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

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: ccbadd
Obama said: "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Let's say Obama increased the luxury tax on automobiles costing over $100,000. Then, let's say a family making under $250,000 took out a third mortgage on their house and cobbled together all their savings and begged and borrowed money from friends. Using all that capital, they then went and bought a $150,000 car. Technically they are now paying a higher tax than they would have had they bought that car last year, since Obama raised the luxury tax. Has he broken his pledge not to raise that family's taxes? According to your logic, this constitutes a tax increase on families making 250k/yr.

So, would a general luxury tax increase on private jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year"? (this is rhetorical, but let's see you answer it anyway)
Any response from those claiming Obama broke faith/lied?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It doesn't mean they cannot call to task somebody who says they won't and then raises them.
Agreed, but please respond to my post above yours.
I think I did elsewhere. Ultimately, people in sub 250k care if their taxes go up, not how they go up. So, if he truly was talking endlessly about income taxes only, the intimation was that taxes as a whole would not go up. It makes no sense to say income will never raise and then nail people elsewhere. They don't care how their taxes go up, only that they do. To repeat like a record that people sub 250k wouldn't pay more taxes drove home a sentiment which is belied by his actions.

I truly believe the point he was making, and the point most people received, was that if you are in the sub 250k income level your taxes will not go up.

Eventually he will raise actual income taxes and then we can finally close this thread :)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Change I can believe in was another lie then...thx
My previous title suits you well. :roll: You are obviously incapable of being intellectual honest with yourself and others.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
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
I was in 7th grade, and the internet wasn't invented yet. Sorry, 27 years later I denounce Reagan for this. Feel better?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think I did elsewhere. Ultimately, people in sub 250k care if their taxes go up, not how they go up. So, if he truly was talking endlessly about income taxes only, the intimation was that taxes as a whole would not go up. It makes no sense to say income will never raise and then nail people elsewhere. They don't care how their taxes go up, only that they do. To repeat like a record that people sub 250k wouldn't pay more taxes drove home a sentiment which is belied by his actions.

I truly believe the point he was making, and the point most people received, was that if you are in the sub 250k income level your taxes will not go up.
You didn't respond to my example:

Would a general luxury tax increase on expensive cars or jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year?

This is an opt-in avoidable tax levied on smokers, not on families. Additionally only about 1 in 5 adults smoke, so we're not even talking about all under-250k families.

And again, smokers who choose to purchase cigarettes are taxing themselves, it has no bearing on the president's promise not to raise income taxes.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think I did elsewhere. Ultimately, people in sub 250k care if their taxes go up, not how they go up. So, if he truly was talking endlessly about income taxes only, the intimation was that taxes as a whole would not go up. It makes no sense to say income will never raise and then nail people elsewhere. They don't care how their taxes go up, only that they do. To repeat like a record that people sub 250k wouldn't pay more taxes drove home a sentiment which is belied by his actions.

I truly believe the point he was making, and the point most people received, was that if you are in the sub 250k income level your taxes will not go up.
You didn't respond to my example:

Would a general luxury tax increase on expensive cars or jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year?

This is an opt-in avoidable tax levied on smokers, not on families. Additionally only about 1 in 5 adults smoke, so we're not even talking about all under-250k families.

And again, smokers who choose to purchase cigarettes are taxing themselves, it has no bearing on the president's promise not to raise income taxes.
You're not getting it. He promised NO TAX INCREASES of any kind. He increased taxes. Obama lied, taxes rised.

Also your example - that is raising taxes.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think I did elsewhere. Ultimately, people in sub 250k care if their taxes go up, not how they go up. So, if he truly was talking endlessly about income taxes only, the intimation was that taxes as a whole would not go up. It makes no sense to say income will never raise and then nail people elsewhere. They don't care how their taxes go up, only that they do. To repeat like a record that people sub 250k wouldn't pay more taxes drove home a sentiment which is belied by his actions.

I truly believe the point he was making, and the point most people received, was that if you are in the sub 250k income level your taxes will not go up.
You didn't respond to my example:

Would a general luxury tax increase on expensive cars or jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year?

This is an opt-in avoidable tax levied on smokers, not on families. Additionally only about 1 in 5 adults smoke, so we're not even talking about all under-250k families.

And again, smokers who choose to purchase cigarettes are taxing themselves, it has no bearing on the president's promise not to raise income taxes.
You're not getting it. He promised NO TAX INCREASES of any kind. He increased taxes. Obama lied, taxes rised.

Also your example - that is raising taxes.
No, he didn't, as has been explained ad infinitum. You and your ilk are interpreting his words as "read my lips, no new taxes", which no politician would ever say again after BushI. So you either honestly believe Obama is an idiot, or you're deliberately misinterpreting his words and context to generate faux outrage. Which could it be.

And thank you for at least admitting the absurdity of your position by stating that you think an increase on taxes on yachts and private jets constitutes a tax on "families making $250,000 or less."
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Would a general luxury tax increase on expensive cars or jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year?
Yes, by the strict definition of it :) As ludicrous as that sounds, though, we're forced to conclude at the very least a poor choice of words by Obama.

Opting in is somewhat silly as I could not pay property taxes or car registration taxes or any number of taxes by opting not to do anything, really.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: ccbadd
Obama said: "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Let's say Obama increased the luxury tax on automobiles costing over $100,000. Then, let's say a family making under $250,000 took out a third mortgage on their house and cobbled together all their savings and begged and borrowed money from friends. Using all that capital, they then went and bought a $150,000 car. Technically they are now paying a higher tax than they would have had they bought that car last year, since Obama raised the luxury tax. Has he broken his pledge not to raise that family's taxes? According to your logic, this constitutes a tax increase on families making 250k/yr.

