A very good tactic to use when facing folks with misinformed views [View All]

Is not direct confrontation, but oblique query. Don't attack their viewpoint or facts, simply ask questions about them.

For example:

Teabagger: It really pisses me off that my taxes are so high, I want my taxes cut.

Me: That certainly is vexing problem. What is your tax rate?

TB: (Blank stare) Er, uh...

(Most people don't know what their tax bracket is:

Me: Well, let's assume you doing well, making a million a year, putting you in the top tax bracket. You are working VERY hard, 60 hours a week in your business. That would put you in the 35% tax bracket, so that would mean you would have to pay $350,000 in taxes. But, of course, you do have deduction, kids, your mortgage, medical expenses, so when all is said and done you are probably going to be paying less than 35%.

(This is a VAST oversimplification of tax bracketing, but trying to explain this to your average Joe will confuse them, so keep the numbers simple. They may also bring up other taxes, state, local, sales, gasoline, but stop them politely and explain you want to keep things simple for the moment and just look at federal income tax.)

Me: So, to keep things simple let's just work with the higher number and ignore deductions. So, you pay a whopping $350,000 on your million dollar income. But, could you live on $650,000 a year?

TB: Well, yes, certainly.

Me: But ... (pondering) that is STILL a lot of money. Hmmm... What would you say to me if I could wave a magic wand and return the tax rates to say, that of 1956, back when everything was booming economically and Eisnehower was president. Would you want me to do that?

TB: Hell, yeah. That's back when this was country was great!

Me: Sadly, as I recall (be prepared to back this up with a good source like http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html) the top tax bracket under Ike was 91%, so you would be paying a LOT more money in taxes under Eisenhower's tax code.

TB: (Shocked disbelief, followed by demand for proof. Proof is provided)

Me: And you know what's weird? The Eisenhower era was the second biggest economic expansion in U.S. History, and yet they had the highest tax rates ever.

TB: What president had the highest expansion? Reagan probably.

Me: No, that would have been Bill Clinton.

(Again be prepared to provide proof. The easiest is the the Dow Jones or the S&P 500 at the start and finish of their presidencies).

TB: What about under Reagan?

Me: Well, you would certainly have done much better under the lowest Reagan rate, which was a flat 28% for any married couple making over $15,000 a year.

TB: Wow! I wish we could go back to that tax bracket.

Me: Well, it would certain be great if you were, in fact, making $1 million a year, but if you were making what you make now, that 28% would hurt. I mean the median income today is about $50,000 a year for a married couple, and 28% of that would come to $14,000 in taxes under the Reagan tax code. Under the current tax rate, you would be in the 25% bracket and would pay $12,500. So under today's tax code, even while paying less taxes than a family would have under Reagan, a guy and his family making $50K a year would have to get by on an $36,000 a year after taxes, while millionaires would scrape by on a mere $650,000.

(Light should be dawning on the fellow by now, so move in for the kill)

Me: But you know what strikes me as kind of unfair?

TB: What?

Me: Well, lets assume you are making the median income of $50K a year, busting your hump 40 hours a week (or more) and paying 25% of your income in taxes. And yet, right next door, I could be making the same amount of money, not have a job, sit around and drink beer all day, and only pay 15%. How do you think that is possible?

TB: You are one of them damned welfare cheats, and you are mooching off my hard earned money!!

Me: No, I just had wealthy parents and they left me a stock portfolio that pays out $50,000 a year in dividends. Dividend income is taxed at a flat 15%. So, I could make the same as you, but not work a day in my life, yet pay $5,000 less in taxes just because my paycheck comes from Goldman Sachs instead of (name of TB's current employer).

(This should pretty much wrap up the debate. You can expand further on the fairness of a person who does no work, contributes less to the upkeep of the roads, the police and the fire department, yet gets the same protection as people who do work, and work HARD, who pay MORE for that upkeep.)