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

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
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.
And it's not the same rate as "income tax". Payroll is the same way - it's not really an "income tax"
So again, the argument that he was talking about "income tax" just doesn't work.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76

in·come
Pronunciation:
\'in-?k?m also 'in-k?m or 'i?-k?m
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century
1: a coming in : entrance , influx <fluctuations in the nutrient income of a body of water>
2: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor ; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time <has an income of $30,000 a year>
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.
And it's not the same rate as "income tax". Payroll is the same way - it's not really an "income tax"
So again, the argument that he was talking about "income tax" just doesn't work.
That's actually one of the worst arguments I've heard on P&N to date.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Hopefully this will end the thread. I hope most will agree this is a fair analysis.

Politifact keeps track of all the promises obama made during his campaign and updates their status daily.

Here's the main site: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Here's this issue which they just added.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...will-see-any-form-tax/

No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."
"I can make a firm pledge. 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."

Subjects: Taxes

Updates:
Cigarette tax for SCHIP nips at Obama tax promise
Updated: Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

When we launched the Obameter to track President Barack Obama's campaign promises, we identified 38 on taxes covering everything from repealing the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes to supporting tax deductions for artists.

Then, on April 1, 2009, a new cigarette tax went into effect, and we got lots of email from readers saying it violated a promise Obama made on the campaign trail not to raise any taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year. Lots of people who smoke make less than $250,000 a year, so Obama broke his promise, these readers told us.

We confirmed the quote that many readers sent us. On Sept. 12, 2008 while on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge. 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."

We didn't have a promise like this in our database. We had separate promises that Obama would make the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes permanent and that he would raise capital gains taxes only on higher incomes. We decided to add this new, more broadly stated promise to our database.

On April 1, cigarette taxes went up. Certainly many people who smoke make less than $250,000. Should we rate this Promise Broken?

This launched an interesting debate here at PolitiFact. Was the final part of Obama's statement "not any of your taxes" intended as a sweeping declaration against any tax, or was he speaking only in the context of income-based taxes? We noted that his statement began with the phrase "Under my plan ..."

We looked to our coverage during the campaign for greater clarity.

Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.

SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept.

Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income.

Obama's promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. Obama has taken specific steps to change that tax code, such as creating capital gains taxes that only apply to higher incomes, that are aimed at protecting the middle class from new taxes. Also, the cigarette tax does not hit all families that make less than $250,000 a year, but only those who choose to smoke. Finally, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he supported legislation that would raise the cigarette taxes, and he never mentioned any form of excise tax when making the promise.

Still, it's a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.

Sources:
Federal News Service, remarks of Sen. Barack Obama in Dover, N.H., Sept. 12, 2008
White House Web site, SCHIP , accessed Feb. 4, 2009
Thomas, SCHIP legislation , accessed Feb. 4, 2009
Thomas, SCHIP legislation, 2007
Senate vote, SCHIP legislation, Aug. 2, 2007
PolitiFact.com, The SCHIP debate, Oct. 15, 2007
The Tax Foundation, Federal Excise Taxes, 1944 - 2008

The most salient point I think is that even during the campaign he stated he supported raising the cigarette tax. As such, if people saw a contradiction between that position and his promise not to raise taxes on families making under 250k, they should have pointed it out then. But they didn't, because there is no contradiction between lowering income taxes and raising an excise tax, and the noise about it now seems to be mostly sour grapes and attempts to claim he lied or broke his promise. Did they think he was lying back during the campaign when he said he supported increasing cigarette taxes? This "contradiction" has existed for a year and no one seems to have said anything. Makes it sound like this latest uproar is pure political posturing.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Jack Flash

It's as if you try as hard as you can to be ignorant to rational thought.
Yawn.

Kindly quote 1 instance where any Obama aide has clarified his 'no new tax' pledge to be only on 'income' taxes. Preferrably one from before the election.
Anyone?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
Can you please link 5 of those 10,000 times he referred to 'income' taxes, and only income taxes?
 

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: 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.
And it's not the same rate as "income tax". Payroll is the same way - it's not really an "income tax"
So again, the argument that he was talking about "income tax" just doesn't work.
That's actually one of the worst arguments I've heard on P&N to date.
This "defense" of BHO and raising taxes is one of the worst arguments I've seen so far by the koolaid drinking BHO fluffers. It's asinine to suggest he was only talking about income taxes. Just admit it - he F'd up.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This "defense" of BHO and raising taxes is one of the worst arguments I've seen so far by the koolaid drinking BHO fluffers. It's asinine to suggest he was only talking about income taxes. Just admit it - he F'd up.
Then explain the "contradiction" above. Apparently his onfly F up was thinking righties would be smart enough to understand what he was talking about.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUYThis "defense" of Barack Obama and raising taxes is one of the worst arguments I've seen so far by the koolaid drinking Barack Obama fluffers. It's asinine to suggest he was only talking about income taxes. Just admit it - he F'd up.
Barack Obama screwed up on lobbyists in the White House, voting for FISA and by rushing his bills through Congress.

He didn't screw up here.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Can you please link 5 of those 10,000 times he referred to 'income' taxes, and only income taxes?
He simulataneously was pushing for SCHIP which is financed by increasing cigarette taxes. Are you following yet?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods.
Thanks, Jonks. That point neatly ends this thread, but I'm sure it won't end the bleating morons who can't properly understand english or how our tax code works or practically anything but bashing Obama over something that's a non-issue.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: winnar111
Can you please link 5 of those 10,000 times he referred to 'income' taxes, and only income taxes?
He simulataneously was pushing for SCHIP which is financed by increasing cigarette taxes. Are you following yet?
You mean in early to mid 2007, the bill that the Democrats tried to pass well over a year before O took office?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
Wrong. As Jonks pointed out, a cigarette tax is a federal excise tax and therefore a tax on a product NOT on a person. Therefore "not any of your taxes" still holds, since the tax is on a product, not a person.

Get it F'ing straight people.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
Wrong. As Jonks pointed out, a cigarette tax is a federal excise tax and therefore a tax on a product NOT on a person. Therefore "not any of your taxes" still holds, since the tax is on a product, not a person.

Get it F'ing straight people.
What part of "not any of your taxes" do you not get? He raised a tax almost 150%. Obama lied, taxes rise. You guys are taking apologist to a whole record level here.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: winnar111
Can you please link 5 of those 10,000 times he referred to 'income' taxes, and only income taxes?
He simulataneously was pushing for SCHIP which is financed by increasing cigarette taxes. Are you following yet?
You mean in early to mid 2007, the bill that the Democrats tried to pass well over a year before O took office?
The one and same, the one that he promised he would sign if he became president, the one funded by an increase to cigarette taxes, the one that he signed in February. So pray tell, how could he have run on expanding SCHIP which is funded by increasing cigarette taxes while also saying he wouldn't increase any taxes? Maybe because he didn't say he wouldn't increase "any taxes"?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
What part of "not any of your taxes" do you not get? He raised a tax almost 150%. Obama lied, taxes rise. You guys are taking apologist to a whole record level here.
When he was promising to sign SCHIP if he won, which is funded by increasing cigarette taxes, how could he have promised he wouldn't raise "any taxes"? Hmm..seems like an impossibility...unless he meant he wouldn't raise any income taxes perhaps?


Does anyone want to respond to the Politifact article I quoted?

http://www.politifact.com/trut...will-see-any-form-tax/
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
Wrong. As Jonks pointed out, a cigarette tax is a federal excise tax and therefore a tax on a product NOT on a person. Therefore "not any of your taxes" still holds, since the tax is on a product, not a person.

Get it F'ing straight people.
What part of "not any of your taxes" do you not get? He raised a tax almost 150%. Obama lied, taxes rise. You guys are taking apologist to a whole record level here.
Dude, are you f'ing dense?!? Wait, I know the answer to that question. Here, read along slowly now:

"... not any of YOUR taxes."

The rising federal excise tax on cigarettes is on a PRODUCT, not on a PERSON.

Get it f'ing straight!
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks

The one and same, the one that he promised he would sign if he became president, the one funded by an increase to cigarette taxes, the one that he signed in February. So pray tell, how could he have run on expanding SCHIP which is funded by increasing cigarette taxes while also saying he wouldn't increase any taxes? Maybe because he didn't say he wouldn't increase "any taxes"?
Really? Nothing about tobacco taxes here. Expanding S-CHIP doesn't automatically mean that it will be paid for thru cigarette taxes.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Obama did not even vote in favor of the SCHIP bill in Sept. 2007.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...0&session=1&vote=00353

But let me get this straight: Rather than go by what he said 2 months before the election, a person should go back 18 months before, dig into a bill that Obama MIGHT have voted on at some point, and figure out that that bill increased cigarette taxes.

Well, OK.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: spidey07
What part of "not any of your taxes" do you not get? He raised a tax almost 150%. Obama lied, taxes rise. You guys are taking apologist to a whole record level here.
When he was promising to sign SCHIP if he won, which is funded by increasing cigarette taxes, how could he have promised he wouldn't raise "any taxes"? Hmm..seems like an impossibility...unless he meant he wouldn't raise any income taxes perhaps?


Does anyone want to respond to the Politifact article I quoted?

http://www.politifact.com/trut...will-see-any-form-tax/
Even before Obama took office, the House of Representatives approved an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It passed, 289-139, on Jan. 14, 2009.

Obama praised the vote and said he wants SCHIP to be "one of the first measures I sign into law when I am president."



The promise was made after the election.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Really? Nothing about tobacco taxes here. Expanding S-CHIP doesn't automatically mean that it will be paid for thru cigarette taxes.
wha? It says it right in the SCHIP bill...

Title VII Revenue Provisions
Sec 701. Increase in Excise Tax Rate on Tobacco Products

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...111:./temp/~c11174OfPy
[/quote]

So Obama's health plan promised to expand SCHIP, which is funded by taxes on tobacco, while at the same time he was promising to "not raise any taxes"? You can choose to read his statements in context so that it makes sense, or you can read it so that it makes no sense. You chose the latter.


This thread is all about Obama saying five words, "not any of your taxes." It seizes on those five words, but ignores the context of the sentence, the context of the paragraph, the language and implications of the paragraph, and the fact that concurrent promises he made would explicitly raise taxes.

I considered all this and asked "am I being an apologist?" Based on all the facts I cannot see how he meant anything other than taxes on income. Yes, Obama's phrasing was inartful and slightly ambiguous, if only because it could lead to the misinterpretation those here have assigned to it. But given everything else, there can be no mistake about what he was referring to. Taken as a whole, the facts allow for zero ambiguity.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,650
132
106
Wow!!! It was pretty clear that Obama was talking about taxes that one would see on a tax return. You guys are just incredible.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: winnar111
Really? Nothing about tobacco taxes here. Expanding S-CHIP doesn't automatically mean that it will be paid for thru cigarette taxes.
wha? It says it right in the SCHIP bill...

Title VII Revenue Provisions
Sec 701. Increase in Excise Tax Rate on Tobacco Products

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...111:./temp/~c11174OfPy

So Obama's health plan promised to expand SCHIP, which is funded by taxes on tobacco, while at the same time he was promising to "not raise any taxes"? You can choose to read his statements in context so that it makes sense, or you can read it so that it makes no sense. You chose the latter.

That's the 2009 bill, passed after Obama won the election. I don't know how we are supposed to exclude cigarette taxes based on a bill that didn't exist during the campaign.

You could look at the 2007 vetoed bill, but of course, he didn't vote for it then.

I voted for it before I voted against it, eh?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: winnar111
Really? Nothing about tobacco taxes here. Expanding S-CHIP doesn't automatically mean that it will be paid for thru cigarette taxes.
wha? It says it right in the SCHIP bill...

Title VII Revenue Provisions
Sec 701. Increase in Excise Tax Rate on Tobacco Products

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...111:./temp/~c11174OfPy

So Obama's health plan promised to expand SCHIP, which is funded by taxes on tobacco, while at the same time he was promising to "not raise any taxes"? You can choose to read his statements in context so that it makes sense, or you can read it so that it makes no sense. You chose the latter.

That's the 2009 bill, passed after Obama won the election. I don't know how we are supposed to exclude cigarette taxes based on a bill that didn't exist during the campaign.

You could look at the 2007 vetoed bill, but of course, he didn't vote for it then.

I voted for it before I voted against it, eh?
You're tap-dancing now boy. The 2007 bill also also had cigarette tax increases. I don't know why he didn't vote for it, but voiced support for SCHIP expansion throughout his campaign and in his healthcare plan. You still haven't responded to politifact either.

Your interpretation requires taking 5 words devoid of all context and applying your own special meaning to them, and construing them so that they literally mean "Read my lips, no new taxes." If you believe that's what he meant to say, there's no convincing you otherwise.

I normally don't engage you in any thread b/c you have never accepted that anyone else on any point was ever correct and are essentially our resident forum troll, all due respect to Budmantom, but I think this thread has reached it's end.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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
[/quote]


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."
See Obama quote above.

The anology to McCain's remark dosn't stand up. Unlike McCain, Obama went of his way to make clear that when he said 'no tax increase' he wasn't just talking about income taxes, he was talking about any taxes.

This is federal sales tax.

Yes, he broke his proimise. It's really that simple.

Fern

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I quote Obama himself: "not any of your taxes"
Wrong. As Jonks pointed out, a cigarette tax is a federal excise tax and therefore a tax on a product NOT on a person. Therefore "not any of your taxes" still holds, since the tax is on a product, not a person.

Get it F'ing straight people.
What part of "not any of your taxes" do you not get? He raised a tax almost 150%. Obama lied, taxes rise. You guys are taking apologist to a whole record level here.
Dude, are you f'ing dense?!? Wait, I know the answer to that question. Here, read along slowly now:

"... not any of YOUR taxes."

The rising federal excise tax on cigarettes is on a PRODUCT, not on a PERSON.

Get it f'ing straight!
You're being silly, we don't have taxes on people.

We have taxes on people's income, people's purchases and people's property.

We also have other categories of government charges often referred to taxes, e.g., user fees.

A tax on 'people' is known as a 'Head Tax'; we don't have that.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY