Don't Pay, Don't Gripe

[nathanm]

Based on the fact that we disagree?

No, based on the fact that the book has facts which I seriously doubt you are aware of, given that I was not aware of them prior to reading it, despite it being published in 2004. Disagreement has nothing to do with it.

I have posted tax items based on a link that YOU provided and you still disagreed with me.

When did this happen?

[Hoss]

If you believe you would be tagged as the enemy, you have just stated your basic philosophy.  If that is not true, you might be afraid that you would be found to be agreeing with *gasp* me.

yeah, my basic philosophy is reading comprehension.

And just like any other opinion, it's mine to keep or divulge.  Just like yours is.  I don't have to explain myself to anyone on this Earth.  Just as you don't.  I was merely pointing out my observation of your philosophy as it relates to what I've read of your posts in this thread.

[Red Arrow]

No, based on the fact that the book has facts which I seriously doubt you are aware of, given that I was not aware of them prior to reading it, despite it being published in 2004. Disagreement has nothing to do with it.

There is a issue of trust and I don't have much for you regarding taxes or politics.

I have posted tax items based on a link that YOU provided and you still disagreed with me.

When did this happen?

You published a link to the amount of tax various groups paid broken out by among other things as AGI.  When I used that info and reposted the link your attitude generally poo-pooed any statement that I made which were just based on the numbers and not a statement of my opinion.   I used to have it bookmarked but I appear to have deleted it.  

[Red Arrow]

yeah, my basic philosophy is reading comprehension.

And just like any other opinion, it's mine to keep or divulge.  Just like yours is.  I don't have to explain myself to anyone on this Earth.  Just as you don't.  I was merely pointing out my observation of your philosophy as it relates to what I've read of your posts in this thread.

I guess you are free to misinterpret anything you like.

[nathanm]

There is a issue of trust and I don't have much for you regarding taxes or politics.

I'm not sure what I have to do with it? I'm not the one who wrote the book.

You published a link to the amount of tax various groups paid broken out by among other things as AGI.  When I used that info and reposted the link your attitude generally poo-pooed any statement that I made which were just based on the numbers and not a statement of my opinion.   I used to have it bookmarked but I appear to have deleted it.  

Too bad. I doubt that's what I was actually doing, but I guess we'll never know unless one of us cares to dig it up. If I did argue with the facts, shame on me. If I was pointing out that IRS statistics only cover income tax, I think we're both clear on what the other thinks in that regard.

[Hoss]

I guess you are free to misinterpret anything you like.

Just as you are free to call 'enemies' any person you like.  Last I checked, we were all Americans here.  I can not remember a time when Americans called each other enemies save for that four year period in the middle of the 19th century.

I would never call a fellow American, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not, an 'enemy'.  Implied or otherwise.

But, I guess, that's why it's America isn't it?

[Red Arrow]

Just as you are free to call 'enemies' any person you like.  Last I checked, we were all Americans here.  I can not remember a time when Americans called each other enemies save for that four year period in the middle of the 19th century.
I would never call a fellow American, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not, an 'enemy'.  Implied or otherwise.
But, I guess, that's why it's America isn't it?

Are you really that dense?  Is your reading comprehension that poor and you are depending on it?  Can you not make the transition to knowing what people with different opinions are doing from the more popular statement about knowing your enemies?  Are you depending on a truncated quote to try to make a point?  Have you had too many Marshall's?

[nathanm]

Marshall's

At least we can all agree on that.

[Hoss]

Are you really that dense?  Is your reading comprehension that poor and you are depending on it?  Can you not make the transition to knowing what people with different opinions are doing from the more popular statement about knowing your enemies?  Are you depending on a truncated quote to try to make a point?  Have you had too many Marshall's?

Maybe not enough.  But keep deflecting.

I do know that statement.  It STILL uses the term 'enemy'.  It's divisive and has no place in civil discourse in this country when it's referring to countrymen.

Look.  Call me dense if it's your justification.  Most people who know me will disagree.  As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over.  You have your viewpoints, I have mine.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not sure what I have to do with it? I'm not the one who wrote the book.

Your presentation of the book is the problem.  When you make statements like:

Those two things are diametrically opposed, not complementary.

to quotes like:

He has vowed to oppose any legislation that adds to the national debt. In fact, he has said that he would urge his fellow congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes.

and present them as indisputable facts, you lose my trust when there is an alternative however undesirable you may think it is.

Too bad. I doubt that's what I was actually doing, but I guess we'll never know unless one of us cares to dig it up. If I did argue with the facts, shame on me. If I was pointing out that IRS statistics only cover income tax, I think we're both clear on what the other thinks in that regard.

I am usually careful to include the modifiers like "income" in discussions like that.  I expect that you dropped the word "income" to make your point.  Beyond that, I don't feel like looking it up.

[Red Arrow]

As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over. 

Good evening.

[Red Arrow]

Nathan,

It's been an interesting weekend but I probably should have just ignored your reading recommendation rather than make a fuss.

[nathanm]

present them as indisputable facts, you lose my trust when there is an alternative however undesirable you may think it is.

Sorry if you thought I was presenting that statement of opinion as a statement of fact. I think it's a well supported statement of opinion, as I went on to discuss.

I am usually careful to include the modifiers like "income" in discussions like that.  I expect that you dropped the word "income" to make your point.  Beyond that, I don't feel like looking it up.

And I try to be careful to point out that discussing one individual tax to the exclusion of all other forms of tax that we pay doesn't present a broad enough picture to avoid being misleading. As of 2004, I don't know the numbers today, the difference in total tax rate between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top fifth was less than 1%. IIRC, it was around 17.5% that year. That doesn't capture the effects of the tax cheats, like our esteemed former President who misclassified earned income as capital gains and evaded somewhere in the vicinity of $10 million in tax.

[Red Arrow]

And I try to be careful to point out that discussing one individual tax to the exclusion of all other forms of tax that we pay doesn't present a broad enough picture to avoid being misleading. As of 2004, I don't know the numbers today, the difference in total tax rate between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top fifth was less than 1%. IIRC, it was around 17.5% that year.

Insert standard statements about payroll tax and modify bottom earners to about 10% plus being forced to pay into a system that will keep them from starving in their old age. Oh, and for those of us that are not self employed, your employer is paying an equal amount toward your old age financial security.  It it unlikely that you would get that in a pay raise if your employer's portion were suddenly no longer necessary.

[Red Arrow]

Sorry if you thought I was presenting that statement of opinion as a statement of fact. I think it's a well supported statement of opinion, as I went on to discuss.

If you go through the Pike Pass lanes on the Creek Turnpike, they will take your picture and send you a violation if you don't have a valid Pike Pass.  You must have a valid Pike Pass to use the Creek Turnpike without getting a violation.

I can now support that as an opinion by saying that I never carry enough change to use the cash exit.