Mankiw says, Mississippi smarter than Krugman's New Jersey
susupply
Good Ol' Boys:
-----------------quote-------------------
The big story in that election was the victory of Republicans in Mississippi
and Kentucky. The secondary story, however, was a string of victories by
Democrats in affluent suburban areas in the Northeast. In my state, New
Jersey, Democrats took firm control of the state's Legislature.
What this tells us is that some people - either in New Jersey, Mississippi
or both - voted against their economic interests. For whatever you think of
Bush's economic plan, it's clearly much better for New Jersey - a rich
state, which gains a lot from tax cuts tilted toward the affluent - than for
a poor state like Mississippi.
Consider, for example, the effects of estate tax repeal, a central feature
of the 2001 tax cut. Almost nobody in Mississippi pays the estate tax. In
2001 only 249 estates in Mississippi paid any tax at all; raising the
exemption to $5 million, which some Democrats suggested as an alternative to
full repeal, would have reduced that to a couple of dozen. By contrast, New
Jersey, with three times Mississippi's population, had almost 10 times as
many taxable estates.
----------------------endquote----------------------
But Greg Mankiw says, think a second time:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/NPressClub20031104.pdf
Defenders of the estate tax often claim that it is a highly progressive tax.
It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
percent of estates. From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the
burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
If you look more closely at this argument, you will see that it rests on a
particular,
and I believe untenable,theory of tax incidence. This argument is coherent
only under
the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on the
decedent.
[snip]
The economists who
prepare distributional tables wisely pay no heed to Congress ' statements
about who pays
excise taxes. Instead, they always assume that the burden of excise taxes
falls on
consumers. Similarly, these economists ignore Congress ' declaration that
the Social
Security-Medicare payroll tax burden is split equally between employers and
employees.
Instead, they generally assume that the burden is borne entirely by the
employees.
Although these conclusions about where the tax burden falls may not be
exactly right,
they are reasonable conjectures based on solid economics.
Unfortunately,the same insights have not been applied to the estate tax.
Under
what circumstances would the estate tax actually fall only on the decedent?
That would
happen if the tax prompted the decedent to reduce his consumption during his
lifetime, so
that he could satisfy the tax obligation without diminishing the after-tax
bequests left to
his loved ones. In other words, the estate tax would have to reduce
lifetime consumption
and promote estate accumulation.
[snip]
The estate tax is a tax on capital. As such, one would naturally expect it
to discourage capital accumulation. Now, put this together with the fact
that a smaller capital stock reduces productivity and labor income
throughout the economy and the implication is clear: the repeal of the
estate tax would stimulate growth and raise incomes for everyone, even
those who never receive a bequest.
The average worker has little reason to know that his weekly paycheck is
smaller
because of the existence of the estate tax. He may never realize that he
bears part of the
burden of the estate tax. But these subtle, indirect effects are at the
heart of how
economies work. Giving this worker (or,at least,his elected
representatives) that
information is an important part of an economist 's professional
responsibility.
The flaws in the distributional analysis of the estate tax also apply to
analyses of
capital income taxation in general, including the corporate income tax and
the taxation of
capital gains and dividends under the individual income tax. The burden of
these taxes is
almost always assumed to fall on the owners of capital. The burden shifted
to labor is
generally ignored.
--------------------endquote---------------------
sinister
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:06vrb.18356$Oo4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
...and how much evidence does he provide that the incidence might be as he
claims? Zero...
Rue The Day
> to discourage capital accumulation. Now, put this together with the fact
> that a smaller capital stock reduces productivity and labor income
> throughout the economy and the implication is clear:
Why would it result in a smaller total capital stock rather than an
equivalent but more equally distributed capital stock? Particularly
if the estate tax is intelligently designed with an exemption (say
$3-$5 million) that would enable 99% of those passing on an estate to
avoid the tax entirely. Mankiw's argument sounds a lot like the
supply siders' Laffer Curve idiocy. People are not going to just stop
saving money because they know that some of it will be taxed when it
is passed to their heirs.
> the repeal of the
> estate tax would stimulate growth and raise incomes for everyone, even
> those who never receive a bequest.
Nonsense. It would merely lead to a greater concentration of wealth.
> The average worker has little reason to know that his weekly paycheck is
> smaller
> because of the existence of the estate tax. He may never realize that he
> bears part of the
> burden of the estate tax.
Because he doesn't bear part of the burden.
> But these subtle, indirect effects are at the
> heart of how
> economies work. Giving this worker (or,at least,his elected
> representatives) that
> information is an important part of an economist 's professional
> responsibility.
>
> The flaws in the distributional analysis of the estate tax also apply to
> analyses of
> capital income taxation in general, including the corporate income tax and
> the taxation of
> capital gains and dividends under the individual income tax. The burden of
> these taxes is
> almost always assumed to fall on the owners of capital. The burden shifted
> to labor is
> generally ignored.
For the past 80+ years, the burden of taxation has fallen more and
more on the backs of labor. Shifting even more of that burden onto
their backs and hoping for second and third order effects to somehow
make those workers better off is not the solution. Personally, I'd
like to see the burden moved off of BOTH labor and capital and onto
economic rents, but barring that it shouldn't be shifted from capital
TO labor.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:06vrb.18356$Oo4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Paul--Lean on Me--Krugman, recently lamented the dopiness of those
>Southern
>> Good Ol' Boys:
>>
>>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman
>>
>> -----------------quote-------------------
>> The big story in that election was the victory of Republicans in
>Mississippi
>> and Kentucky. The secondary story, however, was a string of victories by
>> Democrats in affluent suburban areas in the Northeast. In my state, New
>> Jersey, Democrats took firm control of the state's Legislature.
>>
>> What this tells us is that some people - either in New Jersey, Mississippi
>> or both - voted against their economic interests. For whatever you think
>of
>> Bush's economic plan, it's clearly much better for New Jersey - a rich
>> state, which gains a lot from tax cuts tilted toward the affluent - than
>for
>> a poor state like Mississippi.
More accurately, the Bush plan is even worse for Mississippi than for
New Jersey.
>> But Greg Mankiw says, think a second time:
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/NPressClub20031104.pdf
>>
>> Defenders of the estate tax often claim that it is a highly progressive
>tax.
>> It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
>> percent of estates. From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the
>> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
>> If you look more closely at this argument, you will see that it rests on a
>> particular,
>> and I believe untenable,theory of tax incidence.
It is Mankiw's theory of tax incidence that is known to be false.
>This argument is coherent only under
>> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on the
>> decedent.
>> [snip]
That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
>...and how much evidence does he provide that the incidence might be as he
>claims? Zero...
>
>> The economists who
>> prepare distributional tables wisely pay no heed to Congress ' statements
>> about who pays
>> excise taxes. Instead, they always assume that the burden of excise taxes
>> falls on
>> consumers.
This assumption is known to be wildly false.
>Similarly, these economists ignore Congress ' declaration that
>> the Social
>> Security-Medicare payroll tax burden is split equally between employers
>and
>> employees.
>> Instead, they generally assume that the burden is borne entirely by the
>> employees.
Also known to be false.
>> Although these conclusions about where the tax burden falls may not be
>> exactly right,
>> they are reasonable conjectures based on solid economics.
No, actually, they aren't. Solid economics knows that tax burdens are
shifted according to elasticities. Until Mankiw can show a positive
elasticity of supply for estates, he is just lying.
>> Unfortunately,the same insights have not been applied to the estate tax.
>> Under
>> what circumstances would the estate tax actually fall only on the
>decedent?
>> That would
>> happen if the tax prompted the decedent to reduce his consumption during
>his
>> lifetime, so
>> that he could satisfy the tax obligation without diminishing the after-tax
>> bequests left to
>> his loved ones. In other words, the estate tax would have to reduce
>> lifetime consumption
>> and promote estate accumulation.
Lie.
>> [snip]
>>
>> The estate tax is a tax on capital.
An outrageous lie. The estate tax falls just as heavily on the
portions of estates which do not consist of capital (likely the
majority), and does not tax capital which is not transferred as part
of an estate (the vast majority). Mankiw is just another lying liar
who lies the deliberate lies other lying liars lie.
>As such, one would naturally expect it
>> to discourage capital accumulation.
But one would be wrong.
>Now, put this together with the fact
>> that a smaller capital stock reduces productivity and labor income
>> throughout the economy and the implication is clear: the repeal of the
>> estate tax would stimulate growth and raise incomes for everyone, even
>> those who never receive a bequest.
But it won't.
>> The average worker has little reason to know that his weekly paycheck is
>> smaller
>> because of the existence of the estate tax.
He doesn't believe Mankiw's lie because his weekly paycheck is in fact
bigger because of the existence of the estate tax.
>He may never realize that he
>> bears part of the
>> burden of the estate tax. But these subtle, indirect effects are at the
>> heart of how
>> economies work. Giving this worker (or,at least,his elected
>> representatives) that
>> information is an important part of an economist 's professional
>> responsibility.
For this lying liar even to mention economists' professional
responsibilities is grotesquely sickening.
-- Roy L
sinister
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:3fb0069b...@news.telus.net...
I thought it's commonly agreed that most of the burden falls on the
employee.
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
teeing himself up,
wrote in message news:3fb0069b...@news.telus.net...
> >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/NPressClub20031104.pdf
> >>
> >> Defenders of the estate tax often claim that it is a highly progressive
> >tax.
> >> It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
> >> percent of estates. From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that
the
> >> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
>
> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
No, it's a Krugman:
---------------------quote--------------------------
February 11, 2001
Slicing the Salami
By PAUL KRUGMAN
...
Basically, there are three federal taxes on individuals. The
payroll tax, which is levied at a flat rate of 15.3 percent of
income up to a maximum of almost $70,000, is the main tax paid by
about four out of five families. The income tax is less than 10
percent of income for most families, but it rises to around 30
percent of the income of million-dollar earners. And the
inheritance tax, which applies only to estates of more than
$675,000 (twice that for couples), is a tax on only the very well
off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
----------------------quote----------------------
And he repeated the claim just a couple of months ago (September 14, 2003,
The Tax-Cut Con):
<<...the most striking
example of what skillful marketing can accomplish is the campaign for
repeal of the estate tax.
<< As demonstrated, the estate tax is a tax on the very, very well off. >>
Whack! Just like on the driving range.
> That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
and
> This assumption is known to be wildly false.
and
> Also known to be false.
and
> Until Mankiw can show a positive
> elasticity of supply for estates, he is just lying.
and
> Lie.
> An outrageous lie. The estate tax falls just as heavily on the
> portions of estates which do not consist of capital (likely the
> majority), and does not tax capital which is not transferred as part
> of an estate (the vast majority). Mankiw is just another lying liar
> who lies the deliberate lies other lying liars lie.
and
> He doesn't believe Mankiw's lie because his weekly paycheck is in fact
> bigger because of the existence of the estate tax.
and
> For this lying liar even to mention economists' professional
> responsibilities is grotesquely sickening.
Speaking of , "grotesquely sickening", how about apologizing to Mankiw for
your stupid error I exposed at the beginning of this post.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:3fb0069b...@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:22:16 GMT, "sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:06vrb.18356$Oo4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >> Paul--Lean on Me--Krugman, recently lamented the dopiness of those
>> >Southern
>> >> Good Ol' Boys:
>>
>> >Similarly, these economists ignore Congress ' declaration that
>> >> the Social
>> >> Security-Medicare payroll tax burden is split equally between employers
>> >and
>> >> employees.
>> >> Instead, they generally assume that the burden is borne entirely by the
>> >> employees.
>>
>> Also known to be false.
>
>I thought it's commonly agreed that most of the burden falls on the
>employee.
Most is not all. There is no doubt among economists that the burden
is shared, in proportions which are difficult to know accurately.
Burden shifting means that some of the employers' share is paid by
employees, and vice versa. Even if the elasticity is greater on the
demand side, not _all_ the burden can be shifted to employees.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Thank you for posting the proof that you lied.
Look up about 30 lines. Mankiw claims, "From this fact, defenders of
the tax claim that the burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2
percent of Americans." Krugman clearly makes no such claim. Yet you
claimed he did. So you lied. As usual.
>And he repeated the claim just a couple of months ago (September 14, 2003,
>The Tax-Cut Con):
>
><<...the most striking
>example of what skillful marketing can accomplish is the campaign for
>repeal of the estate tax.
>
><< As demonstrated, the estate tax is a tax on the very, very well off. >>
>
>Whack! Just like on the driving range.
Yep. Krugman is 100% correct, and you and Mankiw both lied.
>> That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
>
>and
>
>> This assumption is known to be wildly false.
>
>and
>
>> Also known to be false.
>
>and
>> Until Mankiw can show a positive
>> elasticity of supply for estates, he is just lying.
>
>and
>
>> Lie.
>
>> An outrageous lie. The estate tax falls just as heavily on the
>> portions of estates which do not consist of capital (likely the
>> majority), and does not tax capital which is not transferred as part
>> of an estate (the vast majority). Mankiw is just another lying liar
>> who lies the deliberate lies other lying liars lie.
>
>and
>
>> He doesn't believe Mankiw's lie because his weekly paycheck is in fact
>> bigger because of the existence of the estate tax.
>
>and
>
>> For this lying liar even to mention economists' professional
>> responsibilities is grotesquely sickening.
>
>Speaking of , "grotesquely sickening", how about apologizing to Mankiw for
>your stupid error I exposed at the beginning of this post.
??? You posted the _proof_ that you and Mankiw _both_ lied! Anyone
reading this can verify that fact for himself. Too bad you snipped
all the lies I identified. But context-snipping is a habit too deeply
ingrained for you to change now.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
wrote in message news:3fb12ca1...@news.telus.net...
the usenet equivalent of, "Who are ya gonna believe, me or your own lying
eyes."
[Mankiw said:]
> > ... defenders of the tax claim that
> >the
> >> >> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
Roy made the request:
> >> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
And when the request was met with two instances (there are more available)
of Paul Krugman saying just that:
> > the
> > inheritance tax, which applies only to estates of more than
> > $675,000 (twice that for couples), is a tax on only the very well
> > off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
> > is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
Ry displayed his intellectual honesty with this brazen LIE:
> Thank you for posting the proof that you lied.
>
> Look up about 30 lines. Mankiw claims, "From this fact, defenders of
> the tax claim that the burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2
> percent of Americans." Krugman clearly makes no such claim. Yet you
> claimed he did. So you lied. As usual.
As usual, Roy is so embarrassed by the truth, he starts digging himself in
deeper. So, go ahead, Roy, explain it all to us; how is Mankiw's "only on
the richest 2 percent of Americans" not consistent with Krugman's, "on only
the very well off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax"?
This should be fun.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
> wrote in message news:3fb12ca1...@news.telus.net...
>
>the usenet equivalent of, "Who are ya gonna believe, me or your own lying
>eyes."
I urge readers to read this exchange very carefully, in order to
verify for themselves that Patrick and Mankiw are lying liars, while
Krugman and I have told the truth.
>[Mankiw said:]
>
>> > ... defenders of the tax claim that
>> >the
>> >> >> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
>
>Roy made the request:
>
>> >> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
>
>And when the request was met with two instances (there are more available)
>of Paul Krugman saying just that:
Liar.
>> > the
>> > inheritance tax, which applies only to estates of more than
>> > $675,000 (twice that for couples), is a tax on only the very well
>> > off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
>> > is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
>
>Ry displayed his intellectual honesty with this brazen LIE:
I identified your lie, liar.
>> Thank you for posting the proof that you lied.
>>
>> Look up about 30 lines. Mankiw claims, "From this fact, defenders of
>> the tax claim that the burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2
>> percent of Americans." Krugman clearly makes no such claim. Yet you
>> claimed he did. So you lied. As usual.
>
>As usual, Roy is so embarrassed by the truth, he starts digging himself in
>deeper.
I have identified your lies.
>So, go ahead, Roy, explain it all to us; how is Mankiw's "only on
>the richest 2 percent of Americans" not consistent with Krugman's, "on only
>the very well off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax"?
<sigh> It should be obvious, even to a lying fool like you, that the
average number of beneficiaries per estate is more than one. As the
burden of the tax is shared among the beneficiaries of the estates
that pay the tax, Mankiw's claim is a lie, while Krugman's statement
accurately means that the burden falls on more or less all the
beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax (certain kinds of
beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
have. But contrary to Mankiw's lie and the lies you have used to
support his lie, neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
of Americans. Mankiw is lying filth, and you are lying filth.
In addition, it is not strictly the largest 2% of estates that pay the
tax: whether an estate pays the tax depends in part on what measures
the deceased took to avoid it. So Mankiw lied (while Krugman was
accurate) about the burden falling _exclusively_ on the richest 2% of
Americans, because not all the tax is paid by the _largest_ 2% of
estates; and Mankiw also lied while Krugman was accurate about the
burden falling on only 2% of the population.
>This should be fun.
Identifying and refuting your lies is not fun for me. It's just
distasteful and boring.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
just as I predicted,
wrote in message news:3fb270e1...@news.telus.net...
This fun thing:
> >So, go ahead, Roy, explain it all to us; how is Mankiw's "only on
> >the richest 2 percent of Americans" not consistent with Krugman's, "on
only
> >the very well off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax"?
>
> <sigh> It should be obvious, even to a lying fool like you, that the
> average number of beneficiaries per estate is more than one. As the
> burden of the tax is shared among the beneficiaries of the estates
> that pay the tax, Mankiw's claim is a lie....
Interesting. Only two days ago you were loudly proclaiming Mankiw to be
lying filth for claiming that the burden fell on the heirs and not the
estate.
[Mankiw:]
> >This argument is coherent only under
> >> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on the
> >> decedent.
[Roy:]
> That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
So, Roy was either lying then, or is lying now. Returning to today's mental
gymnastics, Roy says:
> ...while Krugman's statement
> accurately means that the burden falls on more or less all the
> beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
Again, a lie. But that is Mankiw's argument, and Roy charmingly called him
a lying liar for having made it.
Here's what Krugman actually said:
> ...a tax on only the very well
> off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
> is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
Nothing about the "beneficiaries of the 2% of estates" at all. Nor in
Krugman's:
" the estate tax is a tax on the very, very well off."
So, Roy is exposed as "lying filth". For about the hundredth time on
sci.econ.
[snip]
> But contrary to Mankiw's lie and the lies you have used to
> support his lie, neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
> tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
> of Americans. Mankiw is lying filth, and you are lying filth.
In addition to Krugman saying it, here's the CBPP:
http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm
<< Repealing the estate tax ... would provide a massive windfall for some of
the country's wealthiest families.
<< In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people - fewer than 1.9 percent
of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate tax.
The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people who
die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two
percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100 people
who die face no estate tax whatsoever. >>
Here's the National Women's Law Center:
http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PermanentTaxBreaksForTheWealthiest.pdf
<< The Senate will soon consider legislation to permanently repeal the
estate tax. Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
Americans...>>
Here's a story based on an Ohio State University academic's work:
http://www.asanet.org/media/taxes.html
<< WASHINGTON, DC-The federal government's most effective tool for reducing
wealth inequality is the estate tax, but the tax is being phased out so that
by 2010 the government will no longer collect taxes on the estates of the
rich. Eliminating this important source of federal revenue, researcher Lisa
A. Keister says, simply will create an economic burden for 98 percent of
Americans to allow a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of the U.S.
population.>>
Do you see a pattern there, Roy?
> In addition, it is not strictly the largest 2% of estates that pay the
> tax: whether an estate pays the tax depends in part on what measures
> the deceased took to avoid it. So Mankiw lied...
NO, that was Mankiw's point; it does NOT fall only on the richest 2%.
Dumbkopf.
> ... (while Krugman was
> accurate) about the burden falling _exclusively_ on the richest 2% of
> Americans, because not all the tax is paid by the _largest_ 2% of
> estates; and Mankiw also lied while Krugman was accurate about the
> burden falling on only 2% of the population.
Dizzy?
Rue The Day
> <ro...@telus.net>
> > <sigh> It should be obvious, even to a lying fool like you, that the
> > average number of beneficiaries per estate is more than one. As the
> > burden of the tax is shared among the beneficiaries of the estates
> > that pay the tax, Mankiw's claim is a lie....
>
> Interesting. Only two days ago you were loudly proclaiming Mankiw to be
> lying filth for claiming that the burden fell on the heirs and not the
> estate.
>
> [Mankiw:]
> > >This argument is coherent only under
> > >> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on the
> > >> decedent.
>
> [Roy:]
> > That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
>
> So, Roy was either lying then, or is lying now.
Now I understand why Roy goes through great pains to point out your
lies. Decedent != heir.
ro...@telus.net
<susu...@mindspring.com>,
continuing his incessant campaign of disinformation, wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>just as I predicted,
>
> wrote in message news:3fb270e1...@news.telus.net...
>
>This fun thing:
>
>> >So, go ahead, Roy, explain it all to us; how is Mankiw's "only on
>> >the richest 2 percent of Americans" not consistent with Krugman's, "on
>only
>> >the very well off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax"?
>>
>> <sigh> It should be obvious, even to a lying fool like you, that the
>> average number of beneficiaries per estate is more than one. As the
>> burden of the tax is shared among the beneficiaries of the estates
>> that pay the tax, Mankiw's claim is a lie....
>
>Interesting. Only two days ago you were loudly proclaiming Mankiw to be
>lying filth for claiming that the burden fell on the heirs and not the
>estate.
No, lying filth. His lie (at that point in the article, anyway) was
to claim that the pro-estate-tax argument _assumed_ the burden fell
exclusively on the _decedent_, and that it somehow _depended_ on that
assumption. Thank you for providing the proof that you are a liar, in
the following quote:
>[Mankiw:]
>> >This argument is coherent only under
>> >> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on the
>> >> decedent.
Which makes it absolutely clear and indisputable that Mankiw claims --
falsely, as it happens -- that the pro-estate-tax assumption is that
the burden falls on the _decedent_, not the _estate_, and that the
argument for its progressivity is only coherent under that assumption.
>[Roy:]
>> That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
>
>So, Roy was either lying then, or is lying now.
No, Mankiw lied, and you lied about his lies.
It is certainly a fact that the estate pays the estate tax. Whether
you want to say that the _burden_ falls on the estate rather than the
heirs is a matter of definitions: if you want to say that only human
beings can bear tax burdens, then the burden falls on the heirs, as
the estate is not a human being and neither, any longer, is the
decedent. I don't happen to like that definition, because it is
tendentious: it defines away all tax burdens that might be borne by
corporations, estates, trusts, foundations, governments, etc.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, and in the interest of
my ongoing effort to elicit one single honest statement from you on
any subject whatsoever, I am willing to go along with the implicit
assumption that only human beings can bear tax burdens, retract my
statement above, and stipulate that the burden of the estate tax falls
on the heirs (with certain exceptions as noted before in this thread).
>Returning to today's mental
>gymnastics, Roy says:
>
>> ...while Krugman's statement
>> accurately means that the burden falls on more or less all the
>> beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>
>Again, a lie.
Nope. It is fact, and Krugman's statement cannot be taken to mean the
burden falls anywhere else (if you assume only human beings can bear
tax burdens, by definition).
>But that is Mankiw's argument, and Roy charmingly called him
>a lying liar for having made it.
?? No, that is _not_ Mankiw's argument, as _proved_ by the very quote
you provided above.
Lying liar.
>Here's what Krugman actually said:
>
>> ...a tax on only the very well
>> off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
>> is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
>
>Nothing about the "beneficiaries of the 2% of estates" at all.
?? So, now you are changing your lie to a claim that Krugman claims
that estates have no beneficiaries? Or are you lying that Krugman has
never made any statement clarifying the burden of the estate tax other
than the one you quoted above? Krugman's statement is completely
factual. Unlike Mankiw's and yours.
>Nor in
>Krugman's:
>
>" the estate tax is a tax on the very, very well off."
>
>So, Roy is exposed as "lying filth".
Lie. Krugman's statement clearly disproves Mankiw's claim that
arguments for the estate tax's progressivity depend on its burden
falling only on the richest 2%.
>For about the hundredth time on sci.econ.
Another lie. And it's about the millionth, in Patrick's case.
>> But contrary to Mankiw's lie and the lies you have used to
>> support his lie, neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
>> tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
>> of Americans. Mankiw is lying filth, and you are lying filth.
>
>In addition to Krugman saying it,
Liar.
>here's the CBPP:
>
>http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm
>
><< Repealing the estate tax ... would provide a massive windfall for some of
>the country's wealthiest families.
>
><< In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people - fewer than 1.9 percent
>of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate tax.
>The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people who
>die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two
>percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100 people
>who die face no estate tax whatsoever. >>
This quote also proves that you and Mankiw both lied about the content
of pro-estate-tax arguments. Nowhere does the above quote claim that
the burden falls only on the richest 2%. You lied again (surprise!).
>Here's the National Women's Law Center:
>
>http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PermanentTaxBreaksForTheWealthiest.pdf
>
><< The Senate will soon consider legislation to permanently repeal the
>estate tax. Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
>Americans...>>
OK. _Now_ I have seen _one_ pro-estate-tax argument that makes the
false claim about its burden.
>Here's a story based on an Ohio State University academic's work:
>
>http://www.asanet.org/media/taxes.html
>
><< WASHINGTON, DC-The federal government's most effective tool for reducing
>wealth inequality is the estate tax, but the tax is being phased out so that
>by 2010 the government will no longer collect taxes on the estates of the
>rich. Eliminating this important source of federal revenue, researcher Lisa
>A. Keister says, simply will create an economic burden for 98 percent of
>Americans to allow a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of the U.S.
>population.>>
>
>Do you see a pattern there, Roy?
Yes. The pattern is that you are able, no doubt after extensive web
crawling, to quote a _few_ pro-estate-tax people who have made false
claims about its burden (dumb people and inaccurate claims can be
found "supporting" almost anything, after all -- do you want me to
start demolishing Rush's anti-estate-tax howlers again?), and then on
that basis falsely imply that this supports Mankiw's contention that
those claims are somehow crucial to the tax's progressivity.
>> In addition, it is not strictly the largest 2% of estates that pay the
>> tax: whether an estate pays the tax depends in part on what measures
>> the deceased took to avoid it. So Mankiw lied...
>
>NO, that was Mankiw's point;
No, it wasn't, as anyone who read the article knows full well.
>it does NOT fall only on the richest 2%.
That point is trivial and would have been easy to make. Mankiw was in
fact dishonestly trying to discredit pro-estate-tax arguments by
pasting up a strawman. And he was mainly on a completely different
tack about capital accumulation -- and a fallacious one, as I have
already proved.
>> ... (while Krugman was
>> accurate) about the burden falling _exclusively_ on the richest 2% of
>> Americans, because not all the tax is paid by the _largest_ 2% of
>> estates; and Mankiw also lied while Krugman was accurate about the
>> burden falling on only 2% of the population.
>
>Dizzy?
Nope. But a little nauseous, as usual when I lower myself to
responding to your filth.
-- Roy L
susupply
"Rue The Day" <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:a44a8c58.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<Wgxsb.23427$Oo4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > [Mankiw:]
> > > >This argument is coherent only under
> > > >> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on
the
> > > >> decedent.
> >
> > [Roy:]
> > > That is an outright lie. It falls on the estate.
> >
> > So, Roy was either lying then, or is lying now.
>
> Now I understand why Roy goes through great pains to point out your
> lies. Decedent != heir.
And I understand why you make the silly statements you do. You're just as
stupid as Roy.
susupply
apparently believing the canard that everyone loves a clown,
wrote in message news:3fb2e99a...@news.telus.net...
> >Interesting. Only two days ago you were loudly proclaiming Mankiw to be
> >lying filth for claiming that the burden fell on the heirs and not the
> >estate.
>
> No, lying filth. His lie (at that point in the article, anyway) was
> to claim that the pro-estate-tax argument _assumed_ the burden fell
> exclusively on the _decedent_, and that it somehow _depended_ on that
> assumption.
Lying filth, you challenged Mankiw's remarks on tax incidence. Which were:
<< What would happen if we allocated the estate tax burden to heirs rather
than
decedents? At first blush,one might think that it would not make much
difference. After
all, are not the children of rich people rich?
<< It turns out that the answer is "not always." A number of economists have
taken a
careful look at this difficult question,using a variety of data sets and
methodological
approaches. Their results are roughly similar. The correlation between the
lifetime
earnings of successive generations is around 0.4 or 0.5. Even adding in
inheritances,the
figure increases to only about 0.7. This is nowhere near a perfect
correlation. And the
correlation is far smaller when we look at the link between grandparents and
grandchildren, and probably smaller still if we consider nephews, nieces,
and other
possible heirs.>>
BTW, he is correct that the Krugman's of the world must assume the burden to
be on the decedent exclusively. Otherwise their claims about only the
wealthiest 2% are illogical. Perhaps Canadian logic works otherwise?
> Thank you for providing the proof that you are a liar, in
> the following quote:
> >[Mankiw:]
> >> >This argument is coherent only under
> >> >> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on
the
> >> >> decedent.
>
> Which makes it absolutely clear and indisputable that Mankiw claims --
> falsely, as it happens -- that the pro-estate-tax assumption is that
> the burden falls on the _decedent_, not the _estate_, and that the
> argument for its progressivity is only coherent under that assumption.
Which is correct. How could it not be otherwise, since the heirs are less
wealthy than the decedents? But you're just trying to change the subject
away from the scurrilous abuse you heaped on Mankiw--before you started
agreeing with him, that is--for his theory of tax incidence.
> It is certainly a fact that the estate pays the estate tax. Whether
> you want to say that the _burden_ falls on the estate rather than the
> heirs is a matter of definitions: if you want to say that only human
> beings can bear tax burdens, then the burden falls on the heirs, as
> the estate is not a human being and neither, any longer, is the
> decedent. I don't happen to like that definition, because it is
> tendentious: it defines away all tax burdens that might be borne by
> corporations, estates, trusts, foundations, governments, etc.
All of which are either owned by human beings or operated by them. But this
is just more changing of the subject thinking your new pal won't realize
what a total dope you were to first slander Mankiw and then agree he was
correct.
> However, for the purposes of this discussion, and in the interest of
> my ongoing effort to elicit one single honest statement from you on
> any subject whatsoever, I am willing to go along with the implicit
> assumption that only human beings can bear tax burdens, retract my
> statement above, and stipulate that the burden of the estate tax falls
> on the heirs (with certain exceptions as noted before in this thread).
That would be the heirs who are less wealthy than the decedent. Meaning
Krugman and the other 2 per centers are full of it. It's 4th grade math.
> >Returning to today's mental
> >gymnastics, Roy says:
> >
> >> ...while Krugman's statement
> >> accurately means that the burden falls on more or less all the
> >> beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
> >
> >Again, a lie.
>
> Nope. It is fact, and Krugman's statement cannot be taken to mean the
> burden falls anywhere else (if you assume only human beings can bear
> tax burdens, by definition).
Krugman's statements are clear: "...a tax on only the very well off: a mere
2 percent of estates pay any tax" and, " the estate tax is a tax on the
very, very well off."
Which could only be true, as Mankiw logically says, if the burden falls ONLY
on the decedent. After all, even a dope like Roy recognized that an estate
can have several heirs.
[snip]
> >Here's what Krugman actually said:
> >
> >> ...a tax on only the very well
> >> off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
> >> is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
> >
> >Nothing about the "beneficiaries of the 2% of estates" at all.
>
> ?? So, now you are changing your lie to a claim that Krugman claims
> that estates have no beneficiaries?
That the best you can do? Clearly Krugman is saying that ONLY "the very
well off...a few thousand multimillion-dollar" decedents, have to pay.
> Or are you lying that Krugman has
> never made any statement clarifying the burden of the estate tax other
> than the one you quoted above?
I don't know of any such statements by Krugman. Do you?
> Krugman's statement is completely
> factual. Unlike Mankiw's and yours.
Krugman's statement is that only the very very well off are hit by the
estate tax. Mankiw shows that to be sophistry.
[snip]
> >So, Roy is exposed as "lying filth".
>
> Lie. Krugman's statement clearly disproves Mankiw's claim that
> arguments for the estate tax's progressivity depend on its burden
> falling only on the richest 2%.
Logically Krugman's statements HAVE TO depend on the burden falling only on
the richest 2%. Especially for those estates bequeathed to numerous
beneficiaries, i.e. X > X/2 > X/3 > X/4.....
[snip]
> >here's the CBPP:
> >
> >http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm
> >
> ><< Repealing the estate tax ... would provide a massive windfall for some
of
> >the country's wealthiest families.
> >
> ><< In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people - fewer than 1.9
percent
> >of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate tax.
> >The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people
who
> >die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two
> >percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100
people
> >who die face no estate tax whatsoever. >>
>
> This quote also proves that you and Mankiw both lied about the content
> of pro-estate-tax arguments. Nowhere does the above quote claim that
> the burden falls only on the richest 2%. You lied again (surprise!).
I guess Roy can't muster the logical skills to understand: "a massive
windfall for some of
the country's wealthiest families.", coupled with: "fewer than 1.9 percent
of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate tax".
Would Roy like to square the above: "people who died", with his delusion
that the 2 per centers really mean the heirs?
> >Here's the National Women's Law Center:
> >
> >http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PermanentTaxBreaksForTheWealthiest.pdf
> >
> ><< The Senate will soon consider legislation to permanently repeal the
> >estate tax. Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
> >Americans...>>
>
> OK. _Now_ I have seen _one_ pro-estate-tax argument that makes the
> false claim about its burden.
At least you're finally admitting the claim is false. But you've seen
several examples already, and here are more:
http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETWhoPays.html
<< Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax. These are
people with estates larger than $1 million ($2 million for a couple). Half
of all estate taxes are paid by the top 0.15% of Americans. These are people
with estates larger than $5 million.>>
<< In reality the estate tax is a tax on wealth, not death, and affects only
the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. >>
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_FAQ.html
<< Who pays the estate tax?
The wealthiest 2% of Americans are the only ones who pay estate taxes. Half
of all estate taxes are paid by the top one-tenth of one percent of all
Americans.>>
>
> >Here's a story based on an Ohio State University academic's work:
> >
> >http://www.asanet.org/media/taxes.html
> >
> ><< WASHINGTON, DC-The federal government's most effective tool for
reducing
> >wealth inequality is the estate tax, but the tax is being phased out so
that
> >by 2010 the government will no longer collect taxes on the estates of the
> >rich. Eliminating this important source of federal revenue, researcher
Lisa
> >A. Keister says, simply will create an economic burden for 98 percent of
> >Americans to allow a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of the U.S.
> >population.>>
> >
> >Do you see a pattern there, Roy?
>
> Yes. The pattern is that you are able, no doubt after extensive web
> crawling, to quote a _few_ pro-estate-tax people who have made false
> claims about its burden
Funny you started out denying there were any such people. And slandered
Greg Mankiw as a lying liar for having said there were. Now you admit
finding such people is as easy as abc. Guess who is the lying liar?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>apparently believing the canard that everyone loves a clown,
>
>wrote in message news:3fb2e99a...@news.telus.net...
>
>> >Interesting. Only two days ago you were loudly proclaiming Mankiw to be
>> >lying filth for claiming that the burden fell on the heirs and not the
>> >estate.
>>
>> No, lying filth. His lie (at that point in the article, anyway) was
>> to claim that the pro-estate-tax argument _assumed_ the burden fell
>> exclusively on the _decedent_, and that it somehow _depended_ on that
>> assumption.
>
>Lying filth, you challenged Mankiw's remarks on tax incidence.
No, I refuted them.
>Which were:
>
><< What would happen if we allocated the estate tax burden to heirs rather
>than
>decedents? At first blush,one might think that it would not make much
>difference. After
>all, are not the children of rich people rich?
>
><< It turns out that the answer is "not always."
IOW, the exceptions are too few and insignificant to provide any
meaningful support to Mankiw's claims.
>A number of economists have
>taken a
>careful look at this difficult question,using a variety of data sets and
>methodological
>approaches. Their results are roughly similar. The correlation between the
>lifetime
>earnings of successive generations is around 0.4 or 0.5.
Wait a minute. "Lifetime _earnings_"?? Now, who was it, again, that
you just accused of getting wealth and income mixed up...?
You are destroyed, by your own filthy lies.
>Even adding in
>inheritances,the
>figure increases to only about 0.7. This is nowhere near a perfect
>correlation.
But it is actually pretty darn good, especially when you consider that
the vast majority of people inherit only a small fraction of what they
earn over their lifetimes. So for the rich, who often inherit a
significant _multiple_ of what they earn in their lifetimes, the
correlation is probably 0.9 or better: virtually perfect.
>And the
>correlation is far smaller when we look at the link between grandparents and
>grandchildren, and probably smaller still if we consider nephews, nieces,
>and other
>possible heirs.>>
>
>BTW, he is correct that the Krugman's of the world must assume the burden to
>be on the decedent exclusively.
No, of course that is just another lie. What makes you think you can
get away with such obviously false claims?
>Otherwise their claims about only the
>wealthiest 2% are illogical.
But of course, you are lying again when you claim that Krugman claimed
the burden was confined to the wealthiest 2%. And contrary to
Mankiw's lies, the progressivity of the estate tax does not depend on
its burden being exclusively confined to the wealthiest 2%.
>Perhaps Canadian logic works otherwise?
Oh, yes. This Canadian's does, anyway.
>> Thank you for providing the proof that you are a liar, in
>> the following quote:
>
>> >[Mankiw:]
>> >> >This argument is coherent only under
>> >> >> the assumption that the burden of the estate tax falls entirely on
>the
>> >> >> decedent.
>>
>> Which makes it absolutely clear and indisputable that Mankiw claims --
>> falsely, as it happens -- that the pro-estate-tax assumption is that
>> the burden falls on the _decedent_, not the _estate_, and that the
>> argument for its progressivity is only coherent under that assumption.
>
>Which is correct.
No, it is not correct. It is an obvious strawman argument.
>How could it not be otherwise, since the heirs are less
>wealthy than the decedents?
?? What kind of "logic" do you call that?
>But you're just trying to change the subject
>away from the scurrilous abuse you heaped on Mankiw--before you started
>agreeing with him, that is--for his theory of tax incidence.
<yawn> More idiotic lies.
>> It is certainly a fact that the estate pays the estate tax. Whether
>> you want to say that the _burden_ falls on the estate rather than the
>> heirs is a matter of definitions: if you want to say that only human
>> beings can bear tax burdens, then the burden falls on the heirs, as
>> the estate is not a human being and neither, any longer, is the
>> decedent. I don't happen to like that definition, because it is
>> tendentious: it defines away all tax burdens that might be borne by
>> corporations, estates, trusts, foundations, governments, etc.
>
>All of which are either owned by human beings or operated by them.
But that is not the same as the _burden_ falling on those human
beings.
>But this
>is just more changing of the subject thinking your new pal won't realize
>what a total dope you were to first slander Mankiw and then agree he was
>correct.
Neither of which I did, of course.
>> However, for the purposes of this discussion, and in the interest of
>> my ongoing effort to elicit one single honest statement from you on
>> any subject whatsoever, I am willing to go along with the implicit
>> assumption that only human beings can bear tax burdens, retract my
>> statement above, and stipulate that the burden of the estate tax falls
>> on the heirs (with certain exceptions as noted before in this thread).
>
>That would be the heirs who are less wealthy than the decedent.
Some are, some aren't.
Liar.
>Meaning
>Krugman and the other 2 per centers are full of it.
You lied again. It is simply a fact that only about 2% of estates pay
any estate tax. You find that fact inconvenient to your lies, so
whenever anyone identifies that fact, you accuse them of making some
other claim. Simple.
>> >Returning to today's mental
>> >gymnastics, Roy says:
>> >
>> >> ...while Krugman's statement
>> >> accurately means that the burden falls on more or less all the
>> >> beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>> >
>> >Again, a lie.
>>
>> Nope. It is fact, and Krugman's statement cannot be taken to mean the
>> burden falls anywhere else (if you assume only human beings can bear
>> tax burdens, by definition).
>
>Krugman's statements are clear: "...a tax on only the very well off: a mere
>2 percent of estates pay any tax" and, " the estate tax is a tax on the
>very, very well off."
Both entirely true.
>Which could only be true, as Mankiw logically says, if the burden falls ONLY
>on the decedent.
_That_ is of course false, and Mankiw's claim is not logical in the
least. It is, as I have already explained to you, a strawman argument
(your favorite kind -- no wonder you don't understand that it is a
fallacy).
>After all, even a dope like Roy recognized that an estate
>can have several heirs.
Which does not in any way mean that they are not very well off, or
that more than 2% of estates are paying the tax.
>> >Here's what Krugman actually said:
>> >
>> >> ...a tax on only the very well
>> >> off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax, and most of the tax
>> >> is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates each year.
>> >
>> >Nothing about the "beneficiaries of the 2% of estates" at all.
>>
>> ?? So, now you are changing your lie to a claim that Krugman claims
>> that estates have no beneficiaries?
>
>That the best you can do? Clearly Krugman is saying that ONLY "the very
>well off...a few thousand multimillion-dollar" decedents, have to pay.
No, you lied again, lying filth, as usual. You substituted the word,
"decedents" where Krugman said, "estates."
>> Or are you lying that Krugman has
>> never made any statement clarifying the burden of the estate tax other
>> than the one you quoted above?
>
>I don't know of any such statements by Krugman. Do you?
Sure. You seem to be very energetic in hunting up quotations to
support your nonsense -- too bad you excise all the ones that disprove
it. Here's one from a PK interview with Alex Chadwick on Morning
Edition:
"We've often heard only 2 percent of people pay any estate tax. And
actually, that's misleading 'cause 1/10th of that number are the
people who pay most of it."
>> Krugman's statement is completely
>> factual. Unlike Mankiw's and yours.
>
>Krugman's statement is that only the very very well off are hit by the
>estate tax. Mankiw shows that to be sophistry.
No, _I_ have shown _Mankiw's_ claims to be sophistry. Or worse.
>> >So, Roy is exposed as "lying filth".
>>
>> Lie. Krugman's statement clearly disproves Mankiw's claim that
>> arguments for the estate tax's progressivity depend on its burden
>> falling only on the richest 2%.
>
>Logically Krugman's statements HAVE TO depend on the burden falling only on
>the richest 2%.
Lie. There is no such logical implication. Anyone reading this can
figure that out for himself.
>> >here's the CBPP:
>> >
>> >http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm
>> >
>> ><< Repealing the estate tax ... would provide a massive windfall for some
>of
>> >the country's wealthiest families.
>> >
>> ><< In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people - fewer than 1.9
>percent
>> >of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate tax.
>> >The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people
>who
>> >die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two
>> >percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100
>people
>> >who die face no estate tax whatsoever. >>
>>
>> This quote also proves that you and Mankiw both lied about the content
>> of pro-estate-tax arguments. Nowhere does the above quote claim that
>> the burden falls only on the richest 2%. You lied again (surprise!).
>
>I guess Roy can't muster the logical skills to understand: "a massive
>windfall for some of
>the country's wealthiest families.", coupled with: "fewer than 1.9 percent
>of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate tax".
My logical skills are just fine, thank you very much. That's how I
know that those statements, singly and together, neither state nor
imply that the burden falls on only the richest 2% of the population.
Liar.
>Would Roy like to square the above: "people who died", with his delusion
>that the 2 per centers really mean the heirs?
"The 2%ers" being a set cobbled together by you to include anyone who
does not oppose the estate tax, and whose statements might be mined
for a naive quote convenient to anti-estate-tax, pro-Bush liars?
>> >Here's the National Women's Law Center:
>> >
>> >http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PermanentTaxBreaksForTheWealthiest.pdf
>> >
>> ><< The Senate will soon consider legislation to permanently repeal the
>> >estate tax. Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
>> >Americans...>>
>>
>> OK. _Now_ I have seen _one_ pro-estate-tax argument that makes the
>> false claim about its burden.
>
>At least you're finally admitting the claim is false.
At least you have finally come up with an actual quote from someone
who makes the claim, after having lied, for days, about Krugman quotes
that clearly did _not_ make the claim.
>But you've seen
>several examples already, and here are more:
>
>http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETWhoPays.html
>
><< Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax.
"Subject to" does not mean "bearing the entire burden of."
>These are
>people with estates larger than $1 million ($2 million for a couple). Half
>of all estate taxes are paid by the top 0.15% of Americans. These are people
>with estates larger than $5 million.>>
This person thinks the decedents pay the tax, a natural mistake for
non-economists.
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12542-2001Feb15¬Found=true
>
><< In reality the estate tax is a tax on wealth, not death, and affects only
>the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. >>
As above.
>http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_FAQ.html
>
><< Who pays the estate tax?
>The wealthiest 2% of Americans are the only ones who pay estate taxes. Half
>of all estate taxes are paid by the top one-tenth of one percent of all
>Americans.>>
Same.
>> >Here's a story based on an Ohio State University academic's work:
>> >
>> >http://www.asanet.org/media/taxes.html
>> >
>> ><< WASHINGTON, DC-The federal government's most effective tool for
>reducing
>> >wealth inequality is the estate tax, but the tax is being phased out so
>that
>> >by 2010 the government will no longer collect taxes on the estates of the
>> >rich. Eliminating this important source of federal revenue, researcher
>Lisa
>> >A. Keister says, simply will create an economic burden for 98 percent of
>> >Americans to allow a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of the U.S.
>> >population.>>
>> >
>> >Do you see a pattern there, Roy?
>>
>> Yes. The pattern is that you are able, no doubt after extensive web
>> crawling, to quote a _few_ pro-estate-tax people who have made false
>> claims about its burden
>
>Funny you started out denying there were any such people.
Lie. You can find _somebody_ to say pretty much anything -- a fact of
which you are perhaps the most eloquent proof.
>And slandered
>Greg Mankiw as a lying liar for having said there were.
Lie. Mankiw falsely claimed that the estate tax's progressivity
_depended_ on the entire burden falling on the top 2%, and that
arguments based on its progressivity were incoherent unless that
specific condition were satisfied. He just flat-out lied.
>Guess who is the lying liar?
You.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
who seems to have been put on this planet for the sole purpose of repeating
himself til he's blue in the face
wrote in message news:3fb5d99e...@news.telus.net...
the same old cheese:
> You are destroyed, by your own filthy lies.
And so on, and so forth. So, we're only going to deal with two of his more
amusing rants here. It will be remembered that Roy began his scholarly
disquisitions with a charge that Greg Mankiw was lying about:
>> From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the
>> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
When I pointed out that it was actually a Krugman, he decided to up the
ante:
<< But contrary to Mankiw's lie and the lies you have used to
support his lie, neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
of Americans.>>
Not wanting to let Roy stew in the juices of his own ignorance, I helpfully
provided several other examples of people claiming just that:
> > fewer than 1.9
> >percent
> >> >of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate
tax
and
> >> > Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
> >> >Americans...
and
> ><< Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax.
and
> ><< In reality the estate tax is a tax on wealth, not death, and affects
only
> >the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. >>
And others we'll dispense with. So, what does the guy who has been claiming
that NO ONE has ever claimed that the estate tax is confined to the richest
2%, do when confronted with such evidence? This is Roy remember:
> You can find _somebody_ to say pretty much anything
which is true, I guess, because Roy has been saying pretty much anything
about Mankiw. Sometimes calling him a liar, lying filth, and, "For this
lying liar even to mention economists' professional responsibilities is
grotesquely sickening."
And then agreeing with Mankiw, when it seems to be convenient for Roy to
evade his own lies.
Which brings to Roy's rather limited arithmetical skills. Desperately
trying to evade the exact words Paul Krugman regularly uses to describe the
people who pay the estate tax, Roy had the bright idea that maybe Krugman
actually once did say what Roy would like for him to have said:
> >> Or are you lying that Krugman has
> >> never made any statement clarifying the burden of the estate tax other
> >> than the one you quoted above?
And what does Roy come up with to support that, but:
> Here's one from a PK interview with Alex Chadwick on Morning
> Edition:
>
> "We've often heard only 2 percent of people pay any estate tax. And
> actually, that's misleading 'cause 1/10th of that number are the
> people who pay most of it."
Normal people would recognize Krugman's statement above being even stronger,
and thus more supportive of Mankiw's point. Which means ... yes: Another
sci.econ dumbassy for none other than our boy royls!
In the category, I'd Pour Water on a Drowning Man, Even When I'm the One
Drowning, for his performance in using the Krugman statement above to
support his claim that:
<< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
less all the
beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax (certain kinds of
beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
have. >>
The Academy offers its congratulations. Or its condolences.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>who seems to have been put on this planet for the sole purpose of repeating
>himself til he's blue in the face
>
> wrote in message news:3fb5d99e...@news.telus.net...
>
>the same old cheese:
>
>> You are destroyed, by your own filthy lies.
>
>And so on, and so forth. So, we're only going to deal with two of his more
>amusing rants here. It will be remembered that Roy began his scholarly
>disquisitions with a charge that Greg Mankiw was lying about:
>
>>> From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the
>>> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
>
>> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
>
>When I pointed out that it was actually a Krugman,
That is a lie, as already proved.
>he decided to up the ante:
>
><< But contrary to Mankiw's lie and the lies you have used to
>support his lie, neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
>tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
>of Americans.>>
>
>Not wanting to let Roy stew in the juices of his own ignorance, I helpfully
>provided several other examples of people claiming just that:
>
>> > fewer than 1.9
>> >percent
>> >> >of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any estate
>tax
No, lying filth. This statement does _not_ say that the tax burdens
only the richest 2%. It identifies the _fact_ that fewer than 1.9% of
the estates that year paid any estate tax. It does not even claim
that it was exclusively the largest 1.9% that paid the tax. The
statement is entirely factual. You, OTC, lied about what it said.
