My political leanings are fairly moderate, though some naivete and some theology does lean me leftward.
If asked, I am willing to provide my opinions about things, but if you ask the people who have talked to me about politics the most, they can tell you that my opinions can sometimes be very fluid, as generally I refuse to be adamant about anything if I know little about it… and I know little about most things.
Consequently, my role in political discussions is generally to add some perspective, or to clear up something I believe to be a misconception. Frequently I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I just want to be sure that people think the things they do even while aware of certain things that might dissuade others, as opposed to only thinking certain things because they are unaware of counterarguments. If a person knows everything I know, and understands what I understand, and comes to a different conclusion, he is well within his rights to do so.
I was in a van today with several co-workers who were discussing the U.S. Federal Income Tax, which is a progressive tax. This means that as income increases, so do tax rates. They were saying that because income tax is progressive, it sometimes discourages people to seek higher incomes, lest the increased tax rate were to leave them in the end with less net income than if they had just earned less to begin with.
An example to explain their point: If Edward makes $29,999 and the tax rate for up to that amount is 10% [not a reflection of actual rates], his tax owed will be $2,999.90 — but if the tax rate for $30,000 and higher is 20%, then that would mean that if he were to make one dollar more in income, suddenly he would owe $3,000.10 more in taxes, for a total of $6,000. Clearly, making one more dollar is not a good idea if it will cost him several thousand. In fact, since at $29,999 of income, he is left with $26,999.10 after taxes, it would be foolish for him to try to make any more money at all unless he were confident that he could make $33,748.88 or more in the same time frame, because otherwise he ends up with a relative loss. (At $33,748.88, he would also be left with $26,999.10 after taxes, and only by earning more than that could his after-tax income increase.)
The trouble with the above argument and example is that it is based on an idea that is not true.
This is because, in the United States, any time income is great enough to pass into a higher tax bracket, only the amount by which the latest cutoff number has been exceeded will be taxed at the new rate.
So, let us look again at Edward. If he were to make one more dollar, for a total before-tax income of $30,000, he could still expect to pay 10% on the first $29,999 (for a total of $2,999.90), but then, for each dollar above that, he would have to pay 20%. In this case, since he is only exceeding the cutoff by one dollar, he only pays an additional 20¢. His total tax owed would now be $3,000.10. By earning an extra dollar, he has NOT lost thousands; he has made, effectively, 80¢. Admittedly this might not make for as much of an incentive as Edward is used to, because up until that point every dollar he earned got him 90¢ instead of 80, but getting 80¢ is by no means a disincentive in the way that losing several thousand dollars would be.
All right, so, back to the van and the whole reason I am writing this (which is basically a rant, so if you would like to stop reading now, be my guest. If you have read up until this point, at least now you are informed about progressive taxes). Following my usual role in attempting to clear up misconception, I tried to point out that entering into a new tax bracket does not cause a person’s entire income to be taxed at the new rate (that is, by the way, why they are called “marginal” tax brackets). Swiftly I was told that I am incorrect.
Moments after this point, the conversation took a turn. But before going into that, I feel I must explain what caused the turn. Arguing whether something is good or bad, or whether it fits with a specific set of morals can be done at any time. [You like artichokes? Okay fine, I am not a big fan. You think they are good, I think they are bad. You think homosexuality is heinous sin and all homosexuals are going to Hell? Well, then I would say that people are rather subjective in how they rank the heinousness of sins, and people exaggerate how much more terrible sexual immorality is over, say, blasphemy, and that homosexuality is not more equivalent to apostasy than any number of other sins which people generally make much less fuss over.] On the other hand, people cannot argue whether something is true or false just any time they want to. If you tell me that President Chester Arthur’s middle name was Alvin, and I say you are wrong, and we have no access at that time to a credible source which could solve this dispute for us, we cannot keep fighting. Why? Because “yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is, no it isn’t” is not an argument: it is a waste of time. [By the way, Chester Arthur's middle name was Alan.]
As you can see, the discussion in the van had reached a point where we could not continue arguing: it was a matter of whether something was true or false. Therefore, I stopped arguing, only lamenting that I was confident in what I knew (and have since confirmed by more research), but knowing that it would be useless to protest further. This is when the turn in conversation took place. One gentleman in the company told me then that I was being insultingly arrogant by implying that I was the only one in the group to possibly be intelligent enough or researched enough to know the truth (because everyone else disagreed). While I do regret giving off such an impression, it was certainly unintentional. The statement that someone else is mistaken is not, by any means, a claim that such a mistake is necessarily caused by that person’s ignorance or stupidity. If that were the case, then everyone in the van would, by analogue, be calling me ignorant or stupid, and if that were true, then my behavior would not be the only offense requiring rebuke or apology.
It is that part of arguing that makes me hate arguments so much.
