Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

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.

In what sense?

See, this is where you trip up.

[Machismo]

The arrogance with which you embrace your hypocrisy and ignorance is truly staggering.

Its like talking to a brick wall that thinks its a professor.

"Fair share" was your argument, not mine. I simply used it, because you could never define it. The United States government makes federal tax laws, and until you can point to criminal fraud, then you really would need to actually quantify your arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

In what sense?

See, this is where you trip up.

IN the sense that it's a burden, a weigh, a load, a heft, if you will.

[Shadowferal]

There's likely a bit of frustration in his posts. He has to realize that given enough time the walls will close in.

[Endus]

IN the sense that it's a burden, a weigh, a load, a heft, if you will.

Then it's not a problem to expect the wealthy to shoulder a much greater portion of that load, given that they're the ones with the capacity to do so. You've admitted there is no connotation that said "burden" is in any way onerous on those who carry it, and thus we don't have any grounds to argue that it's "bad" or "wrong".

If you meant to include that connotation, well, you didn't, when I pushed you to finally, pages later, define your terms. By your own description, the "burden" is not a negative and there's no grounds for arguing against it by virtue of it being a "burden".

[Machismo]

Then it's not a problem to expect the wealthy to shoulder a much greater portion of that load, given that they're the ones with the capacity to do so. You've admitted there is no connotation that said "burden" is in any way onerous on those who carry it, and thus we don't have any grounds to argue that it's "bad" or "wrong".

And how much more of a burden are all of you willing to shoulder? If they can handle a much greater burden, and onerous one by the sound of it, surely all these fine folk can also shoulder some more of that burden. Or, are all the people in this thread at maximum capacity on what they can bear? I think not.

Nah, you don't get to tell me what I get to argue. That's not how it works.

[Endus]

There's likely a bit of frustration in his posts. He has to realize that given enough time the walls will close in.

This is why I keep trying to dig into the details of exactly how he's using certain terms.

I'm trying to eliminate the wiggle room he's leaving himself.

[Machismo]

This is why I keep trying to dig into the details of exactly how he's using certain terms.

I'm trying to eliminate the wiggle room he's leaving himself.

No, you don't get to say what I'm allowed to argue, That's not how it works. I can call there burden onerous, and there's not much you can do. You can disagree, and that's cool. You don't get to say what I mean, and have it stick.

[unfilteredJW]

No, you don't get to say what I'm allowed to argue, That's not how it works. I can call there burden onerous, and there's not much you can do. You can disagree, and that's cool. You don't get to say what I mean, and have it stick.

You can't even say what you mean.

[Endus]

And how much more of a burden are all of you willing to shoulder? If they can handle a much greater burden, and onerous one by the sound of it, surely all these fine folk can also shoulder some more of that burden. Or, are all the people in this thread at maximum capacity on what they can bear? I think not.

Nah, you don't get to tell me what I get to argue. That's not how it works.

See the bold? That's you shifting your definitions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burden

You shifted from definition 1a, to definition 2.

You don't get to do that. If you want to use 1a, you have to stick to 1a.

Also, as for the "how much else will YOU shoulder?", that's deflection to avoid dealing with the actual point. Let's stick to the topic at hand, rather than deflecting just because you're losing.

[Machismo]

You can't even say what you mean.

I did say what I mean, and provided the definitions.

- - - Updated - - -

See the bold? That's you shifting your definitions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burden

You shifted from definition 1a, to definition 2.

You don't get to do that. If you want to use 1a, you have to stick to 1a.

Also, as for the "how much else will YOU shoulder?", that's deflection to avoid dealing with the actual point. Let's stick to the topic at hand, rather than deflecting just because you're losing.

Nope, that's you imagining it.

This is you trying to tell me what I mean, and saying what words I'm allowed to use. Think about how absurd you are being.

This is the topic, tax rates. People have been calling for increased tax rates... of others. I simply wanted to know what they thought about their own tax rates. They didn't seem to want to raise those. Go figure.

[Shadowferal]

Then it's not a problem to expect the wealthy to shoulder a much greater portion of that load, given that they're the ones with the capacity to do so. You've admitted there is no connotation that said "burden" is in any way onerous on those who carry it, and thus we don't have any grounds to argue that it's "bad" or "wrong".

This is near my meaning of the wall closing in.
Libertarians hate emergencies, they hate national crises' they hate "acts of God," because all their beliefs fall apart. Government stepping up to take care of the people by buying vaccines during a pandemic? And libertarian response? "We have to cut costs..." omg....

[Endus]

No, you don't get to say what I'm allowed to argue, That's not how it works.

In that sense, no, the mod team does.

But if you demonstrate repeated dishonesty, well, that'll be breaking site rules, y'know.

I can call there burden onerous, and there's not much you can do. You can disagree, and that's cool. You don't get to say what I mean, and have it stick.

You can say you're a magical dragonicorn who poops doughnuts, too.

Doesn't mean anyone's gonna believe you.

And let's be clear; I let you define exactly what you meant by "burden". And then you were immediately inconsistent on that point.

[Machismo]

In that sense, no, the mod team does.

But if you demonstrate repeated dishonesty, well, that'll be breaking site rules, y'know.



You can say you're a magical dragonicorn who poops doughnuts, too.

Doesn't mean anyone's gonna believe you.

And let's be clear; I let you define exactly what you meant by "burden". And then you were immediately inconsistent on that point.

I'm not being dishonest, I'm using words according to their literal definitions.

As it stands, the wealthy have a higher tax burden than the average American, and I am hesitant to push an increased burden onto others in order to justify increased spending.

Propunblica and others are trying to justify an increased tax burden in them, by conflating wealth and income. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that the very same people who want the wealthy to shoulder this burden, are not willing to shoulder any additional burden, themselves.

To me, that screams of hypocrisy.

[Endus]

As it stands, the wealthy have a higher tax burden then the average American, and I am hesitant to push an increased burden onto others in order to justify increased spending.

Propunblica and others are trying to justify an increased tax burden in them, by conflating wealth and income. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that the very same people who want the wealthy to shoulder this burden, are not willing to shoulder any additional burden, themselves.

To me, that screams of hypocrisy.

Propublica did not so conflate wealth and income. You've said that repeatedly, but they very clearly laid it out in the article.

And the latter bit is just your continued character attacks, because you refuse to deal with a policy discussion without engaging in personal attacks.

[Bodakane]

"Fair share" was your argument, not mine. I simply used it, because you could never define it. The United States government makes federal tax laws, and until you can point to criminal fraud, then you really would need to actually quantify your arguments.

Who had, "decides to double back down on the government doing it means its fair, 15 minutes after saying the opposite" on their hypocrite bingo cards?

[Shadowferal]

And the latter bit is just your continued character attacks, because you refuse to deal with a policy discussion without engaging in personal attacks.

Let me be blunt; you're arguing with someone whose "good opinion" isn't something you should ever want.

[Machismo]

Propublica did not so conflate wealth and income. You've said that repeatedly, but they very clearly laid it out in the article.

And the latter bit is just your continued character attacks, because you refuse to deal with a policy discussion without engaging in personal attacks.

Yes, they did. They tried to say what the "true tax rate" is when dealing with an income tax. There's nothing "true" about it.

Luckily, their article and narrative is irrelevant, and not indicative of the true true tax rate of those people...which is what they actually paid compared to their income.

[Endus]

Let me be blunt; you're arguing with someone whose "good opinion" isn't something you should ever want.

Honestly, at this point, it's documenting how abusive and flamey he's being towards other users.

Yes, they did. They tried to say what the "true tax rate" is when dealing with an income tax. There's nothing "true" about it.

You mean where they clearly stated what they meant by a "true tax rate" and how it was not an income tax?

Propublica defined their terms very clearly and openly. You either weren't reading it carefully, or are just choosing to lie about it openly.

[Machismo]

Who had, "decides to double back down on the government doing it means its fair, 15 minutes after saying the opposite" on their hypocrite bingo cards?

Once again, "fair share" is the pointless rallying cry that is little more than political punditry. It means nothing without quantififying it.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, at this point, it's documenting how abusive and flamey he's being towards other users.



You mean where they clearly stated what they meant by a "true tax rate" and how it was not an income tax?

Propublica defined their terms very clearly and openly. You either weren't reading it carefully, or are just choosing to lie about it openly.

Luckily, the "true tax rate" means nothing, and is just an attempt to distort data to sell copy.

I'm not flaming. I'm not trying to be abusive. I'm disagreeing with you.

There's a difference.

[Endus]

Luckily, the "true tax rate" means nothing, and is just an attempt to distort data to sell copy.

Again, Propublica defined their terms. This is just obviously untrue. You might not like their analysis, but you aren't making any argument that they're actually wrong about anything.

I'm not flaming. I'm not trying to be abusive. I'm disagreeing with you.

There's a difference.

Then maybe engage in a little self-reflection, because you've spent a solid third of the thread on character attacks, not "disagreements".

Making things up that others did not say, and claiming they said it.
Casting aspersions as to people's moral stances.
And so on.