Criticizing someone for their sources for their argument while providing none of your own for your argument is hypocritical.
#41:
> Criticizing someone for their sources for their argument
What sources? No criticism of sources occurred here, only the request for some.
> while providing none of your own for your argument is hypocritical.
What argument? The OP hasn’t made any claims that require proof; he’s not the one arguing *for* a new tax here, only against one.
#27 made a number of specific claims, such as that “it inflates prices, keeps money out of the economy, exports jobs out of the country, and moves money out of our economy.” Such claims require proof, or they are groundless. But everyone is free to doubt them, without the need to prove anything. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ Only positive claims require proof; without such proof, anyone is free to disagree with them for any reason, however inarticulate.
For an analogy: I take it (from some of your other posts) that you’re an atheist. Can you *prove* that God *doesn’t* exist? . . . Of course not. But you don’t need to. (You can’t *prove* the moon *isn’t* made of green cheese, either. There’s a reason no one is required to prove a negative.) People who claim there is a God are naturally expected to give some reason for believing this; but to make the contrary claim, you needn’t prove a thing. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ The assertion requires proof; its denial does not.
> In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct.
>
> — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
It’s an important concept; I encourage you read up on it.
In instances where a new law is being proposed, only the people arguing *for* that law are required to show proof of their claims. Everyone else is free to disagree with them; you don’t need a source to simply disagree with someone. ;-) And when the person making such a claim provides none, you ought to reject his claim *by default*, whatever your feelings on the matter: you owe that much to yourself as a rational being. Skepticism is healthy: it prevents you from being brainwashed, conned, or otherwise taken advantage of.
In other words, the burden of proof doesn’t work both ways, it goes one way: it applies to positive claims, not negative ones. People proposing a new tax law must show a proof of their concept; whereas people rejecting that proposal needn’t prove a thing. Noflaps hasn’t made any claims in this thread that require proof, he has merely challenged some claims made by others. He is free to do that, because the burden of proof isn’t on him. It rests entirely on them.
> Criticizing someone for their sources for their argument
What sources? No criticism of sources occurred here, only the request for some.
> while providing none of your own for your argument is hypocritical.
What argument? The OP hasn’t made any claims that require proof; he’s not the one arguing *for* a new tax here, only against one.
#27 made a number of specific claims, such as that “it inflates prices, keeps money out of the economy, exports jobs out of the country, and moves money out of our economy.” Such claims require proof, or they are groundless. But everyone is free to doubt them, without the need to prove anything. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ Only positive claims require proof; without such proof, anyone is free to disagree with them for any reason, however inarticulate.
For an analogy: I take it (from some of your other posts) that you’re an atheist. Can you *prove* that God *doesn’t* exist? . . . Of course not. But you don’t need to. (You can’t *prove* the moon *isn’t* made of green cheese, either. There’s a reason no one is required to prove a negative.) People who claim there is a God are naturally expected to give some reason for believing this; but to make the contrary claim, you needn’t prove a thing. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ The assertion requires proof; its denial does not.
> In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct.
>
> — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
It’s an important concept; I encourage you read up on it.
In instances where a new law is being proposed, only the people arguing *for* that law are required to show proof of their claims. Everyone else is free to disagree with them; you don’t need a source to simply disagree with someone. ;-) And when the person making such a claim provides none, you ought to reject his claim *by default*, whatever your feelings on the matter: you owe that much to yourself as a rational being. Skepticism is healthy: it prevents you from being brainwashed, conned, or otherwise taken advantage of.
In other words, the burden of proof doesn’t work both ways, it goes one way: it applies to positive claims, not negative ones. People proposing a new tax law must show a proof of their concept; whereas people rejecting that proposal needn’t prove a thing. Noflaps hasn’t made any claims in this thread that require proof, he has merely challenged some claims made by others. He is free to do that, because the burden of proof isn’t on him. It rests entirely on them.
For another example:
If I accuse you of posting neo-Nazi propaganda here in this forum, do you have to prove to us that you didn’t? . . . Of course not. (What would you even do, copy and paste everything you ever wrote here?) After all, anyone can search through your posts and verify this claim for themselves. You don’t need to prove your innocence; you are innocent till proven guilty. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
Whereas, in contrast, as your accuser I would naturally be expected to produce a quote from and/or link to at least one example of such content coming from you. If I couldn’t do this, then I would be — as I’m sure you would happily tell me — full of it. ;-)
So it is that when someone says, “It will have thus-and-such an effect on the economy,” and Noflaps asks for proof of this claim, it’s the responsibility of the person making that claim to cite a source for it, so the rest of us can peruse it for ourselves. It is not up to him to demonstrate that it would *not* have such an effect, as it’s not even his argument!
