Another Alternative Taxation Thread

[corplinx]

I've just finished up my taxes for the year. I have to honestly say that I got more tax breaks than I should have. Its none of the governments business how much mortgage interest I paid, which stocks I own(ed), or how much property tax I had, yet these things got made my percentage of income tax paid 13 percent instead of the highest rate.

Anyhoo, I think its high time we made a national sales tax. Just one penny. That's all. No exemptions. Televangelists, NPOs, tourists, drug dealers, people who pay no income tax (both rich and poor), corporations that incorporate in bermuda, illegal immigrants, subcontractors who don't file, and all others will pay a sales tax. Just one penny. Let's experiment with alternative taxation.

We should also try what I call a "voluntary tax". It is paid in 10 dollar allotments. People who think they aren't paying enough in taxes (the millionaires Dick Gephart keeps talking about) can just pay what they think they should to the voluntary tax. The kicker? One person gets a percentage refund. Some states already run a voluntary tax in the form of a "lottery" where gambling seems to be the emphasis. I would like to see a "voluntary tax" done at a national level without gimmicks, balls, and other things which lower the image of government.

Once again, its none of anyone's business (including the government) how much I make, what stocks I own, how much my house is worth, or any of the other current popular basis' we use for taxation. We need to use Roe v. Wade as the starting point for reforming taxation.

[Roadtoad]

Along these lines, let me offer up a tale I wrote for other websites. It seems to apply here.

Shopping at the Federal Market

They had told us the prices would be competitive with what we were paying before, and ultimately, we’d be paying less for our food when Congress approved the creation of the Federal Market. One by one, the grocery chains all closed, and that left us with only one place to shop.

And so, one morning, I stopped in and I picked up a gallon of milk for eight dollars, a loaf of bread for seven, and a carton of eggs for five. I placed my purchases in the cart and headed for the express checkout line, and paid my twenty dollars.

The clerk promptly rang it all up, then did something weird: she took the milk jug, and poured a six ounce glass of milk and set it aside. Then she took the loaf of bread, and removed a single slice. Finally, she took one egg from the carton. She then took the remaining milk, the loaf, and the eggs, threw them away, and said, “Thank you for shopping with us. Have a nice day.”

“Wait a second,” I demanded. “I just paid you twenty dollars for a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a carton of eggs! What’s going on?”

“Why, that’s our policy here at the Federal Market,” she explained sweetly. “You pay us, and we give your purchases to someone less fortunate than you.”

“But that’s my milk, my bread, and my eggs!” I demanded.

“Yes, and since you can afford them, we’re taking them from you and giving them to someone who can’t. It’s really quite simple when you think about it. After all, if you can afford it, you really don’t need it. So we give your purchases to someone who does.”

“But I do need them,” I explained. “That’s why I bought them.”

“Of course!” she said with a smile. “As does everyone. And so, we do what’s best for everyone, and give your purchases to someone who otherwise couldn’t afford them.”

Now, I was confused. “Well, how do you know what’s best?”

She sighed with frustration. “Because we are the Federal Market. We’re supposed to know what’s best for everyone. It’s our job.”

“But you only took a six ounce glass of milk, one slice of bread, and one egg? You tossed out nearly a full gallon of milk, nearly a whole loaf of bread, and eleven eggs.”

“We would never do such a thing at the Federal Market. We carefully manage our inventory as faithful stewards of our resources. That way, we can give everything you purchased to someone else.”

“But you’re not giving them everything I purchased. You’re only giving them six ounces of milk, a slice of bread, and one egg.”

“That’s right. And think of how much they would have gotten if we’d done things the old fashioned way by giving you the things you purchased. It’s much more compassionate this way, don’t you think?”

“But you wasted nearly a whole gallon of milk, nearly a whole loaf of bread, and eleven eggs! What’s compassionate about that?” I demanded. “I mean, if you hadn’t run the other markets out of business, I could have gone to another store, and bought three gallons of milk, given two gallons away, and kept one for myself.”

“But you never did that before, did you?” the clerk countered. “When there were all those other stores, (interested only in profit, and not thinking about people who couldn’t afford milk), you only bought one gallon of milk, and you drank it all yourself. If you do things our way, people who couldn’t afford milk get milk they wouldn’t have otherwise gotten.”

“But they’re only getting six ounces!”

“But that’s six ounces they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.”

“But you wasted...”

“We don’t waste. We are inherently more efficient here at the Federal Market than most people. After all, we are the only market in town.”

“When there were other markets in town, we used to be able to buy milk for $2.20...”

“...Yes, and the price has been reduced in recent days.”

“Reduced?”

“Well, yes. We were going to charge ten dollars this week, but we’re only charging eight, so you’re saving two.”

“But eight dollars is more than $2.20! And I still didn’t get to keep my gallon of milk!”

“...Which you would drink all by yourself. Now, everyone gets milk.”

“But I didn’t get any. You took my money, and kept the milk, wasting nearly all of it.”

“Isn’t it possible the milk might have gone bad sitting in your refrigerator? I mean, can you really expect us to believe you can drink a whole gallon of milk by yourself?”

I could see I wasn’t getting anywhere. “In that case, I want a refund.”

“Why would you want a refund? Don’t you realize that with us, you get your money’s worth?”

“But I didn’t get my money’s worth. I want my money back!”

“All right, Sir. I’ll refund you the cost of the milk.”

“But I paid you twenty dollars, not only for the milk, but the bread and the eggs as well.”

“Are you certain?”

I showed her the receipt.

She sighed. “Well, all right. But it will take three months for us to process your refund. And you’ll only get back $5.80.”

“Well, do I get the milk, then?”

“No, of course not. What would we give those poor people who can’t afford milk?”

“Why can’t I get all my money back? I mean, I didn’t get any of my purchases.”

“Because,” she explained, “just like expecting to be able to take home all of your purchases, that would be greedy.”

I turned around to face the other people in line. “IS ANYONE ELSE HERE GREEDY?”

Everyone in line raised their hand.


:cool:

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cute. How about showing how this little parable reflects reality in any significant way? After all, parables are easy -- I can just as easily make up a parable about how the Federal Market makes things better for everyone...

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Cute. How about showing how this little parable reflects reality in any significant way? After all, parables are easy -- I can just as easily make up a parable about how the Federal Market makes things better for everyone...

What's stopping you?

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

What's stopping you [making up a parable about how the Federal Market makes things better for everyone]?The knowledge that a parable doesn't make an argument, chihuahua boy. The invention of the actual such parable is left as an excercise (a trivial one) for the reader, the assumption being made that the said reader possesses a modicum of intelligence and creativity. That such a counter-parable can be made easily is self-evident to any such individual, and thus no actual counter-parable is needed (obviously I have no interest in talking to individuals like you who can't pass even such a simple muster).

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Cute. How about showing how this little parable reflects reality in any significant way? After all, parables are easy -- I can just as easily make up a parable about how the Federal Market makes things better for everyone...

Originally posted by WMT1
What's stopping you?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The knowledge that a parable doesn't make an argument, chihuahua boy. The invention of the actual such parable is left as an excercise (a trivial one) for the reader, the assumption being made that the said reader possesses a modicum of intelligence and creativity. That such a counter-parable can be made easily is self-evident to any such individual, and thus no actual counter-parable is needed (obviously I have no interest in talking to individuals like you who can't pass even such a simple muster).

Yeah, I kinda figured you might unleash a few insults to try to spin your failure here as someone else's problem too. Nice work.

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

Yeah, I kinda figured you might unleash a few insults to try to spin your failure here as someone else's problem too. Nice work.:rolleyes: How fscking dumb can you be? belay that, I already know the answer.

Just to prove a point -- this once -- here is a parable in question.

The creation of the Federal Market was a boon to the city, because the superettes existing previously provided a rather limited range of products, simply not having the scale to do better. So I went to the Federal market to buy some groceries.

I paid $3 for a gallon of milk, $1 for the carton of eggs, and 50 cents for a loaf of bread. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that there was high-quality freshly baked bread available for such a reasonable price, and I was most gratified to find a wide variety of frozen pies available as well -- I never saw Key Lime in any other store, and it's my favorite; so I picked one up for the rather steep -- but reasonable, given that it was available at all -- price of $15. I also got a box of cookies for $4, which was higher than at the local superettes, but still reasonable, and the convenience was worth it.

When I came to the checkout, I expressed to the cashier my satisfaction about the wider array of products made available, but wondered abut the peculiar pricing scheme, and the high price of pie especially. The cashier told me that certain products have been marked up to make the wider selection itself possible, and to compensate for the artificially low price of staples like bread and eggs. He also informed me that a large portion of the surplus charges went to provide for the people who couldn't afford the prices -- another fact that I was happy about, because I knew my son's schoolmates whose parents didn't have enough to feed them properly.See? it was trivial, I simply didn't want to bother spending the time on what is essentially monkey work; but there are countless such potential counter-parables, and you thinking that I was 'evading' simply showcases, one more time, just how stupid and pointless you are.

Now mind you, I am sure you won't agree with my parable, just as I didn't agree with the original -- it's just a parable. That's exactly my point -- it's just a parable, nothing more, and demanding that I provide a counter to it is yet one more example of your chihuahua debating "tactics".

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
WMT1

:rolleyes: How fscking dumb can you be? belay that, I already know the answer.

Just to prove a point -- this once -- here is a parable in question.

See? it was trivial, I simply didn't want to bother spending the time on what is essentially monkey work; but there are countless such potential counter-parables, and you thinking that I was 'evading' simply showcases, one more time, just how stupid and pointless you are.

Now mind you, I am sure you won't agree with my parable, just as I didn't agree with the original -- it's just a parable. That's exactly my point -- it's just a parable, nothing more, and demanding that I provide a counter to it is yet one more example of your chihuahua debating "tactics".

You need a lot of jokes explained to you, don't you, Victor?

Sheesh.

BTW.... the first parable was better and had an actual point.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
How fscking dumb can you be? belay that, I already know the answer.

Ya know, Victor, if I'm not so bright, how crappy does it feel to have been trounced by someone so limited?


See? it was trivial, I simply didn't want to bother spending the time on what is essentially monkey work; but there are countless such potential counter-parables, and you thinking that I was 'evading' simply showcases, one more time, just how stupid and pointless you are.

Well, actually, what it "shows" is how acutely aware I am of your track record for evasiveness and excuse-making. But that's OK. You just keep right on spinning your own incompetence as someone else's if it makes you feel better.


Now mind you, I am sure you won't agree with my parable, just as I didn't agree with the original -- it's just a parable. That's exactly my point -- it's just a parable, nothing more,

Well, except for one little detail. The other one actually made its point. Yours was certainly entertaining, but for the wrong reasons.


and demanding that I provide a counter to it is yet one more example of your chihuahua debating "tactics".

What "demanding" are you talking about? You claimed you could easily do something. I responded by asking what was stopping you. You certainly have an affinity for hyperbole, you ill-tempered chihuahuah, you.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jocko

You need a lot of jokes explained to you, don't you, Victor?No, I don't -- WMT1 was serious AFAICT, and he'd done the same stupid stunt in earnest numerous times before.

BTW.... the first parable was better and had an actual point.What can you expect from three paragraphs and a few minutes?

My whole fscking point is that simply having a nice parable that agrees with your preconceptions doesn't prove diddly squat. You think the first parable was better and had a point; I think it sucked donkey balls, and that mine was better and had a point; but either way, they are just fables designed to best showcase a specific ideological bias, and as such, are worthless in a debate. This was why i didn't write mine in the first post in this thread, and why I ridicules WMT1 for demanding it.

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

Ya know, Victor, if I'm not so bright, how crappy does it feel to have been trounced by someone so limited?You keep using that word, "trounced", but I don't think it means what you think it means.

You do remind me of Vassiny an awful lot... except that he was smarter.

Well, except for one little detail. The other one actually made its point. Yours was certainly entertaining, but for the wrong reasons.mine made a point too -- that the federal market provides certain important services. It may not be the point you like, but that's hardly relevant.

Don't look now, but your blind bias is showing.

[Tmy]

Why bother with all this "alternative tax plan". What's the difference if the government is taking money out of your left hand or your right. The money is still gone.

Unless your motive is to design a new tax plan where you pay less and others pay more.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Jocko

No, I don't -- WMT1 was serious AFAICT, and he'd done the same stupid stunt in earnest numerous times before.

What can you expect from three paragraphs and a few minutes?

Not much, but apparently you expected more. So why did you make such a big deal about it, Aesop? You talked the big talk and couldn't deliver. And that's my problem... how?

My whole fscking point is that simply having a nice parable that agrees with your preconceptions doesn't prove diddly squat.

Not quite. The complex issue of taxation was raised; a RELEVANT and QUANTIFIABLY RESONANT (i.e., "on topic") parable was employed to demonstrate a specific position. Just because you turn it around and substitute a positive adjective for every negative adjective in the original doesn't mean that your little story is of equal value.

It's not all about word count, you know.

You think the first parable was better and had a point; I think it sucked donkey balls, and that mine was better and had a point; but either way, they are just fables designed to best showcase a specific ideological bias, and as such, are worthless in a debate.

Oh, so THIS is where the King of the America's gotten to. He's hacked Victor's account. Who else would employ such circular logic?

"I liked my story more, therefore their relative merit is simply one of subjective preference."

Remeber the King going on about how ancient cave paintings "proved" the existence of UFO's, and we had no basis to think of them as anything else? How his wacky theories were more "right" just because they were more interesting to him?

This was why i didn't write mine in the first post in this thread, and why I ridicules WMT1 for demanding it.

As WMT1 clearly states, he demanded nothing. You said you could do better, he asked you to demonstrate, and you didn't live up to the hype. Move on, Vic, it's not like you make a living as a writer and your stories (dull and pouty as they are) have any critical impact on your life... or anyone else's.

Again, the first parable was designed to demonstrate on a micro level the macroeconomics of taxation. It clearly expressed an intelligible and intelligent stance in a humorous way. Yours was a naysaying child's tantrum.

...and that's coming from someone who DOES write for a living.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why bother with all this "alternative tax plan". What's the difference if the government is taking money out of your left hand or your right. The money is still gone.

Unless your motive is to design a new tax plan where you pay less and others pay more.

The point is, taxation should be as private as possible. Its none of anyones business how much my house is worth, if I own stock, if I go to a church, if I lost money gambling, but the government has to know to get my "real return".

If a 28 percent rate is what I pay, then I should pay 28 percent. Whether or not I payed mortagage interest, had capital losses, 5 kids, went to college, lost at blackjack, etc, etc.

They should just cut each rate by 7 percent and remove all deduction (including the standard). Each pays his lot of the income tax while we have one. Like ideal justice, taxation should be mostly blind.

Alternative taxation goes even futher, a consumption tax and a voluntary tax are almost completely anonymous. They can also be paid by people who currently aren't paying taxes or aren't paying much. Corporations who receive huge tax subsidies, people who make money illegally, manual labor subcontractors who never report income, illegal immigrants. I think we should at least try a 1 cent consumption tax to see how it affects government revenue. Perhaps this would let us axe some of those silly hidden federal taxes like the one on your phone bill.

Don't you love it when the press hounds a politician to release their tax returns? As if its anyone's business whats in them?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why bother with all this "alternative tax plan". What's the difference if the government is taking money out of your left hand or your right. The money is still gone.

Unless your motive is to design a new tax plan where you pay less and others pay more.

Well I can think of a couple more good reasons to change the way taxes are collected even without reducing them. (And who said they shouldn't be reduced?)

1. To reduce the cost of collecting them so that more money can be spent on things besides collecting money.

2. To make the taxes more obvious to the average taxpayer instead of hidden taxes, so that people know how much tax they are paying and will ask if they are getting their money's worth.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jocko

Not quite. The complex issue of taxation was raised; a RELEVANT and QUANTIFIABLY RESONANT (i.e., "on topic") parable was employed to demonstrate a specific position.And this was why my original reply -- the one to which WMT1 responded -- was (emphasis mine):

Cute. How about showing how this little parable reflects reality in any significant way? After all, parables are easy -- I can just as easily make up a parable about how the Federal Market makes things better for everyone...I noted the obvious numerical implications in the original parable, and asked for them to be supported; frankly, I don't expect they will be. My point was that parable alone is simply not enough, as anyone can come up with appropriately agreeable fiction.

Just because you turn it around and substitute a positive adjective for every negative adjective in the original doesn't mean that your little story is of equal value.That's exactly what it means at this point it time -- until Roadtoad sipplies the numbers and references. As long as his parable is just a parable, it's as useless as mine was.

Oh, so THIS is where the King of the America's gotten to. He's hacked Victor's account. Who else would employ such circular logic?

"I liked my story more, therefore their relative merit is simply one of subjective preference."This proves it, you are an idiot as well.

Yes, until my original request about supporting data is satisfied, the merit of both stories is indeed only a matter of subjective preference. That's the whole fscking point.

As WMT1 clearly states, he demanded nothing.he didn't? How about:
What's stopping you?
...
I kinda figured you might unleash a few insults to try to spin your failure here as someone else's problem too.The clear implication here is that me not providing the counter-fable is a failure. What the fsck else am I supposed to construe these statements as, but a demand for the failure to be rectified by means of the story in question being posted?

You said you could do betterNo, dude, I didn't; but believe whatever catches your fancy.

he asked you to demonstrate, and you didn't live up to the hype. Move on, Vic, it's not like you make a living as a writer and your stories (dull and pouty as they are) have any critical impact on your life... or anyone else's.I never claimed to be a writer, you idiot. My sole point was that simply making up an agreeable fable proves nothing, that anyone can make up fables that agree with their biases. Literary merit never entered the picture.

Again, the first parable was designed to demonstrate on a micro level the macroeconomics of taxation.it's too blatantly incorrect to do so; but I always stand ready to be corrected, which was why I asked for backing for the data included in the parable.

It clearly expressed an intelligible and intelligent stance in a humorous way.I dunno, while I found the story humorous and intelligible, I didn't find it very intelligent -- or at least not based on reality in any significant way.

Yours was a naysaying child's tantrum.Oh PUHLEEZE. Are you seriously suggesting that literary merit of the author plays any role in determining the validity of their views?..

Yeah, I could have taken a few hours and written a much better story (I don't write for a living, but I do write fairly well); mine wasn't meant to be an artistic creation, and you deriding it for not being such simply shows that you are latching on to any flimsy excuse to brush my point off. So what? it being a good or a bad story has exactly zero effect on it expressing a valid or an invalid point of view.

Heinlein wrote good SciFi (at least some of it was good), but his frequent libertopian rantings therein, don't validate his ideology. I also read lost of good Soviet SciFi, and it being set in a successful communist world doesn't validate communism. Literary merit has nothing to do with the validity of the worldview expressed in the work in question.

For a counter-example, see Right to Read (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) by Richard Stallman. The writing is atrocious, but the view expressed in that parable is valid, because the parable is supported by facts.

...and that's coming from someone who DOES write for a living.if you do, then you certainly don't THINK for a living.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Jocko

I noted the obvious numerical implications in the original parable, and asked for them to be supported; frankly, I don't expect they will be. My point was that parable alone is simply not enough, as anyone can come up with appropriately agreeable fiction.

That's why it's called a parable, and not a case study. Again, I see your reasoning as belonging to the kind of person who needs jokes explained to him.

That's exactly what it means at this point it time -- until Roadtoad sipplies the numbers and references. As long as his parable is just a parable, it's as useless as mine was.

Are you saying that the idea of inefficient government handling of funds and confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth are fictions? The point of the original story was to demonstrate the means and processes of taxation, not to represent a specific numerical replica of the tax code.

I suppose you'd want a version applicable for each tax bracket before you'd get the point.

This proves it, you are an idiot as well.

You insults are as meaningless as your poor attempt at rebuttal parable. All I did was point out your circular reasoning and compare it to the master of the craft, the KOA.

Even in this, you play second fiddle.

Yes, until my original request about supporting data is satisfied, the merit of both stories is indeed only a matter of subjective preference. That's the whole fscking point.

First, if you're going to curse at me, then be a man and curse.

Second, you are maintaining the position that because parable A makes point A and is X words long, and parable B supports point B and is X words long, they are of equal value in a debate. That's not only naive, it's incredibly vain.

Even discounting any policy issues, the original parable was entertaining, a quality yours sorely lacked. You have a real problem with literary criticism, it seems.

The clear implication here is that me not providing the counter-fable is a failure. What the fsck else am I supposed to construe these statements as, but a demand for the failure to be rectified by means of the story in question being posted?

You've mistaken this thread for a writer's workshop. The reason a counter-fable was even requested (not demanded, as you stated twice, but requested), is simply because you felt you had some kind of obscure point to make about the value of parable in debate.

When called on it, you failed. Like I said- move on with your life, Vic. No one's grading you on spelling here. But if you say you can match the original story with a naysaying version of same, then you might want to consider providing one instead of rattling off some meaningless tripe and calling it equal.

Parables are designed to demonstrate truth. What you wrote was designed to argue. You might notice that there are very few parables written about other parables.


I never claimed to be a writer, you idiot. My sole point was that simply making up an agreeable fable proves nothing, that anyone can make up fables that agree with their biases. Literary merit never entered the picture.

Idiot, eh? You are a quick one to retreat into the nearest corner and lash out like a rabid squirrel, aren't you?

You utter inability to grasp the difference between the original story and your poor poseur response makes it clear that literary merit never entered the picture. Too bad you had to make it the focus of what I can only assume you call your argument.

...but I always stand ready to be corrected, which was why I asked for backing for the data included in the parable.

Yeah, I've seen the way you handle criticism and debate here for some time, which is why I rarely bother to respond to your posts. Give up the martyr act, Vic, it doesn't suit you.

Who the hell even asks for the "data backing up a parable"?! Do you pick apart inconsistencies in Schwartzenegger films too? You must be a riot at parties.

I dunno, while I found the story humorous and intelligible, I didn't find it very intelligent -- or at least not based on reality in any significant way.

Your opinion. You've already said (and proven) to have little grasp of what makes a parable a parable, let alone a good parable. Your opnion is weighed accordingly.

Oh PUHLEEZE. Are you seriously suggesting that literary merit of the author plays any role in determining the validity of their views?

When the terms for discussion are within the realm of parable, then yes, it certainly does. If you could demonstrate your point with a pie chart, then I'd urge you to do so. But you took the field against a parable, which is a literary form. You picked the fight; it's too late to complain about the venue.

Yeah, I could have taken a few hours and written a much better story (I don't write for a living, but I do write fairly well)

I suspect that you may have done better. I don't know if MUCH better is fair to say, however.

As to your writing, I agree that you are literate. That doesn't make you literary, in the same way that my ability to use a calculator doesn't make me a mathematician.

mine wasn't meant to be an artistic creation, and you deriding it for not being such simply shows that you are latching on to any flimsy excuse to brush my point off.

No, I said it was an inferior parable. Your point, however, is impossible to discern. As near as I can tell, you point is the government can do no wrong.

I'm afraid I'll have to spot your point before I could brush it off.

So what? it being a good or a bad story has exactly zero effect on it expressing a valid or an invalid point of view.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance regarding the form and function of a parable. It's like you're expecting the grand field unification theory from Hemmingway, and calling him a useless fraud when he doesn't deliver. The right tool for the right job, Vic.

Heinlein wrote good SciFi (at least some of it was good), but his frequent libertopian rantings therein, don't validate his ideology. I also read lost of good Soviet SciFi, and it being set in a successful communist world doesn't validate communism. Literary merit has nothing to do with the validity of the worldview expressed in the work in question.

Parable and fiction are only marginally related, and in the context of this thread, the comparison is facetious. Again you take pride in nit-picking that which is not designed to be perfect and airtight, and patting yourself on the back for your cleverness.

For a counter-example, see Right to Read (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) by Richard Stallman. The writing is atrocious, but the view expressed in that parable is valid, because the parable is supported by facts.

A factually accurate but badly-drafted parable is not a parable.

It is a Victor Danilchenko post.

if you do, then you certainly don't THINK for a living.

More empty ad hominems from a bully who cannot fight his way out of the corner he's backed himself into. I don't care if you're Albert *********** (note spelling) Einstein, you shouldn't pretend you didn't sleep through elementary literature.

Please don't bother replying, I'm done wasting time with your ignorance. Just type "idiot" a few times and maybe you'll feel better.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
You keep using that word, "trounced", but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Sure it does. You got your ass kicked. You were repeatedly stumped by legitimate questions about the arguments you were making. And rather than simply owning up to it, you claimed it would take too much time to answer them. When I made suggestions for addressing that excuse, you decided to then dismiss them all as irrelevant. And somewhere in there was your attempt to cover for your evasiveness with that rather conveniently timed "reset" of the discussion. Is it all coming back yet?


Well, except for one little detail. The other one actually made its point. Yours was certainly entertaining, but for the wrong reasons.

mine made a point too -- that the federal market provides certain important services.

You mean milk, eggs, and bread? Or cookies and pies? Sorry, but if anything, you appeared to be going for the more laughable point that whatever services government provides, it does so efficiently, or with a high degree of customer satisfaction, or something like that.


Don't look now, but your blind bias is showing.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess that this is just another attempt on your part to create the impression of a valid criticism. Get back to me if you think you've got something more.


What's stopping you? ...

I kinda figured you might unleash a few insults to try to spin your failure here as someone else's problem too.

The clear implication here is that me not providing the counter-fable is a failure.

Well, gosh, Victor, that's probably because, at the time, you had claimed you could do so, but then, predictably, made insult-laden excuses for not doing so.


What the fsck else am I supposed to construe these statements as, but a demand for the failure to be rectified by means of the story in question being posted?

Probably as a question prompted by a claim you made, and then an observation about the predictability of your initial response. I hope that helps.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jocko
Idiot, eh? You are a quick one to retreat into the nearest corner and lash out like a rabid squirrel, aren't you?

...

More empty ad hominems from a bully who cannot fight his way out of the corner he's backed himself into.

I'm glad someone else has noticed Victor's trademarks. I was starting to wonder.

[Roadtoad]

Geez, Vic, I thought you would have gotten the point of it. I kept it to a level that could be understood by even Jedi Knight.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jocko

That's why it's called a parable, and not a case study.Well, fscking bingo, give the man a medal.

Again, I see your reasoning as belonging to the kind of person who needs jokes explained to him.:rolleyes:

Are you saying that the idea of inefficient government handling of funds and confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth are fictions?The best lie is a small one, as they say. No, such idea is certainly not fiction -- but such relatively inefficient governments also do many things that cannot be done in any other way.

The point of the original story was to demonstrate the means and processes of taxation, not to represent a specific numerical replica of the tax code.it failed to do so truthfully even within an order of approximation. "She then took the remaining milk, the loaf, and the eggs, threw them away" certainly doesn't represent a valid metaphor for how taxation actually works -- neither qualitativbely nor quantitatively.

I suppose you'd want a version applicable for each tax bracket before you'd get the point.I would want a version that doesn't resort to ridiculous hyperbole to make an otherwise-unmakable point. After all, according to your own admission, the said parable was supposed to make a point abut the real process occurring out here in the real world...

First, if you're going to curse at me, then be a man and curse.Why/ i find fscking to be much more useful for people like you than ***********. :D

Second, you are maintaining the position that because parable A makes point A and is X words long, and parable B supports point B and is X words long, they are of equal value in a debate. That's not only naive, it's incredibly vain.No, you idiot (yes, there it is again), I maintain that they are both equally devoid of value when trying to support a position.

This was why all i said to Roadtoad was a request for support -- and why I derided WMT1 for missing a point by demanding that I supply a counter-fable.

See, here's how the story went, since you missed it:

Roadtoad posted a parable
I asked for the references on numbers contained in the parable, stating that mere parable is not enough when it's intended as a polemic
WMT1 derided me for not actually posting an alternative parable (as if it mattered!)
I posted an alternative just to satisfy WMT1's stupid claims that me not doing so amounted to a failure
You attacked me for posting a bad parable (as if it's relevant to the topic!)Do you see the problem?

Even discounting any policy issues, the original parable was entertaining, a quality yours sorely lacked. You have a real problem with literary criticism, it seems.I have a problem with literary criticism or something that's not supposed to be a literary work, yes. My counter-fable was made only to satisfy WMT1, in case you missed it (which you obviously did).

You've mistaken this thread for a writer's workshop.i think you are projecting...

But if you say you can match the original story with a naysaying version of same, then you might want to consider providing one instead of rattling off some meaningless tripe and calling it equal.I never claimed that they would be equal in literary sense, but rather than they would support their respective view equally well (or equally badly, to be more precise).

Parables are designed to demonstrate truth."Demonstrate" here is such a vague word. parables can be used to help understand, but they are hardly useful for convincing once understanding is achieved. However, that parable was a polemic disguised as a fable -- which was why I requested that the implications therein be supported.

Idiot, eh? You are a quick one to retreat into the nearest corner and lash out like a rabid squirrel, aren't you?I think "cornered muskrat" is so much more appropriate when trying to describe behavior like yours, don't you think? Chuchundra is such a wonderful character for casting aspersions...

You utter inability to grasp the difference between the original story and your poor poseur response makes it clear that literary merit never entered the picture. Too bad you had to make it the focus of what I can only assume you call your argument.<sigh> it was never meant to be the focus of my argument -- my point was that biased unsupported parables are dime a dozen. You are the one who is trying to create a problem where there was none.

Who the hell even asks for the "data backing up a parable"?!Someone who sees an obviously polemic parable presented in a debate forum, a parable that clearly implies some numeric validity.

Do you pick apart inconsistencies in Schwartzenegger films too?Only when they try to be more than they are, of which the last one was -- none; I can't recall any Arnie movies which overreached themselves. However, I most certainly do pick apart movies like Star Wars which pretend to something they have no claim to.

No, I said it was an inferior parable.I agreed. In fact, I explicitly said that my parable was never meant to be an artistic freation.

Your point, however, is impossible to discern.Gee, i wonder whose fault this lack of discernment is?

My original point is that as polemic -- which the opriginal parable clearly was -- the fable alone is not enough; my secondary point was that WMT1 is a moron for missing the first point.

As near as I can tell, you point is the government can do no wrong.And this is why I called you an idiot.

My point is that a view expressed in a parable is not supported by the parable. I can make a parable about how selfishness is good, or about how selflessness is good; about how communism is the best, or laissez-faire capitalism is. Ideological fables are cheap and plentiful. As such, using a parable in an argument is only useful insofar as it helps express your point, but it does nothing to actually support it. Roadtoad's parable appeared to be trying to do the latter, and as such, I called on its numbers.

I'm afraid I'll have to spot your point before I could brush it off.That's because it's coming from your blind side, which is easy, since both of your sides seem to be blind... :)

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance regarding the form and function of a parable. It's like you're expecting the grand field unification theory from Hemmingway, and calling him a useless fraud when he doesn't deliver. The right tool for the right job, Vic.Yeah. the right tool for the right job. This is why a parable that makes specific statements about specific aspects of taxation is either a purely literary creation, useless in dealing with the actual real-world taxation issues; or can be treated as a polemic. i think it's quite clear which category this specific parable best belongs in -- you don't get to make a specific policy claim in a parable in a debate forum, and have it overlooked simply because it's tagged as a fable.

Parable and fiction are only marginally related, and in the context of this thread, the comparison is facetious. Again you take pride in nit-picking that which is not designed to be perfect and airtightNot at all -- in fact, i very much recognize the parable in question as being quite far from perfection and

More empty ad hominems from a bully who cannot fight his way out of the corner he's backed himself into.I seem to be getting this bizarre claim a lot from WMT1, too -- and it seems that you share in his peculiar affliction, that being the lack of actual ability to think.

Please don't bother replying, I'm done wasting time with your ignorance.Your call.

Just type "idiot" a few times and maybe you'll feel better.Thanks for the suggestion, i just did it -- you were right, it sure makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Jocko

Well, fscking bingo, give the man a medal.

:rolleyes:



This is precisely why debating you is pointless.

You consistently make my points for me, therefore there is no reason for me to continue. Fling your barbs against someone who gives a damn, Vic. I don't debate spoiled children.

All one has to do to win an argument with you is to wait for you to self-destruct and implode into a mire of wink-and-nod affected cleverness. What an ass you must be in person.

I take back what I said about you and the KOA. He was never this bad.

Have fun arguing with yourself.

[Victor Danilchenko]

I can't say it's been a pleasure, jocko, but it's certainly been something. Have a life.