> you're selfish because you've directed your anger at the poor
Who said I'm angry at the poor? I'm not. I just think there is a certain intelligent logic in how taxation and representation are rhetorically linked. I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable. I think the decisions made in such a system will be stupid and short-sighted, leading to massive deficits, economic collapse, and maybe even political instability in the long run.
Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise. I am not advocating eating the poor. However, I see that you already have your mind made up and have no desire for discussion.
In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state. You're in attack dog mode for no reason, and there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope.
The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters. You're painting a dishonest scenario and smearing me with dishonest motives.
In general I don't enjoy talking to people who think that those who disagree with them are evil. I can say that I didn't enjoy this conversation.
You did when you brought up the "40% don't pay taxes" b.s. line that I'm beyond tired of hearing from conservatives. I've heard it a hundred times and it's always from an angry conservative blaming poor lazy people for stealing their money with tax credits. After you hear a lie enough times you start to get annoyed with the people perpetuating it.
> I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable.
Straw man, we have no such system.
> Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise.
Easily done, what is wise to look not at the poor, but at the well off when looking for sources of revenue. The poor need sympathy, not scorn.
> In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state.
Then don't use the arguments primarily shared by people that hold those positions.
> there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope
I don't think you're evil; engage me with logic and questions that don't imply blame on the poorest among us.
> The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters.
I agree, and I didn't claim otherwise. I was disputing your claim that you were somewhat poor, you aren't.
I don't enjoy people attacking people who don't make enough money to pay taxes under our current system. Those people are not the problem with our system and any attempt to put the focus there seems to me a shallow attempt to deny that simple fact.
Comments
> you're selfish because you've directed your anger at the poor
Who said I'm angry at the poor? I'm not. I just think there is a certain intelligent logic in how taxation and representation are rhetorically linked. I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable. I think the decisions made in such a system will be stupid and short-sighted, leading to massive deficits, economic collapse, and maybe even political instability in the long run.
Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise. I am not advocating eating the poor. However, I see that you already have your mind made up and have no desire for discussion.
In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state. You're in attack dog mode for no reason, and there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope.
The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters. You're painting a dishonest scenario and smearing me with dishonest motives.
In general I don't enjoy talking to people who think that those who disagree with them are evil. I can say that I didn't enjoy this conversation.
> Who said I'm angry at the poor?
You did when you brought up the "40% don't pay taxes" b.s. line that I'm beyond tired of hearing from conservatives. I've heard it a hundred times and it's always from an angry conservative blaming poor lazy people for stealing their money with tax credits. After you hear a lie enough times you start to get annoyed with the people perpetuating it.
> I also think a majority-rules democratic system where a majority pay $0 in taxes in unsustainable.
Straw man, we have no such system.
> Leave your emotions aside for a moment. I am simply trying to discuss what is wise.
Easily done, what is wise to look not at the poor, but at the well off when looking for sources of revenue. The poor need sympathy, not scorn.
> In addition, you're imputing a ton of motives and positions to me that I did not state.
Then don't use the arguments primarily shared by people that hold those positions.
> there is no way that I can intelligently engage you if you've already painted me as an evil misanthrope
I don't think you're evil; engage me with logic and questions that don't imply blame on the poorest among us.
> The number of people who pay no net taxes in this country is much larger than the number that get their clothes from dumpsters.
I agree, and I didn't claim otherwise. I was disputing your claim that you were somewhat poor, you aren't.
I don't enjoy people attacking people who don't make enough money to pay taxes under our current system. Those people are not the problem with our system and any attempt to put the focus there seems to me a shallow attempt to deny that simple fact.