Simple.
>and
>
>> >> > Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
>> >> >Americans...
>
>and
>
>> ><< Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax.
This (accurate) statement is not a statement about the tax's burden,
lying filth, and therefore, like the first example above, is _not_,
contrary to your lie, an example of people claiming that the tax
burdens exclusively the richest 2%.
>and
>
>> ><< In reality the estate tax is a tax on wealth, not death, and affects
>only
>> >the very wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. >>
>
>And others we'll dispense with.
You see what you have done, lying filth? You have provided two quotes
which make the claim Mankiw (falsely) claims is _indispensable_ to
arguments for the estate tax's progressivity, and two which do _not_
make that claim, and falsely claimed that all four make that claim.
This is very much the same sort of lying Mankiw did.
>So, what does the guy who has been claiming
>that NO ONE has ever claimed that the estate tax is confined to the richest
>2%,
I did not make that claim, lying filth. I said I was not aware of any
such claims. I am now aware of two. And I am also now aware that
like Mankiw, you routinely lie about what the defenders of the estate
tax have said.
>do when confronted with such evidence? This is Roy remember:
>
>> You can find _somebody_ to say pretty much anything
>
>which is true, I guess, because Roy has been saying pretty much anything
>about Mankiw.
You have been saying pretty much anything (except the truth, of
course) about pretty much everything you post about.
>Sometimes calling him a liar, lying filth, and, "For this
>lying liar even to mention economists' professional responsibilities is
>grotesquely sickening."
>
>And then agreeing with Mankiw, when it seems to be convenient for Roy to
>evade his own lies.
You have yet to identify even one. I have identified hundreds of
yours over the years.
>Which brings to Roy's rather limited arithmetical skills. Desperately
>trying to evade the exact words Paul Krugman regularly uses to describe the
>people who pay the estate tax,
No, liar. I identified the fact that those exact words were not the
exact words Mankiw claimed the defenders of the estate tax use to
describe the people who pay it.
>Roy had the bright idea that maybe Krugman
>actually once did say what Roy would like for him to have said:
Nope. I just posted the first relevant quote I found through Google
-- a quote that proves you lied.
>> >> Or are you lying that Krugman has
>> >> never made any statement clarifying the burden of the estate tax other
>> >> than the one you quoted above?
>
>And what does Roy come up with to support that, but:
>
>> Here's one from a PK interview with Alex Chadwick on Morning
>> Edition:
>>
>> "We've often heard only 2 percent of people pay any estate tax. And
>> actually, that's misleading 'cause 1/10th of that number are the
>> people who pay most of it."
>
>Normal people would recognize Krugman's statement above being even stronger,
>and thus more supportive of Mankiw's point.
It's "stronger" in the sense that it _disproves_ Mankiw's "point" and
wins the argument: it identifies a fact of objective reality
concerning the burden of the tax that just flat-out _proves_ Mankiw is
lying filth. It is not stronger in the _logical_ sense, though,
because it identifies a fact about most of the tax's burden, not all
of it.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
who must believe in reincarnation,
wrote in message news:3fb7ba3...@news.telus.net...
> >> > fewer than 1.9
> >> >percent
> >> >> >of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any
estate
> >tax
>
> No, lying filth. This statement does _not_ say that the tax burdens
> only the richest 2%. It identifies the _fact_ that fewer than 1.9% of
> the estates that year paid any estate tax.
I've already pointed out to you that the above clearly says: "people who
died that year". Who would be the same as Mankiw's, "decedents".
Shouldn't a professional writer have better vocabulary skills than you?
> It does not even claim
> that it was exclusively the largest 1.9% that paid the tax.
Yes, it does. It's from the CBPP, and it preceded it's "1.9%" stat with:
"a massive windfall for some of the country's wealthiest families." Are you
so silly (or desperate) to think that they meant the middle 1.9% of "people
who died that year"?
[snip]
> >> >> > Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
> >> >> >Americans...
> >
> >and
> >
> >> ><< Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax.
>
> This (accurate) statement is not a statement about the tax's burden,
Again, the paucity of your vocabulary skills is matched by your logical
ones. The statement makes that the claim that the elimination of the estate
tax would be a BENEFIT to, "only the wealthiest 2%". Benefit, being the
antonym of BURDEN, it is exactly what you claim it is not.
> lying filth, and therefore, like the first example above, is _not_,
> contrary to your lie, an example of people claiming that the tax
> burdens exclusively the richest 2%.
If you speak the English language, thus understanding the relation of
"benefit" to "burden", you cannot deny it is just what I asserted it is.
Unless you are desperate lying filth, that is.
[snip]
> >> Here's one from a PK interview with Alex Chadwick on Morning
> >> Edition:
> >>
> >> "We've often heard only 2 percent of people pay any estate tax. And
> >> actually, that's misleading 'cause 1/10th of that number are the
> >> people who pay most of it."
> >
> >Normal people would recognize Krugman's statement above being even
stronger,
> >and thus more supportive of Mankiw's point.
>
> It's "stronger" in the sense that it _disproves_ Mankiw's "point" and
> wins the argument: it identifies a fact of objective reality
> concerning the burden of the tax that just flat-out _proves_ Mankiw is
> lying filth. It is not stronger in the _logical_ sense, though,
> because it identifies a fact about most of the tax's burden, not all
> of it.
Nice try, son, but I don't let lying filth get away with snipping the
context (truthfully the context, unlike what you and Rue The Day are
claiming), which was your stupid claim:
<< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax (certain
kinds of
beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
have. >>
You need to find Krugman moving in YOUR DIRECTION (i.e. 5%). Instead you
have him moving the other way, from 2% to .2%.
You really do enjoy these beatings don't you.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>who must believe in reincarnation,
>
> wrote in message news:3fb7ba3...@news.telus.net...
>
>> >> > fewer than 1.9
>> >> >percent
>> >> >> >of the 2.3 million people who died that year - had to pay any
>estate
>> >tax
>>
>> No, lying filth. This statement does _not_ say that the tax burdens
>> only the richest 2%. It identifies the _fact_ that fewer than 1.9% of
>> the estates that year paid any estate tax.
>
>I've already pointed out to you that the above clearly says: "people who
>died that year". Who would be the same as Mankiw's, "decedents".
Thank you for admitting that you lied when you claimed the above said
the tax fell only on the richest 2%.
>> It does not even claim
>> that it was exclusively the largest 1.9% that paid the tax.
>
>Yes, it does.
No, of course that is just another lie to try to cover up your
previous lie.
>It's from the CBPP, and it preceded it's "1.9%" stat with:
>"a massive windfall for some of the country's wealthiest families."
Right. _Some_ of the wealthiest. Not _exclusively_ the wealthiest
_2%_.
>Are you
>so silly (or desperate) to think that they meant the middle 1.9% of "people
>who died that year"?
No, but you are so silly and desperate (and dishonest) that you again
claim they said what they plainly did not say.
>> >> >> > Permanent repeal, which benefits only the wealthiest 2% of
>> >> >> >Americans...
>> >
>> >and
>> >
>> >> ><< Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax.
>>
>> This (accurate) statement is not a statement about the tax's burden,
>
>Again, the paucity of your vocabulary skills is matched by your logical
>ones.
<yawn> Sorry to have identified your lies so clearly.
>The statement makes that the claim that the elimination of the estate
>tax would be a BENEFIT to, "only the wealthiest 2%". Benefit, being the
>antonym of BURDEN,
Too bad your habit of snipping all honest context made your claim
false.
>it is exactly what you claim it is not.
Lie. You now want to _add_ something to the previous quotation to
rescue your statement about it from being a lie.
>> lying filth, and therefore, like the first example above, is _not_,
>> contrary to your lie, an example of people claiming that the tax
>> burdens exclusively the richest 2%.
>
>If you speak the English language, thus understanding the relation of
>"benefit" to "burden", you cannot deny it is just what I asserted it is.
Refuted above.
>> >> Here's one from a PK interview with Alex Chadwick on Morning
>> >> Edition:
>> >>
>> >> "We've often heard only 2 percent of people pay any estate tax. And
>> >> actually, that's misleading 'cause 1/10th of that number are the
>> >> people who pay most of it."
>> >
>> >Normal people would recognize Krugman's statement above being even
>stronger,
>> >and thus more supportive of Mankiw's point.
>>
>> It's "stronger" in the sense that it _disproves_ Mankiw's "point" and
>> wins the argument: it identifies a fact of objective reality
>> concerning the burden of the tax that just flat-out _proves_ Mankiw is
>> lying filth. It is not stronger in the _logical_ sense, though,
>> because it identifies a fact about most of the tax's burden, not all
>> of it.
>
>Nice try, son, but I don't let lying filth get away with snipping the
>context
??? _This_, from _you_, the All-Time Woild Champeen Super-Heavyweight
Context-Snipper? ROTFL!!!
>(truthfully the context, unlike what you and Rue The Day are
>claiming), which was your stupid claim:
>
><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax (certain
>kinds of
>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
>the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>have. >>
>
>You need to find Krugman moving in YOUR DIRECTION (i.e. 5%).
No, I don't, because I am not trying to defend a lying liar's lies.
>Instead you
>have him moving the other way, from 2% to .2%.
<yawn> Talk about logic challenged...
The facts so far identified, which you insist on denying, are that
most of the estate tax is paid by 0.2% of the people, and that the
remainder of the burden is spread among a somewhat larger but unknown
number probably a little larger than 2%.
>You really do enjoy these beatings don't you.
Giving them to you? Not especially. I find responding to your lies
tedious and distateful in the extreme.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
having invented a new estate tax law that falls on estates of the living,
apparently,
wrote in message news:3fba9e5a...@news.telus.net...
> >> No, lying filth. This statement does _not_ say that the tax burdens
> >> only the richest 2%. It identifies the _fact_ that fewer than 1.9% of
> >> the estates that year paid any estate tax.
> >
> >I've already pointed out to you that the above clearly says: "people who
> >died that year". Who would be the same as Mankiw's, "decedents".
>
> Thank you for admitting that you lied when you claimed the above said
> the tax fell only on the richest 2%.
Of those who have died, idiot. Why do you think Mankiw used the word,
"decedents"?
> >> It does not even claim
> >> that it was exclusively the largest 1.9% that paid the tax.
> >
> >Yes, it does.
>
> No, of course that is just another lie to try to cover up your
> previous lie.
>
> >It's from the CBPP, and it preceded it's "1.9%" stat with:
> >"a massive windfall for some of the country's wealthiest families."
>
> Right. _Some_ of the wealthiest. Not _exclusively_ the wealthiest
> _2%_.
Again, of those who DIED.
> >Are you
> >so silly (or desperate) to think that they meant the middle 1.9% of
"people
> >who died that year"?
>
> No, but you are so silly and desperate (and dishonest) that you again
> claim they said what they plainly did not say.
For the third time, dimwit. Estate taxes are only levied on the estates of
people who die. Yes, there can be people wealthier who are still alive, but
they are not (yet) subject to the estate tax.
[snip]
> >The statement makes that the claim that the elimination of the estate
> >tax would be a BENEFIT to, "only the wealthiest 2%". Benefit, being the
> >antonym of BURDEN,
>
> Too bad your habit of snipping all honest context made your claim
> false.
A comment devoid of any substantive content at all. Can you explain how the
elimination of a tax does not lift a burden from those previously subject to
it?
[snip]
> >You need to find Krugman moving in YOUR DIRECTION (i.e. 5%).
>
> No, I don't, because I am not trying to defend a lying liar's lies.
>
> >Instead you
> >have him moving the other way, from 2% to .2%.
>
> <yawn> Talk about logic challenged...
>
> The facts so far identified, which you insist on denying, are that
> most of the estate tax is paid by 0.2% of the people, and that the
> remainder of the burden is spread among a somewhat larger but unknown
> number probably a little larger than 2%.
The question at issue is what did Krugman say. You claimed he meant:
><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax (certain
>kinds of
>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
>the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>have. >>
Krugman said nothing about 3% or 5%. He did say the wealthiest 2%, and then
strengthened it to; most is paid by .2%. That's farther away from your
claim of 3% or 5%. So, YOUR citation refutes your claim. They teach you to
think that way at Mensa?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>having invented a new estate tax law that falls on estates of the living,
>apparently,
>
>wrote in message news:3fba9e5a...@news.telus.net...
>
>> >> No, lying filth. This statement does _not_ say that the tax burdens
>> >> only the richest 2%. It identifies the _fact_ that fewer than 1.9% of
>> >> the estates that year paid any estate tax.
>> >
>> >I've already pointed out to you that the above clearly says: "people who
>> >died that year". Who would be the same as Mankiw's, "decedents".
>>
>> Thank you for admitting that you lied when you claimed the above said
>> the tax fell only on the richest 2%.
>
>Of those who have died, idiot.
Then contrary to Mankiw, you now wish to claim the estate tax falls
entirely on the deceased?
You can't have it both ways.
And you are wrong in any case: the statement in question identified
the fact that only 1.9% of estates paid any estate tax. It did _not_
say that those estates were exclusively the _largest_ 1.9%.
You are destroyed.
>> >> It does not even claim
>> >> that it was exclusively the largest 1.9% that paid the tax.
>> >
>> >Yes, it does.
>>
>> No, of course that is just another lie to try to cover up your
>> previous lie.
>>
>> >It's from the CBPP, and it preceded it's "1.9%" stat with:
>> >"a massive windfall for some of the country's wealthiest families."
>>
>> Right. _Some_ of the wealthiest. Not _exclusively_ the wealthiest
>> _2%_.
>
>Again, of those who DIED.
Nope. Not exclusively the wealthiest 2% of those, either.
>> >Are you
>> >so silly (or desperate) to think that they meant the middle 1.9% of
>"people
>> >who died that year"?
>>
>> No, but you are so silly and desperate (and dishonest) that you again
>> claim they said what they plainly did not say.
>
>For the third time, dimwit. Estate taxes are only levied on the estates of
>people who die. Yes, there can be people wealthier who are still alive, but
>they are not (yet) subject to the estate tax.
And some smaller estates pay estate tax when larger ones do not,
because of avoidance measures taken by the deceased.
>> >The statement makes that the claim that the elimination of the estate
>> >tax would be a BENEFIT to, "only the wealthiest 2%". Benefit, being the
>> >antonym of BURDEN,
>>
>> Too bad your habit of snipping all honest context made your claim
>> false.
>
>A comment devoid of any substantive content at all. Can you explain how the
>elimination of a tax does not lift a burden from those previously subject to
>it?
Being subject to a tax is not the same as bearing its burden.
>> >Instead you
>> >have him moving the other way, from 2% to .2%.
>>
>> <yawn> Talk about logic challenged...
>>
>> The facts so far identified, which you insist on denying, are that
>> most of the estate tax is paid by 0.2% of the people, and that the
>> remainder of the burden is spread among a somewhat larger but unknown
>> number probably a little larger than 2%.
>
>The question at issue is what did Krugman say. You claimed he meant:
>
>><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
>>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax (certain
>>kinds of
>>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
>>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
>>the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>>have. >>
>
>Krugman said nothing about 3% or 5%. He did say the wealthiest 2%,
No, he said _some_ people _argue_ that.
>and then
>strengthened it to; most is paid by .2%. That's farther away from your
>claim of 3% or 5%.
No, liar, it isn't, because some small fraction can be paid by those
in the 97th percentile even as most is paid by the top 0.2%.
You are destroyed.
>So, YOUR citation refutes your claim.
Lie, as proved above.
>They teach you to
>think that way at Mensa?
You'd have to think a lot better than your way just to get into Mensa.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
the whirling dervish of sci.econ,
wrote in message news:3fbd3ab3...@news.telus.net...
> Then contrary to Mankiw, you now wish to claim the estate tax falls
> entirely on the deceased?
>
> You can't have it both ways.
Ninny, this discussion is about what the defenders of the estate tax believe
(or say they believe). Specifically, Paul Krugman. Hint: that's why I
keep referring you to his own words.
> And you are wrong in any case: the statement in question identified
> the fact that only 1.9% of estates paid any estate tax. It did _not_
> say that those estates were exclusively the _largest_ 1.9%.
>
> You are destroyed.
Again, your job, which you obviously have chosen NOT to accept, is to find
Krugman or some other defender saying that. All you have done so far is
provide a quote from him that says the opposite.
[snip]
> >For the third time, dimwit. Estate taxes are only levied on the estates
of
> >people who die. Yes, there can be people wealthier who are still alive,
but
> >they are not (yet) subject to the estate tax.
>
> And some smaller estates pay estate tax when larger ones do not,
> because of avoidance measures taken by the deceased.
That is beside the point. For the umpteenth time, this discussion is about
WHAT THEY SAY. So far all the quotations provided (even the one provided by
you) ignore the little matter of tax avoidance measures, and claim that it
is "only the very very well off", "only the wealthiest 2%", who pay the
estate tax.
The truth or falsity of the claims is irrelevant at this point. We're only
interested in the existence of such claims. And, clearly they do exist.
> Being subject to a tax is not the same as bearing its burden.
I guess Canadians are separated from the rest of the Commonwealth, and from
Americans, by a common language.
[snip]
> >The question at issue is what did Krugman say. You claimed he meant:
> >
> >><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
> >>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
(certain
> >>kinds of
> >>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
> >>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
> >>the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
> >>have. >>
> >
> >Krugman said nothing about 3% or 5%. He did say the wealthiest 2%,
>
> No, he said _some_ people _argue_ that.
>
> >and then
> >strengthened it to; most is paid by .2%. That's farther away from your
> >claim of 3% or 5%.
>
> No, liar, it isn't, because some small fraction can be paid by those
> in the 97th percentile even as most is paid by the top 0.2%.
Try to concentrate on the matter at hand, which is; what Krugman actually
SAID. Not about what you believe the reality is. So far, you have
spectacularly failed to find anything written or spoken by Krugman that
supports your claim:
> >><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
> >>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
(certain
> >>kinds of
> >>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
> >>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more....
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>the whirling dervish of sci.econ,
>
> wrote in message news:3fbd3ab3...@news.telus.net...
>
>> Then contrary to Mankiw, you now wish to claim the estate tax falls
>> entirely on the deceased?
>>
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
>Ninny, this discussion is about what the defenders of the estate tax believe
>(or say they believe).
No, it's about what Mankiw falsely claimed was _logically_necessary_
to arguments for the estate tax's progressivity.
>Specifically, Paul Krugman. Hint: that's why I
>keep referring you to his own words.
And lying about them?
>> And you are wrong in any case: the statement in question identified
>> the fact that only 1.9% of estates paid any estate tax. It did _not_
>> say that those estates were exclusively the _largest_ 1.9%.
>>
>> You are destroyed.
>
>Again, your job, which you obviously have chosen NOT to accept, is to find
>Krugman or some other defender saying that.
?? The statement I referred to said exactly that. It very
conspicuously did _not_ say what you claimed it said.
>All you have done so far is
>provide a quote from him that says the opposite.
You are a liar.
>> >For the third time, dimwit. Estate taxes are only levied on the estates
>of
>> >people who die. Yes, there can be people wealthier who are still alive,
>but
>> >they are not (yet) subject to the estate tax.
>>
>> And some smaller estates pay estate tax when larger ones do not,
>> because of avoidance measures taken by the deceased.
>
>That is beside the point. For the umpteenth time, this discussion is about
>WHAT THEY SAY.
Right. And you have consistently lied about what they say.
>So far all the quotations provided (even the one provided by
>you) ignore the little matter of tax avoidance measures, and claim that it
>is "only the very very well off", "only the wealthiest 2%", who pay the
>estate tax.
>
>The truth or falsity of the claims is irrelevant at this point. We're only
>interested in the existence of such claims. And, clearly they do exist.
Oh, I have never denied that they exist. You can find _somebody_ to
say pretty much _anything_ -- you are the proof of that. What I am
disputing here is Mankiw's false and idiotic claim that such claims
are _logically_necessary_ to the pro-estate-tax position (and the
clear implication that _all_ defenders of the estate tax therefore
make such claims -- though as an accomplished lying filth like you,
Mankiw was careful to say, with revealing dishonesty, that "defenders"
of the estate tax say such and such, carefully declining to claim that
any more than two of them -- two out of millions -- do).
>> Being subject to a tax is not the same as bearing its burden.
>
>I guess Canadians are separated from the rest of the Commonwealth, and from
>Americans, by a common language.
Your ignorance of tax burdens is noted.
>> >The question at issue is what did Krugman say. You claimed he meant:
>> >
>> >><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
>
>> >>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>(certain
>> >>kinds of
>> >>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
>> >>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more, depending on
>> >>the average number of beneficiaries the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>> >>have. >>
>> >
>> >Krugman said nothing about 3% or 5%. He did say the wealthiest 2%,
>>
>> No, he said _some_ people _argue_ that.
Notice that you do not dispute the fact that you lied about what
Krugman said.
>> >and then
>> >strengthened it to; most is paid by .2%. That's farther away from your
>> >claim of 3% or 5%.
>>
>> No, liar, it isn't, because some small fraction can be paid by those
>> in the 97th percentile even as most is paid by the top 0.2%.
>
>Try to concentrate on the matter at hand, which is; what Krugman actually
>SAID.
I have posted it; you have lied about it. Simple.
>Not about what you believe the reality is. So far, you have
>spectacularly failed to find anything written or spoken by Krugman that
>supports your claim:
>
>> >><< Krugman's statement accurately means that the burden falls on more or
>> >>less all the beneficiaries of the 2% of estates that pay the tax
>(certain
>> >>kinds of
>> >>beneficiaries, such as those who receive personal effects, may have no
>> >>burden). That may be 3%, it may be 5%, it may be more....
?? Krugman's actual words support this implication about the tax's
burden perfectly (to someone who understands something about the
relationship between the payment of a tax and its burden, that is),
but do _not_ support your claims about what he said.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
reeling from his self-inflected wounds,
wrote in message news:3fbead7f...@news.telus.net...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:12:07 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >Ninny, this discussion is about what the defenders of the estate tax
believe
> >(or say they believe).
>
> No, it's about what Mankiw falsely claimed was _logically_necessary_
> to arguments for the estate tax's progressivity.
Why do you do this to yourself, Roy? You have to know there is a permanent
archive where I can go to retrieve the truth. In this case, your very first
post this thread was a response to Mankiw's:
>> Defenders of the estate tax often claim that it is a highly progressive
tax.
>> It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
>> percent of estates. From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the
>> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
Mankiw is clearly describing what the defenders of the estate tax say. And
you understood it that way, because your answer was:
> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
That's what being destroyed looks like, Mensa Breath.
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
believing in diversity,
wrote in message news:3fbead7f...@news.telus.net...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:12:07 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >Ninny, this discussion is about what the defenders of the estate tax
believe
> >(or say they believe).
>
> No, it's about what Mankiw falsely claimed was _logically_necessary_
> to arguments for the estate tax's progressivity.
And then, later admitted I was correct:
> >That is beside the point. For the umpteenth time, this discussion is
about
> >WHAT THEY SAY.
>
> Right. And you have consistently lied about what they say.
"No"...."Right". Both responses to the same statement.
Now let's catch Roy in another blatant lie:
> >The truth or falsity of the claims is irrelevant at this point. We're
only
> >interested in the existence of such claims. And, clearly they do exist.
>
> Oh, I have never denied that they exist.
Except when you do. For instance:
> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
and:
"...neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
of Americans."
Roy is again self-destroyed.
[snip]
And now for another flat out lie by Roy;
[I'd pointed out to Roy:]
> >> >Krugman said nothing about 3% or 5%. He did say the wealthiest 2%,
> >>
> >> No, he said _some_ people _argue_ that.
In fact, I've already provided Krugman saying just that, in Slicing the
Salami:
<< a tax on only the very well off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax,
and most of the tax is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates
each year.>>
And he also said it in "Death and Taxes in June of 2000:
<< The current inheritance tax applies only to estates of more than
$675,000, with the cutoff scheduled to rise to more than $1 million over the
next few years; as a result, only about 2 percent of estates pay any tax at
all .... This really is a tax levied almost entirely on the very, very well
off. >>
Roy is a weapon of mass destruction, but he only implodes.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>reeling from his self-inflected wounds,
>
>wrote in message news:3fbead7f...@news.telus.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:12:07 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Ninny, this discussion is about what the defenders of the estate tax
>believe
>> >(or say they believe).
>>
>> No, it's about what Mankiw falsely claimed was _logically_necessary_
>> to arguments for the estate tax's progressivity.
>
>Why do you do this to yourself, Roy? You have to know there is a permanent
>archive where I can go to retrieve the truth. In this case, your very first
>post this thread was a response to Mankiw's:
>
>>> Defenders of the estate tax often claim that it is a highly progressive
>tax.
