The health care bill creates a tax, and therefore is Constitutional - right?

[emacknight]

@Bricker

First of all, I don’t think it’s remotely legally significant what Obama says. It either is a tax or it isn’t. In this case, it’s a tax, which places it well within Congress’ powers to enact, and it’s fully and completely constitutional.

I like the way you slipped in “legally.” Why did you do that? Was Obama’s testimony under oath?

Okay, so it is a tax, the bill is constitutional, why the thread? Your title was, “The health care bill creates a tax, and therefore is Constitutional - right?”

You just answered yes and yes.

@Bricker

If Obama denies that it’s a tax, that doesn’t affect the constitutional question one bit.

I thought the discussion about “Is it a tax or not” which we had recently in a number of threads was interesting, in part because the ABC interview at the time spawned this thread, in which some posters took positions on the same issue.

Okay, my bad, I didn’t realize we were on part two of your gatcha, I thought we were still on phase 1.

@Bricker

I answered that above. It’s a tax increase as to the first set of people, and a tax cut as to the second set of people.

ah HA so you admit that it is a tax cut! I tricked you into saying that with my cleaver wordplay. Now I plan to use that against you in future threads, particularly when the issue of raising taxes gets repeated ad nauseum during the next election cycle.

@Bricker

A tax hike, with the results offset by umpty-frotz, “umpty-frotz” being whatever the particulars are that raise the take-home.

So now I’m a bit disturbed by your claim – we can’t call something that is a tax hike a “tax hike” because it’s too charged a phrase.

What should we call it?

Call it what it is. Use the full and explicit description of what’s going on, and I can tell you it’s going to require more than 4 words and take longer than 15 seconds to say. Terms like “tax hike” and “tax increase” are politically charged and meant to elicit a specific reaction, while hiding the truth, and giving an impression that you’re better than the other guy. It’s the sort of lazy political thinking that got us into this situation in the first place.

Just like in the hypocrite debate, this short hand is what gets people into trouble. The liberal media is DESPERATE for a sound bite they can use to make Obama look bad and play to their base. Being able to say, “Obama raised your taxes” fits a lot better on those stupid lawn signs than “Obama created a system of health care that caused a slight increase in taxes for some, a slight decrease in taxes for other, improved health care for that guy, allowed a couple million to get coverage they couldn’t have otherwise received, and pissed off the Republicans.”

Perhaps I’m wrongly imputing a set of beliefs onto you, but this comes across as a set up. So why don’t you tell us what you really think? Why a mock-debate that has a title, unrelated to an interview clip, unrelated to your conclusion?

[John_Mace]

What’s the saying about walking like a duck…?

It’s mind boggling that some people will say this isn’t a tax and that some people making less than $250k will not see their taxes increase. I guess that’s just partisan truthiness for you!

Having said that, I think we can all agree that we are shocked, SHOCKED that a politician broke one of his campaign promises. My faith in politics has been shattered forever…

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@emacknight

I like the way you slipped in “legally.” Why did you do that? Was Obama’s testimony under oath?

If it was testimony, then yes; testimony is given under oath. Presumably his Saturday-morning talk show appearance was not under oath.

@John_Mace

What’s the saying about walking like a duck…?

It’s mind boggling that some people will say this isn’t a tax and that some people making less than $250k will not see their taxes increase. I guess that’s just partisan truthiness for you!

Did you miss the part where prior tax cuts offset it?

[magellan01]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

And you have not seen any of your taxes increase. Not your income tax, your capital gains or your payroll taxes. None. If you disagree, tell m which of your taxes got increased.

You seem to be saying that it’s not a tax increase because an existing tax didn’t go up. Is that right?

Question, just so I can understand where you’re coming from: If tomorrow there was a new law taxing all Americans for breathing oxygen, would you say that your taxes just got increased?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Whack-a-Mole

Political parsing.

Say I lower tax rates and also close a tax loophole at the same time. Overall taxes are lowered but for some few who exploited the loophole may see a tax increase. Total taxes received by the government are lower however.

Did I raise or lower taxes?

@Bricker

You raised taxes on those who “exploited the loophole.” You lowered taxes on everyone else.

And the net effect was a tax decrease overall.

But does that apply here? Is there a related tax decrease somewhere?

Let’s pretend we are in court and I did as quoted above.

You, as the opposing attorney cross examining me ask, “Yes or no Whack-a-Mole, did you raise taxes?”

I start trying to explain and you cut in, “Yes or no only please. Did you raise taxes?”

What is the truthful answer here?

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Did you miss the part where prior tax cuts offset it?

The only part I missed was where that claim was substantiated. Can you point that out to me?

[John_Mace]

@magellan01

You seem to be saying that it’s not a tax increase because an existing tax didn’t go up. Is that right?

Question, just so I can understand where you’re coming from: If tomorrow there was a new law taxing all Americans for breathing oxygen, would you say that your taxes just got increased?

Well, that’s an optional tax, because you can choose not to breathe and avoid the tax.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@John_Mace

What’s the saying about walking like a duck…?

It’s mind boggling that some people will say this isn’t a tax and that some people making less than $250k will not see their taxes increase. I guess that’s just partisan truthiness for you!

I’ll repeat my earlier question.

I raise property taxes. You do not own property. Have I raised taxes on you?

A year later you decide to buy property. Did I raise your taxes?

As noted you choosing or not choosing to buy property is your choice. You can avoid the property tax if you want to.

[Rumor_Watkins]

I’m going to go with…

“it’s politically not a tax, but the enforcement mechanism of the mandate is a tax”

[emacknight]

@Rumor_Watkins

I’m going to go with…

“it’s politically not a tax, but the enforcement mechanism of the mandate is a tax”

Good luck fitting that on a yard sign.

[John_Mace]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’ll repeat my earlier question.

I raise property taxes. You do not own property. Have I raised taxes on you?

A year later you decide to buy property. Did I raise your taxes?

As noted you choosing or not choosing to buy property is your choice. You can avoid the property tax if you want to.

Repeating a bad analogy doesn’t make it not a bad analogy.

“No tax” means “no tax”. This is a tax. It’s that simple.

[Hamlet]

@emacknight

Good luck fitting that on a yard sign.

I’ll put it next to my “I don’t think he does, but Saddam may have WMD’s, so let’s let the weapon’s inspectors do their damn job before you start an unnecessary and costly war” bumper sticker.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

My bad. Not sure where my head went when I wrote that but (inexplicably) missed those very relevant pieces of John’s post.

I agree in general.

The problem these days is the nuanced, “Yes, there is a new tax but overall you save more money than before it” gets lost as the right hollers, “Ha! You raised taxes! You’re a liar! Liar liar pants on fire! Nope, nothing else matters, LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA he raised taxes!”

So, unsurprisingly Obama shorthands it to “this is not a tax increase”. Politicians, they all do that.

If you want to make the case that Obama broke a campaign pledge we can have that discussion. Start a new thread or green light the shift in gears for this thread. The OP was on about the constitutionality of HCR because Obama said it was not a tax (which I think has been dispensed with).

I think it was a tax increase, but a de minimis one. It’s perhaps a technical violation of his promise, but given the overall context, a tiny, insignificant one.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Let’s pretend we are in court and I did as quoted above.

You, as the opposing attorney cross examining me ask, “Yes or no Whack-a-Mole, did you raise taxes?”

I start trying to explain and you cut in, “Yes or no only please. Did you raise taxes?”

What is the truthful answer here?

There is no truthful “yes or no” answer to that question.

“Have you stopped beating your wife?” is also not amenable to “yes or no” resolution.

The witness, if he isn’t saved by timely objection from the other side, should turn to the judge and say, “Your Honor, the question is too broad to be answered yes or no. May I explain?”

[Whack-a-Mole]

@John_Mace

Repeating a bad analogy doesn’t make it not a bad analogy.

“No tax” means “no tax”. This is a tax. It’s that simple.

And dodging a question twice makes it no less a dodge.

A punitive tax has been put in place. I already said it counted as a tax upthread (in response to you I think).

It is a tax that is entirely avoidable.

To say your taxes were raised when, as a single, 30-year old person who makes $50,000/year, it is entirely avoidable, is disingenuous.

This is typical conservative tactics. Never mind the nuances and subtleties. Just go with, “IT’S A TAX! OMGWTFBBQ!!”

[emacknight]

@John_Mace

Repeating a bad analogy doesn’t make it not a bad analogy.

“No tax” means “no tax”. This is a tax. It’s that simple.

My income went up, and so I had to pay more taxes. I guess I could have chosen not to make more money.

But no, it’s never that simple. The world isn’t that simple. “no tax” is a nonsense statement like “traditional values,” “war for oil,” and “environmentally responsible.”

This is all just a ridiculous exercise in political posturing. You desperately want something you can pin on Obama, other people are working their asses off to make sure he stays clean.

Why do you care so much about whether or not this is a tax, or a tax increase? If your motivation is something other than to bash Obama and the Democrats, or to have sound bites during the next election cycle, please let me know.

Like I said before, this whole thread is a set up so you can repeat over and over again, “Obama lied to us, raised taxes, and added new ones.”

Then we’ll have to go back through and point out how it’s not that simple. Nothing is ever that simple.

[emacknight]

@Bricker

There is no truthful “yes or no” answer to that question.

“Have you stopped beating your wife?” is also not amenable to “yes or no” resolution.

The witness, if he isn’t saved by timely objection from the other side, should turn to the judge and say, “Your Honor, the question is too broad to be answered yes or no. May I explain?”

The prosecutor would then turn to the jury and say, "why is he deliberately trying to evade the question, did he raise taxes, it’s just that simple.

And the judge would say, “You have 15 seconds to answer before we go to commercial.”

[John_Mace]

@Whack-a-Mole

And dodging a question twice makes it no less a dodge.

A punitive tax has been put in place. I already said it counted as a tax upthread (in response to you I think).

It is a tax that is entirely avoidable.

To say your taxes were raised when, as a single, 30-year old person who makes $50,000/year, it is entirely avoidable, is disingenuous.

This is typical conservative tactics. Never mind the nuances and subtleties. Just go with, “IT’S A TAX! OMGWTFBBQ!!”

All taxes are avoidable. If avoidability is what gets him off the hook, then he could raise any tax and not break his promise.

[John_Mace]

@emacknight

My income went up, and so I had to pay more taxes. I guess I could have chosen not to make more money.

But no, it’s never that simple. The world isn’t that simple. “no tax” is a nonsense statement like “traditional values,” “war for oil,” and “environmentally responsible.”

In this case it is that simple. Read the quote. He couldn’t have made himself more clear.

This is all just a ridiculous exercise in political posturing. You desperately want something you can pin on Obama, other people are working their asses off to make sure he stays clean.

Wrong. I voted for the guy. I’ll almost certainly vote for him again if he runs.

Why do you care so much about whether or not this is a tax, or a tax increase? If your motivation is something other than to bash Obama and the Democrats, or to have sound bites during the next election cycle, please let me know.

Read the banner at the top of this page. Right under THE STRAIGHT DOPE.

Like I said before, this whole thread is a set up so you can repeat over and over again, “Obama lied to us, raised taxes, and added new ones.”

Then we’ll have to go back through and point out how it’s not that simple. Nothing is ever that simple.

In this case, it is.

[emacknight]

@John_Mace

In this case it is that simple. Read the quote. He couldn’t have made himself more clear.

Which quote? Who are we talking about? Bricker or Obama?