A very good tactic to use when facing folks with misinformed views

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.)

...one could refer to mentally. These guys rarely have their thinking checked

I've had this conversation and it never goes as planned. When confronted by facts and logic, they change their tack or ignore what you've said. It is perceived as an attack on their person when their world view is challenged.

They're impervious to facts and reason.

in a direction to get them to mention "welfare cheats". It gets it our of their system, then I yank them back to the REAL cheats.

Yes, digression can be a problem. But smile, be engaging, and politely say "Come, come, one topic at a time. We are talking about the income tax right now. We can come back to that topic another day."

When you ask questions, make them THINK about the logic of their own views. Once you get them actually thinking, that is half the battle.

Understand, this method rarely works with rabid teabaggers, it works with people who have drifted in that camp because the believe the rhetoric to be true, and/or because thet DON'T really understand the how and why of various topics.

Another example I use dealing with pro-death penalty types is by a series of questions, getting them to admit that imperfect humans, running imperfect courts, enforcing imperfect laws, with decisions made by imperfect judges/juries will result in innocent people being executed.

Once they admit that innocent people are going to die, then simply ask: "How many innocent people is it permissible to murder (yes "murder" since the act is the premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being) in order to have a death penalty?

Insist in a specific number.

==========================

The opportunities to throw in a Socrates reference are so few and far between!

They would have changed the subject long before you had a chance to make any point. I see it all the time.

When they attempt to go off on a tangent, I bring the question back to the topic at hand. It does try ones patience, but it can be done with effect.

So when I answer that my actual Fed Income Tax is about 17% but all the other taxes I pay amount to, oh say, 40%... and ask if that if fair?

Only in his last year in office did he lower it to 28%, and you know what happened then? In 1990, a year after he left office under that 28% tax rate another recession occurred. Game Over.

but damned if I can find it.

I compared the gains in the Dow from its inception to the current days, and compared total gains under each party. The Dems MASSIVELY outperformed the GOP.

Damn, it had some good sourcing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

and is confirmed by the IRS web site:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=175910,00.html

And it shows the rate dropped in the last two years of Reagan's presidency, 38.5% in 1987, and 28% in 1988. I purposely chose the lowest tax rate because when the person checked my numbers, I could point out that I was being "charitable" to Reagan. On the two occasions I have done this, the person I spoke to was shocked at the tax rates. At future discussions, I then broached more complex topics like "marginal" tax rates and what progressive versus regressive taxation.

My score so far on this one is 50/50. I convinced one, the other one I am still working on (He's read Ayn Rand, so he's a hard case).

It is a typical habitual panic response to cognitive dissonance, trying to distract the other person while a rationalization is formulated.

out, I don't take a "confrontational" approach, which triggers these responses. By asking questions about their beliefs, asking for guidance on their views, holding forth as a person they may be able to convert to their viewpoint.

Rather than simply telling them they are wrong about something I express confusion about the fact, and explain I have heard different elsewhere. But "hey, I have my iPhone right here, we can look it up." I use this tactic only when I am seeking to disprove a zombie lie, or something taken out of context. Video is best, since it is hard to argue about what was or wasn't said when you go to an actual recording of the event. In "out of context" statements I usually pull up something confirming their claim (giving them the feeling of triumph over having made a point, but then express a desire to see what happened before and after a statement, just to be fair. When the context proves that the statement was, in fact, twisted, the person is generally unhappy, and makes excuses. I politely chide him, and ask him if he ever had something he said taken out of context, and hadn't he gotten pissed off that his words were twisted? (Most people have such an event(s) in their life, and their anger becomes re-directed to the past, and away from the present. They tell me the story, and I express sympathy about how unfairly THEY were treated. Then we come back around to the disputed context, and they almost always approach it with more consideration).

On occasion, they do try to change the subject if they see they are walking into a logical blind alley, but I politely insist on an answer to that question.

My test subjects for this tactic are professional truck drivers, people who spend a lot of time either listening to Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and/or Christian stations pushing the same talking points.

The discussionw have always been civil, and polite.

This is a one-on-one tactic. Going up against two or more is more challenging, and less productive.

...

they do as my Republican (and conservative) sister does: assert that "I don't know all those facts and figures, I just know what I believe!"

:hug:

.

....but when the "ignorance factor" kicks in, you lose them with the math. These are the "tell me what to say" crowd. They have no clue as to what they are really talking about.

and you'll notice I keep the math simple, and it can be checked quickly with a calculator.

At least they should walk away asking themselves why a person who makes all their money on dividends and doesn't do a single day's work, should be taxed at a LOWER rate than he is.

but that requires effort.

I cannot tell you how many times I have made right wing supporters' and sympathizers' heads spin when they realized they had no idea what they were basing their political beliefs on. It really is a much better wake up call than trying to counter Faux News lies with real world facts. The latter makes them think they are on a level playing field. The former can make some of them realize they aren't even on a field.

So if a conservative asks if this is an elitist attitude, which they disdain,...

I genuinely care about everyone I engage in conversation. I'm not out to get a convert or make someone feel like an idiot. I am polite and sincerely interested in the other's point of view. However, I have found it far and away more productive if one asks questions than if one spouts facts. It's that simple.

