On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:05:10 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:57:49 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:37:23 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
om:

in the terms that most people mean it. And you can put your
finger on that pulse with a good review of the polls, such as
this one:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147104/De...licans-Differ-
Widely
-T axing-Rich.aspx

(Read through the whole thing to get an accurate flavor of
public opinion)

I have read those opinion polls. Where do they come from?

That one comes from the Gallup, Inc. They're the best in the
business.
Most of their income comes from private surveys that we never
see.

Perhaps fron
a very liberal media.

Not from the media. From Gallup.

Is some of the media conservative? Bet your ass

It comes not from the media, but from Gallup.

You missed the point......again.

You said "I have read those opinion polls. Where do they come
from?" I told you where this opinion poll comes from -- Gallup.

If you're going to talk in tongues, we're going to have a problem.

The survey may come from Gallup but the
opinions are driven by the media. If you don't understand, then
there isn't much sense continuing.......

See above.


but most of the big papers, for example, aren't. I doubt one
would refer to the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, LA
Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle,
MSNBC,
CNBC,
NBC,
ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, etc.. as bastions of conservative
thought. The only biggies for the conservatives I am aware of is
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh (who I don't listen to) and some other
AM radio shows. I consider CNN to be mostly neutral.

Not from the media. From Gallup.

See above......perhaps, I wasn't clear enough. Let me repeat, the
media
'helps' the people form opinions. Bottom line is that the survey
may come from Gallup but the opinion in that survey were assisted
greatly
by
the media.

You should have said that the first time. g

Could be. I simply thought you would figure it out. I was wrong.
Won't the last time.

So, opinions are influenced by the media, except for your opinion.
You're too smart for all that. Right?


Now did I say that? Let me check.....nope.

So you read the media, and most people favor the "Buffet rule"
because
they're influenced by the media, but you're smart enough not to let
that influence you -- but you say that isn't the case.

Media does influence me to an extent, just like it does you. Most
people, IMHO, all want the government to provide more stuff as long as
they don't have to pay for it. As long as someone else, in this case,
the wealthy, pays for it. Some even think it is manna from heaven and
free.

I don't think that "most people" want that.

I do.

Most people want to be
paid well for what they do.

Completely different subject. I suggest you reread what I wrote and tell
me where you see it being about people getting paid for what they do.

You didn't say it. I did. I think that's how people want to get their
income. You said that most people want free stuff they don't have to
pay for.



People come up with some interesting explanations for why most other
people disagree with them. It usually has something to do with them
being too dumb to get it, or two weak to resist an appeal to their
greed, ego, or whatever.

You seem to have an exceptional resistance of some kind.

Only in your mind.

You're contradicting yourself, RD.

Nope.

You've said in this thread that
poll results are the result of media influence,

Yep.

that they have
influenced most people to favor the Buffett Rule, but that, even
though you're influenced by the media, you're an exception to that
influence.

I haven't said that.

Yeah, you did. You aren't following your own statements. You said
other people are influenced by the media and favor the Buffett Rule as
a result ("The survey may come from Gallup but the opinions are driven
by the media."). You also say you're influenced by the media, but you
don't favor the Buffett rule.

Apparently you are immune, right?

You said that. I disagreed with you and said that
you feeling I wasn't affected was only in your mind.

Only now, you deny that. Flip, flop...

Nope, never made the claim that the media didn't affect me. That is your
boogeyman.

My point is that your idea of "fairness" in taxation is considered to
be wrong by most Americans, by me, and it was considered to be wrong
by the founders of modern capitalism (Adam Smith) and the US itself
(Thomas Jefferson).

So??

You're entitled to your opinions. Most people disagree with you. It
isn't because they want someone else paying for them,

For many of them it is. They know that we need more revenue to fix the
country, but how many of them do you hear crying for the taxcut to the
middle class to be ended? How many of them want the payroll tax cut to
go away?

We've answered that several times.



but because they
believe the people who have gained the most from the supports and
protections this country gives them rightfully should pay more than a
straight percentage of their income for that support.

I don't. They also pay the most.

Oh, bull. That's a Cato-type talking point. Averages are not the
point.

The Wall Street Journal and other good journalistic sources will give
you a much better pricture, such as this one:

"Wealthier people face a tax rate as high as 35% on earnings, "but
they get the biggest tax breaks," he says. "They start off with such a
high tax that the biggest tax breaks don't bring them down to zero.
They're benefiting hugely from tax breaks—much more than the poor
people—but because they start off at the high level, their tax bills
stay positive.

"That said, 1,470 millionaires were among those who paid no federal
income tax in 2009."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...267919032.html


Do you think it is fair that almost
half the workforce pays no income taxes? Or do you think, that, perhaps,
everyone should contribute at least a token amount?

I'd say that everyone above a modest level should contribute some
amount, commensurate with the benefits they receive from the economy
and society as a whole. That was Barry Goldwater's plan. It was too
flat at the top, but it was otherwise quite good.


As Jefferson
said, "in geometric proportion," or as Smith said "somewhat more than
in proportion."

With 47% paying no income tax, how is that a geometric proportion?

It's not a geometric progression. If it was geometric, the highest
earners would be paying much more than 35% (or the 15% on capital
gains) than they're paying now.


That's the mainstream view. It has been for over 200 years. A
secondary point I was making is that your view is a fairly recent
invention -- around 50 years or slightly more -- and that it has no
basis in history, in the thinking behind this country's foundation, or
in anything else of substance. It's an outgrowth of extreme-right
thinking and the propaganda promoted some very wealthy people,
noteably the Forbes's and the financial supporters of the Cato
Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and so on.

That's all I was saying

Good. Then are we done? After all, this whole thing was about Warren
Buffett putting his wallet where his mouth is. A pure piece of opinion.
Period.