3 ms·
> It's that the amount that's taxed is easily manipulated Did you even read my post? It’s entirely about this fact: you wrote a long rant concurring, but phra
by bopbeepboop 6y ago
> It's that the amount that's taxed is easily manipulated
Did you even read my post?
It’s entirely about this fact: you wrote a long rant concurring, but phrased as violent agreement.
You just pulled a single phrase out of a multiparagraph post, then strawmanned my argument.
That’s not up to the standards expected of HN posts.
- mcv 6y agoI did read your comment. Did you read mine? There's nothing violent about my agreement. I agree with some points, disagree with others, which I explain further. There's nothing strawman about that.
- bopbeepboop 6y agoThe first three paragraphs straw man my argument and misrepresent my position as saying flat taxes were the solution and it’s more complicated — when that’s exactly what I said. Literally, my entire comment is about loopholes and unintended consequences to tax policy... except the very first line, which seems to be all you read. You had one more paragraph with some random technical considerations agreeing with me. Then you concluded. You literally just repeated my point, but started with “it’s more complicated than that” — which is phrased as a disagreement with my point. That’s a straw man (misrepresenting my suggestion as being a flat rate, even though my entire comment was about loopholes — like yours) and violent agreement (phrased as disagreement when repeating the same thing). Your reply here is just wrong. (: