• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

new taxes

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because one is a federal income tax which will not increase for those making under $250,000 a year and one is a tax on a consumable.
And both are taxes, which can impact people making under $250k/year :)
If you make under $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up. The required taxes. The income tax.

If you CHOOSE to increase your tax burden by smoking cigarettes then that is your decision but the Obama administration is not going to increase your taxes based on your sub 250k income.

Clear?
I do understand how income taxes differ from taxes on discretionary spending.

However, sin taxes are definitely in the group of "any form of tax increase" and "any of my taxes" [if I smoked].

Obama said if we make less than 250k/year we won't pay any more taxes. It was very plain and using a grade school level of language. Well, clearly many people making less than that will pay more.
He is raising the federal tax on cell phones too, will you and the OP be creating a thread and whining about that next? It's akin to a child getting an xbox for Christmas and complaining it only had the 20GB Hard Drive but ignoring the MSLive Gold subscription that came with it (your coffee analogy wasn't relevant IMO). American spoiled brat syndrome at its finest that also ignores the 95% of <250K bracket tax cut we received as well.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
It's like those people who demand coffee cups be labeled as hot beverages.

Or that peanut butter has peanuts in it.

Or that when discussing income taxes you will still be referring to income taxes when it's the same sentence.
It's actually like buying coffee and the person who sells it to you tells you it's ice coffee and the cup all over it tells you its ice coffee, not hot, repeat not hot. Then there is a loudspeaker assuring you that this is cold coffee and cannot hurt you and since you just went for a run and you're about to die of heat exhaustion you throw it all over your face and it turns out that in fact it is hot and has been treated with a compound to allow its boiling temperature to be higher than 212F and it's 350F and you have third degree burns and your wife doesn't love you anymore and is cheating on you with your brother and your kids cry when they see you from now on.
/thread
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because one is a federal income tax which will not increase for those making under $250,000 a year and one is a tax on a consumable.
And both are taxes, which can impact people making under $250k/year :)
If you make under $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up. The required taxes. The income tax.

If you CHOOSE to increase your tax burden by smoking cigarettes then that is your decision but the Obama administration is not going to increase your taxes based on your sub 250k income.

Clear?
I do understand how income taxes differ from taxes on discretionary spending.

However, sin taxes are definitely in the group of "any form of tax increase" and "any of my taxes" [if I smoked].

Obama said if we make less than 250k/year we won't pay any more taxes. It was very plain and using a grade school level of language. Well, clearly many people making less than that will pay more.
He is raising the federal tax on cell phones too, will you and the OP be creating a thread and whining about that next? It's akin to a child getting an xbox for Christmas and complaining it only had the 20GB Hard Drive but ignoring the MSLive Gold subscription that came with it (your coffee analogy wasn't relevant IMO). American spoiled brat syndrome at its finest that also ignores the 95% of <250K bracket tax cut we received as well.

would that be the $13.00 I keep hearing about?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Only a brain-damaged baboon would whine about Obama in this instance.
No, baboons understood Obama was talking about income taxes.
give him time he'll renege on that one also.
See, now you're getting it. If and When he reneges on this pledge on which he campainged for a year, that's when you can start this thread, and you'd be fully justified in doing so given the amount of times and how emphatically he repeated this claim. Cuz right now you're a bit premature.

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
What do payroll and capital gains taxes have in common with federal income tax? Oh yes, they're taxes on income. OBAMA HAS ALWAYS BEEN REFERRING TO INCOME TAXES.
"not any of your taxes". I don't know why it's so hard to admit that Obama is going back on his pledge. It's there plain to see in his own words.

any form of tax increase
not any of your taxes

Come on, this doesn't take a doctorate in linguistics to interpret.
No, it doesn't take a doctorate, but apparently it does take some very basic contextual interpretation. Income, payroll (SS/Medicare), capital gains; these are all taxes directly on income. Sales tax, highway tolls, or any other general population-wide tax is clearly not what he was talking about. This isn't semantics and isn't a stretch, it was implied and realistically couldn't be understood the way OP and his friends think.

Let's look at another quote to understand context.

At the 2nd debate with McCain, Obama said "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent."

Now he didn't say "income tax cut" right? He said tax cut. So clearly he must have meant all taxes including sales tax would be cut for 95% of Americans, right? Wait, that's ridiculous, he meant income tax. But then why didn't he say "income tax cut" then? Maybe because contextually it was the only thing that made sense, since it's not possible in any manageable way that I can figure to cut sales tax for 95% of people. Do you bring a card to the store that says "I make under 250k/yr"?

any form of INCOME tax increase
not any of your INCOME taxes

But, for arguments sake, let's say he didn't mean income taxes and only meant that no family making 250,000 or less would see any increase in any tax anywhere....how did you think he would accomplish that in practice? Or did you think he was pledging that he wouldn't raise any taxes at all? Because no one in their right mind would say that after GHWB's debacle.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because one is a federal income tax which will not increase for those making under $250,000 a year and one is a tax on a consumable.
And both are taxes, which can impact people making under $250k/year :)
If you make under $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up. The required taxes. The income tax.

If you CHOOSE to increase your tax burden by smoking cigarettes then that is your decision but the Obama administration is not going to increase your taxes based on your sub 250k income.

Clear?
I do understand how income taxes differ from taxes on discretionary spending.

However, sin taxes are definitely in the group of "any form of tax increase" and "any of my taxes" [if I smoked].

Obama said if we make less than 250k/year we won't pay any more taxes. It was very plain and using a grade school level of language. Well, clearly many people making less than that will pay more.
He is raising the federal tax on cell phones too, will you and the OP be creating a thread and whining about that next? It's akin to a child getting an xbox for Christmas and complaining it only had the 20GB Hard Drive but ignoring the MSLive Gold subscription that came with it (your coffee analogy wasn't relevant IMO). American spoiled brat syndrome at its finest that also ignores the 95% of <250K bracket tax cut we received as well.

would that be the $13.00 I keep hearing about?
Read. $10-15 weekly for singles, $15-20 weekly for married. But you'll still cry that your xbox hard drive wasn't large enough, typical American spoiled brat syndrome. I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
It's actually $400, did you read the link? It's exactly what Obama promised, a tax cut and your income taxes aren't going up if <250K. If you want to argue about semantics on the internet from your cushy home/job/library then go for it, Obama didn't specifically say INCOME TAXES = I'm outraged! Please spare us the loss of IQ points and acknowledge the fact that if McCain was voted in you wouldn't be getting sht. In addition, if you think $13/week is an insult then don't take it. Put your money where you mouth is and post the pic here, otherwise it's all lip service/whining about things you should be thankful for (RE: my China comment).
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Only a brain-damaged baboon would whine about Obama in this instance.
No, baboons understood Obama was talking about income taxes.
give him time he'll renege on that one also.
See, now you're getting it. If and When he reneges on this pledge on which he campainged for a year, that's when you can start this thread, and you'd be fully justified in doing so given the amount of times and how emphatically he repeated this claim. Cuz right now you're a bit premature.

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
What do payroll and capital gains taxes have in common with federal income tax? Oh yes, they're taxes on income. OBAMA HAS ALWAYS BEEN REFERRING TO INCOME TAXES.
"not any of your taxes". I don't know why it's so hard to admit that Obama is going back on his pledge. It's there plain to see in his own words.

any form of tax increase
not any of your taxes

Come on, this doesn't take a doctorate in linguistics to interpret.
No, it doesn't take a doctorate, but apparently it does take some very basic contextual interpretation. Income, payroll (SS/Medicare), capital gains; these are all taxes directly on income. Sales tax, highway tolls, or any other general population-wide tax is clearly not what he was talking about. This isn't semantics and isn't a stretch, it was implied and realistically couldn't be understood the way OP and his friends think.

Let's look at another quote to understand context.

At the 2nd debate with McCain, Obama said "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent."

Now he didn't say "income tax cut" right? He said tax cut. So clearly he must have meant all taxes including sales tax would be cut for 95% of Americans, right? Wait, that's ridiculous, he meant income tax. But then why didn't he say "income tax cut" then? Maybe because contextually it was the only thing that made sense, since it's not possible in any manageable way that I can figure to cut sales tax for 95% of people. Do you bring a card to the store that says "I make under 250k/yr"?

any form of INCOME tax increase
not any of your INCOME taxes

But, for arguments sake, let's say he didn't mean income taxes and only meant that no family making 250,000 or less would see any increase in any tax anywhere....how did you think he would accomplish that in practice? Or did you think he was pledging that he wouldn't raise any taxes at all? Because no one in their right mind would say that after GHWB's debacle.


He's not in his right mind. He's a liberal.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because one is a federal income tax which will not increase for those making under $250,000 a year and one is a tax on a consumable.
And both are taxes, which can impact people making under $250k/year :)
If you make under $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up. The required taxes. The income tax.

If you CHOOSE to increase your tax burden by smoking cigarettes then that is your decision but the Obama administration is not going to increase your taxes based on your sub 250k income.

Clear?
I do understand how income taxes differ from taxes on discretionary spending.

However, sin taxes are definitely in the group of "any form of tax increase" and "any of my taxes" [if I smoked].

Obama said if we make less than 250k/year we won't pay any more taxes. It was very plain and using a grade school level of language. Well, clearly many people making less than that will pay more.
He is raising the federal tax on cell phones too, will you and the OP be creating a thread and whining about that next? It's akin to a child getting an xbox for Christmas and complaining it only had the 20GB Hard Drive but ignoring the MSLive Gold subscription that came with it (your coffee analogy wasn't relevant IMO). American spoiled brat syndrome at its finest that also ignores the 95% of <250K bracket tax cut we received as well.
And in time, your Xbox Live subscription price skyrockets, you find out that 20 GB doesn't store what it used to 5 years ago, and your Xbox RRODs.

Welcome to cap and trade.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
All this takes is a degree of logical processing that people are content to ignore if it gives them an opportunity to be outraged about something (because, let's face it, we all like to be outraged). Let's look at what specifically you said. "People under 250k." Right off the bat, we're making the distinction that this is about how much people earn. The money that people earn is known as income. So I think we can all agree that when Obama said people making under 250k would not pay additional taxes, he was dividing up groups based on income, correct?

Now, logically, since we've already established that he is dividing these groups based on income, you should carry that with you through the remainder of what he says. Groups in this income bracket will not pay higher taxes. That, to me, doesn't suggest that people who make under 250k will be spared from all taxation that they could possibly see between federal, state, county, municipal and city level taxation. That would be a ludicrous claim for any politician to make and any citizen that believed such a claim probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Obama's statement, to me, suggests that people in a certain income bracket will not see increased taxation in terms of taxes that apply to income brackets; income tax. That's not a difficult leap of logic to make; in fact, it's the only leap of logic that could be considered rational considering how many politicians have discussed this exact same issue in every single election in the past 30 years.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
It's actually $400, did you read the link? It's exactly what Obama promised, a tax cut and your income taxes aren't going up if <250K. If you want to argue about semantics on the internet from your cushy home/job/library then go for it, Obama didn't specifically say INCOME TAXES = I'm outraged! Please spare us the loss of IQ points and acknowledge the fact that if McCain was voted in you wouldn't be getting sht. In addition, if you think $13/week is an insult then don't take it. Put your money where you mouth is and post the pic here, otherwise it's all lip service/whining about things you should be thankful for (RE: my China comment).
"It's actually $400", commonly referred elsewhere to $13/week, as I mentioned. Why would I acknowledge that about McCain? I don't give a sh*t about him. I wanted Obama to win, and he did, so let's stay on point.

The idea that disagreeing with it means I have to give it back is not logical at all. Accepting it doesn't mean I agree with it anymore than my wife taking all our life savings out and saying I can either take half or she's going to take all and blow it on coke. Obviously I take what I can but would still prefer she leaves it all in the bank. Are you going to tell me that if I think the US debt is too high I should not take any of my tax return back and instead send all of my extra cash to the government? So then it can be disbursed among people like you? Come on.

I am not thankful for it because I see beyond my next pay check. It doesn't mean I need to visit China so that I'm thankful for what I have. What a silly notion.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
All this takes is a degree of logical processing that people are content to ignore if it gives them an opportunity to be outraged about something (because, let's face it, we all like to be outraged). Let's look at what specifically you said. "People under 250k." Right off the bat, we're making the distinction that this is about how much people earn. The money that people earn is known as income. So I think we can all agree that when Obama said people making under 250k would not pay additional taxes, he was dividing up groups based on income, correct?

Now, logically, since we've already established that he is dividing these groups based on income, you should carry that with you through the remainder of what he says. Groups in this income bracket will not pay higher taxes. That, to me, doesn't suggest that people who make under 250k will be spared from all taxation that they could possibly see between federal, state, county, municipal and city level taxation. That would be a ludicrous claim for any politician to make and any citizen that believed such a claim probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Obama's statement, to me, suggests that people in a certain income bracket will not see increased taxation in terms of taxes that apply to income brackets; income tax. That's not a difficult leap of logic to make; in fact, it's the only leap of logic that could be considered rational considering how many politicians have discussed this exact same issue in every single election in the past 30 years.
I like your answer. I agree with most of it but still see room for doubt over whether this is income only or not. He's only in control of federal taxes, no doubt, but when he tells a group they'll have no more taxes, I think that's an umbrella of their entire tax burden. If he keeps income taxes flat or decreases them but raises taxes elsewhere, that's acting disingenuously. Income tax or not, to me he said a specific group, the sub-250kers, wouldn't have additional federal taxes.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
All this takes is a degree of logical processing that people are content to ignore if it gives them an opportunity to be outraged about something (because, let's face it, we all like to be outraged). Let's look at what specifically you said. "People under 250k." Right off the bat, we're making the distinction that this is about how much people earn. The money that people earn is known as income. So I think we can all agree that when Obama said people making under 250k would not pay additional taxes, he was dividing up groups based on income, correct?

Now, logically, since we've already established that he is dividing these groups based on income, you should carry that with you through the remainder of what he says. Groups in this income bracket will not pay higher taxes. That, to me, doesn't suggest that people who make under 250k will be spared from all taxation that they could possibly see between federal, state, county, municipal and city level taxation. That would be a ludicrous claim for any politician to make and any citizen that believed such a claim probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Obama's statement, to me, suggests that people in a certain income bracket will not see increased taxation in terms of taxes that apply to income brackets; income tax. That's not a difficult leap of logic to make; in fact, it's the only leap of logic that could be considered rational considering how many politicians have discussed this exact same issue in every single election in the past 30 years.
Exactly.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,900
14
81
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
All this takes is a degree of logical processing that people are content to ignore if it gives them an opportunity to be outraged about something (because, let's face it, we all like to be outraged). Let's look at what specifically you said. "People under 250k." Right off the bat, we're making the distinction that this is about how much people earn. The money that people earn is known as income. So I think we can all agree that when Obama said people making under 250k would not pay additional taxes, he was dividing up groups based on income, correct?

Now, logically, since we've already established that he is dividing these groups based on income, you should carry that with you through the remainder of what he says. Groups in this income bracket will not pay higher taxes. That, to me, doesn't suggest that people who make under 250k will be spared from all taxation that they could possibly see between federal, state, county, municipal and city level taxation. That would be a ludicrous claim for any politician to make and any citizen that believed such a claim probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Obama's statement, to me, suggests that people in a certain income bracket will not see increased taxation in terms of taxes that apply to income brackets; income tax. That's not a difficult leap of logic to make; in fact, it's the only leap of logic that could be considered rational considering how many politicians have discussed this exact same issue in every single election in the past 30 years.
Exactly.
Skoorb is making a good point. The amount of income tax you pay doesn't really matter. The amount of sales tax you pay doesn't really matter. The amount of gasoline tax you pay doesn't really matter. What affects your bottom line is how much TOTAL tax you pay. So yeah, maybe Obama did mean that income taxes wouldn't go up, maybe he didn't. It doesn't really matter - all that matters to me is how much TOTAL I'm paying in taxes, and how much the government is spending (because deficit spending is just going to result in more taxes LATER).

Sure, this tax only affects people who smoke - they can just quit smoking to avoid the tax. And another tax only affects cell phones - people can just get rid of their cell phones to avoid the tax. What else are you willing to give up to avoid taxes? What else are you willing to pay taxes on and accept it because it's not a tax on your income? What other regressive taxes would prefer to see raised rather than the income tax? We can't pay for everything Obama wants to do with current tax revenue.

A word about the logic you used above, that he had to have been talking about income taxes because he referred to a group of people by their income. If he had said:
"Every family making less than $250,000 a year will see a 50% reduction of your taxes. Your income tax, your payroll tax, your capital gains taxes, all of your taxes."
Would it be acceptable to you if he said that, then imposed a 15% federal sales tax? He didn't lie, because he was clearly talking about reducing income taxes. Hopefully that helps you realize that compartmentalizing your tax expenditures is silly. It's the total tax you pay that matters. But I'm sure you'll nitpick about something and dismiss everything I've said outright because you found one supposed flaw. It wouldn't be P&N if you didn't do that.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we're going to ignore the letter of the law as spelled out by Obama, and assume he was talking about only income, then we need to be honest about it. When he said people under $250k, he was speaking specifically of a group, which is the largest one in the US and saying "if you're in this group, you won't pay more taxes; i.e. the government won't take more of your money". To then take it in means other than income ignores the spirit of what he said.
I'd love to see pansies like you dropped into China where you have to sht in a hole for a year, I bet you'd have a whole new perspective on life when you get back.
Your attitude here is simply unhelpful. Anyway, that $13/week should really be taken as an insult by people of moderate or better intellect. This country is under crushing debt right now, to try and buy off some angst with a paltry $13 is simply insulting. Really, it's puerile.
It's actually $400, did you read the link? It's exactly what Obama promised, a tax cut and your income taxes aren't going up if <250K. If you want to argue about semantics on the internet from your cushy home/job/library then go for it, Obama didn't specifically say INCOME TAXES = I'm outraged! Please spare us the loss of IQ points and acknowledge the fact that if McCain was voted in you wouldn't be getting sht. In addition, if you think $13/week is an insult then don't take it. Put your money where you mouth is and post the pic here, otherwise it's all lip service/whining about things you should be thankful for (RE: my China comment).
"It's actually $400", commonly referred elsewhere to $13/week, as I mentioned. Why would I acknowledge that about McCain? I don't give a sh*t about him. I wanted Obama to win, and he did, so let's stay on point.

The idea that disagreeing with it means I have to give it back is not logical at all. Accepting it doesn't mean I agree with it anymore than my wife taking all our life savings out and saying I can either take half or she's going to take all and blow it on coke. Obviously I take what I can but would still prefer she leaves it all in the bank. Are you going to tell me that if I think the US debt is too high I should not take any of my tax return back and instead send all of my extra cash to the government? So then it can be disbursed among people like you? Come on.

I am not thankful for it because I see beyond my next pay check. It doesn't mean I need to visit China so that I'm thankful for what I have. What a silly notion.
No need to argue about the philosophical semantics of the tax cut, the bottom line is that if you're unhappy with it (for whatever reason) then just return it. The bottom line is that it could be much worse (McCain COULD have won and you wouldn't get a g.dam cent, you COULD broaden your horizons by going to China and discovering what real poverty is), and you should be thankful for what you have and not display American spoiled brat syndrome by bitching about something as insignificant as this topic. The bottom line is that your taxes aren't going up and you're getting $400. Play your xbox/PS3/videogames, eat some filet mignon with a nice imported beer, watch a movie, kiss your pretty wife and enjoy life because there are billions out there who would love to be Skoorb or even me (as abrasive as I can sometimes be).
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: mugs
Skoorb is making a good point. The amount of income tax you pay doesn't really matter. The amount of sales tax you pay doesn't really matter. The amount of gasoline tax you pay doesn't really matter. What affects your bottom line is how much TOTAL tax you pay. So yeah, maybe Obama did mean that income taxes wouldn't go up, maybe he didn't. It doesn't really matter - all that matters to me is how much TOTAL I'm paying in taxes, and how much the government is spending (because deficit spending is just going to result in more taxes LATER).

Sure, this tax only affects people who smoke - they can just quit smoking to avoid the tax. And another tax only affects cell phones - people can just get rid of their cell phones to avoid the tax. What else are you willing to give up to avoid taxes? What else are you willing to pay taxes on and accept it because it's not a tax on your income? What other regressive taxes would prefer to see raised rather than the income tax? We can't pay for everything Obama wants to do with current tax revenue.

A word about the logic you used above, that he had to have been talking about income taxes because he referred to a group of people by their income. If he had said:
"Every family making less than $250,000 a year will see a 50% reduction of your taxes. Your income tax, your payroll tax, your capital gains taxes, all of your taxes."
Would it be acceptable to you if he said that, then imposed a 15% federal sales tax? He didn't lie, because he was clearly talking about reducing income taxes. Hopefully that helps you realize that compartmentalizing your tax expenditures is silly. It's the total tax you pay that matters. But I'm sure you'll nitpick about something and dismiss everything I've said outright because you found one supposed flaw. It wouldn't be P&N if you didn't do that.
The money has to come from somewhere if the other promise is to come through (deficit cut in half which I don't think will happen), and arguing over he said/she said semantics is just stupid. "He promised me an xbox with a large hard drive for xmas!" You would be naive to think that NONE of your taxes will be raised: that's a childish mentality. Last, if you actually think a cell phone tax is anywhere near the level of income tax then let me know. Our largest tax isn't being increased as promised, I'm thankful because if it was McCain we'd be screwed in every tax category, not just booze/cigs/cellphone. Between O and JMac, we got the better deal.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: jonks
Or did you think he was pledging that he wouldn't raise any taxes at all? Because no one in their right mind would say that after GHWB's debacle.


He's not in his right mind. He's a liberal.
As liberal as GHWB who did in fact make such a promise and then renege on it?
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,900
14
81
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The money has to come from somewhere if the other promise is to come through (deficit cut in half which I don't think will happen), and arguing over he said/she said semantics is just stupid. "He promised me an xbox with a large hard drive for xmas!" You would be naive to think that NONE of your taxes will be raised: that's a childish mentality. Last, if you actually think a cell phone tax is anywhere near the level of income tax then let me know. Our largest tax isn't being increased as promised, I'm thankful because if it was McCain we'd be screwed in every tax category, not just booze/cigs/cellphone. Between O and JMac, we got the better deal.
I don't think you understood my post at all.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
you should be thankful for what you have and not display American spoiled brat syndrome by bitching about something as insignificant as this topic.
Pot meet kettle.:)
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The money has to come from somewhere if the other promise is to come through (deficit cut in half which I don't think will happen), and arguing over he said/she said semantics is just stupid. "He promised me an xbox with a large hard drive for xmas!" You would be naive to think that NONE of your taxes will be raised: that's a childish mentality. Last, if you actually think a cell phone tax is anywhere near the level of income tax then let me know. Our largest tax isn't being increased as promised, I'm thankful because if it was McCain we'd be screwed in every tax category, not just booze/cigs/cellphone. Between O and JMac, we got the better deal.
I don't think you understood my post at all.
All in all I agreed with your post and added to it.

 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: jonks
Or did you think he was pledging that he wouldn't raise any taxes at all? Because no one in their right mind would say that after GHWB's debacle.


He's not in his right mind. He's a liberal.
As liberal as GHWB who did in fact make such a promise and then renege on it?
And as I result I did not vote for Bush Sr the 2nd time for that very reason.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
All of this complaining by righties about taxes is hilarious. Where were you when your hero was raising taxes, oops I mean user fees?

Text

WHEN is a ''revenue increase'' not a ''tax increase?'' That is the multibillion-dollar question that has sparked a heated debate in recent weeks between the Reagan Administration and Congress.

The White House, taking a firm public stance against new taxes but leaving room for revenue increases in the 1988 budget, insists the distinction is fundamental. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, charge the Reagan Administration with doublespeaking and quibbling over semantics.

President Reagan has repeatedly warned Congress of his opposition to any new taxes, but some White House aides have been trying to figure out a way of endorsing a tax bill that could be called something else.

Administration officials have repeatedly suggested that Congress look to the revenue proposals contained in the President's own 1988 budget plan for ideas.

Most frequently mentioned are ''user fees,'' which Administration officials insist are not taxes.

Joseph A. Pechman, a leading tax authority and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks there can be a distinction. A user fee - such as the admission fee to national parks - is, he said, ''imposed on individuals who use certain services provided by the Government and is proportional to the use of the service.'' By contrast, he defines a tax as a ''mandatory assessment on an individual family based on certain characteristics, such as income or consumption.''

But Mr. Pechman adds that a user fee is sometimes not very different from an ''excise tax,'' which is a tax imposed on particular commodities, such as gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol.

Indeed, it could be questioned whether some of the Reagan proposals that are now classified as user fees might fairly be lumped into the category of excise taxes. One such proposal is a new $1 fee on each airline and cruise ship ticket for international travel to and from the United States. That fee would be similar to the Federal excise tax now assessed on airline tickets.

Rarely mentioned by Administration officials are a few proposals in the Reagan budget plan that are specifically identified as ''tax'' proposals.

One of them would increase the excise tax on coal producers. Another would repeal the exemptions from gasoline and other highway excise taxes for bus operators and state and local governments.

Still another proposal would require employers to start paying the Social Security payroll tax on all cash tips received by waiters and other service employees, a change that would increase taxes for restaurateurs and others.
But the idea of making income tax changes to raise revenue is nothing new - even during the Reagan Administration. Such changes were incorporated in the tax increase bills passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan in 1982 and 1984. Politicians are able to get around calling them tax increases by describing their action as closing ''loopholes.'' Closing loopholes connotes fixing an unintended technical gap in the law that allows some taxpayers to unfairly gain a deduction or other tax benefit.
Here's another:
"It would be a user fee."
Reagan explaining that his proposed
five-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax would not
be a Tax at all."
11/11/1982

Tax Reform
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: jonks
Or did you think he was pledging that he wouldn't raise any taxes at all? Because no one in their right mind would say that after GHWB's debacle.


He's not in his right mind. He's a liberal.
As liberal as GHWB who did in fact make such a promise and then renege on it?
And as I result I did not vote for Bush Sr the 2nd time for that very reason.
Well, the Dems in congress more or less forced him into a corner paired with the emerging recession and he had no choice but to approve the legislation to fight the growing deficit. His mistake wasn't breaking the promise, it was in making such an outlandish and untenable promise in the first place. His advisers were even aware of the distinct possibility he wouldn't be able to keep it once elected. But he was more concerned with winning that governing and told whatever lies he had to to win. Who advised keeping the line despite it likely leading to a broken promise? Roger Ailes, currently Fox News president. Win at all costs, lie if you have to. But it certainly played a strong role in him not getting reelected.

The whole mess is actually a pretty funny story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_new_taxes
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Harvey
Good. Tobacco smokers cost the health care system far more than their share of total medical costs. If they want to continue smoking, taxing tobacco is a good way for them contribute to the added burden they impose on everyone else, and it's directly proportional to the cause.

Anything that encourages people to quit is good for the nation. :thumbsup:
You're missing the point. Obama specifically said over and over that he would not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. We would not see our taxes go up a single cent were almost his exact words.




Change we can believe in.
It was quite obvious he was referring to income tax.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY