Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nanaki_TV t1_j9p857y wrote

Reply to comment by Gotisdabest in Bernie Sanders proposes taxes on robots that take jobs by Scarlet_pot2

> Still can't answer on points though.

When you make one I'd address it.

>somehow only go "elsewhere"

It would. You brought up how you're not American as a defense to your ignorance of how our tax code works. That's fine and reasonable. But here you are still acting smug thinking you're actually throwing insults at me.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9p8iz3 wrote

>When you make onIte I'd address it.

I've made several which you simply ran away from. I can copy paste them if you'd like. This also is a backtrack from your previous statements which implied that you weren't willing because you were in a meeting. Now suddenly the meeting is gone but it's because I haven't been able to provide points. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, i assume you just lack the ability to read properly. I've heard American education isn't great with regards to literacy and such, and a fake economics degree probably isn't of much help.

>It would. You brought up how you're not American as a defense to your ignorance of how our tax code works. That's fine and reasonable. But here you are still acting smug thinking you're actually throwing insults at me.

Please inform me where the American tax code states that corporate taxes cannot be spent on the people and can only go "elsewhere".

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pbbcr wrote

> Please inform me where the American tax code states that corporate taxes cannot be spent on the people and can only go "elsewhere".

It doesn't state that in the code. In practice however... there's so many ways to avoid taxes for the big companies your head will spin. Look, what you want is for what? Let's start over and how about you start with that. BS wants to raise taxes on ""robots that take jobs"" however you would define that. Those taxes would not be spent on something like UBI or something like fixing our dumb healthcare system (or roads as I tried to tell you that's other taxes that pay for that). Instead, it would be sent to the Pentagon or other government programs that don't really help the average Joe. Meanwhile, your Mom and Pops that wants to "hire an AI" to do their copywriting will have to pay these new "AI-took-der-job Tax" on top of it their initial cost which will cause barriers to entry into whatever field that MaP Shop is in. The mega-corp will gladly pay the new tax since their economies of scale is so high it's a write off. A tax like this would hurt the very people that he is trying to help.

1

Gotisdabest t1_j9pcf6t wrote

>It doesn't state that in the code.

Okay so you were lying just before where you implied that it was my ignorance of the American tax code which stopped me from realising that corporate money will only go "elsewhere".

>there's so many ways to avoid taxes for the big companies your head will spin. Look, what you want is for what? Let's start over and how about you start with that. BS wants to raise taxes on ""robots that take jobs"" however you would define that. Those taxes would not be spent on something like UBI or something like fixing our dumb healthcare system (or roads as I tried to tell you that's other taxes that pay for that). Instead, it would be sent to the Pentagon or other government programs that don't really help the average Joe.

That's already a contradictory narrative. You claim they're avoiding taxes but also that the money would automatically go the Pentagon.

It also seems like you're trying to claim that either any budget increase will only go to the Pentagon(something that doesn't exactly agree with what you were saying before and is quite untrue) or that specifically corporate budgets make up the whole of the Pentagon budget and increase in them just means that.

Do you have any basis for any of the possible bizzare claims you're making here?

>Meanwhile, your Mom and Pops that wants to "hire an AI" to do their copywriting will have to pay these new "AI-took-der-job Tax" on top of it their initial cost which will cause barriers to entry into whatever field that MaP Shop is in.

No they won't. Because now you're lying again and trying to claim my argument is the same as Sander's when this thread started with me agreeing with a distinctly different thing to what Sanders wants.

>A tax like this would hurt the very people that he is trying to help.

By magically sending more money only to the Pentagon.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pd1gd wrote

Ok... man I tried with you. I really did. But you're too "smart" man. You can't even have a conversation without acting all high and mighty. You're hostile toward anyone who may have more information than you. That's kind of messed up. But oh well. That's on you. Oh no!! I'm "deflecting!" Hahahaaha. Good luck to you in your future.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pda3l wrote

Lmao. You make wild claims and when asked to defend them immediately run away. Yes, you are deflecting. Because that's all you seemingly can do when someone actually questions your bizzare claims and points out obvious lies and contradictions. You provide sources which don't even support what you're saying and make statements directly contradicting what you've stated previously. When called out you proceed to deflect and whine.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pfqrw wrote

Oh I defended them. You're just... no listening. Again and then insult, insult insult. I hope it makes you feel better. Not sure what's going on over in your world. Hope you're ok.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pfwsp wrote

>Oh I defended them.

You clearly did not. I pointed out contradictions and lies. Apparently calling them out is now insulting. Your rhetorical strategy is to provide bs claims, support them through lies and BSing through fake sources and supposed personal achievement, and when questioned specifically you immediately retreat and try to play some kind of victim.

Otherwise do tell me how my ignorance of the American tax code somehow prevented me from knowning something that's not even in the tax code. And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9ph4no wrote

>I pointed out contradictions and lies.

You said "those are lies" That's not ""pointing them out." Lmao

>And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.

That right there is why I don't wish to engage. I'm rereading our earlier convo and it's clear to me you don't even have a basic understand of econ. Have you even taken a class on it? You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale. This is 101-level man. "Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

I get it. You're one of those people that can't infer without

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9phuqg wrote

>That right there is why I don't wish to engag

Another contradiction. You earlier alleged i wasn't engaging, now you aren't engaging.

>You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale.

Source on either please. I do admit to not knowing much about barriers of entry since i believe that there is no such thing in the first place. Barriers to entry, however, are something I'm quite well acquainted with and you sent an article which does not attack my point in any way. I also do not know where i disagreed with anything of yours with regards to economies of scale, so you're valiantly fighting strawmen again.

>Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

And yes, I'm one of those people who can't infer without finished sentences.

0

Nanaki_TV t1_j9pimuq wrote

> So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

.........................................

That was me hitting my forehead. I just... wow

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pip8u wrote

More deflection!

1

Nanaki_TV t1_j9piyzh wrote

k.

0

Gotisdabest t1_j9pj0yl wrote

More deflection!

Edit- aww, someone couldn't deflect anymore so they blocked.

1