Actual left/right wing discussion Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JBTFD who wrote (1905)	9/27/2006 5:50:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 10087

Other than that particular sentence, both statements are just a recitation of the same true and easily available data in different ways. The first paragraph spins the facts to make it seem like the rich are making out like bandits, the 2nd paragraph spins it to imply that the rich are getting a lower than equivalent share of the tax cuts. As of the sentence you quote - "As a result of these changes, the top 1% paid a larger share of the tax burden in 2004 than it did four years earlier, and the bottom 50 percent paid a smaller share." These changes happened. The observed result also happened. But "post hoc" doesn't imply "propter hoc" The net result of all influences including the specified changes was correct as stated. Also the implication that the changes had some effect on the net results is also clearly correct. But if you think the statement implies that the change was the only, or the overwhelming, reason for the observed results, than your correct, there is no direct support for it in the quoted statement. In fact in the statement itself, there is no direct support for the assertion that the changes in tax law didn't exert an effect towards increasing the the percent of the tax burden paid by the poor, or decreasing the share paid by the wealthy. The blog post was not an analysis of the statement. Also it doesn't seem that it was posted in order to support the sentence you quoted. It was posted in order to show how you can spin the same set of facts in different directions. I think it successfully achieved that objective. It may have had a secondary purpose of showing that the percentage tax cut for the lowest earning tax payers was higher than the percentage cut for the highest earners.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next