Tax Discrimination - It's that time again

[Danoff]

It also ignores globalization of jobs: a race to the bottom in which well educated people become paupers and pay no taxes.

I always think the best way to combat this is to make sure that you're not adding undue burden to your population and industries by having too large a government... lest you encourage the population and industry to look elsewhere.

 

[Biggles]

Definitely more information than I was looking for!

I wasn't trying to make any particular point - just curious.

noob: as a high school student, I wouldn't bother feeling guilty - I'll be looking for you to help support me in my old age ...

 

[cpp214]

EDIT: Nevermind...

If people still think Buffet is liar, here is the text from the article FoolKiller linked a few days ago:

And please, read it with these guidelines in mind.
(They apply to journalism as well as literature)

Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must match the source document word for word and must be attributed to the original author.

Paraphrasing involves putting a passage from source material into your own words. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the original source. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and condensing it slightly.

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities
Speech Raises at Least $1 Million for Clinton Campaign

By Tomoeh Murakami Tse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

Has anyone actually read that article? If so, then point out exactly where Buffet is lying. What direct quote from Buffet in that article is false or an outright lie? Notice the bold/italicized text? Neither sentence is in quotation marks, and they are two completely independent sentences. Yes, Buffet was taxed at about 17.7 percent of his taxable income. That he didn't go into detail about the difference between capital gains tax vs. income tax is irrelevant. Why should he? Why should he have to explain an accurate statement to a like-minded crowd of deep-pocketed campaign donors who have already ponied-up the money to be there?

If he were campaigning for a politician, and asking people for their vote, then you might be able to make the argument that he should have explained the difference between capital gains tax and income tax in more detail. And as for the part about his secretary's tax rate, that sentence is completely independent from the previous one, and is not prefaced with a "Buffet said" qualifier. That sentence is the journalist's words, not necessarily Buffet's. And the writer even qualifies that statement by saying "about 30 percent." If you took this before a court and tried to convict Buffet of perjury based on the evidence in this article, you'd be tossed out on your ear.

Why am I going to the trouble of defending Buffet again? Because, if you can read that article, and say with a straight face that Buffet actually lied, then there's no point in even trying to have an honest debate about other substantive issues, because that means you're willing to ignore plain and simple facts in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint.

 

[Joel]

Actually education is one of the best places to put tax dollars since smarter people=higher paying jobs which means more tax dollars.

Note, I said some of my classes. I meant my Careers class (Before anyone calls me out, and says I'm probably "one of those young punks who doesn't care about school", I get straight A's) Biggest waste of time ever. Our teacher made us close our eyes and pray for "God's divine light, which casts out all destructive forces. And God's fires of love, that cast out all destructive thoughts" (Freedom of religion my ass, but that's besides the point)


I don't feel guilty in Science class, or Math, or English, because I'm actually learning something.

And Biggles: Well, you cover my ass now, I'll cover yours later
...That's assuming the Libertarian party of Canada doesn't take power by then

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm not too worried about the actual numbers...my point is that everyone seems to have the attitude that the rich should pay more, simply because they can, but if they themselves were "rich", they'd have a different opinion.

Fair enough, but much of that depends on the person. As someone who has benefited directly from a portion of our social safety net, I could never imagine a time in my life where I would be angry about paying for them.

It's not about what amount of tax people can and can't afford to pay, it's about an unbalanced system.

Certainly so. However, the imbalance comes at both ends of the scale, and it ends up squeezing the overwhelming majority of the middle class. Do we really want that? Those of us on the Left find the entire situation just as frustrating as those on the Right, albeit for different reasons. Consequently, we come to entirely different conclusions when attempting to address the problem. Plenty of head-bashing on tables included.

Really, the way I look at it is that until we as a country come to terms that we actually have to pay for what we use, we're screwed no matter which way our tax policy shifts.

The only way a tax will ever be fair is if it's a flat percentage rate applied to every person, regardless of whether or not it's a consumption tax.

I'd generally disagree with this.

 

[Famine]

Has anyone actually read that article? If so, then point out exactly where Buffet is lying. What direct quote from Buffet in that article is false or an outright lie? Notice the bold/italicized text? Neither sentence is in quotation marks, and they are two completely independent sentences. Yes, Buffet was taxed at about 17.7 percent of his taxable income. That he didn't go into detail about the difference between capital gains tax vs. income tax is irrelevant. Why should he? Why should he have to explain an accurate statement to a like-minded crowd of deep-pocketed campaign donors who have already ponied-up the money to be there?

If he were campaigning for a politician, and asking people for their vote, then you might be able to make the argument that he should have explained the difference between capital gains tax and income tax in more detail. And as for the part about his secretary's tax rate, that sentence is completely independent from the previous one, and is not prefaced with a "Buffet said" qualifier. That sentence is the journalist's words, not necessarily Buffet's. And the writer even qualifies that statement by saying "about 30 percent." If you took this before a court and tried to convict Buffet of perjury based on the evidence in this article, you'd be tossed out on your ear.

Why am I going to the trouble of defending Buffet again? Because, if you can read that article, and say with a straight face that Buffet actually lied, then there's no point in even trying to have an honest debate about other substantive issues, because that means you're willing to ignore plain and simple facts in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint.

Both phrases are attributed to Mr. Buffett:

Warren E. Buffett ... slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Find a salary which permits a 28-33% (about 30%) tax bracket on personal income. Foolkiller came up with one:

The only way she is paying 30% in taxes is if she has a spouse that brings in over $100,000 and they file jointly, in which case Mr. Buffett is fully aware of his deception.

But of course that's not personal income, but combined. So his receptionist isn't being taxed at "about 30%".


To borrow Mr. Buffett's methods, I pay exactly the same tax as the richest person in Britain. How fair is that?! (one one one one). Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that I'm not talking about personal income tax, but sales tax. Or fuel duty. Or vehicle excise duty. Pick your own flat-rate tax here.

Buffett is comparing his investment tax (capital gains?) - the rate of which he'd pay exactly the same as his receptionist, should they get any income from investments - to income tax - the rate of which he'd pay as a $100k salary earner compared to whatever his receptionist's salary. The system he says allows him to pay less in fact doesn't - both pay the same capital gains (17.7%), and both pay income tax commensurate with their tax bracket (Buffett would be, with $100k, be in the 28% bracket; his receptionist would be, so long as it's under $65k, be in the 25% bracket). Hence the misrepresentation.

 

[Keef]

I'd generally disagree with this.

You disagree that a rich person should pay 10% of his income and a poor person should pay 10% of their income? I do to. Nobody should have their income taken out. A flat percentage consumption tax fixes that. The percentage means it perfectly fair, and the consumption part means its voluntary.

 

[Kylehnat]

I could never imagine a time in my life where I would be angry about paying for them.

Even if the direct redistribution from your salary was thousands of dollars each year? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

 

[YSSMAN]

Keef, I was under the impression you were making an argument for a flat income tax. Bad joo joo there. Otherwise, the consumption tax is fine. That is the only kind of flat/fair tax I'm in favor of.

Even if the direct redistribution from your salary was thousands of dollars each year? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Yes. I've been in the system, I've benefited from it, its time to return the favor. If I make the money, I have to pay the taxes. I can get pissy about the figures, almost everyone does. But, I'm not going to get mad about doing what I feel I'm supposed to be doing.

 

[Danoff]

Keef, I was under the impression you were making an argument for a flat income tax. Bad joo joo there.

Out of curiosity, why do you think this?

 

[Kylehnat]

Yes. I've been in the system, I've benefited from it, its time to return the favor.

In my first five years of working, I paid ~$2,500 in taxes, and received ~$2,000 in refunds. In the four years since, I've paid $64,000 in taxes, and owed a total of $1,000 more at tax time. (I'm counting Social Security and Medicare in this too, because I will never benefit from either system, so in both cases, they're taking my money and giving it to someone else). And the great thing? I have 35 more years of working to go. Nothing about this is ever going to even out for me under the current system, and it in the long run, it probably won't for you, either. Again, I'm not anti-tax, I'm against taking part of my paycheck and giving it to someone else. I earned it, so why does it go to their pocket? I can use the road my taxes paid for, but I can't enjoy the TV that someone else bought with my anti-refund.

 

[DK]

Well, look at a flat rate of tax this way - taking 40% of the income of a person barely able to pay the bills is going to hurt them worse than if you take 40% of the income of a person who can pay their bills easily and has everything they could dream of.

 

[Joel]

Well, look at a flat rate of tax this way - taking 40% of the income of a person barely able to pay the bills is going to hurt them worse than if you take 40% of the income of a person who can pay their bills easily and has everything they could dream of.

I say it again... Therefore? And I don't think anyone is advocating for a 40% flat tax. Maybe 15%. Don't say 40% because it sounds more dramatic.

 

[Danoff]

If our tax percentage were flat I think it would probably have to be higher than 30%. Maybe even higher than 35% to cover the deficit.

I would much prefer a flat consumption tax and the elimination of income tax and government records on all of our personal information. It seems that the easiest way for the government to keep tabs on you is to make something tax deductible.

Government: "Hey, I wonder how many times Americans have sex each year".
IRS Form: "Please indicate the number of times you had sex over the last year. Multiply this number by 100 and subtract it from your income"
American Public: "Sweet! Free money!"

The above is obviously a joke, but the point is that the IRS knows a ton about each and ever one of us. Whether we own our house, how much money we make, how much interest we pay, how many kids we have, what our medical expenses are, how we invest... and on and on and on. Switching to a consumption tax would reduce the size of the IRS dramatically, reduce the tax code dramatically, make it constitutional (applies equally to all), and properly align incentives for voters to reduce government.

 

[YSSMAN]

Out of curiosity, why do you think this?

Speaking only in reference to a flat income tax, I am personally uncomfortable with the way the burden is spread with those on the lower end of the scale. I'd insert a table or something with numbers, but we've all gone through it before. Yadda-yadda-yadda, poor people need money too, and are just as likely to spend it as those at the top. I'm just not that big of a believer in trickle-down economics. Meh.

Just as a general commentary, I find it so odd that people can't come together to create some kind of fairly rational, fairly moderate solution to our tax policies. Thinking out loud of course.

 

[Danoff]

Speaking only in reference to a flat income tax, I am personally uncomfortable with the way the burden is spread with those on the lower end of the scale.

But you understand that it must be this way. The lower scale HAS to feel the burden of government. If they don't they don't vote with any incentive to reduce government.

 

[Biggles]

But you should understand Danoff that the "lower scale" in countries like England, once they were able to participate in a fully democratic process, understood that they finally had some power to use their vote to elect governments that would "redistribute the wealth". By the end of the 19th century, aristocratic families had accumulated massive land-holdings & the resulting wealth, through violence, political intrigue, service to the Crown, inheritance & chance, often originating in feudal times.

The "lower scale" were not stupid enough to ignore the possibility that they could use the power of democracy to effect a more equitable redistribution of this property through ... err ... "tax discrimination"

 

[Famine]

But you should understand Danoff that the "lower scale" in countries like England, once they were able to participate in a fully democratic process, understood that they finally had some power to use their vote to elect governments that would "redistribute the wealth". By the end of the 19th century, aristocratic families had accumulated massive land-holdings & the resulting wealth, through violence, political intrigue, service to the Crown, inheritance & chance, often originating in feudal times.

The "lower scale" were not stupid enough to ignore the possibility that they could use the power of democracy to effect a more equitable redistribution of this property through ... err ... "tax discrimination"

Which brings us back to Foolkiller's quote, that a government willing to rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon Paul's vote.

 

[FoolKiller]

Which brings us back to Foolkiller's quote, that a government willing to rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon Paul's vote.

I was actually going to point out that an unlimited democratic process is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Rules must be in place to prevent a minority from being able to vote away the rights of a majority.

While one may be able to make an argument that at the end of the 19th century wealth redistribution was apparently righting the wrongs of the aristocracy, one must then also ask why it still goes on in those same countries in the 21st century.

If our tax percentage were flat I think it would probably have to be higher than 30%. Maybe even higher than 35% to cover the deficit.

Is that assuming that spending isn't cut from our current budget?

 

[Danoff]

But you should understand Danoff that the "lower scale" in countries like England, once they were able to participate in a fully democratic process, understood that they finally had some power to use their vote to elect governments that would "redistribute the wealth". By the end of the 19th century, aristocratic families had accumulated massive land-holdings & the resulting wealth, through violence, political intrigue, service to the Crown, inheritance & chance, often originating in feudal times.

The "lower scale" were not stupid enough to ignore the possibility that they could use the power of democracy to effect a more equitable redistribution of this property through ... err ... "tax discrimination"

You love to make the world out to be a place where nobody is entitled to what they produce. That everyone owes somebody something. It isn't true. People produce through their labor. They choose to work when they could otherwise not. And that choice is what creates wealth.

Yes, it is true that some inherit money that they did not earn (though that does not mean it was unearned or illegitimately given). In some cases, they MIGHT even inherit money that was stolen. This does not give anyone a carte blanche to "redistribute" or "steal" as they see fit.

...and you did not address my point. The lower end of the scale MUST feel the size of government or they will not vote with the necessary incentives. That's WHY the constitution was written to REQUIRE this.

Is that assuming that spending isn't cut from our current budget?

Of course. When do we cut spending?

 

[Duke]

But you should understand Danoff that the "lower scale" in countries like England, once they were able to participate in a fully democratic process, understood that they finally had some power to use their vote to elect governments that would "redistribute the wealth". By the end of the 19th century, aristocratic families had accumulated massive land-holdings & the resulting wealth, through violence, political intrigue, service to the Crown, inheritance & chance, often originating in feudal times.

The "lower scale" were not stupid enough to ignore the possibility that they could use the power of democracy to effect a more equitable redistribution of this property through ... err ... "tax discrimination"

You point being... err, what, exactly? Everyone on this side of the fence has always understood that the poorer majority can vote money away from the richer minority and into their own pockets. That's the major issue about which we're so vehemently complaining.

 

[Biggles]

Which brings us back to Foolkiller's quote, that a government willing to rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon Paul's vote.

Yes, that's why a balance is needed. Clearly for centuries the balance was massively in favour of the property owners - those without property were even denied the right to vote.

Oh, & of course the Queen - the very pinnacle of the propertied, privileged classes, managed to avoid paying ANY taxes until 1992.

Everyone on this side of the fence has always understood that the poorer majority can vote money away from the richer minority and into their own pockets. That's the major issue about which we're so vehemently complaining.

Yes, it's hell being super-rich. The poor old Duke of Westminster is only worth about 11 billion Pounds. That nasty "poorer majority" has obviously been bringing him to his knees...

While one may be able to make an argument that at the end of the 19th century wealth redistribution was apparently righting the wrongs of the aristocracy, one must then also ask why it still goes on in those same countries in the 21st century.

Because in many parts of the world the inequities are still as extreme as they were in 19th century England.

You love to make the world out to be a place where nobody is entitled to what they produce. That everyone owes somebody something. It isn't true. People produce through their labor.

Well, actually the great landowners of Europe were not too keen on the idea of "work". They tended to leave the "work" to those in the "lower scale".

Without democracy the rich would never have given up their inherited wealth & privileges. If there is greater equity in parts of the world today, it is because the lower scale "sheep" managed to organize to protect themselves from the "wolf".

Yes, the case in the New World is a little different. There, until the "frontier" was closed, there was property for everyone to claim. It just required the annihilation of the original "property owners" - the indigenous "First Nations" - an annihilation achieved so successfully that their existence, let alone their "rights", can now be completely ignored.

 

[Famine]

Yes, that's why a balance is needed. Clearly for centuries the balance was massively in favour of the property owners - those without property were even denied the right to vote.

And now the vote of the wealthy is worth less than the vote of the less wealthy. Like the vote of the sheep is worth less than the vote of the wolves in Foolkiller's example.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, it's hell being super-rich. The poor old Duke of Westminster is only worth about 11 billion Pounds. That nasty "poorer majority" has obviously been bringing him to his knees...

Because he can take it he should? What kind of argument is that? A very unprincipled argument that assumes justice does not exist.

Because in many parts of the world the inequities are still as extreme as they were in 19th century England.

Inequity isn't the problem. The problem is force. You keep talking about civilizations in which one class forced the other to provide them with their wealth, which all here agree is wrong and should be prevented. The consistent view is one that recognizes that force is STILL being used, this time in the form of "redistribution".

Well, actually the great landowners of Europe were not too keen on the idea of "work". They tended to leave the "work" to those in the "lower scale".

Nobody cares Biggles. It's totally without merit in this discussion. If you expect to ever make any headway with myself, foolkiller, duke, famine, omnis, or any other libertarian-minded individual here, you'll recognize this fact.

Without democracy the rich would never have given up their inherited wealth & privileges. If there is greater equity in parts of the world today, it is because the lower scale "sheep" managed to organize to protect themselves from the "wolf".

I completely wholeheartedly agree. And I'll go out on a limb and say that foolkiller, duke, famine, omnis and any other libertarian-minded individual here will also wholeheartedly agree. But who are the sheep now? The minority who is having their rights voted away by the majority, the rich are now the sheep. And it's still wrong, regardless of which side is abusing their power.

Yes, the case in the New World is a little different. There, until the "frontier" was closed, there was property for everyone to claim. It just required the annihilation of the original "property owners" - the indigenous "First Nations" - an annihilation achieved so successfully that their existence, let alone their "rights", can now be completely ignored.

I'll re-iterate:

Nobody cares Biggles. It's totally without merit in this discussion. If you expect to ever make any headway with myself, foolkiller, duke, famine, omnis, or any other libertarian-minded individual here, you'll recognize this fact.

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course. When do we cut spending?

I had just had this image that if we had politicians willing to change the tax code to something fair and simple that they might also cut spending on entitlements and non-entitlement pork. That is probably too much of a fantasy, but one can dream.

Because in many parts of the world the inequities are still as extreme as they were in 19th century England.

Maybe by saying "in those same countries" my statement was too broad. Let me try again: Why, over 100 years later, would countries that have redistributed wealth to supposedly correct the wrongs of an aristocracy need to continue doing so in light of the fact that the richest families now are clearly not the same ones that benefited then? In the US the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers are historic footnotes in the light of the Waltons and the Gates families.

Or is your issue simply that as long as there are inequalities it justifies redistribution?

 

[Biggles]

Maybe by saying "in those same countries" my statement was too broad. Let me try again: Why, over 100 years later, would countries that have redistributed wealth to supposedly correct the wrongs of an aristocracy need to continue doing so in light of the fact that the richest families now are clearly not the same ones that benefited then? In the US the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers are historic footnotes in the light of the Waltons and the Gates families.

Or is your issue simply that as long as there are inequalities it justifies redistribution?

I would say it's all a question of balance. The situation is much better than it was 100 years ago - the Queen now does pay tax - but it was democratic pressure that forced her to do so. The rich will not (generally) give up their privileges without a fight. I would not trust that simply to libertarian laissez faire principles. BTW: I'm really not sure that the Rockerfellers are "historic footnotes":

The combined wealth of the family – its total assets and investments plus the individual wealth of its members – has never been known with any precision. The records of the family archives relating to both the family and individual members' net worth is closed to researchers. Independent researchers have valued the assets of the Rockefeller family much higher, some approaching amounts as high as $110 billion.

...Rockerfeller "senior" is still regarded as the wealthiest man who has ever lived, worth over $300 billion in today's figures, easily surpassing Bill Gates, in terms adjusted by inflation indexing.

I think my general point - & Warren Buffet's - is that the rich, especially the "super-rich" don't need anybody's sympathy. If they pay a lot of tax, it's because they have A LOT of wealth. They're doing just fine as it is.

I would agree that not disadvantaging small business & the entrepreneurial class, who actively create new wealth & employ people, on the other hand is an important goal.

Nobody cares Biggles. It's totally without merit in this discussion. If you expect to ever make any headway with myself, foolkiller, duke, famine, omnis, or any other libertarian-minded individual here, you'll recognize this fact.

YOU don't care. I see that. If it's without merit in this discussion, it's because you seek to frame the entire discussion in terms of your own philosophy. You talk about "human rights" but only as they fit into your own particular definition, with its fetishization of "property". You are an ideologue with a completely close-minded, self-referential view of the world.

 

[DK]

If I were worth £11 billion I'd buy a gold-plated Bugatti Veyron. Or maybe one made from solid gold, even though it'd be beaten in a drag race by a granny in a Kia Picanto (seeing as it weighs so much).

 

[FoolKiller]

I would say it's all a question of balance. The situation is much better than it was 100 years ago - the Queen now does pay tax - but it was democratic pressure that forced her to do so. The rich will not (generally) give up their privileges without a fight. I would not trust that simply to libertarian laissez faire principles.

You realize that you still haven't answered my question, right? There is no answer to the why in this paragraph.

BTW: I'm really not sure that the Rockerfellers are "historic footnotes":

Thank you for the history lesson, but you are avoiding the point of my question. If, as you claim, wealth redistribution is to correct injustices why are the self-made richest men in the world from 100 years after that system still having their wealth redistributed?

I think my general point - & Warren Buffet's - is that the rich, especially the "super-rich" don't need anybody's sympathy. If they pay a lot of tax, it's because they have A LOT of wealth. They're doing just fine as it is.

Still doesn't answer why they should pay a greater proportion. Because they can is not a satisfactory answer.

 

[Danoff]

YOU don't care. I see that. If it's without merit in this discussion, it's because you seek to frame the entire discussion in terms of your own philosophy.

If by this you mean that I'm only willing to talk about what's relevant to the topic at hand, then yes. You seem to never get tired of trying to slam any notion of justice by stating that injustice has happened. It's pointless, it's tired, it's completely off-topic and without any merit whatsoever. Past injustices have no bearing on whether a system should be just.

Beyond the philosophical irrelevance of this point, you actually don't have a point practically either. You're talking about injustices that happened well before some MAJOR events in the history of this nation that wiped out any trace of benefit anyone might have gotten. And you're talking about injustices that hurt everyone alive today. They might have hurt everyone unequally, but they still hurt everyone. It's not as if I'm better off today because America fought the civil war.

I'll request for the 100th time that you stop trying to frame this argument around irrelevant historical events and start having an honest discussion.

You are an ideologue with a completely close-minded, self-referential view of the world.

I suppose I just don't find your attempts to change the subject convincing.

 

[Duke]

Yes, that's why a balance is needed. Clearly for centuries the balance was massively in favour of the property owners - those without property were even denied the right to vote.

Oh, & of course the Queen - the very pinnacle of the propertied, privileged classes, managed to avoid paying ANY taxes until 1992.



Yes, it's hell being super-rich. The poor old Duke of Westminster is only worth about 11 billion Pounds. That nasty "poorer majority" has obviously been bringing him to his knees...



Because in many parts of the world the inequities are still as extreme as they were in 19th century England.



Well, actually the great landowners of Europe were not too keen on the idea of "work". They tended to leave the "work" to those in the "lower scale".

Without democracy the rich would never have given up their inherited wealth & privileges. If there is greater equity in parts of the world today, it is because the lower scale "sheep" managed to organize to protect themselves from the "wolf".

Yes, the case in the New World is a little different. There, until the "frontier" was closed, there was property for everyone to claim. It just required the annihilation of the original "property owners" - the indigenous "First Nations" - an annihilation achieved so successfully that their existence, let alone their "rights", can now be completely ignored.

And, after missing point after point so spectacularly, you still wonder why we tend to reduce things down to the harshest of logical principles. You argue in the same method my father used to: vehemently critical of something complete off to the side of the issue, and about which we actually agree.