Sunday, October 2, 2011
Slight of Deception
One of the easiest ways to determine if a person is partisan is to look at the way that they disseminate information. If they're constantly giving it to you piecemeal/selectively, then, yeah, they're probably majorly partisan. A perfect example of this is the way that this wd constantly points out that I'm strongly for an elimination of the corporate income tax. Uh, yeah, that is true. But he also shamelessly and moronically and purposefully leaves out the fact that I'm also in favor of the individual tax rates going up AND for an elimination of the special consideration for capital gains. The rich, ladies and gentlemen, would pay significantly MORE under my proposal..................................................................................................And, yes, I CAN give you an easy empirical counterpart. Under the proposal that I've been putting forth, no, a company like Berkshire Hathaway wouldn't pay any income tax. BUT when it's CEO, Warren Bufett, gets compensated with all of those high-priced stock-options of his, BOOM, the government taxes these gains at 40% (this, as opposed to the measly 15% that people like Buffett currently pay). a) An American company gets strengthened and b) Mr. Buffett gets to pay that higher amount in taxes that he seemingly pines for. Win-win.....................................................................................................Add to that the fact that liberals such as Robert Reich, some bloggers over at Firedog Lake, and a fellow by the name of Jersey McJones (a regular contributor over at "Rational Nation") have also their thrown support for an elimination of this tax and, yeah, it really does seem as if this fellow, at the very least, might be unbalanced....................................................................................................P.S. I'm also in favor of capping the mortgage interest deduction at $500,000 (the present cap is $1,000,000) - yet another part of my proposal that taxes the wealthy higher. He never mentions this, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
If corporations are not taxed, then they should have no privledges afforded to people. No free speech, no political contributions, no personhood rights at all. After all, they are not paying for anything.
Will, Jerry just hit that one out of the ballpark for a grand slam!
I'm not trying to "deceive" anyone. This is a false accusation.
When I object here (on your blog) to your idea that corporate income taxes should be eliminated... YOUR complete argument is THERE for everyone to see.
I did, however, mention your desire to eliminate the corporate income tax recently (for the first time ever) on my blog. I included a link to your full argument. I don't know if this blog post is why you say I'm deceiving by disseminating information piecemeal/selectively... but I've updated my post with an explanation of your full position.
I was not attempting to deceive anyone. You think I've got an axe to grind against you? I don't know you. When a partisan in the media lies about his opponent's position it is to discredit that person... because they are in the public eye and people listen to them.
You're not in the public eye. Not that many people read this blog. Why the hell would I lie to discredit you? These charges of yours make no sense.
Jerry;
+1
Jerry: "If corporations are not taxed, then they should have no privledges afforded to people. No free speech, no political contributions, no personhood rights at all. After all, they are not paying for anything."
I agree. Abolish the personhood rights. That was really really dumb (the bad part of "Citizens United") However, under the Bill of Rights (and as re-affirmed by the protections of the "Citizens United" decision) people do have the right to criticize elected leaders even if they are associated with corporations.
I do not buy into WD's unconstitutional and fascistic argument that only government-approved press organs should have freedom of speech.
dmarks: I do not buy into WD's unconstitutional and fascistic argument that only government-approved press organs should have freedom of speech.
I didn't make this argument. The argument you say I made... I also disagree with it. Only "government approved press organs" have freedom of speech? That does sound fascistic to me. I would strongly oppose such a proposal.
What I said (and I quoted the Constitution to back this up) was that only individual citizens have free speech rights. Why? Because that is what the Constitution mandates. That groups of individuals should have special group rights in regards to free speech (which is what dmarks advocates)... is totally unconstitutional.
The only group that is guaranteed this right (under the Constitution) is the FREE press (one which does not act as an "organ" of the government).
The Citizens United decision was extremely fascistic because it gives special free speech rights to corporations. We need a constitutional amendment to nullify, or a new SCOTUS appointment by Obama to overturn this bad decision.
Jerry, etc., I agree ONE THOUSAND PERCENT. No taxation, no personhood, and tax Mr. Buffet's capital gains as regular income. Everybody wins.
Post a Comment