or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

No, because I didn't argue against a straw man, I used an alternative example to prove the definition of a word.  If abuse is tied to illegality, as is your postulation, then that needs to be true in all instances of the word abuse, which includes tax abuse, domestic abuse, and any other kind of abuse.  If you only mean that tax abuse is tied to illegality, then you should have said that. You cannot prove the definition of a word from a single example.  Alternatives...
Owners of business may well not pay income tax.  The reason we have a variety of taxes is to cover the bases.  And since they're still not all covered, I certainly don't think less taxation is the answer.
Since yours makes no sense as a statement of fairness, mine.  Everyone pays income tax on the same progressive tax rate, just some people don't earn enough to hit the higher bounds.  Fair, and with reasonable justification.  Your business concerns are for your own profit, and do not justify any tax reduction, that's absurd.
It was about the use of the word abuse, and neither of those things.  Certainly not a straw man, that doesn't even make any sense.  But I don't think there's any suggestion that I was drawing any implicit parallel, it was just another use of the word to illustrate a point.  And you still haven't replied to the question.
 And again with the passing judgement on other people's shopping.  What is with that?  Look it's simple.  People forget things.  Things that can be quite important (not being able to do laundry is a problem).  They forget them because they aren't things they do often (laundry detergent lasts several months, it's not a regular on the shopping list), and because the moment you clock that you need it is a moment when you're busy doing something else (i.e. the laundry).   So...
^ But my question was not loaded.  It was about the relationship of the word abuse to legality.  Either it is directly related or it isn't.  I claim that it isn't, though there is overlap, since the law will ideally try to curb abuse.
Never have.  In fact I'm not even married.  What's your point? If you were trying to be clever, the catch out question is normally said to be "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
  I didn't make that argument, but I disagree with you.  Fairness is the supposed bedrock of our society, so taxation should be based on a fair share principle.  Specifics are obviously debateable. But whichever way you look at, what Apple pays in corporation tax in many countries is not a fair share.  0% or close to 0% is not anything approaching a fair share.
 Is a man beating his wife in a country with lax domestic violence laws not abusing her?
You win the prize! There should be some kind of alarm bell that rings whenever anyone uses this spurious argument anywhere, about anything.
New Posts  All Forums: