Skip to comments.Not only farmers get Colorado agriculture tax breaks (Tom Cruise pays $400-248 acres)
Posted on 03/08/2011 5:28:00 AM PST by maggief
click here to read article
You certainly cannot say that: this ling cannot be "better" simply because the previous one was not good at all. On the contrary, the previously linked article flatly stated that your claim was false.
DennisW: That John Kerry/Teresa Kerry were liable for Massachusetts excise tax on the new yacht.
It's time to ask you once again: are you joking? do you read the article before linking to it?
This article is even more relentless in showing that your claim is false:
John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he will voluntarily pay $500,000 to Massachusetts tax collectors
The state Department of Revenue had just started looking into Kerrys use
Officials could have subpoenaed the ships log
Kerry "made clear that, whether owed or not, we intend to pay the equivalent taxes as if the boats home port were currently in Massachusetts,"
he was docking his yacht, Isabel, in Newport, R.I., allowing him to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in Massachusetts taxes.
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal. Not a single article, as far as I know, has even attempted to use "evade" instead of "avoid."
Donovan said the burden would be on Kerry to prove he does not intend to use the boat in Massachusetts, and having property on Nantucket would not help his case.
If the senator had not volunteered to pay, Donovan said, collecting the taxes could have taken two years or longer,
What have I missed, Dennis: what in the article even remotely alleges that, as you claim, Kerry and Heinz were liable for Massachusetts excise tax?
To be sure, I am not a friend of Kerry at all. But I try, to the full extent of my abilities, to be friends with the truth. What about you, Dennis, where on earth have you found even remote support for your claim, and why do you insist on making it even when everything tells you that your claim is false?
The previous post offers eloquent arguments and explains why you, DennisW, believe Kerry and Heinz to be liable.
That is not what you said previously and to which I responded. What you said was that "actually he broke the laws of Massachusets." As you know, lawyers on both sides have diverrging opinions about the law, and it is the function of the courtse to decide what law is. I consequencly asked you to show where it was unequivocally shown that he broke the law. You first replied by pointing to an article which said the he did not brake the law and then to an article which offers nothing but various hypotheticals.
If you said, "I personally was persuaded Kerry had bracken the law" or "I believe he broke the law," there would be no discussion.
As it stands, your initial claim remains unsupported. As for the hair-splitting legal arguments on the matter, I cannot contribute to them: I am not an attorney and do not qualify thus.
In any case, thank you for explaining in detail what led you to your beliefs.
I’m kinda surprised you don’t know about this kind of taxation. Rhode Island has no new boat excise (sales) tax and Massachusetts does. You naively think Massachusetts is going to let people get away with screwing them out of taxes??? Thus if the boat is claimed to be docked in Rhode Island but you are continuously using it in Massachusetts where you own at least two houses, the Massachusetts tax collector will pursue you. You, Top Quark, can try doing this and if you are reported (squealed on) Massachusetts will send you an excise tax bill
Say what you want. The boat was frequently used in Massachusetts so he had to pony up the money. He voluntarily did it before the Massachusetts tax collectors demanded the money. Before Massachusetts tax collectors gathered more evidence such as the ships log. But the ruling and outcome would have been the same. He would have had to pay up $500,000.
Of course Kerry emphasized the voluntary nature of paying up once he was squealed on by people who saw the boast frequenting Massachusetts. That is like you “volunteering” to pay up on an IRS tax dispute before they do some more investigating
I never said they were. Please see #68.
We should lower taxes drastically, cut social programs drastically and maintain an adequate defense. Thats the conservative way.
I completely agree and advocate the same. I did not say anything to the contrary. Your argument is therefore directed at a straw man --- something I did not say.
More importantly, the discussion was about what something is (is paying less taxes patriotic). You are arguments are about what we shoud do. I am sure you can see that it is a different matter.
Sorry that is not my belief. It is fact that if you frequent Massachusetts waters in your brand new yacht and dock there a bit....Then Massachusetts will demand payment of use/excise tax. Despite your claim that it is actually berthed in “no taxation” Rhode Island
Especially when you own two residences in Massachusetts and none in Rhode Island, Massachusetts will say to you that the real home of your boat is in Massachusetts. A good number of people try the same scam as John Kerry and some get away with it until they are squealed on. Some get away with it forever I’m sure.
I cannot say whether I agree or disagree, however. This is simply because, having no qualification to form one, I have no opinion on the legal matters.
Kerry has sailed the boat in Massachusetts, according to a person with knowledge of the situation who declined to be named, although it is unclear how often. The senator has homes in Boston and on Nantucket.
State tax law specialists say that even if the senator sailed in Massachusetts a fairly low number of times, he could be liable for the taxes.
If it was in Massachusetts two or three times, it would not surprise me if Department of Revenue went after a boat on that basis, said Joe Donovan, former deputy counsel at the Department of Revenue.
Donovan said the burden would be on Kerry to prove he does not intend to use the boat in Massachusetts, and having property on Nantucket would not help his case.
When somebody has property down on the islands (Nantucket), its natural to assume Massachusetts waters wouldnt be avoided, Donovan said.
If the senator had not volunteered to pay, Donovan said, collecting the taxes could have taken two years or longer, with all the appeals and court remedies available. (this way Kerry avoided the steady drip of bad publicity)
The states senior US senator has been assailed by questions since the Boston Herald reported Friday that he was docking his yacht, Isabel, in Newport, R.I., allowing him to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in Massachusetts taxes. Rhode Island rescinded its sales and use tax on boats in 1993, creating a tax haven for yacht owners.
Residents who buy boats out of state but plan to use them in Massachusetts must file a form and pay a use tax, equivalent to the Massachusetts sales tax of 6.25 percent, by the 20th day of the month after they take possession of the boats, according to the Department of Revenue. Kerry filed no such form and paid no such tax. If he docked the yacht in Massachusetts, he would also be subject to a $70,000 annual excise tax, payable to the city or town of that home port.
TopQuark, replied in comment #43:
"Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What's so patriotic about not having the military, then?"
FamilyOp: That's the slippery slope fallacy...
That's what you claimed in the preceding post as well. As in that post, you do not attempt to demonstrate that the argument is fallacious. If it is, then you've got to explain why.
I am afraid, the real reason for the irritation shows up next:
... and a typically anti-conservative argument.
As guilt by association, this is fallacious and not quite fair. If I fall into a trap and repeat, however inadvertently, anti-conservative arguments, this should definitely be pointed out to me -- I would be only grateful. But you don't say what those "anti-conservative" arguments are or why my statements are fallcious.
So, you leave us only with your beliefs that (i) I committed a fallacy, and (ii) such fallacy is typical for our opponents.
No less important is that you appear to misunderstand what the (indeed fallacious) slippery-slope argument is, thinking that an extreme example is the slippery-slope fallacy. It is not. That argument erroneously posits that the fist step leads invariably to a sequence of events ending is some undesirable outcome. In the present discussion, however, nobody mentioned any process or steps, connected or otherwise.
The question was about the relationship between not paying taxes and patriotism.
It was also dishonest,...
Oh my, how easily you through accusations. Dishonest? Not some error, mistake or careless thinking; not possibly limitations on the ability to think carefully ---- it was dishonest. Oh my.
..., as Jotmo did not advocate for shutting the military forces down.
I did not suggest he ever did: I gave that example.
Since you preferred not to look up the preceding post as I suggest, I an pasting it for you:
Jotmo: "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible."
And: "It does not follow that "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible." leads to "nobody pays any federal tax.", or the implication in that statement which is, "the federal government gets no revenue."
That is correct. But nobody suggested that implication; are now arguing, quite correctly, against a straw man. We are not talking about an implication. The situation "nobody pays any tax" is a special case of "little tax" to which you referred in your original claim. This is, moreover, the most illustrative special case: since zero is the smallest nonnegative number, the "zero tax" is the ultimate illustration of "little tax."
But, since you appear to have been derailed by this issue of zero tax, let me rephrase my question staying entirely within your "little tax:" Smaller taxes translate into a smaller provision of public goods and, in particular, a weakening of our national defense. Surely you will agree that there is nothing patriotic about weakening America's defense.
I would be only grateful if you point out my errors. It would help, however, it you ensured first that you understand what was and was not said in this exchange.
It’s now clear that you’re a liar. You say nobody suggested that implication, but the “implication” is a DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU. You are the one that said DIRECTLY that paying as little tax as possible lead to nobody paying any taxes. It’s not a straw man because it is EXACTLY what YOU said:
“Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then? “
You are the one that jumped straight from “as little as possible” to “nobody pays any”. That’s you, not a straw man. Every time you call it a straw man, every time say nobody implied it, you are LYING. You said it. STOP LYING.
You (TopQuark) wrote, “Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then?” You first posted the implied assumption that people trying to pay “as little tax as possible” would slide toward paying no federal tax at all. That’s the slippery slope fallacy. The second sentence was a typically anti-conservative argument. You begged the question while using it as a false accusation. Asking, “What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then?” is much like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Jotmo made no proposition for paying no federal taxes or having no military.
Implying a dishonesty for the purpose of denying it later is a dishonest method of argument that we’ve seen from many anti-conservatives. Implying a dishonesty in accusation is a typically feminist tactic.
You quote me, correctly, as saying: "Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax."
This is a hypothetical. I did not predict that such outcome will occur. I do not claim anybody else made that prediction. Nor did I even speculate about a possibility that it may occur. That is what the word "suppose" conveys. People often say such things when constructing an argument: "Suppose for a moment that..." or "Suppose for the sake of the argument that.."
Completely misunderstanding this sentence, you claim that I said DIRECTLY that paying as little tax as possible lead[s] to nobody paying any taxes.
This is clearly false. You could've made this claim by mistake, of course, but no amount of clarification, including a complete restatement of the argument appears to help. Which suggests that you are not after the truth: you assumed, erroneously and unfairly, that I was advancing an "anti-conservative" argument, and the ensuing anger completely paralyzed both your brain and whatever organs that cause you to be fair at other times.
Having no basis in fact or logic, you even resorted to name-calling:
youre a liar.... man. Every time... you are LYING. You said it. STOP LYING.
Thank you for revealing fully how much you care about conservative principles.
I hope you don't expect me to reply any further.
Have a good night.
It’s not just a hypothetical, it’s a slippery slope, given that the post you were replying to said absolutely NOTHING about nobody paying taxes when you said “suppose you get your way” you were BSing. That wasn’t “his way”, his way was the least taxes possible under law, which isn’t nobody pays any taxes. Thus your slope, and a straw man to boot. Funny the guy accusing everybody else of tilting at straw men started it all off with a straw man.
You said it, it was silly, it was a slippery slope, and it was a straw man. And you’ve refused to acknowledge by with lies and insults. You lied, that makes you a liar, that’s not name calling, that’s pointed out the simple truth. You’re a liar. You’ve lied to avoid defending a position you know yourself was silly.
This is what your statement reads like: "Playing violin while trying to cook dinner is a preposterous tactic used by many tax-collectors. Doing so while also sleeping is a typically Roman strategy."
What does this nonsense even means, let alone what relevance does it have to anything said before?
I indeed wrote: Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax.
Your conclusion: "You first posted the implied assumption that people trying to pay as little tax as possible would slide toward paying no federal tax at all."
There is no implied assumption. There is no "would" (as in would slide) of any kind. There is no speculation of what will or will not take place.
Here is what the statement does say:
1. "Small taxes" is a category of situations where the number expressing the tax paid is, well, small. Most people yould probably agree that it includes as special cases, $100 tax, $20 tax, $1 tax...
I used one such example:
2. Zero tax cleally belongs to the category "small taxes." In fact it is the smallest nonnegative tax possible. So I focus on that special case:
3. Suppose people don't pay taxes.
In sum, the reasoning is this: if (suppose) people don't take taxes; then there is a consequence of no defense, to which no patriot would subscribe --- a contradiction, which shows that the statement is false. This form of reasoning is standard and referred to as "reductio ad absurdum" or "proof by contradiction."
The only implication (something of the form "if...then") in my reasoning is: "no taxes" implies "no defense." There are no other. You misread it, unfortunately, as "Little taxes" implies "no taxes" (which would indeed make it look like a slippery slope). No such thing has been said. The connection here is not even an implication at all: it is a specialization.
If something is claimed (by Jotmo) to be true for an entire category (little taxes), it must be true for every special case in that category (for zero tax). This is not an implication, something of the form "A implies B;" this statement is specialization: you (Jotmo) claim something to be true "for all X; Ok, let's consider it for a specific X.
That you compelled me to write the foregoing after I clarified this earlier makes me wonder what you are after here. Your posture looks more like a hunt rather than a discussion: you seem unconcerned with the subject matter or what I think aboout, being bent instead "proving" that what I said is not only not conservative but even anti-conservative.
If my impression is incorrect, let's return to a discussion of the subject matter. Otherwise, stay with whatever conclusions you want and use whatever tortured logic you choose to "prove" your supposition about me, but I shall not dignify with a firther reply these ridiculously unfounded attacks. These drummed up "charges" were not worth even this post.
No, but last time down there me and a buddy certainly scared them pretty well. There was a herd on the land grazing at the time we wanted to shoot. A few rounds of .45 ACP fired into the ground made them decide that grazing was better elsewhere.
Good post, GA. Thanks for bringing moral and logical clarity (always a dangerous thing to do) into the discussion.
We actually tried to move them before the shooting using my buddy’s SUV(driving and honking), but they would not budge from the area.
Maybe they’re accustomed to vehicles. In South Park. If we get within about 50 yards on foot, they start moving (Angus, black whiteface, occasional longhorn,...). ...different environment for them down there, I guess. Some breeds tend to be more sluggish, too (e.g., Hereford).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.