Bingo. His use of the word, "claim" is clearly intended to imply that
his following argument will disprove them. But it doesn't.
>>> It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
>>> percent of estates. From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the
>>> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
>
>Mankiw is clearly describing what the defenders of the estate tax say.
Oh, no he isn't. He is not claiming that "the" defenders of the
estate tax say that (which is too easily proven a lie); he is
carefully claiming only that "defenders" do so -- i.e., he does not
dare to claim that any more than two of them do.
>And
>you understood it that way, because your answer was:
>
>> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
>
>That's what being destroyed looks like, Mensa Breath.
??? Even half of the quotes _you_provided_ in support of Mankiw did
not actually make that claim.
Now _that_ is being _destroyed_.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>believing in diversity,
>
> wrote in message news:3fbead7f...@news.telus.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:12:07 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Ninny, this discussion is about what the defenders of the estate tax
>believe
>> >(or say they believe).
>>
>> No, it's about what Mankiw falsely claimed was _logically_necessary_
>> to arguments for the estate tax's progressivity.
>
>And then, later admitted I was correct:
>
>> >That is beside the point. For the umpteenth time, this discussion is
>about
>> >WHAT THEY SAY.
>>
>> Right. And you have consistently lied about what they say.
>
>"No"...."Right". Both responses to the same statement.
Same statement, different _contexts_. Originally, the discussion was
about Mankiw's lies. It later became more about yours.
>Now let's catch Roy in another blatant lie:
>
>> >The truth or falsity of the claims is irrelevant at this point. We're
>only
>> >interested in the existence of such claims. And, clearly they do exist.
>>
>> Oh, I have never denied that they exist.
>
>Except when you do. For instance:
>
>> Where is the quote to that effect? This is just a strawman.
I did not deny they existed, lying filth. I just asked where the
quote was, so we could know what, exactly, Mankiw was claiming to be
talking about. But he was very careful not to make any specific claim
about specific defenders of the estate tax, or even the majority of
its defenders. He (very, very dishonestly, which is why you are such
a fan of his) restricted himself to a claim that there were at least
two who made such statements.
>and:
>
>"...neither Krugman nor any other defender of the estate
>tax that I am aware of has claimed that it burdens only the richest 2%
>of Americans."
>
>Roy is again self-destroyed.
Lie. I did not say no one had ever made such a claim, just that
neither Krugman nor anyone else I was aware of had. Which was true.
And when you tried to quote Krugman making that claim, I proved you
were a liar.
>And now for another flat out lie by Roy;
>
>[I'd pointed out to Roy:]
>> >> >Krugman said nothing about 3% or 5%. He did say the wealthiest 2%,
>> >>
>> >> No, he said _some_ people _argue_ that.
>
>In fact, I've already provided Krugman saying just that, in Slicing the
>Salami:
>
><< a tax on only the very well off: a mere 2 percent of estates pay any tax,
>and most of the tax is paid by a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates
>each year.>>
The (100% factual) Krugman quote above clearly proves you a liar.
>And he also said it in "Death and Taxes in June of 2000:
>
><< The current inheritance tax applies only to estates of more than
>$675,000, with the cutoff scheduled to rise to more than $1 million over the
>next few years; as a result, only about 2 percent of estates pay any tax at
>all .... This really is a tax levied almost entirely on the very, very well
>off. >>
This 100% factual quote also proves you are a liar.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
offering a new lie for comic relief,
wrote in message news:3fc11769...@news.telus.net...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:23:00 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >>> It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
> >>> percent of estates. From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that
the
> >>> burden of the tax falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans.
> >
> >Mankiw is clearly describing what the defenders of the estate tax say.
>
> Oh, no he isn't. He is not claiming that "the" defenders of the
> estate tax say that (which is too easily proven a lie); he is
> carefully claiming only that "defenders" do so -- i.e., he does not
> dare to claim that any more than two of them do.
Tell the nice newsgroup where you got this brainstorm, Roy. And what are
the two people's names?
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
continues with the newly concocted raving,
wrote in message news:3fc11a5c...@news.telus.net...
> I did not deny they existed, lying filth. I just asked where the
> quote was, so we could know what, exactly, Mankiw was claiming to be
> talking about. But he was very careful not to make any specific claim
> about specific defenders of the estate tax, or even the majority of
> its defenders. He (very, very dishonestly, which is why you are such
> a fan of his) restricted himself to a claim that there were at least
> two who made such statements.
He said no such thing. Haven't your minders been around with your
medication yet?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
That is _exactly_ what he said: "defenders of the estate tax claim..."
Logically, that just means at least two. That is all he dared to
claim, and all he and you together have demonstrated.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Look up about 13 lines. Yep. There it is. He doesn't use the
definite article, which would include all defenders and thus easily be
proved a lie. He doesn't even use "most," which would also be a lie,
though less easily proved one. He just says "defenders," which is
logically satisfied if there are at least two, and has no more
significance than that. Two out of millions.
>And what are
>the two people's names?
He doesn't care, why should I? He figured at least two (out of
millions) could be found, which is enough to rescue his claim from
disproof.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
who has charmingly claimed to be a devotee of the truth, with such as:
> you and Mankiw both lied
>> Mankiw... is just lying
>> Lie.
>> An outrageous lie. ....
>> Mankiw is just another lying liar
>> who lies the deliberate lies other lying liars lie.
(And other similar slanders of which I will spare the readers)
wrote in message news:3fc26d30...@news.telus.net...
> >> He (very, very dishonestly, which is why you are such
> >> a fan of his) restricted himself to a claim that there were at least
> >> two who made such statements.
> >
> >He said no such thing.
>
> That is _exactly_ what he said: "defenders of the estate tax claim..."
> Logically, that just means at least two. That is all he dared to
> claim, and all he and you together have demonstrated.
And repeated this bizarre claim in a second post:
<< He figured at least two (out of millions) could be found, which is
enough to rescue his claim from disproof. >>
In other words, you have just admitted that Mankiw said no such thing, and
that you are disgusting, lying, venomous, irrational, filth.
In fact, I'd be surprised if we could find two defenders of the estate tax
who DIDN'T claim its burden was restricted to "the wealthiest 2%".
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>who has charmingly claimed to be a devotee of the truth, with such as:
>
>> you and Mankiw both lied
>
>>> Mankiw... is just lying
>
>>> Lie.
>>> An outrageous lie. ....
>>> Mankiw is just another lying liar
>>> who lies the deliberate lies other lying liars lie.
>
>(And other similar slanders of which I will spare the readers)
>
>wrote in message news:3fc26d30...@news.telus.net...
>
>> >> He (very, very dishonestly, which is why you are such
>> >> a fan of his) restricted himself to a claim that there were at least
>> >> two who made such statements.
>> >
>> >He said no such thing.
>>
>> That is _exactly_ what he said: "defenders of the estate tax claim..."
>> Logically, that just means at least two. That is all he dared to
>> claim, and all he and you together have demonstrated.
>
>And repeated this bizarre claim in a second post:
>
><< He figured at least two (out of millions) could be found, which is
>enough to rescue his claim from disproof. >>
>
>In other words, you have just admitted that Mankiw said no such thing, and
>that you are disgusting, lying, venomous, irrational, filth.
My first post on the Mankiw article identified his lies. It did not
identify that particular statement as a lie, but rather as a strawman,
as Mankiw clearly intended readers to think that all defenders of the
estate tax made the same claim, while not explicitly stating that.
>In fact, I'd be surprised if we could find two defenders of the estate tax
>who DIDN'T claim its burden was restricted to "the wealthiest 2%".
??? You've already posted quotes from more than that. Of course, you
also falsely claimed that they _did_ make that claim...'
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
not up on etymology,
wrote in message news:3fc3f853...@news.telus.net...
> My first post on the Mankiw article identified his lies. It did not
> identify that particular statement as a lie, but rather as a strawman,
Outstanding grasp of the meanings of words, Roy. We're talking about the
"strawman fallacy". "Fallacy" sharing the origin of "false". It is from
the Latin, "fallere", which means, to deceive.
When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a FALSE
ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION. It is a
LIE.
Which is your stock in trade.
> as Mankiw clearly intended readers to think that all defenders of the
> estate tax made the same claim,
Then he wasn't restricting it to only TWO defenders. You are destroyed,
liar.
> while not explicitly stating that.
In fact you caught his implication of "all or most". Then you lied that he
only meant, two.
> >In fact, I'd be surprised if we could find two defenders of the estate
tax
> >who DIDN'T claim its burden was restricted to "the wealthiest 2%".
>
> ??? You've already posted quotes from more than that. Of course, you
> also falsely claimed that they _did_ make that claim...'
Again, a guy who can't grasp that a fallacy is a falsehood, is in no
position to be arguing semantics.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>not up on etymology,
>
>wrote in message news:3fc3f853...@news.telus.net...
>
>> My first post on the Mankiw article identified his lies. It did not
>> identify that particular statement as a lie, but rather as a strawman,
>
>Outstanding grasp of the meanings of words, Roy. We're talking about the
>"strawman fallacy". "Fallacy" sharing the origin of "false". It is from
>the Latin, "fallere", which means, to deceive.
>
>When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a FALSE
>ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION. It is a
>LIE.
Not always, as the Mankiw article proves. His use of the word,
"defenders" logically means only that at least two defenders of the
estate tax claim it burdens only the wealthiest 2%, but his
implication was clearly that all of them do.
>Which is your stock in trade.
Mirror time, pal.
>> as Mankiw clearly intended readers to think that all defenders of the
>> estate tax made the same claim,
>
>Then he wasn't restricting it to only TWO defenders. You are destroyed,
>liar.
You are the liar. His wording _denoted_ at least two, but was stated
in such a way as to imply all. The fallacy was in the implication.
>> while not explicitly stating that.
>
>In fact you caught his implication of "all or most".
Bingo.
>Then you lied that he
>only meant, two.
Lie. It is a fact that "defenders" logically only means at least two,
not all or even most.
>> >In fact, I'd be surprised if we could find two defenders of the estate
>tax
>> >who DIDN'T claim its burden was restricted to "the wealthiest 2%".
>>
>> ??? You've already posted quotes from more than that. Of course, you
>> also falsely claimed that they _did_ make that claim...'
>
>Again, a guy who can't grasp that a fallacy is a falsehood, is in no
>position to be arguing semantics.
A fallacy is not necessarily a lie, as it can be inadvertent. It can
also, as in this case, be a matter of connotation or implication
rather than explicit statement.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
who apparently thinks by mangling logic he'll really impress us with his
smarts,
wrote in message news:3fc5806b...@news.telus.net...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:10:15 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a FALSE
> >ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION. It is
a
> >LIE.
>
> Not always, as the Mankiw article proves. His use of the word,
> "defenders" logically means only that at least two defenders of the
> estate tax claim it burdens only the wealthiest 2%, but his
> implication was clearly that all of them do.
Putting the falsehood aside, Roy has just said he has proved Mankiw lied and
didn't lie at the same time.
[snip]
> >> as Mankiw clearly intended readers to think that all defenders of the
> >> estate tax made the same claim,
> >
> >Then he wasn't restricting it to only TWO defenders. You are destroyed,
> >liar.
>
> You are the liar. His wording _denoted_ at least two, but was stated
> in such a way as to imply all. The fallacy was in the implication.
Again, Roy is claiming Mankiw deliberately deceived his readers. This in
trying to argue a strawman ISN'T a falsehood.
> >> while not explicitly stating that.
> >
> >In fact you caught his implication of "all or most".
>
> Bingo.
Then where you get off claiming Mankiw was deceiving us?
> >Then you lied that he
> >only meant, two.
>
> Lie. It is a fact that "defenders" logically only means at least two,
> not all or even most.
It can also mean most or even all. You can't have it both ways, especially
since Mankiw said nothing about just "two". You just made that up. It's a
strawman, a deception, a lie. Of Roy's.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>who apparently thinks by mangling logic he'll really impress us with his
>smarts,
No danger you'll do the latter, anyway...
> wrote in message news:3fc5806b...@news.telus.net...
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:10:15 GMT, "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a FALSE
>> >ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION. It is
>a
>> >LIE.
>>
>> Not always, as the Mankiw article proves. His use of the word,
>> "defenders" logically means only that at least two defenders of the
>> estate tax claim it burdens only the wealthiest 2%, but his
>> implication was clearly that all of them do.
>
>Putting the falsehood aside, Roy has just said he has proved Mankiw lied and
>didn't lie at the same time.
That is of course a flat-out lie.
>> >> as Mankiw clearly intended readers to think that all defenders of the
>> >> estate tax made the same claim,
>> >
>> >Then he wasn't restricting it to only TWO defenders. You are destroyed,
>> >liar.
>>
>> You are the liar. His wording _denoted_ at least two, but was stated
>> in such a way as to imply all. The fallacy was in the implication.
>
>Again, Roy is claiming Mankiw deliberately deceived his readers.
Correct.
>This in
>trying to argue a strawman ISN'T a falsehood.
<yawn> Not every statement of a strawman argument has to be false for
the argument itself to be fallacious.
>> >> while not explicitly stating that.
>> >
>> >In fact you caught his implication of "all or most".
>>
>> Bingo.
>
>Then where you get off claiming Mankiw was deceiving us?
?? The implication was the deception. His _implied_ claim that all
or most supporters of the estate tax claim it burdens only the
wealthiest 2% of Americans was just false.
>> >Then you lied that he
>> >only meant, two.
>>
>> Lie. It is a fact that "defenders" logically only means at least two,
>> not all or even most.
>
>It can also mean most or even all.
Those are implications that can always be denied when refuted. The
undeniable logical minimum is two.
>You can't have it both ways, especially
>since Mankiw said nothing about just "two".
Indeed. He would hardly blow the whistle on his own deception, would
he? But his claim denotes nothing more.
>You just made that up.
??? No, that's what the indefinite plural logically implies.
>It's a
>strawman, a deception, a lie.
Refuted above.
-- Roy L
Albert Wagner
<snip>
You really need to study English, Logic and Rhetoric. All that your
illiterate replies do is to confirm that failed all three subjects.
--
Then there was the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average
depth of six inches.
-- W. I. E. Gates
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
not one to be deterred by what he has claimed in earlier posts
wrote in message news:3fc9cde8...@news.telus.net...
[I'd summarized Roy's argument:]
> >Again, Roy is claiming Mankiw deliberately deceived his readers.
>
> Correct.
Which is the opposite of what he was saying the day before:
<< My first post on the Mankiw article identified his lies. It did not
identify that particular statement as a lie, but rather as a strawman....>>
When it was pointed out to our genius professional writer that creating a
strawman is in fact a deception, i.e. a falsehood, a lie:
> >> >When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a
FALSE
> >> >ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION. It
is
> >a
> >> >LIE.
he tried weaseling out of it by arguing:
> >> Not always, as the Mankiw article proves.
but, rather than demonstrate how that is proven, Roy immediately argues
Mankiw had in fact deliberately created a deceptive argument!:
> >> His use of the word,
> >> "defenders" logically means only that at least two defenders of the
> >> estate tax claim it burdens only the wealthiest 2%, but his
> >> implication was clearly that all of them do.
So, when I helpfully point out his contradiction to him:
> > Roy has just said he has proved Mankiw lied and
> >didn't lie at the same time.
Roy, doing the Roy shuffle, denies his own words:
> That is of course a flat-out lie.
And all that on top of Roy himself being the one who created the strawman
that Mankiw deviously meant "defenders" to mean only two defenders. Even
though Roy admits he knew Mankiw meant many, most, or even all defenders.
So, we all know Roy is an expert on lying.
susupply
"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>
deciding to spend a little of his personal capital,
wrote in message news:20031130113946.1...@tcac.net...
> <snip>
> You really need to study English, Logic and Rhetoric. All that your
> illiterate replies do is to confirm that failed all three subjects.
Thinking, I guess, that he has so established his credibility that he has no
need to demonstrate this by using the cut and paste function to specify.
Meaning he is just another usenet blowhard
ro...@telus.net
Patrick. On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:47:46 GMT, "susupply"
<susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>not one to be deterred by what he has claimed in earlier posts
>
>wrote in message news:3fc9cde8...@news.telus.net...
>
>[I'd summarized Roy's argument:]
>
>> >Again, Roy is claiming Mankiw deliberately deceived his readers.
>>
>> Correct.
>
>Which is the opposite of what he was saying the day before:
Note that this is a lie.
><< My first post on the Mankiw article identified his lies. It did not
>identify that particular statement as a lie, but rather as a strawman....>>
>
>When it was pointed out to our genius professional writer that creating a
>strawman is in fact a deception, i.e. a falsehood, a lie:
It is certainly deception, but need not be a lie. For example, one
could say, "Patrick is a Nestorian, like that other famous Nestorian
who said X" Patrick may be a Nestorian, and the other Nestorian may
have said X, but although not a lie, this is still a strawman argument
because Patrick did not say X. This is the sort of thing Mankiw
pulled.
>> >> >When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a
>FALSE
>> >> >ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION. It
>is
>> >a
>> >> >LIE.
>
>he tried weaseling out of it by arguing:
>
>> >> Not always, as the Mankiw article proves.
>
>but, rather than demonstrate how that is proven, Roy immediately argues
>Mankiw had in fact deliberately created a deceptive argument!:
>
>> >> His use of the word,
>> >> "defenders" logically means only that at least two defenders of the
>> >> estate tax claim it burdens only the wealthiest 2%, but his
>> >> implication was clearly that all of them do.
>
>So, when I helpfully point out his contradiction to him:
>
>> > Roy has just said he has proved Mankiw lied and
>> >didn't lie at the same time.
>
>Roy, doing the Roy shuffle, denies his own words:
>
>> That is of course a flat-out lie.
Notice that Patrick lied again, here. I did not say I had "proved"
Mankiw lied and didn't lie at the same time. I said that some of his
statements were lies and others not.
>And all that on top of Roy himself being the one who created the strawman
>that Mankiw deviously meant "defenders" to mean only two defenders. Even
>though Roy admits he knew Mankiw meant many, most, or even all defenders.
He intended readers to think that's what he said. But he didn't say
it.
>So, we all know Roy is an expert on lying.
Yes. Long experience with you has made me one.
-- Roy L
susupply
<ro...@telus.net>
dining on the same moldy cheese,
wrote in message news:3fcbcaea...@news.telus.net...
> Once again, we have an extraordinary display of dishonesty from
> Patrick.
Which means Roy is unhappy that I'm quoting his own words back to him.
> >When it was pointed out to our genius professional writer that creating a
> >strawman is in fact a deception, i.e. a falsehood, a lie:
>
> It is certainly deception, but need not be a lie. For example, one
> could say, "Patrick is a Nestorian, like that other famous Nestorian
> who said X" Patrick may be a Nestorian, and the other Nestorian may
> have said X, but although not a lie, this is still a strawman argument
> because Patrick did not say X. This is the sort of thing Mankiw
> pulled.
First, this is not what Mankiw did. Second, Roy's example is not a strawman
fallacy. It appears to be an ad hominem fallacy.
Again, no questions on logic on the Mensa test?
[snip]
> Notice that Patrick lied again, here. I did not say I had "proved"
> Mankiw lied and didn't lie at the same time. I said that some of his
> statements were lies and others not.
Hey, Roy CAN produce a strawman! Let's look at what I claimed Roy said he
had "proved":
[I'd explained the elementary to our genius:]
> >> >> >When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a
> >FALSE
> >> >> >ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION.
It
> >is
> >> >a
> >> >> >LIE.
and then I commented on his response to the above:
> >he tried weaseling out of it by arguing:
> >> >> Not always, as the Mankiw article proves.
That's Roy claiming the Mankiw argument which Roy claimed is a strawman
fallacy is not a lie. To which I commented:
> >but, rather than demonstrate how that is proven, Roy immediately argues
> >Mankiw had in fact deliberately created a deceptive argument!:
Take note of my, "rather than demonstrate how that is proven". To which Roy
is now claiming:
> I did not say I had "proved"
> Mankiw lied and didn't lie at the same time.
And, clearly I didn't claim he did say he "proved" THAT. Just that Roy has
stupidly gotten himself so tangled up that he alternately argues Mankiw lied
and didn't with the same argument.
So, Roy is guilty of creating a strawman. I'm sure he is happy to finally
learn what that is.
[snip]
> >And all that on top of Roy himself being the one who created the strawman
> >that Mankiw deviously meant "defenders" to mean only two defenders. Even
> >though Roy admits he knew Mankiw meant many, most, or even all defenders.
>
> He intended readers to think that's what he said. But he didn't say
> it.
Needless to say this simply a flat out lie. Roy has absolutely no evidence
that's what Mankiw was doing. Roy is just making this up out of whole
cloth.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
><ro...@telus.net>
>
>dining on the same moldy cheese,
>
> wrote in message news:3fcbcaea...@news.telus.net...
>
>> Once again, we have an extraordinary display of dishonesty from
>> Patrick.
>
>Which means Roy is unhappy that I'm quoting his own words back to him.
No, I'm unhappy that you are claiming I said what I did not say.
>> >When it was pointed out to our genius professional writer that creating a
>> >strawman is in fact a deception, i.e. a falsehood, a lie:
>>
>> It is certainly deception, but need not be a lie. For example, one
>> could say, "Patrick is a Nestorian, like that other famous Nestorian
>> who said X" Patrick may be a Nestorian, and the other Nestorian may
>> have said X, but although not a lie, this is still a strawman argument
>> because Patrick did not say X. This is the sort of thing Mankiw
>> pulled.
>
>First, this is not what Mankiw did.
In fact, of course, it's pretty much what Mankiw did. I just made it
more obvious.
>Second, Roy's example is not a strawman
>fallacy. It appears to be an ad hominem fallacy.
Nope. Strawman.
>Again, no questions on logic on the Mensa test?
Plenty. Which would be why you do not qualify.
>> Notice that Patrick lied again, here. I did not say I had "proved"
>> Mankiw lied and didn't lie at the same time. I said that some of his
>> statements were lies and others not.
>
>Hey, Roy CAN produce a strawman!
But hasn't. Right.
>Let's look at what I claimed Roy said he
>had "proved":
>
>[I'd explained the elementary to our genius:]
Translation: Patrick had concocted some convoluted lie.
>> >> >> >When one creates a strawman to easily knock down, one is creating a
>> >FALSE
>> >> >> >ARGUMENT, and attributing it to one's opponent. It is DECEPTION.
>It
>> >is
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >LIE.
>
>and then I commented on his response to the above:
>
>> >he tried weaseling out of it by arguing:
>
>> >> >> Not always, as the Mankiw article proves.
>
>That's Roy claiming the Mankiw argument which Roy claimed is a strawman
>fallacy is not a lie. To which I commented:
>
>> >but, rather than demonstrate how that is proven, Roy immediately argues
>> >Mankiw had in fact deliberately created a deceptive argument!:
>
>Take note of my, "rather than demonstrate how that is proven". To which Roy
>is now claiming:
>
>> I did not say I had "proved"
>> Mankiw lied and didn't lie at the same time.
>
>And, clearly I didn't claim he did say he "proved" THAT.
<yawn> Another flat, outright lie. These are Patrick's exact words:
>> > Roy has just said he has proved Mankiw lied and
>> >didn't lie at the same time.
Notice that unlike Patrick, I have not cut any relevant context. No
elisions to completely alter the meaning of what he said. Just
_his_exact_words_. Read the above carefully, people, and know Patrick
for what he is: once more _proved_ to be the most putrid, despicable
lying filth on Usenet.
>Just that Roy has
>stupidly gotten himself so tangled up that he alternately argues Mankiw lied
>and didn't with the same argument.
Lie. The above _verbatim_quote_ proves that it was Patrick who got
tangled up in his own lies.
> So, Roy is guilty of creating a strawman.
Lie. Of course.
>> >And all that on top of Roy himself being the one who created the strawman
>> >that Mankiw deviously meant "defenders" to mean only two defenders. Even
>> >though Roy admits he knew Mankiw meant many, most, or even all defenders.
>>
>> He intended readers to think that's what he said. But he didn't say
>> it.
>
>Needless to say this simply a flat out lie. Roy has absolutely no evidence
>that's what Mankiw was doing. Roy is just making this up out of whole
>cloth.
Lie. Mankiw's own words prove it beyond any doubt. He begins thus:
"Defenders of the estate tax often claim that it is a highly
progressive tax."
True, and that claim is most certainly correct. Next:
"It is certainly the case that the tax is levied only on the largest 2
percent of estates."
Not quite true. Only about 2% of estates pay the tax, but they are
not exclusively the largest ones.
Now notice what Mankiw very carefully says, and just as carefully does
not say:
"From this fact, defenders of the tax claim that the burden of the tax
falls only on the richest 2 percent of Americans."
Slam-dunk. That unquantified statement is true even if only two of
the defenders of the estate tax claim that.
-- Roy L