http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtml
I guess not or else, according to Obama’s campaign promise, these taxes would not be increasing.
Whether you agree with sin taxes or not, is it wise to raise taxes in the middle of a recession?
It’s pretty clear that a promise not to raise taxes on people who make less than a certain amount is about taxes relating to income. Otherwise if the gas tax were tweaked, or the taxes on phone bills, or anything like that would be a violation is his campaign promise and that’d be a fairly silly position to put himself in. Your premise is silly.
Plus he explicitly said during the campaign that he’d sign the S-Chip legislation (which included the tax as a funding source), so its not like this is a big surprise or about face.
Does it make sense to raise taxes during a deep recession (you can make a portmanteau of those two words if you prefer)? Sure, if you do it right. If you raised taxes on people earning over 250K and used it for a massive increase in unemployment, the money would have a much greater velocity and do a lot to ameliorate the effects of a sick economy. This, along with universal health care, explains why the European countries are not nearly as concerned with the effects of the current crisis. I have a friend with considerable family in Iceland and he tells me they are not at all concerned. The social safety net is in place and the crisis just means no more imports for a while. They had been going hog-wild on imports, but they can live without them.
I’m a smoker and the new tax is a real bitch. That said, sin tax and income tax are two different things. I never thought that the War on Tobacco would be exempt from additional taxes.
Not really. It’s just typical political weasel wording, is all. Just like all the ‘fees’ that came into being under a couple of Republican governnors are still taxes.
We are told over and over how poor people pay nearly the same percentage of their income as taxes as the rich people do. That’s clearly NOT the case for simple income taxes. It includes sales tax, SSN, property, sin, etc. We are also told, very clearly, by the Democratic party that income taxes need to be MORE progressive in order to acount for that.
Yet, despite that, they just passed a regressive tax…
Really? When you hear “I won’t raise taxes on the the first two income tax brackets” you actually hear “I won’t raise a single tax that will affect anyone in the first two income tax brackets”? Honestly? I find that extremely hard (read: impossible) to believe.
Except that isn’t what he said.
He said:
“ANY of your taxes”.
When you hear “any of your taxes”, you actually hear “first two income tax brackets”? Honestly? I find that extremely hard (read: impossible) to believe.
I suppose the most sincere answer I could give would be “I don’t care”.
Sin taxes are 100% avoidable. If you’re getting hurt by a sin tax in a recession (or any other time) it’s because you’re chosing to be. Quit smoking and you’ll save all sorts of money. I voted for Obama and I’ll admit that this tax contridicts some of the statements made (“any of your taxes”) but… I still don’t care.
I’m an ex-smoker (quit cold turkey about 3 or 4 years ago) and I don’t care if anyone else smokes but I don’t feel sympathy regarding the tax either.
I’m certainly no Obama fan, but I side with those saying this is not a violation of his campaign promise. The US imposes roughly eleventy billion different types of taxes, so I think it’s clear he meant only the income tax and other income-flavored taxes (ie, employment taxes).
Additionally, determining the “incidence” of a tax (which means who actually bears the burden of a tax in an economic sense) is complicated and debatable. So, if you take Obama’s words to mean that no person making less than $250k would bear any increased tax, then an increase in the corporate income tax rate would probably be a violation of that promise.
We are?
I suppose a lot of bad information is bandied about here and there, but I’m aware that tax rates on the upper brackets are much higher than in the lower brackets.
Or is it that, say, 5% of income is more critical to a poor person than 5% of a rich person’s?
I’m not either, but sure it is. He said he would not increase “any of your taxes”. This is a tax on those folks, it is being increased. He is violating his promise - QED.
It was a stupid and naive promise to have made. He should have said “Read my lips - no new taxes”. 
I don’t necessarily think it is all that big a deal, but then again I don’t believe a whole lot of what he claimed, so I can’t say this is a big gotcha. But he made a “firm promise” not to raise “any” taxes on those who made less that $250K. Now he is doing exactly that.
It isn’t a particularly good idea, but it isn’t a particularly bad one either - raising taxes on tobacco will (indirectly) increase health care costs overall and reduce the viability of Social Security, but that will happen anyway.
But yes, he broke a promise (that he never should have made in the first place) and it won’t, and doesn’t, make all that much difference.
I would be more interested in if he is really going to reduce the deficit to $500B a year. I don’t believe that one, either, but it makes much more difference.
So why are they wasting it on cigarettes?
Regards,
Shodan
No, what you’re saying is a stupid and naive criticism. Only an idiot would think that the promise would apply to cigarette taxes.
Well fuck me, they raised the toll on a bridge… OBAMA YOU LIAR!!! :rolleyes:
Seriously, you can whine and pretend that this is an outrage, but anyone with two neurons to rub together understands this issue.
Regards,
Lobohan 
Is this the new talking point? Because over on the James Randi Educational Foundation boards, a right-winger made this exact same argument about the tobacco tax, using pretty much the same terminology.
I think it’s probably more accurate to say that those people who already support Obama won’t think this is a big deal, while those people who oppose him already will think it’s a big deal.
Yup.
Yeah, isn’t that the same thing I said?
::d&r::
I think the idea is that income tax hurts the wealthy the most (as a % of income), property taxes hurt the middle-class the most (as a % of income), and sales tax hurts the poor the most (as a % of income). Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
In the context of a litany of income-specific taxes? Yes - that’s exactly what I hear.
Well I think you are putting quotes around the wrong words. The relevant words here is “your” as used in “any of your taxes” and “on” as used in “this is a tax on those folks.”. I don’t think the tax on cigareetes is one of “their” taxes or is a tax “on” those folks.
Let’s look at a hypothetical. Say the government imposes a tax on tire manufacturers of $1 per tire produced. Say Obama raises that tax to $2. A person making less than $250k per year buys a tire. Has Obama violated his campaign promise?