Unfortunately I am not proficient at this computer quoting stuff. But if you want to deny waht you said itâs the typical politicianâs way.Then it should be easy for you to find a quote of mine where I actually said that.
What a nasty thing to say!!
My proof is my memory. You have said that income taxes should be in a flat amount. If you deny this you are swimming in the Nile my friend. I am not making a false accusation here. Would I need a video recording of the president to go back and quote something he said if he said something different later?
You had better get really proficient at this âcomputer quoting stuffâ if youâre gonna sit there and basically call someone a liar. âMy proof is my memoryâ just doesnât cut it.
A video or a link to copies of the transcipt.
Well basically he is calling me a liar just as easily. I did not call him a liar. I simply stated he is denying what his position has been in the past. I havenât changed mine. My idea of a flat tax is a flat percentage. He always retorted that taxes donât work in percentages but in flat amounts. Iâm totally sorry if he canât remember that but I am not going to dig through threads from nine months ago just to find the quote and since I donât know how to quote from another thread and put it into this one, and noone seems ready to tell me how, then everyone will have to do their own homework. The evidence is there.
I remember reading something humphrey wrote once and itâs since disappeared. He has since denied posting anything. I think itâs his MO.
You have made a false accusation and are unable to back it up â so you resort to insults and vituperation.
UhâŚhe did back it up.
You mean Post 272? Here it is in all its incriminating glory:
And my reply:
Since I am arguing against a flat tax, how can I be arguing for a flat tax?
You seem to be saying that everyone of the same education should pay exactly the same amount of taxes regardless of income, which is one of the most regressive taxes possible (and progressive. Itâs only âfairâ to those exactly on the mean or median depending on how to break it down).
And that is an entirely different matter!
I think that the only things that a government needs to do is to protect the country from invasion,preserve law and order,and protect the basic rights of citizens. It isnât good when people look to their government to always provide for them. Then the government becomes like an idol-god,and it consolidates power and influence over the citizenry because they are so dependent upon it (as in the case of Cuba). A government that provides universal health care for its citizens will have a bad effect on the spiritual health of its citizens.
That is calling someone a liar.
Why didnât you do that the first time around?
Iâve the ABILITY to earn much more but my health and the inability to find a company to deal with my sickliness and my personal past has led me to be exceedingly underemployed.Then I say each of should bear his share of the load â and that should be measured by his ability to earn, not his willingness to earn.
Whatâs wrong with that?
Iâm a slow learner at this computer stuff. Now was he not advocating the very stuff I said he was?
No, he was not â he was simply showing the fallacy of the âflat tax.â Youâll see similar arguments he has made against the âFair Tax.â
And the evidence is there that the argument was being made for a flat amount regardless of income level. I kept trying to defend the notion of a flat percent. Noone can determine the other guyâs potential as pathia has so well noted. Therefore you can only tax actual monetary income and you do that in a percentage rate. That is the definition of a flat tax. Anything else is either progressive or regressive, depending on which direction you go in.
People are irrational about spending at the most basic level. How can we expect it to be any different when it is done as a collective of any sort of arrangement.