So, would a general luxury tax increase on private jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year"? (this is rhetorical, but let's see you answer it anyway)
Any response from those claiming Obama broke faith/lied?
The part you quoted from ccbadd says it all. He said "any form of tax increase" so no matter you much you want to spin, twist, and slob his knob - his statement is not correct in light of this increase.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The part you quoted from ccbadd says it all. He said "any form of tax increase" so no matter you much you want to spin, twist, and slob his knob - his statement is not correct in light of this increase.
FFS. I quote jonks again.

Originally posted by: jonks
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
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,869
823
126
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The part you quoted from ccbadd says it all. He said "any form of tax increase" so no matter you much you want to spin, twist, and slob his knob - his statement is not correct in light of this increase.
FFS. I quote jonks again.

Originally posted by: jonks
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
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Would a general luxury tax increase on expensive cars or jets or yachts that does not take into consideration anyone's income and which people making under $250,000 can theoretically purchase, constitute an increase in taxes on familes making $250,000 a year?
Yes, by the strict definition of it :) As ludicrous as that sounds, though, we're forced to conclude at the very least a poor choice of words by Obama.
And there you have it. After traveling the country for a year and repeating the same lines 5 times a day in his speech in 5 different cities, he left out the word Income. A speech writer probably winced when he said it too. But which do you think was his true position? The one he articulated 10,000 times or the one time he said it somewhat ambiguously?

And again, I raise the practical impossibilities of raising any tax whatsover such that a person under a certain income could not be affected. If read that way, you have him saying "read my lips", and he's way too canny to make that promise.
 

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,710
3
81
spidey07, since he was mentioning the $250,000 in income, it's reasonable to conclude that he was only talking about *income* taxes. The whole debate during the campaign was about *income* taxes. This is the type of drivel people like Rush Limbaugh might bring up.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The part you quoted from ccbadd says it all. He said "any form of tax increase" so no matter you much you want to spin, twist, and slob his knob - his statement is not correct in light of this increase.
FFS. I quote jonks again.

Originally posted by: jonks
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
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
If you want to be slow about it, he was talking about families. This is a tax on an individual.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
See what you did there.

Wait, that sentence made no sense. Let me fix it.

I see what you did there.

However could you have understood what I was saying since I left out the "I"? Maybe you thought I meant "God" saw what you did there. Or "Shamu" saw what you did there. You cannot take 4 words out of a sentence, out of a paragraph, assign your own interpretive spin on them that would result in a ridiculously implausible unenforceable tax scenario.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: owensdj
spidey07, since he was mentioning the $250,000 in income, it's reasonable to conclude that he was only talking about *income* taxes. The whole debate during the campaign was about *income* taxes. This is the type of drivel people like Rush Limbaugh might bring up.
that might have been the case if he hadn't have mentioned "capital gains taxes" but he did so that excuse just doesn't fly.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: owensdj
spidey07, since he was mentioning the $250,000 in income, it's reasonable to conclude that he was only talking about *income* taxes. The whole debate during the campaign was about *income* taxes. This is the type of drivel people like Rush Limbaugh might bring up.
that might have been the case if he hadn't have mentioned "capital gains taxes" but he did so that excuse just doesn't fly.
Do you understand what capital gains are?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: owensdj
spidey07, since he was mentioning the $250,000 in income, it's reasonable to conclude that he was only talking about *income* taxes. The whole debate during the campaign was about *income* taxes. This is the type of drivel people like Rush Limbaugh might bring up.
that might have been the case if he hadn't have mentioned "capital gains taxes" but he did so that excuse just doesn't fly.
Do you understand what capital gains are?
Do you?
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: owensdj
spidey07, since he was mentioning the $250,000 in income, it's reasonable to conclude that he was only talking about *income* taxes. The whole debate during the campaign was about *income* taxes. This is the type of drivel people like Rush Limbaugh might bring up.
that might have been the case if he hadn't have mentioned "capital gains taxes" but he did so that excuse just doesn't fly.
Do you understand what capital gains are?
Do you?
Yes it's INCOME from an investment.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: owensdj
spidey07, since he was mentioning the $250,000 in income, it's reasonable to conclude that he was only talking about *income* taxes. The whole debate during the campaign was about *income* taxes. This is the type of drivel people like Rush Limbaugh might bring up.
that might have been the case if he hadn't have mentioned "capital gains taxes" but he did so that excuse just doesn't fly.
Do you understand what capital gains are?
Do you?
Yes it's INCOME from an investment.
And what rate do you pay on that investment "income"? ;)
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYAnd what rate do you pay on that investment "income"? ;)
Depends on your tax bracket, short-term and long-term.

All the same, it's still an income tax.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYAnd what rate do you pay on that investment "income"? ;)
Depends on your tax bracket, short-term and long-term.

All the same, it's still an income tax.
No it's not. That's why it's called capital gains tax and not income tax. Obama lied, taxes rised.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYAnd what rate do you pay on that investment "income"? ;)
Depends on your tax bracket, short-term and long-term.

All the same, it's still an income tax.
No it's not. That's why it's called capital gains tax and not income tax. Obama lied, taxes rised.
So when you are taxed on the money that you make from an investment you wouldn't consider that a tax on income?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY