A Speculative Fiction: Help me out...

Monday, June 30, 2008

Help me out...

I have to go to work... but while I'm gone can someone help me see how these fair tax notes are ad hom. attacks? Maybe I'm just missing it... if there is something I'm missing or being unfair in asking feel free to comment on it. gotta to run to work for now...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

3 comments:

DavidFL10 said...: I don't see any ad homonym attacks. You've possibly used the logical fallacy of complex question though.

From http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.
Complex questions are a well-established and time-honored practice in debate, although they are rarely so bald-faced as the example just given. Complex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. For instance, one might say, "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" Of course, the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true (in fact, it is false), but an unwary debater might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable. This is a sneaky tactic, but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. You wouldn't want to put a question like that in your master's thesis, but it might work in a debate. But be careful -- if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you'll look stupid. "The assumption behind your question is simply false. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again!"

----End quote----

Particularly, your second point number 2 under Linder’s introduction where you imply a progressive tax is better than a regressive tax by asking the reader to compare our economy to that of another country. The context, by the way, belies your erroneous belief that the FairTax is less progressive than the current system.

In “Broader question 2”, you ask, “Why is everything in this book about ‘you’?” Isn’t that the same fallacy? Less than half of what is in the Boortz book is about the individual. He takes an entire chapter for example to explain how the FairTax will return capital investment to the US and the result will be a huge boost in the US economy.; June 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Jim Nichols said...: To point 1... I'd say because of common usage and most people's perspective of what makes for a good economy... that its fair game. At least this holds true for most of those I talk with...

To point two... how can it be more progressive? A gallon of milk is a gallon of milk. Millionaires don't buy substantially more of these types of items and their consumption isn't giant... most of their money is tied up in investments not yachts and homes (there are only so many yacht and 5th homes one needs... not that there is anything wrong with those things) but still it can't possibly be more progressive...

Not everything in the book is about you... but there is a theme of talking about you and how it effects you...

If they want to argue it helps our collective effort called an economy... thats fine... but playing on selfishness, greed, and the incoherent concept that your paycheck is "100% Your money that you earned.." are terrible ways to go about promoting public policy and give one pause as to the legitimacy of the policy itself (i.e. if its built on faulty premises the likelyhood that it does something for the greater good may be an effect but its not the direct goal...); July 1, 2008 at 8:40 AM
DavidFL10 said...: I was only answering your question about ad hom attacks and logical fallacies, but I'll reply to your reply.

I can say with confidence that the FairTax will be more progressive because the current tax structure, while called a "progressive income tax", is extremely regressive when you include payroll taxes and the embedded taxes built into the goods we buy.

I'm sure you've read Warren Buffet's statement that he paid a lower percentage of his million plus income in taxes than did his secretary. He is a rarity that will admit tax advantage.

We have to expose the propaganda in our tax tables that lie to us about its progressivity.

Because of income reporting laws, very few Americans in the 20K-50K range have any option other than honesty regarding income. At the same time, most filers in the 50K-200K range file a schedule "C" which has an awful lot of wiggle room--some legal and some easy to lie about. The bottom line is that the poorer taxpayers actually pay what they see in the tax tables, while the higher income individuals are able to manipulate their reported income far below their actual income and therefore pay a lower effective tax rate when calculated against their actual income.

There are far far more people of means who spend more than they claim to make than make more than they spend.

You and I may philosophically disagree on one point. I believe that an individual should have the ability to earn millions, and if he consumes little, should pay little in taxes. The key to understanding the FairTax is to realize that having money means nothing until you spend it. There is little to gain by having money except what you can gain by spending it. All money earned will eventually be spent--by the heirs if not by the earner. In the meantime, it is the capital fueling the economy.; July 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM