SuperDemocrat
Gold Member
- Mar 4, 2015
- 8,200
- 868
- 275
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
SD, run the formula if you made 50,000, then 75,000, and then 100,000. You will learn.
I'm not really in a position to disagree with what you are saying because I am not an accountant but it really doesn't have anything to do with my original post. In th original post I just said a declining progressive income tax would be better. That is an opinion and opinions can't be wrong. It is like saying the color blue is the best. It can't be wrong (why do I have similar conversations with first graders?) it can't be right because it is just an opinion. Now if I said a declining progressive income tax would be better because you avoid being taxed in the way I described in a reply then you can say that is wrong because people don't get taxed that way.
This is what SD left out above: SD, run the formula if you made 50,000, then 75,000, and then 100,000. You will learn.
SD, no one is doubting you made an erroneous statement with wrong definitions of the terms.
SD, your opinion is predicated about wrong definitions and terms. Thus your statement is wrong. Yes, opinion at times are not not value neutral.
Let me make it very clear: your proposition is wrong because your term and definitions are false.
yes, opinions are not neutral. A person who has the opinion that the the color blue is the best probably hasnt spent a lot of time comparing all of the other colors in an objective manor. what is wrong with your thinking process? I understand what you are trying to say that an "opinion" based on something false can't be true but what you are saying is that opinions can be wrong. Is this your position? If someone told you that the color blue is his favorite you would then tell him he is wrong? Seriously?
In my original post I did not say a declining progressive income tax would avoid the discussed taxation problems.