In what way does a citation showing that Obama cut taxes not substantiate my claim that Obama cut taxes? :dubious:
The claim was: "Did you miss the part where prior tax cuts offset it? " Offset it. It, being the tax someone would have to pay if they didn’t have HCI.
The original post was: "In 2009 he lowered taxes on the bottom 83%, so even if you count the insurance penalty as a tax increase it’s still a wash. "
Do the math to show us this is a wash for everyone affected. I’m sure that won’t be easy, but it’s the only way to substantiate that statement. I’d be very surprised if it were true.
It’s not going to be a wash for everyone affected. It’s going to be a net wash. If you’re counting on an individual basis, his promise is already “broken” and was even before the election because he frankly admitted that taxes would increase on some of those making more than $250,000.00 (and they did go up for some of those people).
What’s this “penalty tax”? You’re just making this up. Something is either a tax—something you’re obligated to pay for no failure to do anything—or a penalty: something imposed on you because you didn’t live up to a civic obligation.
Also, read John Maces’s Post 100.
We’re getting further and further into nitpickery here, but just to be clear… you haven’t shown that it will be a “net wash”, either. And since you say that the promise is “broken” already, and since that’s the question raised in this thread, I’m not even sure why you brought up the “wash” thing in the first place, unless it was simply an observation and not an argument.
No big deal either way… I just assumed we were debating the issue, so if you’re not we can just drop it.
There are lots of punitive taxes. Alcohol, gasoline and cigarettes, for example, are all more heavily taxed than other consumer products, in order to discourage their use.
Other goods and services are taxed at lower than prevailing rates in order to encourage their use- energy efficient windows and college tuition, for example.
Well, the question became what the actual promise was. You postulated that it was that no taxes would be raised; I believe it was that the tax burden would not be raised. Since we can’t agree on that, I agree that debating specifics is pointless.
What do you call it when I overcontribute to my IRA, and I am required to pay the IRS more money because I didn’t follow the rules? Is that a tax or a penalty?
The IRS says that a “6% excise tax” applies to nonconforming Roth IRA contributions. Seems like that’s a tax and a penalty.
I’m well aware of what tax policy was during the Reagan administration. But thanks for proving my point. Apparently we are supposed to pretend a SS payroll tax increase doesn’t count as a tax increase. Or we are supposed to pretend that the '86 tax act doesn’t count as a tax increase.
No, these are consumption taxes. Some of them, like the ones you mention, may be construed as being punitive, but that is not necessarily there intent. Take the gas tax. A gas tax was around since the 30s and 40s. Do you really thin that was a “punitive” tax. Hopefully you see that it wasn’t.
So what is the intent of the cigarette and alcohol taxes?
This is a clear case of “rich America” verses “poor America”. Most of the people who put Obama in office are poor. (except for Oprah) He is keeping his campaign promises to his supporters…technically-he has not raised taxes on the rich…he just took away tax-cuts that the Bush administration gave them. As far as Obama not being able to have it “both” ways…any time a bill is passed, its supporters have to accept “conditions” under which votes will be given. It is called “piggy-backing.” It sucks…but it is a necessary evil.
Only if you consider most people to be poor. Obama drew more votes than McCain among low-income and high-income voters. He drew slightly fewer among upper-middle-income voters.
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/12008/exit/Income.html
If you have to pay more, it’s a penalty tax, which might work like a tax, but it’s a penalty since it is easily avoidable. It is enough like a tax for Congress to be able to make it the law.
Besides, more things than simply a new tax makes the bill Constitutionally valid. The Commerce clause, for example, since health insurance crosses state lines. Saying “taxes” have simply been the easiest thing to explain to people on the 24 hour news channels.
Obama most certainly can have it both ways because in some ways this is a tax, and in others it is not. Nuance is difficult, deal with it
Haven’t they gone up for some class of people though? There are two classes of people in your example above, just as there are two classes of people in regards to the tax imposed in the health care mandate. In your example above there are people with property and without property. Under the health care legislation there are people with health insurance and without it. Government has raised taxes for those who own property in your example. Under the health care legislation the government has raised taxes on those individuals without insurance (assuming all else is equal in regards to tax exemptions).
Now, can they avoid this tax increase? Sure, they can avoid the tax increase by purchasing health insurance but this does not change the fact a tax is now being applied to all people within a particular class, those without health insurance, where such a tax did not previously exist at all for this class of people. Obama, who signed the legislation, and Congress, who passed it, are responsible for the existence of this law and the language in it. They brough this law into existence when no such law previously existed. They brought into existence a mandate and a tax to be imposed for those without insurance. It is inaccurate to suggest, under these facts, Obama and Congress did not raise taxes. They absolutely did raise taxes as they passed legislation, which previously did not exist, imposing a tax on a particular class of people.
Without Congress bringing the language of this legislation into existence, and Obama signing the legislation into law, there would not exist the possibility of any tax to be imposed on the class of people without health insurance under the color of law.