how tax increases work, and made absolutely no comment on whether or not that's a bad thing. Saying "but it's a burden" brings us back to "yes, you've discovered that taxes exist." If you want to argue that burden is oppressive or onerous, then that's an additional argument you have to make separately; you can't just point to the fact that the "tax burden" exists and pretend that means the same thing.
It does not.
Pretending otherwise is dishonesty.
Doubling down indicates you can't make that case honestly. Which, frankly, works in my favor. I was trying to get you to defend your position, but you're implicitly admitting that it's indefensible which is why you won't even try.
You guys were the one rambling about "fair share" I simply showed how the government thinks it's fair. State governments find it fair to tax property. The federal government thinks the current tax structure is fair.
Remember, the "fair share" thing is the argument of people who want to raise taxes, so be my guest.
Nah, I can simply laugh at it, and move on. And just say you're wrong with that comparison.
Nope, I used the dictionary definition of the word, whether you like it, or not. There's no need for you to be so burdened by these trivial things.
As for your "what you meant was" shenanigans, that's the mother of all straw men.
I'll make it easy for you. I used the word I wanted to use, and in the correct manner.
I meant burden.
- - - Updated - - -
Once again, the "fair share" issue is their argument, I simply tossed it back on them. If you want to quantify it, let's do it.
Now, would you like to get back to the Propublica article?
I'm very glad that there's no political capital to push for wealth taxes at the federal level in the United States.