Hence #27 requires a source, and #28 does not. It’s that simple.
If I accuse you of posting neo-Nazi propaganda here in this forum, do you have to prove to us that you didn’t? . . . Of course not. (What would you even do, copy and paste everything you ever wrote here?) After all, anyone can search through your posts and verify this claim for themselves. You don’t need to prove your innocence; you are innocent till proven guilty. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
Whereas, in contrast, as your accuser I would naturally be expected to produce a quote from and/or link to at least one example of such content coming from you. If I couldn’t do this, then I would be — as I’m sure you would happily tell me — full of it. ;-)
So it is that when someone says, “It will have thus-and-such an effect on the economy,” and Noflaps asks for proof of this claim, it’s the responsibility of the person making that claim to cite a source for it, so the rest of us can peruse it for ourselves. It is not up to him to demonstrate that it would *not* have such an effect, as it’s not even his argument!
Hence #27 requires a source, and #28 does not. It’s that simple.
i've been making some unrealized gains around my midsection, it has become quite taxing for my health.
I have the ultimate solution just Tax the poor
@pawnedge said in #42:
> What sources? No criticism of sources occurred here, only the request for some.
Heavily implied in #40 with the degradation of the value of using external sources.
> What argument? The OP hasn’t made any claims that require proof; he’s not the one arguing *for* a new tax here, only against one.
> Noflaps hasn’t made any claims in this thread that require proof, he has merely challenged some claims made by others. He is free to do that, because the burden of proof isn’t on him. It rests entirely on them.
#1 hypothetical of the ultra-rich selling their stocks and crashing the entire market (no evidence).
#1 doubting the ability of the ultra-rich to be able to handle their own money (no evidence).
#22 supporting trickle-down economics (no evidence of working).
#25 claiming Bezos benefitted others and did good for them with investments (no evidence, also extremely vague).
> What sources? No criticism of sources occurred here, only the request for some.
Heavily implied in #40 with the degradation of the value of using external sources.
> What argument? The OP hasn’t made any claims that require proof; he’s not the one arguing *for* a new tax here, only against one.
> Noflaps hasn’t made any claims in this thread that require proof, he has merely challenged some claims made by others. He is free to do that, because the burden of proof isn’t on him. It rests entirely on them.
#1 hypothetical of the ultra-rich selling their stocks and crashing the entire market (no evidence).
#1 doubting the ability of the ultra-rich to be able to handle their own money (no evidence).
#22 supporting trickle-down economics (no evidence of working).
#25 claiming Bezos benefitted others and did good for them with investments (no evidence, also extremely vague).
@pawnedge said in #43:
> You don’t need to prove your innocence; you are innocent till proven guilty. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
If the accuser produces reliable evidence, then I need my own evidence to counter it.
In this topic, salmon_rushdie has provided reliable evidence for their argument, yet all NoFlaps and Alientcp do to counter the sources are with statements that lack credibility and probability.
> You don’t need to prove your innocence; you are innocent till proven guilty. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄
If the accuser produces reliable evidence, then I need my own evidence to counter it.
In this topic, salmon_rushdie has provided reliable evidence for their argument, yet all NoFlaps and Alientcp do to counter the sources are with statements that lack credibility and probability.
@InkyDarkBird, I just got done reading an easily - found, recent, apparent Forbes article online, which discusses the possibility of taxing unrealized capital gains. It seems to be a reasonable article.
I'd post a link, but for various reasons, I don't like posting links online. If you're interested in the topic, I don't think you'll have trouble finding plenty of discussion about it. I didn't.
But that article wasn't what created my original concerns, in any event. I heard a discussion of the possible effects, as discussed by a business and economics pundit whose name I don't currently recall, since it's been several days. That discussion got me to thinking about it.
Have you really thought about it? About taxing UNREALIZED capital gain?
If the law changes (at least I THINK that what is being proposed would be a change --- do not rely on me, I do not provide advice or direction about such matters) -- to make appreciation in any way newly taxable, so as to create any increased tax burden, do you think that would ENCOURAGE purchase of potentially-appreciating assets by Americans (or any others) who happen to be subject to such a tax?
Or do you think it might, instead, create reluctance to buy, or even sometimes a desire or even a need to divest from, such investment, perhaps in order to generate the necessary cash? Sure, a loan is a way some sometimes get some cash. But don't loans ALSO bear interest?
If high-net-worth individuals DO divest themselves of some of their often-large holdings, will that push the prices of those assets up or down, do you think? Do you need a source to think about that? Won't common sense do? The notions of supply and demand, and their effects on prices, have become pretty much part of the common sense most share, have they not?
Let's not play politics here. Just ask yourself -- as a mere "thought experiment" -- would YOU want to pay more taxes on gains that you haven't ACTUALLY made yet? Would YOU really think that's fair? Rational?
