The Classic Strawman: But 47% Don't Pay Taxes!

If federal payroll taxes are not being included, how accurate is the argument and point of view, of those of the opposing view point?

 

Your own admission belies you. Having to say "usually" means that the burden of proof of fallacious reasoning lies with you - and you didn't meet your burden.

No, they are not. Some are subscriptions for returned services (like FICA taxes). Some are a very low percentage, and - as such - cause a different visceral reaction. You should not need an example to demonstrate that.

Nor should you claim some nonsense like "special pleading" and hope that the mere claim is enough to defend yourself.

The moment that the balance between people is upset, is the moment that politicians can take advantage of that imbalance to congeal power. The wise see that.

If the argument starts with the flawed premise of the OP, the rest doesnt' matter. The common argument put forth by those with the argument is not that 47% do not pay taxes, but that the 47% do not pay Federal Income Tax.

And that has been explained several times already - but that doesn't stop those who usually construct a windmill of an argument to joust from doing so, nor their delighted minions in joining them.

Payroll taxes are misnamed. They are a form of retirement benefit - and one which is being bandied about to be taken away from those with higher incomes/more wealth.

So I'd say that the point remains where it is: far too many people do not react to calls from demagogue politicians to raise taxes "on the rich" because those rates do not affect them.

And the minute such an argument became possible, politicians began to harness it to pit fellow Americans against each other, and concentrate power for themselves.

And the wise see this.

 

I am under the impression, that merely having a good argument that does not resort to forms of fallacies, is a sufficient "defense".

Taxes are taxes; because, that power is specifically delegated to our federal and State elected representatives to government.

From one perspective, taxes are a subscription for the convenience of Statism.

Therefore, simply claiming that only taxes in a special case instead of a general case, is a form of special pleading.

Our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates the general welfare and not the specific welfare, as a reason for delegating the power to Tax, our elected representatives.

 

Anyone paying taxes in our republic should not be denied or disparaged in their privileges and immunities as civil persons.

 

Payroll taxes are not misnamed, simply because they go to a specific fund to promote a specific form of the general welfare.

 

You claiming otherwise doesn't change it. If all taxes were equal, there would be only one line in a W2, and it would read "taxes".

That isn't the case. They are segregated for a reason. In addition, they each affect a different percentage of income: for me, these "payroll taxes" phase out much later than for most, meaning policy which affects the impact of these "taxes" creates different visceral reactions in those whom they affect.

Which is already unConstitutional on its face: there is supposed to be equal protection under the law.

The manifestation of this inequality is already obvious: it is causing class warfare (which IMO was one of the intents of these "social"ist programs).

Let the wise have eyes so that they can see, and ears so that they can hear.

 

Nor the claim that something is a fallacy when it is not.

Non sequitur; answered in the previous post. Obviously, different taxes are different; some are not taxes as all, but fees for services.

That is just your general definition of taxes, and not germane to this topic.

Flawed conclusion drawn from a false premise - and thus a false claim of "fallacy" to the objection.

Absolutely incorrect: the "General Welfare" Clause applies only to specifically enumerated powers granted the Government. Torturing definitions to suit your agenda will not change it.

 

i am not sure why you have that line of reasoning, if not for special pleading purposes; from my perspective, any tax is a Tax, simply because our elected representatives enacted it as a public law.

Why do you believe that progressive forms of economic discrimination is not equal protection under the law, if it is both legal and socially acceptable, under any form of Capitalism?

From my perspective, those who would aspire to wisdom would prefer to resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

From one perspective, taxes are a subscription for the convenience of Statism.

Why have States and statism if not for the power to tax?

 

Our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates the general welfare and not the specific welfare, as a reason for delegating the power to Tax, our elected representatives.

I don't subscribe to your propaganda and rhetoric since our own federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. Our federal Constitution delegates these general powers to our federal Congress.

 

Well said! This is what i want to say. We can't blame only govt, there are many other lenders, investors, borrowers and security dealers involved here. We need to consider all these. Wall Street protests have called new attention to the root causes of the crisis, and led republicans to reiterate their claim that government backed lenders fannie mae and freddie mac were the primary villains. I think the facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false.

 

Yup, and if any of them broke the law then they should be held accountable. If none did, then it might be time to look at those who wrote the laws.