• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

new taxes

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Fern

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 tac 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
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. During any 4 year period in American history some taxes have been raised. Period. (in many cases this is because the taxes aren't percentage based, but flat numbers that need to be adjusted for inflation) In order for you to think Obama meant the entirety of all taxation that the federal government levies, you would have to take the absolutely insane stance that Obama was proclaiming a new era of tax policy unlike any undertaken in the entire two century plus existence of the United States. Do you really think he meant that? Really?

All of the taxes he mentioned in that speech were income taxes, and so a reasonable and objective person would take their understanding of US history and the English language, and figure that the guy probably meant income taxes. He certainly could have been more clear, and perhaps he was ambiguous on purpose, as it would certainly serve his goals, but only a crazy person would think he was proclaiming 'no tax increase on anything ever'.
 
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"? 😉
Click to expand...

Depends on your tax bracket, short-term and long-term.

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

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.
Click to expand...

That's actually one of the worst arguments I've heard on P&N to date.
Click to expand...

Payroll tax is not an income tax. That's been long established by the courts etc. For students of, and professionals in, the field of taxation it's not even debatable.

Capital gains is merely one subset of 'income'. Our Internal Revenue Code broadly defines in come in section 61. Elsewhere in the code futher distictions are made between different kinds of income as defined in section 61; e.g., pension income, passive income, interest income and capital gains (which are further divided into short-term and LT) etc.

Obama should have stuck to saying just "income taxes". While campaigning he clearly did NOT want to give the impression that would raise taxes on those making less $250K (the vast majority of voters) else he likely would not have won the election.

But I am convinced, as many others are, that this group (families under $250K) will be paying more in taxes. There simply aren't enough people making more than $250K to pay for all this stuff by themselves.

Recently we hear much about 'cap-n-trade'. It is nothing more or less than a tax on energy.

If you're making less than $250K does it really matter if the tax you pay government is "income tax" or some other type of new/increased tax? The result is the same, you have less money.

But Obama knew better than to say "you will NOT pay more income tax but you will pay more in other federal taxes". That wouldn't work for an election though, would it?

So, yes this is an example of a typical politican being deceptive.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern

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 tac 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
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. During any 4 year period in American history some taxes have been raised. Period. (in many cases this is because the taxes aren't percentage based, but flat numbers that need to be adjusted for inflation) In order for you to think Obama meant the entirety of all taxation that the federal government levies, you would have to take the absolutely insane stance that Obama was proclaiming a new era of tax policy unlike any undertaken in the entire two century plus existence of the United States. Do you really think he meant that? Really?

All of the taxes he mentioned in that speech were income taxes, and so a reasonable and objective person would take their understanding of US history and the English language, and figure that the guy probably meant income taxes. He certainly could have been more clear, and perhaps he was ambiguous on purpose, as it would certainly serve his goals, but only a crazy person would think he was proclaiming 'no tax increase on anything ever'.
Click to expand...

No, he meant to give the impression that he would not increase the amount of money that the federal government takes from these people.

The distraction of pursuing semantics (and their incorrect usage) does not negate this fact.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
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
Click to expand...
This entire thread is the lamest semantics argument I think I've ever witnessed. Of course I didn't mean a "head tax," rather I was trying to bluntly explain that "...your taxes..." clearly refers to the taxes a person pays as a product of his or her income. A rational person knows this intuitively. Someone merely out to play the ultimate game of 'gotcha' politics, on the other hand, twists things around six ways to Sunday to try and score some cheap points.

Figures you'd join in.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Fern
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
Click to expand...
This entire thread is the lamest semantics argument I think I've ever witnessed. Of course I didn't mean a "head tax," rather I was trying to bluntly explain that "...your taxes..." clearly refers to the taxes a person pays as a product of his or her income. A rational person knows this intuitively. Someone merely out to play the ultimate game of 'gotcha' politics, on the other hand, twists things around six ways to Sunday to try and score some cheap points.

Figures you'd join in.
Click to expand...

The only people twisting words in this thread are you and the other disingenuous liberals. "not any of your taxes" means, to most people, exactly what it sounds like. It was obviously a poor choice of words by Obama because he obviously knew that some taxes would have to be raised. You don't have to defend every little thing that he does, he fucked up, it's not that big of a deal, it just shows his true colors as a typical politician.

 
Originally posted by: JD50

The only people twisting words in this thread are you and the other disingenuous liberals. "not any of your taxes" means, to most people, exactly what it sounds like.
Click to expand...

And 'freedom of speech' means exactly that too. :roll:

I can't believe you guys are actually arguing that he broke a promise ON A TOTALLY VOLUNTARY TAX. I would think in the light of 'personal responsibility' and all you could see this.
 
Originally posted by: Bird222
Originally posted by: JD50

The only people twisting words in this thread are you and the other disingenuous liberals. "not any of your taxes" means, to most people, exactly what it sounds like.
Click to expand...

And 'freedom of speech' means exactly that too. :roll:
Click to expand...

😕
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Bird222
Originally posted by: JD50

The only people twisting words in this thread are you and the other disingenuous liberals. "not any of your taxes" means, to most people, exactly what it sounds like.
Click to expand...

And 'freedom of speech' means exactly that too. :roll:
Click to expand...

😕
Click to expand...

It means everything has context. In the context of thinking about politicians in general and the other words he said including being for raising taxes on tobacco for children insurance; how can someone really think he meant 'no taxes at all'?
 
Rush Limbaugh is a pathological liar, and a sociopath. If her were taken off the air, moronic threads like this one wouldn't exist. Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: JKing106
Rush Limbaugh is a pathological liar, and a sociopath. If her were taken off the air, moronic threads like this one wouldn't exist. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: mozirry
tax the Sh!t out of those things, smokers cost us billions of dollars to take care of their sick arses
Click to expand...

Yeah, tax the shit out of candy, red meat, etc, it costs us billions of dollars to take care of their sick arses.
 
Do you smoke? Tax increase on tobacco. Don't smoke? No tax increase on anything. You people are really reaching here. And the sad fact is most of you will never make $100k, and you're carrying the water for people who will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top