Do I really need a "source" to observe that asset values don't necessarily always go up. Sometimes they might even go down, don't you think? Remember what happened during Covid? Do you know of any once-flourishing businesses that later went OUT of business? How about in 1929? You probably DON'T remember that, I guess.
What happens then? What if you pay tax on an "unrealized" gain .... and then the value of those assets goes DOWN and you don't ACTUALLY get any gain from then? What then? I'd be curious to know, too.
Why not just create some more upper brackets and / or slightly raise the tax on some or all brackets? Wouldn't that be simpler and potentially fairer?
Yeah, I know that maybe the tax would only apply to "them rich fellers." But shouldn't we value fairness and rationality for all? And not view golden geese as meals for our own tummies?
And remember, once they can do it to "them rich fellers," they might redefine what that means. Once unfairness and irrationality are allowed to creep in, what's to stop them from being extended to others, later?
Is a bad idea okay as long as it only gores others? I'm not convinced this isn't a bad idea. I haven't yet seen much that makes me think it's a good idea. I'm all in favor of balancing budgets, and even somewhat raising taxes if necessary. But I think there are better, easier, more practical, fairer and more rational solutions than taxing unrealized capital gains.
I could be wrong. We'll see, I guess.
I'd post a link, but for various reasons, I don't like posting links online. If you're interested in the topic, I don't think you'll have trouble finding plenty of discussion about it. I didn't.
But that article wasn't what created my original concerns, in any event. I heard a discussion of the possible effects, as discussed by a business and economics pundit whose name I don't currently recall, since it's been several days. That discussion got me to thinking about it.
Have you really thought about it? About taxing UNREALIZED capital gain?
If the law changes (at least I THINK that what is being proposed would be a change --- do not rely on me, I do not provide advice or direction about such matters) -- to make appreciation in any way newly taxable, so as to create any increased tax burden, do you think that would ENCOURAGE purchase of potentially-appreciating assets by Americans (or any others) who happen to be subject to such a tax?
Or do you think it might, instead, create reluctance to buy, or even sometimes a desire or even a need to divest from, such investment, perhaps in order to generate the necessary cash? Sure, a loan is a way some sometimes get some cash. But don't loans ALSO bear interest?
If high-net-worth individuals DO divest themselves of some of their often-large holdings, will that push the prices of those assets up or down, do you think? Do you need a source to think about that? Won't common sense do? The notions of supply and demand, and their effects on prices, have become pretty much part of the common sense most share, have they not?
Let's not play politics here. Just ask yourself -- as a mere "thought experiment" -- would YOU want to pay more taxes on gains that you haven't ACTUALLY made yet? Would YOU really think that's fair? Rational?
Do I really need a "source" to observe that asset values don't necessarily always go up. Sometimes they might even go down, don't you think? Remember what happened during Covid? Do you know of any once-flourishing businesses that later went OUT of business? How about in 1929? You probably DON'T remember that, I guess.
What happens then? What if you pay tax on an "unrealized" gain .... and then the value of those assets goes DOWN and you don't ACTUALLY get any gain from then? What then? I'd be curious to know, too.
Why not just create some more upper brackets and / or slightly raise the tax on some or all brackets? Wouldn't that be simpler and potentially fairer?
Yeah, I know that maybe the tax would only apply to "them rich fellers." But shouldn't we value fairness and rationality for all? And not view golden geese as meals for our own tummies?
And remember, once they can do it to "them rich fellers," they might redefine what that means. Once unfairness and irrationality are allowed to creep in, what's to stop them from being extended to others, later?
Is a bad idea okay as long as it only gores others? I'm not convinced this isn't a bad idea. I haven't yet seen much that makes me think it's a good idea. I'm all in favor of balancing budgets, and even somewhat raising taxes if necessary. But I think there are better, easier, more practical, fairer and more rational solutions than taxing unrealized capital gains.
I could be wrong. We'll see, I guess.
<Comment deleted by user>
#49:
> Source?
The irony is, even if he gave you a source (not that anything he’s said here requires one), you wouldn’t accept it. You’d say, “Oh, that’s a Right-wing source, and therefore disqualified.” So why do you pretend to care?
Also, why did you delete all your comments in this thread (before this latest one, which I’m sure you’ll also soon delete)? Is that an admission of defeat, or what? :-P
> Source?
The irony is, even if he gave you a source (not that anything he’s said here requires one), you wouldn’t accept it. You’d say, “Oh, that’s a Right-wing source, and therefore disqualified.” So why do you pretend to care?
Also, why did you delete all your comments in this thread (before this latest one, which I’m sure you’ll also soon delete)? Is that an admission of defeat, or what? :-P
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.