3 ms·

> https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/ https:/

by refurb 2y ago

> https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-... That's not a source. That's a cherry picked, politically motivated source about 400 billionaires? The average person getting a job at Tesla and competing for your apartment isn't one of them? Want to try again? > Except...that leaves the remaining 300 million with a per capita income of less than $1000 per year. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is someone is getting a job paying a couple hundred thousand at Telsa. And as a result they pay more in taxes. > "left unemployed" is not the only alternative. It is in the example I gave. You stated that instead of "losing an apartment" you'd prefer that person never got a job at Tesla. > Why did you stop beating your wife? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question You refused to answer (you literally stated you won't answer), so I asked why. That's not a loaded question.

dventimi 2y ago
>> That's not a source. That's a cherry picked, politically motivated source about 400 billionaires? The average person getting a job at Tesla and competing for your apartment isn't one of them? > Want to try again? Not particularly, no. You asked for a source for my claim that the wealthy paid a lower rate in taxes, and I gave you one. > But that's not what's happening. I know. It's called a "thought experiment." It's designed to explore the implications of reasoning. This thought experiment illustrates that even if the wealthy pay a higher tax rate and/or higher overall taxes, the benefits to society of those taxes do not compensate for the drawbacks of there being rich people in that society. > It is in the example I gave. You stated that instead of "losing an apartment" you'd prefer that person never got a job at Tesla. Well, no I didn't state that, but even if I did, "never getting a job at Tesla" does not logically imply "left unemployed." There are other employers besides Tesla. > You refused to answer (you literally stated you won't answer), so I asked why. That's not a loaded question. No, I literally said, "No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along." That's not a refusal. That's simply me choosing not to engage with your scenario at that time. Who knows! Maybe I'll engage with it later (not likely).

by refurb 2y ago

dventimi 2y ago

>> That's not a source. That's a cherry picked, politically motivated source about 400 billionaires? The average person getting a job at Tesla and competing for your apartment isn't one of them? > Want to try again? Not particularly, no. You asked for a source for my claim that the wealthy paid a lower rate in taxes, and I gave you one. > But that's not what's happening. I know. It's called a "thought experiment." It's designed to explore the implications of reasoning. This thought experiment illustrates that even if the wealthy pay a higher tax rate and/or higher overall taxes, the benefits to society of those taxes do not compensate for the drawbacks of there being rich people in that society. > It is in the example I gave. You stated that instead of "losing an apartment" you'd prefer that person never got a job at Tesla. Well, no I didn't state that, but even if I did, "never getting a job at Tesla" does not logically imply "left unemployed." There are other employers besides Tesla. > You refused to answer (you literally stated you won't answer), so I asked why. That's not a loaded question. No, I literally said, "No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along." That's not a refusal. That's simply me choosing not to engage with your scenario at that time. Who knows! Maybe I'll engage with it later (not likely).