Should Rich Pay More in Taxes?

Should Rich Pay More in Taxes?








http://video.foxnews.com/v/4431339/should-rich-pay-more-in-taxes/



On November 23, 2010, Fox News ” The O’Reilly Factor”, aired Bill O’Reilly and John Stossel debating whether the rich should pay more money toward taxes. After viewing the clip several times, it was clear to me that both of the men had a completely different view point on this topic but I was not sure if they agreed on what they were actually arguing about. This debate started after “The O’Reilly Show” aired a short clip of the very successful investor, Warren Buffett saying,


I think that people of the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more taxes, we’ve had it better than we’ve ever had it.”


Due to the ambiguity of Warren Buffett’s statement, each man argued a different topic. Buffett’s ambiguous quote could have been interpreted in several different ways because it was not clear exactly what he meant. Stossel approached the argument by interpreting that Warren was saying the rich should pay more taxes than the rest. O’Reilly approached the argument by interpreting Warren was saying the rich should pay more taxes than they do now. Each man had a good argument as to what they were arguing. As they both cross talked and supported the other mans opinion at one point, it was obvious that they each interpreted Warren Buffett’s statement differently. John Stossel argued at the belief that Buffett meant the rich should pay more taxes in general. He gave premises to support his argument and conclusion.


1. It doesn't help for the rich to pay more taxes
2. “Wisely, people know giving it to charity is a better use of the money”
3. “Money in private hands does far more good for the world and for Americans than money in

government hands”
4. Stossel added we’re better off now, then back then- the money has made people better off,

people are living longer
5. Stossel told O’Reilly it was selfish of him not to want to give more money to the government if it would really help
C. The rich should pay more money in taxes if the government would use the money wisely




Bill O’Reilly on the other hand interpreted Buffett’s quote as the rich should pay more taxes than they do now. Below are the premises he gave to support his conclusion,


1. “I don't want to be paying 50 percent to the federal government because I believe they waste

an enormous amount of money”
2. “…the more money and the more spending you give them, the more they control people's

lives.”
3. "So, people get dependent -- it's like heroin -- on the federal government for their livelihood,

and I don't want to be into that”
4. “I think 40% is fine, If Warren wants to kick more money, then kick it in Warren”
5. The taxes go on and on and on, this is a con and rouse
C. The rich should not pay more taxes than they do now



This argument was a great example O’Reilly committing the fallacy of red herring if it were true that Warren Buffett actually only meant and would have stated the rich should pay more taxes than the others. If Buffett would have been completely clear saying that the rich should pay more taxes than the others, then O’Reilly’s argument would have committed a fallacy. The fallacy in this case would have been called red herring because O’Reilly would have been convicted of changing the subject different from the rich should pay more taxes than the others but still related to the topic. He committed the fallacy because he changed the subject from should the rich pay more taxes than the others to the rich shouldn’t pay more taxes than they do now. Each man interpreted Warrens quote and went in two different directions because of the vagueness of Warren Buffett’s statement. Stossel approached the statement believing that Buffett meant the rich should pay more taxes than others and O’Reilly approached the statement as Buffett was saying the rich should pay more taxes in percentage wise than they do now. I would definitely rate this argument as moderate conditional because of the uncertainty of Warrens quote lead the men to give arguments in two different directions. Each man gave a great argument on the basis of how they interpreted the quote, if Warrens quote would have been explained more in-depth and precisely, each would be able to argue one topic!