Not sure why being interested in someone and asking questions would be viewed as an elitist attitude. I've certainly never encountered a problem. But I'm also not quite as number heavy as the OP either.

So yes, I can make someone's head spin with awareness, but it's not an attempt to humiliate. I've actually had someone thank me for the wakeup call.

I am in total agreement with the tactic, however unfactual it may be because it ultimately may lead to more fact finding. The elitism I am refering to is the idea that We should be the arbiter of what someone does with their own money, whether they deserve to keep it or not and if today its 15%, why not 80% tomorrow when things still arent working the way elitists would like it to.

If that makes us all elitists, that pretty much negatives the meaning of the word.

I would not try to to control people, because I think I know better than they do (ELITISM), I would rather create a system that allows people to have more choices, not less. And government takes advantage of a greater amount of choices rather than a caged monopoly.

Q: Is there any math involved? Ron, you said there would be no math questions.

but again, I keep the numbers simple, and a calculator is all that is required get answers. Hell, give them the calculator and enter the numbers.

Also, this tactic can be used on non-math issues like the death penalty (see my other post in this thread).

a profound epistemological crisis. Epistemology is the branch of classical philosophy that encompasses the topics of what and how we know (as opposed to, for example, 'ontology,' the branch that covers what exists).

By 'epistemological crisis,' I mean that there is no longer a societal consensus around what constitutes facts and 'Truth,' nor how the aforementioned are arrived at.

The surest proof of this is in the debate over evolution and natural selection, where a large proportion of the population can aver that they is 'untrue,' all assertions of the scientific method and the community of biological scientists to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ask a Tea Partyer whether he or she enjoys their refrigerator.

Next ask him or her whether they believe that they can only have a refrigerator thanks to modern science.

Assuming answers to these first two questions are a 'yes,' next ask him or her to define the 'scientific method.' I will almost guarantee that few of the Tea Partyers can define it reasonably accurately. (Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion or revised hypothesis.) So evolution and natural selection, whose status as valid hypotheses depend upon an understanding of the scientific method, will be something these TPers can feel free to deny, even as they open their fridges for an ice-cold Coors.

Your above discussion assumes they comprehend concepts such as percentage and marginal tax rate. I think those are highly questionable assumptions. But I have nothing upon which to base that, other than my negative feelingn towards the whackjobs.

Without taking sides in the 9-11 truth debate, I find it telling that some recent surveys suggest that as many as 40% of New Yorkers do not believe the official narrative of what transpired.

Edited for clarity and typos.

I started with the top rates, and compared them to the top rates under other presidents. When I got to Reagan, I did shift to the actual tax brackets. (I also explained at the outset that we would ignore deductions and tax credits and just look at the base numbers to keep thing simple).

I agree with you about the debate on what is and isn't factual, and you are unlikely to be able to convince the truly rabid and willfully ignorant. Our target is the person who has shown evidence of being of average intelligence and simply misinformed.

Math doesn't have to enter into many discussions and most people can get handle BASIC logic. Example: I talk to people on occasion about prudent investments. Invariably gold comes up, and as they only understand what they have seen on commercials.

Potential Gold Investor: Yeah, I really worry about the dollar becoming worthless, so gold looks good.

Me: You know, I kind of lean that way, but I have a question you might be able to answer that's been bugging me.

PGI: (Now assuming the role of wise man willing to pass on valuable wisdom to a seeker of truth): Sure, what do you want to know?

Me: Well, gold is supposed to be a wise investment because people are afraid the economy will collapse, and the company is telling me that this is very likely so I should by gold.

PGI: Absolutely correct.

Me: So how come they want me to pay them in dollars if they are so sure dollars will be worthless? I mean, shouldn't they want to be paid in some other precious metal, like silver or platinum? How about canned food? Seems to me that in the event of a global economic meltdown, food is going to be the real currency. After all, you can't eat gold.

This is not a strategy about reaching the completely deranged, only the bewildered and mildly deluded.


Well, I could answer that question yes, depending on how it is phrased.

Do I think that the WTC attack was an "inside job"? No.

Do I think the Bush administration withheld facts that made them look bad? Yes.

If the question asked by the pollster was "Do you believe the official narrative provided by the government and the media about the 9/11 attacks has been complete and truthful?" I am not surprised that 40% said "no". We already have established that Bush and company lied about critical facts, so once the first lie is told, the "official" narrative is going to always be doubted.

When people engage in off the wall conspiracy theories, I tend to smile, then excuse myself by saying "I have to run, but personally, I think the Klingons did it."

pretty much a cornerstone of our erstwhile progressive income tax system, i.e., one pays the higher percentage tax rate only on that proportion, or margin, of the income exceeding the first full bracket.

I actually favor your heruistic approach in most cases. But if there is an epistemological crisis, as I suggested, such heuristics mean little and we are thrown back onto more primitive, atavistic methods for determining facts and truth.

Again, I have no way scientifically of quantifying the TPers epistemological status, so this may come down to my dislike of what they stand for as much as anything. I take a rather hard line against anti-intellectualism of any stripe and the TPers seem to personify anti-intellecutalism.

The interesting thing about 9-11 is that, whether one believes the official narrative in toto or believes one of the various alternative narratives, one of necessity believes in a 'conspiracy' (whether it be a conspiracy of al Quaida operatives or a conspiracy of Bush Junta operatives). My point is that when 40% do not believe a narrative and, by extension, 60% do believe a narrative, that seems like almost a textbook example of the 'epistmeological crisis' to which i alluded in my original reply.

The anti-intellectual attitude is very problematic, but even among these folk, they believe themselves "smart". Play to that vanity by asking questions. Approach as if you are seeking to understand their argument, then allow them to explain the holes in their logic. The key is to always be mild and polite, and genuinely interested in understanding their argument, but troubled by these holes. Keep asking questions.

I have a better chance of getting someone to THINK by asking why they are right, than by yelling at them and telling them they are wrong. And that is the purpose of this tactic, to get people to THINK.

You think I have a hard job with tax rates, imagine the fun I have with discussing The Bible and religion.

I am very unlikely to convince a person who has literally memorized the Bible. Anyone who has gone to that extreme is almost impossible to persuade of anything. My target audience is the much larger one that really only knows what they have been told, so when I ask them to show me a specific passage, I then get the chance to address things like context, and/or point to other sections of the Bible which contradicts what they have just showed me.

When someone proudly shows me where the Bible condemns homosexuality with death. I read the passage, agree with them that the Bible does indeed say that, then make note of the other "sins" requiring the death penalty, and ask them why these sins are not being punished.

I am unlikely to get them to convert to atheism on the spot, but I might just get them to THINK about the implications of taking the Bible literally.

a common Twoofer meme is that a fire could not get warm enough to melt the steel, which is true, what the twoofers forgot is that it still got warm enough to cause the steel to become catastrophically weakened. I point that out and I get no reasonable answer just "you are a fool for believing the official lies" illogic.

the CTers and the official narrative folks. I will only say that I had heard that jet fuel (essentially diesel fuel) burns at a maximum temperature of 1200 F. But hardened steel like that at the WTC only melts at a temperature of 1600 F. So if those figures are correct, there is absolutely no way that burning jet fuel could have melted the WTC steel. This argument is frequently deployed in support of some sort of 'controlled demolition' hypothesis for what took place at the WTC. That is, if temperature of the steel had to reach 1600 for the buildings to fail, burning jet fuel could not reach the required temperature. Therefore, the hypothesis goes, the buildings were brought down by some sort of controlled demolition that had previously been set in place to wait for the opportune moment.

However, if I understand you correctly, the steel in the buildings did not have to melt for the structures to fail, only to weaken enough to permit catastrophic failure. It is at this point that I have to throw up my hands up because I am neither a metallurgist, engineer, physicist nor architect. As with the JFK assassination, I do not have the time or resources to answer these questions to my own satisfaction, so I must rely on experts.

Just out of curiosity, have you read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor"? I thought it was a fairly well-reasoned presentation of various reasons to doubt parts or all of the official narrative. Griffin does not say that 9-11 was a Bush Junta conspiracy, merely that there was and remains a need for further independent investigation based on troubling questions and lacunae raised by the official narrative, a position with which I fully agree. Just today, I saw a thread on DU that Richard Clarke now alleges that the CIA had attempted to recruit some of the alleged 9-11 hijackers before 9-11. I don't remember that factoid emerging during the 9-11 Commission hearings :)

ditto with the JFK assassination, I bet the FBI had evidence that Oswald was going to try to assassinate JFK. The PTB don't have to off you directly, they just take advantage of the wannabe assassins already out there.

it is, is that he posits multiple levels of possible Bush Junta conspiracy, ranging from complete innocence\incompetence, through various shades of LIHOP to full-bore MIHOP. While I have not stayed completely up to date on the issues around the 9-11 Truth movement, I distinctly remember Griffin's call for a new, independent investigation of 9-11 and remember thinking to myself that such an investigation should occur under the auspices of a Special Counsel or Special Prosecutor.

I think Popular Mechanics did a pretty good study of it with actual engineers and they suggest that there was enough of a mix of materials and conditions that there could have been hot spots where the metal turned red hot, after the collapse. The structure itself only need to be hot enough to bend and collapse initially, not melt.

Truth going on inside your post.

Thanks for taking the time to type out your thoughts.

The only part I take exception to is this one:"Without taking sides in the 9-11 truth debate, I find it telling that some recent surveys suggest that as many as 40% of New Yorkers do not believe the official narrative of what transpired."

When you can come up with a concrete explanation of how the laws of physics were suspended for an hour on Nine Eleven, such that two separate one hundred story plus skyscrapers could come smashing down at the rate of gravity - then I'll find with you and not with the forty percent of the New York City residents.

Those residents know people who were there, and there were just too many unexplained "coincidences to let me think that LIHOP or MIHOP were not involved. (Like the stock market posting record number of "shorts" on the airline stocks, like the explosions that registered on seismic instruments, like the explosion that hit the First Tower's understructure before the plane hit the top of the Tower et al.)

Building 7 collapsing into its own footprint hours after the towers fell...

Too many unanswered questions fuel the 'conspiracy theories' and perpetuate the cycle of dismissing those who are concerned about these unanswered questions as 'conspiracy theorists.' And, isn't THAT damned convenient?

Universal Field Theory of Official Explanations:

"So the magic bullet first hit Connelley and then riccocheted throughout JFK's body, only to enter a time/space warp continuum, such that on September 11, 2001, the same magic bullet brought down two of the main towers at the World Trade Center!"

After all, the simplest explanation is usually right -- or "Occam's razor" would mean nothing!

I blame it one our education system and the media, in both one is no longer allowed to state facts AS FACTS anymore because supposedly "there are no objective facts" anymore, just "different and conflicting subjective perspectives". If you don't like the facts you are told you can easily dismiss them as "that's just YOUR opinion".

is that people are more inclined to "listen to reason" when not approached confrontationally. The trick here is to let them convince themselves by simply asking questions about their views, and allowing them to discover the defects in their own argument.

Again, this style works best with the misinformed, rather than the "true believer"

I spend a lot of time talking to truckers in my job, a VERY conservative lot. Yet, I have made inroads with some of them, seen evidence that they have stopped parroting talking points and started thinking. They still may not agree with me, but they are starting to reject what they hear from the usual sources. They begin to see the holes in the arguments.

I once used this method to explain to a sixty-something career trucker the concept of "taking quotes out of context". He found this a bit of a revelation. Every time I would see him from then on, he would tell ME a story about how caught someone on the radio taking quotes out of context. Once he understood the concept, he became proud of his ability to "ferret out the truth" about a quote. He went from passive listener to active seeker.

If I get one in ten to think for themselves I think it is a worthwhile endeavor,

as you have left the realm of the simply ignorant to the willfully so.

just a worthwhile endeavor--a CRITICAL NEED! Those who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy depend on the unquestioning allegiance of about a third of the hoi polloi, the 'wavering' allegiance of a varying percentage of the next 'third' (those who might respond well to your techniques), and the continued participation of ALL of the hoi polloi in partisan bickering and divisiveness. As long as the Corporate Megalomaniacs can maintain this 'status quo,' they have very little to fear.

If you have not already, you might want to check out Freud's nephew, Bernays, and his role in developing 'persuasive' advertising.

BTW, I think the internet is steadily changing the 'status quo,' by providing at our fingertips the very information you use so skillfully. This vast array of knowledge is having an effect, like the relentless drip of water that erodes a hole in solid rock. I have to keep reminding myself of this, so that I don't get frustrated with the TIME it will take for most of us to WAKE UP.

(I am a teacher, and I use the subversive technique of reminding ALL of my students that they have fully functioning, amazing brains, FULLY capable of learning anything they want to learn. I help them understand that HUMANS all learn in different ways AND at different speeds, but WE ALL LEARN. This is a powerful truth, because two-thirds to three-quarters of us have been conditioned to believe that we have an 'average' or 'below average' intelligence--which is a load of El Toro Poo Poo and becomes a key underpinning of the anti-intellectualism we decry.)

who should be our target audience.

And yes, the Internet is helping this war, more than hurting it. I have an iPhone which allows me to check facts and figures, pull up video, etc, on the fly. I use it ONLY for establishing a FACTUAL point, avoiding polls and opinions which can always be disputed.

I love SUBERSIVE teachers.

I had three of them in military school, one taught me economics (Keynesian), one taught English and the other taught U.S. History.

count among my FAVE humans! I hope you read my other comment hereinbelow.

This is worth it's weight in Gold.

Some folk think I am advocating this as a ultimate solution to ignorant discourse. I see it as a single tool in the arsenal of advocacy. It is right for some people, not right for others.

I think of it as the difference between explaining to a child why hitting someone is wrong with a series of questions about themselves and how they want to be treated, rather than simply yelling at the child that they are wrong because "I said so!". The latter approach makes the child fearful, resentful and angry. The former allows the child to figure out for themselves why it is wrong.

I myself have wrestled unsuccessfully on how to argue with these people, to make any of them see the light. And the confrontational approach is.. worthless. It only seems to make their ignorance stronger by giving them a fight. This type of mild argument, or infoment, is something I can see working. Most of us Americans are not Timothy McVeighs; not hardliners. We are people that for the most part, make rational worldviews off of information given. The problem with that comes from a combination of people not caring enough about their worldview to seek out lots of information, and/or the information being completely corrupt and one sided. Our media. This is a simple way of non aggressively giving people information, context, and history that they didnt have before.

You sir, are a genius.

I appreciate your view of my intelligence, but let's not get carried away worshiping anyone :)

If you go on the attack, the person throws up the shields and fires back. If you ENGAGE them, give weight to their views, and treat them politely, it keeps the shields down, and the weapons on safety.

I am not a big fan of Clinton or Obama, so when they go off on a rant about Clinton, I can commiserate with them that I too have problems with them, BUT while they have done things I dislike, I am not likely to confuse them with Satan. This usually gets a laugh and I list a few issues I am critical of, which the persons concurs with, then I mention a few issues where I feel the Clintons got a bum rap. I start with Rush Limbaugh's attack on Chelsea, which every person I have ever talked to, admitted was "over the line".

On occasion, the person I am talking to will ask me my politics, and I answer honestly that I am "to the Left of Gandhi", which also provokes a laugh, but allows me to point out that Obama and Clinton were hardly socialists, and are at best centrists with some left-leaning views.

On health care discussions, I talk about my relatives in the UK and Ireland (My Mom was born in Dublin, my Dad in West Virgina) and how once when we were talking about the health care debate in the U.S. I had to explain to my aunts what a "deductible" was and how "co-pays" worked, as they had never heard the terms. Everyone hates their insurance company and has a story to tell, so we trade stories, them telling me their horror stories, and me relating how my aunts (70s and 80s) have been treated by their heath care systems.

All in all, the whole point is I try to get them to see me as a person, just like them. And when they finally learn my politics, they have just seen the stereotype drilled into their brains about Liberals, disproved.

If you engage the person, establish commonality, and get them to like you (tell lots of jokes, and don't be afraid to make fun of people on our side), it is harder for them to dismiss your views out of hand.

Also, once I have established that we are on opposite sides of the political fence, I then point out had poorly a national problem is being handled and state: "The problem today is there is too much shouting. You're a reasonable guy, I bet we could find a solution to the problem better than those morons in Congress." This then leads to a discussion of the various aspects of the issue under contention, allowing me to bring up "problems" with the typical conservative "simple solution". Once I can lead the person to the view that we are dealing with complex problems, invariably requiring a complex solution, their brain has started to actually analyze the issue.

Another time, in the course of a discussion on welfare, my new friend had established that he was a Christian earlier in the discussion. He brought up his "worthless brother-in-law" who was "scamming the system" and wouldn't get a job. He also believed that most people on welfare were cheats, but after a little discussion he agreed that the true number probably followed the 80/20 Rule, and only 20% were cheats.

I then asked three questions:

1) But as Christians, are we not our brother's keeper?

He grudgingly admitted this was so, and I lightened moment by commenting "Of course God didn't have your worthless brother-in-law to contend with, so it was easy for him to have that view." This got a laugh.

2) If 20% of the folks on welfare are cheating, is it fair to punish the other 80% by "getting rid" of welfare?

Another grudging admission that this was so.

3) And what about the children? Even if their parents are cheats, should the children suffer for the parent's sins? (we had established that his worthless brother-in-law had nice kids).

This resulted in a sigh, and an admission that kids would suffer all around, and an admission that the welfare problem was, upon reflection, pretty complicated, and that the drastic solutions he originally proposed would harm more people than it would help.

Realistically, this was a small victory, but at least he was THINKING about the issue, not mindlessly parroting talking points. And I take an inch of ground any time I can.

are the easiest to derail. All you have to do is to counter with, "but what did Jesus say? What did Jesus tell his followers to do? It's right there is the Bible. Simply put, if you are a Christian, you will do what Jesus tells you to do, but, if you refuse to, then you are not a Christian."

they don't like the socialist Jesus, who said to keep your own nose clean before talking about somebody else's nose.

when they have to argue with their own sacred text. So, be gentle...

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_calculator.htm

I put in 100,000 regularly taxed income, married filing jointly with 4 exemptions and standard deductions and it came up with 10,650 in taxes paid.

I switched the 100k to dividends and was absolutely shocked to see the tax bill drop to.....



$690. :wtf:

Is this right???

There is a difference between "qualified" and "ordinary" dividends, but that number seems off to me even considering the best case qualified dividend.

I would have put the rate at 15% of the adjusted gross income.

Any tax expert out there who can help us out?

That's why I was so shocked.

all they know is that 350k is a lot of money. I've argued this with some of them, and most think that NO ONE should pay more than 10k a year in taxes, period because to them 10k is a HUGE amount of money. They can't imagine that it would be a very small sum to any wealthy person, and the whole percentage thing just goes right over their empty heads. We're talking about profoundly stupid people here; 80 IQs or lower.

I agreed that $350,000 was a lot of money, but then asked the person if he could get along on $650,00 a year. I THEN changed the topic to changing the tax rate to that great time in America when everything was perfect, the 1950's. This allowed them to see that as bad as they THINK they have it now, they would have had it far worse in the "good old days" with their theoretical million dollars.

I follow this up with discussing tax rates under Reagan and shifted from the pie in the sky million dollars a year, to the more realistic number they can handle ($50,000) since I am at or near what they make. I then show them that they would be paying MORE under Reagan than they are paying now, then showed them that while he was busting his ass for that pittance, I could be living right beside him, not working, and paying LESS taxes than he does.

Another tactic is to simply ask the person "Which situation do you prefer: Paying $350K in taxes and keeping $650,000, or paying $12,500 and keeping $37,500?"

This puts things in context.

when has logic EVER worked on a teabagger?

Prepare to hear some excuse about "fuzzy math."

you can't persuade a fanatic.

I am shooting for that person who holds opinions, but has not crossed the line to fanaticism.

I didn't know they existed anywhere right of center.

Of course, President Obama is one of those right of center people who hasn't gone over to the fanaticism, so maybe it could work.

since most would believe that they'd pay the full
35% on every dollar they make.
When in reality, they'd really only pay 35% above
a threshold (i.e. $250K, maybe, I don't know what
is the exact number). So keeping it simple would
work really well.

I try and point out these more advanced concepts.

You wouldn't have gotten to the part where you finish the ignorant, greedy bastard off because the majority of Rethugs will not hang around long enough when they see that the analysis is not going their way. Their dogma or "truthiness" is much stronger than any desire to learn the truth. We all have our prejudices and inability to listen to an opposing position but so-called "Conservatives" have raised that to an art form. Remember the Tea Party gathering with the sign - "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!".

They suffer from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

As I have said elsewhere, I am not pursuing the "true believer" but the "sympathizer", people who hold TP views, but don't really know details of the topic. Many people are woefully misinformed about civics.

One discussion I had (and have frequently) is about the First Amendment. For instance I had one lady complain about how "Doctor Laura's right to free speech" was violated when she was fired from her show.

Yeah, that does seem unfair," I concurred. "But if I remember what Major Windom, my U.S. history teacher, taught me about the Constitution (I went to military school), that protection only applies to government censorship. Wait, I have an iPhone, let me look up the actual text and we can see what it says."

And sure enough the text clearly states "Congress shall make no law..."

We then discuss that the government didn't fire Dr. Laura, her company did, and don't they have a right to fire an employee who costs them money (loss of sponsorship)?

This was stipulated, so I then asked which amendment she thought was the MOST important. Now when I ask a conservative this question, I invariably get one of two answers: The 2nd, because it allows citizens to protect themselves from government tyranny, or the "freedom of religion" part of the first. I then respond with:

"We had this very discussion in my history class, and our teacher pointed out that the "free speech" part was the most important, because if the government could prevent you from talking, you could hardly defend your right to bare arms, actually worship as you pleased, or petition the government for redress of grievances. If we lack the right to express ourselves without government censorship, all other rights, in the Bill of Rights, pretty much become null and void."

Discussion ensued.

At the very least, I had educated her on what the First Amendment ACTUALLY said.

Ya wins the war one battle at a time.

Seriously, I doubt you, me, or anyone could have a sustained rational platonic dialogue with a true teahadist.

But for chrissakes, prove me wrong. Throw me a bone here. Show me a forum thread, a video, hell just tell me a goddamned story where this line of reasoning actually occurred, caused some introspection, maybe even changed a mind.

in other posts in this thread.

I also explain that I can't persuade a fanatic, so I concentrate on people holding TP views because they are simply misinformed, but who have not allowed their brain to atrophy.

I took part in an online discussion the other day, one of the participants was a "reformed" RWer (in the sense that he's sick and tired of the religious right and realizes that tax increases for the wealthiest need to be at least part of the equation).

He said (and I have reason to believe he meant well - I "known" him for years): "If Liberals could find a way to express an opinion in less than 12 paragraphs, you'd have more people like me".

Dunno - :shrug: seems like a lot of people need a simple message.

and avoid digression.

My response to your friend would be that he had a point, but that, sadly, people are complicated creatures, who have complicated problems and enact complicated laws to deal with them, without thinking through the unintended complications of the solution. :)

But I can also knock off a short explanation:

Outraged Lady: When the Supreme Court outlawed prayer in school, this country started to go to Hell.

Me: Gosh, I thought they only outlawed prayer lead or initiated by the faculty.

OL: No, they made it illegal to pray in school.

Me: Hmmm, I remember talking about this ruling in school, it was... let me think... Oh yeah, Abington School District v. Schempp. I remember it because I wondered who was suing the one of the Three Stooges. Let me look up the summary of the case on my iPhone.

We examine the ruling, and wonder of wonders, I'm correct.

Me: So a student can pray in school, but teachers can't lead a prayer in school. I was pretty sure that even the Supreme Court wasn't powerful enough to kick God out of school. Besides, didn't God actually agree with the Supreme Court?

OL: What?

Me: Sorry, I should say, didn't the Supreme Court actually agree with God on the issue of public prayer? Something about "praying in the closet", which is why I remember it. I remember thinking that it would be pretty hard to do in my closet, with all the coats and stuff. Heck, I didn't even realize they had closets in Jesus' day. You have a Bible, don't you. I think it's in Matthew somewhere, chapter six...

Bible is consulted, not only does it say in Matthew 6:6 to pray in private, but also...

Me: And look, in the verse before, Jesus calls people who pray in public "hypocrites". Oh, and here further along he says we should pray silently.

OL: (Bewildered and uncertain): I never thought of that before.

Another person thinking, and I did it in 11 paragraphs. :)

Isn't that the definition of elitism?

Are you saying asking questions is elitist? Are you suggesting "the masses" can't ask questions to get someone to think through their position without become part of some elite cadre? Not sure I get where you're coming from here. Would you mind explaining please?

See #121

It occurs to me that the exchanges I give examples of could be viewed as condescending, or patronizing, in tone.

They are not.

I really like most of the people I talk to, and I hope they like me. These folks are still our brothers and sisters, even if they don't agree with us. I am simply suggesting that we engage people in a manner that is not confrontational (the default setting for most political discussions) and likely to be productive, or at least civil.

For example, if someone's actual taxable income was 1 mil, they would pay 327 thousand, which is an effective tax rate of about 33%. The likelihood is high, though, that a person that makes that much will find some sort of shelters and will have a lower taxable income.

This link has a handy little calculator, and charts that explained it to me.


http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I was going to, but didn't have the specifics at hand. I do know, however, that a TON of the "taxed enough already" types truly believe that it's possible to get a raise into the next tax bracket in such a way that you actually make less money. It's right-wing misinformation bullshit.

Then I actually saw, "oh, it's only my taxable earnings above that 32 thousand that is taxed at the higher rate." I felt a lot better after realizing that...LOL.

not with the brackets of course but I'm pretty sure there are some credits or deductions with hard cut-offs instead of phase-outs.

of course, it's nowhere near as prevalent or a huge difference as the right-wing misinformers would have you believe

People really need to understand that whatever tax bracket their last dollar of income falls within does not mean that all of their taxable income is taxed at that rate.

Those with taxable income above $379k has their income taxed at 6 different rates. Which means that those over $379k have income that is also taxed at the lowest rate (10%) just like everyone else with taxable income. Again, everyone has either all or part of their taxable income taxed at 10%.

I think a kicker that needs to be brought in when discussing this issue with those that have income below $200k is that on average those with $200k or higher income have $65k of itemized deductions (exempt income - income that is not taxed). That does not include the exemptions claimed for each person.

Here is a breakdown of average itemized deductions based on adjusted gross income.

$15k - $30k ---- $10,306
$30k - $50k ---- $10,938
$50k - $75k ---- $13,194
$75k - $100k --- $16,896
$100k - $200k -- $23,870
$200k ++++ --- $65,871

How much more income is not taxed than do those with less income?

you know this, but I chose not to teach algebra to the first graders.

This is an "advanced" concept to them, so I stick to the simplest numbers possible. Later, after, multiple discussions establishing their grasp of the basics, when I reach a point where they have started to THINK about the issue, I can slip in and say, "Actually, I just found out that they have a weird way they computer taxes, and actually, we pay less than what we think we pay."

Then we tackle this.

What I suggest in my post is a prolonged engagement of people's mind, not "drive-by rhetoric" to score a fleeting point.

I stipulate this, but explain that we'll stick to simple numbers and not worry about deductions, credits, allowances, etc.

Once I start trying to explain "effective tax rates", I lose them.

K&R

That's when they decided you were a member of the college-educated liberal elite.

language, meant to amuse the intended audience of the post. My Mom's was from Ireland, my Dad was from West Virginia, I can speak the appropriate idiom where needed.

You don't "reach" a tax bracket. Income is taxed differently at different income levels. If someone makes $1 million dollars they don't automatically pay 35% on that total. They pay the same percent as everyone else on comparable money. Their tax rates are just like everyone else's until the income reaches a certain level. Then that income over the certain level is taxed at a slightly higher rate (not any income in a lower tax bracket).

This is the kind of thinking that leads to a Tea Bagger saying something ludicrous like they want to make $249,999 per year so that they don't make it into the 35% tax bracket. It just doesn't work that way:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/26/999078/-Do-YOU-understand-how-tax-brackets-work

I applaud what you're trying to do, but in some ways you're furthering the confusion on taxes in this country.

"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."

I don't agree with him that you should simplify that much, but it's wrong to say he doesn't know that he's simplifying

Also, with the numbers he picked it actually doesn't make a huge difference in the result because by that point the majority of your income percentage-wise is being taxed at the higher rates. Somebody else ran the calculation above and came up with 33%. Of course, that wouldn't be the case if we had a TRULY progressive tax system. (I don't think it's right that someone making $400k a year -- a lot yes, but could be say a doctor with lots of training -- should be paying the same rate on the next dollar as some CEO making 10 million a year. And even the CEO is at least doing some work. The ridiculously low 15% capital gains rate on the richest of the rich who don't do any work and just make money because they have money is just flat out morally unjustifiable.)

I was deliberately making it simple. If I try to explain "effective tax rates" and "brackets" out of the chute, I lose them.

I am going to have to do this much more in the future. When I think about it, this is the only argument that is feasible---if anything would be feasible. Personally, I would leave a lot of the numbers out for most people, but the idea is workable.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Money made before that will be taxed in their corresponding brackets... but good posting.

It also allows me to later discuss the estate tax, and why the vast majority of people never pay it.

by asking questions and then pounce. I did it the other day when someone ripped on "Obama Care". I asked what they didn't like about it and they flat out didn't have an answer. I won the debate with just one question because they were instantly exposed as knowing zero about Obama's HC plan. If I had gone on the attack then things would have deteriorated and no one would have won. This way things stay civil and you eat their lunch in the process.

Keeping one's cool is the key. I've tried to do similar counter questions but sometimes times my own anger and exasperation at their ignorance gets the best of me and I find it hard to remain dispassionate, and so it just becomes another confrontation. As other have noted in other replies, hardcore types are a lost cause. In so many cases, it's them who are absolutely determined to "sell" you on their pitch. They're like human powerpoint presentations and can't deal with questions about details or holes you might see in their arguments. Some get downright hostile when they see they are being challenged and that you're not buying what they're selling.

They will simply find some way to rationalize their own gut feelings.

That is the problem our side has, we assume people are rational beings, that is not true, we are non-rational beings and much of our consciously-held worldview is merely a rationalization of subconscious feelings. Linguist George Lakoff has been telling us this for years, yet he is ignored, his ideas are too frightening for people who believe in the Enlightenment notion of Man as a rational being.

I contend that humans are much more complex than that, and I think so does Professor Lakoff. The most powerful evidence I have for my contention is my work with my students. When I remind them that we all have fully functioning brains, FULLY capable of learning whatever we WANT to learn, profound things ensue. But, first, I have to help them understand that we ALL learn at different paces and in different ways, which is PERFECTLY NORMAL, and we LEARN nevertheless. (Importantly, I take the hierarchy out of intelligence, helping the majority of my students 'unlearn' several myths about IQ.)

Our co-opted system of public education has--for decades now--convinced two-thirds to three-quarters of us that we have 'average' or 'below average' intellects. This is a load of El Toro Poo Poo, as demonstrated by contemporary research on timed IQ tests. In fact, one can study vos Savant's educational history, and realize that she trained for YEARS to achieve her much vaunted "IQ," an endeavor that clearly has been quite important to her. In short, when humans grasp that they CAN learn anything they WANT to learn, fear is our only delimiter.

But, I digress. Another important contributor to our growing body of knowledge, Abraham Maslow, contended that humans have an intrinsic need to create or achieve. *WHAT* we create or *WHAT* we achieve is as varied as there are humans on this planet. I would add that we humans fervently desire to be recognized or esteemed for what we create or achieve (a likely explanation for our species' preoccupation with personal *power* measured by *wealth*).

Thus, the most important point of this OP is made rather obliquely: we humans thrive on esteem and recognition. If we hope to help our fellow humans recognize the stultifying and objectifying Bernaysian mindset cultivated by the corporatists bent on securing their hegemony at our expense, we must extend to our fellow humans the esteem and recognition that is the raison d'etre of our species.

(edited for correct use of the italics html)

:)

humans are rational by nature.

It is a learned talent, and then imperfectly so.

as a condescending lecture

Socrates, for example, once complained that people would physically attack him, just for asking questions! and his contemporaries finally found his questions so annoying, that they sentenced him to drink hemlock

So remember to have some respect and sympathy for the people you are trying to reach -- because without your respect and sympathy, there's no real point for you to try reaching them

Oh, the fun you'll have...

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

For the OP and also all the thought-provoking discussion on this thread!

and I agree that the true tea bagger is not going to be influenced, those on the fence or not married to the dogma of the right might hear you. I also use a similar tack with the climate deniers. The real idiots are unreachable, forget them, but so many others can be brought, if not to the conclusion that we have a problem, but a least to the understanding that they in fact don't know, and therefore to be open to change their opinion or open to learning. It is good to also ask "what have liberals done that has made your life so hard?". Vexing times we live in, we do need to reach a lot of people and push back, and a full frontal assault won't work, it's what they do and they have the advantage right now. Good work, keep it up and I will too.

The wage may be the same, buy EVERYONE has "different" tax issues & deductions..

Of course, at a certain level of income, accountants & tax planners come into play, so even though on paper they might be subject to higher taxes, they rarely ever PAY that percentage.

and people usually exaggerate or downplay their incomes.

republicans are determined people too... Once they have a talking point lodged in their craniums, they cannot budge from it, even when presented with facts:(

I've yet to have a Limbaugh sort of person disagree with me when I describe our economic problems as stemming from 'soft-handed, Ivey League daddy's boys who just move money around and haven't worked a day in their lives'. A populist who was willing to talk in such blunt terms would destroy the opposition, IMHO.

have been big rig truck drivers, that has been my approach. Also, I don't have a college degree, though I have some college.

Good luck having one of those with a 'bagger, though.

You can't persuade a fanatic. This is a tactic to use on those who have not embraced the Dark Side, they just need a flashlight.

I just don't think things would go the way you described, but I'd love to see a case where it did!

The thing is, when people are convinced they're right, it doesn't matter how much logic or facts or figures you provide. All they'll do is get mad, talk over you, or they might not even get what you're trying to say.

and it is an ongoing process, though I don't see a way to record it without violating someone's privacy.

I have given examples of some of my exchanges and they do have an effect on some folk. My last great success was converting a pro-death penalty to an anti.

Again, I'll take all the small victories I can.

to try and reason with extremists is futile. They have never been interested much in facts and reasoning.

When they make an off-the-wall statement that they heard from someone, who probably got it from FoxNoise, I just start questioning their line of reasoning and ask them explain to me why they think or believe that. The more they say, the deeper in doodoo they get as I continue the questioning. When they are out on a limb, then I explain to them why their "facts/information" are wrong and probably fabricated.

An apolitical relative who is into gardening blurted out one day that Michelle Obama's White House garden was planted in toxic soil. I asked her why she thought that. She said she got it from a gardening website. I asked her to show me the website. It was on a message board and a member had posted an article about it. So I showed her how to trace the article through Google which led to Free Republic. I laughed and Googled the correct information for her that the garden soil had been tested by the Dept. of Agriculture and had been amended with organic compost to bring it up to standards for planting edibles.

She was deflated and didn't know why the website would allow misinformation like that to go unchallenged and she didn't know whether to believe anything there anymore. I told her that the gardening information most likely is correct, but they shouldn't be picking up what is political assassination pieces from RW websites that most likely are untrue without researching whether the information is correct. This is how one lie from one of the Fox bobble heads gets picked up by other news and information outlets and goes viral. I know she is much more discriminating today about what she reads. If I had just said she was wrong about it, I don't think she would have listened to me because like most people she feels that those who are supposed to be experts in those matters should be right and not an ordinary relative.

I tend to freeze up and forget things in the heat of the moment very quickly.