Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
More on Obama's First Tax Hike
Yesterday President Obama signed legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), relying largely on a 156-percent increase in the federal cigarette tax to fund it. As Americans for Tax Reform notes, Obama's support for the SCHIP bill violates his campaign promise not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year. Here is how he put it last September in Dover, News Hampshire (emphasis added):
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.
Not only does raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 a pack break this promise; as I explained in a June 2007 column, it is pretty much the most regressive way Congress could have chosen to fund SCHIP expansion, not only because excise taxes take a bigger chunk of income from the poor than from the rich but also because there's an inverse correlation between income and smoking. Furthermore, the beneficiaries of the SCHIP expansion will in many cases be more affluent than the people picking up the tab. How does any self-identified progressive justify this sort of income redistribution?
As I've pointed out before, the argument that smoking imposes a burden on taxpayers does not fly; if anything, smoking saves taxpayers money because it shortens smokers' lives, leading to less health care in old age and fewer demands on Social Security. And the paternalistic argument—that cigarette taxes help smokers by encouraging them to quit—is hard to reconcile with the claim that people do not really choose to smoke, since nicotine addiction overrides their free will. People who decide to stop smoking when the cost of the habit goes up plainly are in control of their behavior, which undermines the case for government intervention. The one positive thing that can be said about Obama's support for this tax hike is that he'll be paying it too, though he is quite well off and his occasional cigarettes won't put much of a dent in his budget.
|2.5.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year
will see any form of tax increase.
What do the first three words of this sentence mean?
|2.5.09 @ 12:06PM|#
A proposal for the SCHIP ads surely forthcoming:
My name is Barack Obama and I approved this regressive tax
increase.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:09PM|#
joe,
Once you are president, any bill you sign is part of your plan.
Thats the way the rules work.
|2.5.09 @ 12:10PM|#
OK, just so we're clear: now taxes that lower-income people pay,
but which aren't income taxes, ARE taxes?
Have I got that right?
The big refundable tax credit Obama is giving to lower-income
people is NOT going to "people who don't pay taxes," now.
Right?
We're all agreed on that now, right? We're not going to see that
assertion being made anymore.
Right?
SIV|2.5.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year
will see any form of tax increase.
What do the first three words of this sentence mean?
That every word that follows it is a lie?
This is too easy joe.
|2.5.09 @ 12:12PM|#
robc,
Once you are president, any bill you sign is part of your
plan. What about when you're a candidate, talking specifically
about your tax proposal?
Pro Libertate | February 5, 2009, 12:09pm | #
That he'd veto anything not consistent with his plan?
Ummmm...what? Presidents veto anything not consistent with their
own plans? The hell?
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:12PM|#
joe,
When have I ever disagreed with this. Everyone except the
occassional idiot has always called FICA a tax.
Stop arguing with the straw man libertarian in your mind.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Presidents veto anything not consistent with their own
plans? The hell?
I would.
Ron Paul would.
|2.5.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Look, I just want to know what we're arguing about here.
Is this a pedantic point about whether or not Obama has violated
the letter of his promise?
Or this a substantive discussion about his tax policies being
consistent with his stated position of lowering the tax burden on
lower-income people?
Because I'm perfectly comfortable either way - looking pedantically
at the words he actually said and parsing them closely, or
considering what he meant about the effect of his tax
policies.
I just want to know which argument is being made.
SIV|2.5.09 @ 12:15PM|#
OK, just so we're clear: now taxes that lower-income people
pay, but which aren't income taxes, ARE taxes?
Tell that to Obama and the Democrat Party congress joe. You might
have found someone here who said that but you are attributing it to
everyone. You accused me of saying "poor people don't pay taxes"
for months. Use your search feature and find it dickhead.
|2.5.09 @ 12:16PM|#
Don't give me that crap, robc. You were here on all of the
threads about Barack Obama's tax credit going to "people who don't
pay taxes."
A whole lotta libertarians, or at least people who claimed on these
threads to be libertarians, made that argument out his socialist
plan to take money from Joe the Plumber and give it to - not the
quotation marks - "people who don't pay taxes."
Don't give me that revisionist crap.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:16PM|#
joe,
Why cant it be both? Your insistence that threads by on a single
topic is frickin annoying.
SIV|2.5.09 @ 12:17PM|#
goalposts wins the thread!
There's goalposts here? Is that what that buzzing blur is?
|2.5.09 @ 12:19PM|#
There's no chance in hell I'm searching for any part of your
dick, SIV.
Tell that to Obama and the Democrat Party congress joe.
You mean the ones who voted for Obama's "socialist" tax rebate for
"people who don't pay taxes?"
Why would I tell them that? They've been pushing for a big tax
rebate for "people who don't pay taxes" for months. It was even
discussed here once or twice.
But I seem to have gotten my answer: "Yes, joe, taxes other than
the income tax are taxes. Therefore, Obama's proposal to cut those
taxes by including a big tax credit to lower income people along
with middle-income people is NOT a proposal to give money to
'people who don't pay taxes.'"
OK. That's all I wanted to hear.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:19PM|#
joe,
You know and I know that people use shorthand. Quite often "people
who dont pay taxes" is shorthand for "people who dont pay income
taxes" as distinguished from payroll taxes, or sales taxes, or etc.
Hell, if you bought anything, you (probably) paid a tax.
Your inability to read between the lines and expecting others to do
the same with you is also annoying.
Now, some people do mean it because they dont consider FICA to be
taxes. You find those people more amongst liberals in SS debates
though. But not you, you are consistent on that.
|2.5.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Why cant it be both?
I can do both arguments at the same time. Wouldn't be the first
time.
Just as long as we're not going back and forth in each argument
whenever it get tough.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Income tax rebates should come from income taxes paid.
Payroll tax rebates should come from payroll taxes paid.
Sales tax rebates should come from sales taxes paid.
If you refund payroll taxes as part of a general tax rebate, you
have to make sure you subtract from their SS credits too.
Shannon Love|2.5.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Cigarette taxes are especially hypocritical for most leftist
because most leftist espouse the idea that cigarettes are a near
unbreakable physical addiction fostered upon the naive and
uneducated by evil tobacco corporations. In this view, cigarette
smokers are victims of corporate greed.
Obviously, if smokers can't choose when to start smoking because
they're hypnotized by corporate marketing and can't choose to stop
smoking because of the physical addiction, then it is pure
exploitation to tax them for someone else's benefit. In this model,
smokers do not have a vice but rather a disease-like condition they
cannot voluntarily control. Higher taxes on cigarettes only help
smokers in a model in which smokers can choose when to start and
stop smoking.
In this and so many areas we see the pattern wherein leftist choose
the model of a problem based not on compassion for others but
rather for how that model justifies increasing the power and status
of leftist. In this case, Obama wants to create dependency on the
state by controlling whether children receive health care or not.
He needs the money so he's going after people who in a different
debate he would frame as complete victims.
|2.5.09 @ 12:22PM|#
The other problem with cig taxes is that when people quit
smoking or smoke less in response, your revenue will fall short of
what you were expecting.
Dollars to donuts the projections for funding SCHIP are assuming
Americans continue smoking at the same rate even though it becomes
more expensive.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Well, more to the point, whether this is part of his "plan" or not (he signed it into law, and that means it must have become part of his plan) is that the Obama administration if it follows his "plan" will continue the byzantine system of taxation we have in the U.S., further entrenching the maze we call a tax system. This means that the lottery characteristics associated with the tax system will continue unabated and that we'll continue to fall further behind countries with more advanced tax systems.
|2.5.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Quite often "people who dont pay taxes" is shorthand for
"people who dont pay income taxes" as distinguished from payroll
taxes, or sales taxes, or etc.
"Barack Obama wants to take money from people like Joe the Plumber
and give it to people who don't pay taxes. It's a socialist
redistribution scheme."
I don't think the excision of the word "income" from that statement
is shorthand, because the entire argument collapses if you
acknowledge that people pay other taxes.
|2.5.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Congress made me do it! And I would've gotten away with it, too,
if it weren't for those meddling kids.
joe,
Everyone knew that Obama was intentionally misrepresenting the
truth when he kept talking about taxes not increasing for the
middle class. It wasn't possible, given the other commitments he
was making. Whether you want to parse his words to mean something
else, the meaning during the campaign was clear: "American
middle class, your federal taxes will not increase if I'm elected!"
Finis.
No surprise, and he's no different than any other candidate who
lies or half-truths himself into office.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:25PM|#
joe,
Since you are up for both:
Is this a pedantic point about whether or not Obama has
violated the letter of his promise?
Yes it violated the pedantic point, because any bill he signs is
part of his plan (as covered above).
Or this a substantive discussion about his tax policies being
consistent with his stated position of lowering the tax burden on
lower-income people?
Unless he quickly comes up with some other offsetting tax cut
quickly, it also is inconsistent with this general idea.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 12:26PM|#
joe,
Oh, and I too agree that FICA is a tax. Of course, that is not the
way that I have seen it defended; it is generally defended in my
experience as if it were some sort of annuity. Furthermore, it is
rarely ever mentioned that the funds from FICA are used for general
revenue. So if people have a misperception about the nature of FICA
I think that the general mileau in which it is discussed
significantly encourages that.
SIV|2.5.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Tell that to Obama and the Democrat Party congress joe. You
mean the ones who voted for Obama's "socialist" tax rebate for
"people who don't pay taxes?"
joe poor people pay taxes.Why do you think they don't? You are the
only one here saying "poor people don't pay taxes".I understand you
prefer arguing with yourself as it is hard for you to lose that
way.
|2.5.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Income tax rebates should come from income taxes paid.
Payroll tax rebates should come from payroll taxes paid.
Sales tax rebates should come from sales taxes paid.
If you refund payroll taxes as part of a general tax rebate, you
have to make sure you subtract from their SS credits
too.
Why? What is so magical about how each tax is levied, that it is
unconscionable to accomplish a broad tax-reduction scheme using the
most readily-available tool for refunding excess collections?
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:27PM|#
joe,
I don't think the excision of the word "income" from that
statement is shorthand, because the entire argument collapses if
you acknowledge that people pay other taxes.
Come on joe, how many libertarians ever referred to joe the
plumber? Your confusion of conservatives and libertarians is also
also annoying.
|2.5.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Seward,
Agreed. It would be better to scrap this cigarette tax, and fund
this program through an increase in the income tax, if a tax is
necessary to cover its costs.
Any thoughts on why the avenue wasn't pursued?
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:30PM|#
joe,
Why? What is so magical about how each tax is levied, that it
is unconscionable to accomplish a broad tax-reduction scheme using
the most readily-available tool for refunding excess
collections?
Really joe, RIF:
If you refund payroll taxes as part of a general tax
rebate
I never complained it was unconsionable to due a a broad
tax-reduction scheme. Hence, "general tax rebate".
I like general tax rebates, but they should be done generally. Not
as part of the income tax (like EITC).
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Any thoughts on why the avenue wasn't pursued?
Because it wouldnt succeed?
I fucking hate tricksy politicians who are afraid to argue there
position straight forward. If you need more money, raise the income
tax and defend your position to the people. If they shoot you down,
then maybe SCHIP (or whatever) doesnt need to exist.
|2.5.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Pro Lib,
You are aware that the stimulus bill includes the refundable tax
credit he was talking about throughout the campaign, which makes
his tax policy a large tax cut for low income people, right?
"American middle class, your federal taxes will not increase if
I'm elected!" And that is precisely what his tax policies are
doing. Quite the opposite, he's proposing a substantial tax cut for
them.
|2.5.09 @ 12:34PM|#
robc,
Yes it violated the pedantic point, because any bill he signs
is part of his plan (as covered above). Except this is
factually incorrect. Presidents sign things that weren't part of
their plans all the time. Do you think "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was
part of Bill Clinton's plans? Do you think the increase in marginal
tax rates that Poppy Bush signed was part of his plan?
You are factually incorrect.
Unless he quickly comes up with some other offsetting tax cut
quickly, it also is inconsistent with this general idea. You
mean like the big tax credit he proposed during the campaign? The
one that was his topic when he gave the quote in the post? The one
included in the stimulus bill? Mission Accomplished!
Shannon Love|2.5.09 @ 12:36PM|#
joe,
You can make an argument that payroll taxes are not true taxes
because you expect to get back every penny you pay in plus
interest. In theory, they are structured as pension and insurance
systems. If you had the exact same setup in the private sector,
those payments would be taxed as assets. Income, corporate,
sales,etc taxes come with no obligation by the state to pay you
back for your "contribution".
This is another example of leftist using two different models of
the same program based on the story they want to sell at the
moment. When they're opposing social security privatization and the
like, why payroll taxes are a rock solid investment for workers who
can expect to get a good return on every penny they put in. When it
comes to lower taxes or refunds, payroll taxes become a cruel tax
under which workers are crushed by regressive taxation.
Make up your mind.
sage|2.5.09 @ 12:39PM|#
What do the first three words of this sentence
mean?
"The BS I'm spouting at this moment to get elected is..."
And of course, I feel the need to link to this:
sage | November 6, 2008, 10:28am | #
You know, I like joe, and he makes very intelligent arguments. But
I have a feeling things are going to get very difficult for him on
this blog. It's been easy to hate Bush since most of us don't like
him either. But when a lot of Obama's ideas are exposed to the
light they are going to look very ugly, and hard to
defend.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Do you think "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was part of Bill
Clinton's plans? Do you think the increase in marginal tax rates
that Poppy Bush signed was part of his plan?
Yes. Yes. The 2nd is why he didnt get my vote in 1992. I read his
lips in 1988.
|2.5.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Let me just predict right now that the net effect will be that
the middle class pays more at the end of this administration than
at the beginning.
Talk is cheap; government programs are not.
|2.5.09 @ 12:40PM|#
SIV,
joe poor people pay taxes.Why do you think they don't? I
don't think that. I think exactly the opposite, and am quite
enjoying this opportunity to hammer away at the idea that they do
not. It was rather annoying to hear that inaccurate statement made
so vehemently during the recent presidential campaign, and I am
happily driving a stake through its heart.
robc,
Come on joe, how many libertarians ever referred to joe the
plumber? I've seen any number of self-proclaimed libertarians
make such a reference, and do so as part of the "people who don't
pay taxes" argument. Now, if this is a point about "real
libertarians," I'll pass.
Also, while I'm up for a pedantic discussion here, I'll pass on
spending a dozen posts going back on forth on the difference
between a "general tax rebate" and a "broad tax reduction
scheme."
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Mission Accomplished!
House.
Not senate (yet).
Not house and senate again.
Not signed yet.
Your definition of accomplished is different from mine.
|2.5.09 @ 12:41PM|#
robc | February 5, 2009, 12:33pm | #
joe,
The tax increase has passed. The tax cut hasnt.
robc | February 5, 2009, 12:34pm | #
Order of operation matters too.
The tax increase goes into effect on April 1. The tax cut will be
for calendar year 2009, meaning it goes into effect before the tax
increase.
|2.5.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Can we legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it too?
After all, it's for the children.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Shannon,
joe is not like most liberals on FICA taxes. He is
consistent.
Its why he is beating the point home. He refused to acknowledge
that we are consistent too.
joe,
Now, if this is a point about "real libertarians," I'll
pass.
I almost made a "true scotsman" joke when posting that.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:45PM|#
The tax cut will be for calendar year 2009, meaning it goes
into effect before the tax increase.
IF it passes.
He could have waited to sign Schips after that passed*, that is my
point.
*yeah, yeah, he cant control what order congress passes things, but
he could have asked them to sit on it for a few months.
|2.5.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Shannon Love,
You can make an argument that payroll taxes are not true taxes
because you expect to get back every penny you pay in plus
interest. Wouldn't this compel you to argue that Ratheon
doesn't pay any taxes? Or anyone serving in the military?
In theory, they are structured as pension and insurance
systems. If you had the exact same setup in the private sector,
those payments would be taxed as assets. No, they aren't. No,
they wouldn't. All of the money collected through FICA is either
spent on the programs' expenses, or put into the general fund and
spent on something else. Social Security and Medicare are
pay-as-you-go systems; there's no asset.
This is another example of leftist using two different models
of the same program based on the story they want to sell at the
moment. I've always said that payroll taxes are taxes. That's
why they're called payroll taxes. The only ones using two different
models are those who used to insist that people who don't pay
income tax "don't pay taxes," and who are now bemoaning the taxes
they pay.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:46PM|#
The tax increase goes into effect on April 1. The tax cut
will be for calendar year 2009, meaning it goes into effect before
the tax increase.
Assuming it passes, doesnt this depend on how much someone
smokes?
If they smoke enough, they will get a net tax increase.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:48PM|#
The only ones using two different models are those who used
to insist that people who don't pay income tax "don't pay taxes,"
and who are now bemoaning the taxes they pay.
Okay, joe, you need to be careful with your language. Just because
you get it right doesnt mean that other liberals done.
"the only ones" is flat out wrong. They are a small subset of those
who get this wrong.
classwarrior|2.5.09 @ 12:50PM|#
The main benefit of higher cigarette taxes is to discourage teens from getting addicted in the first place, and it works. Of course Reason would bitch about any tax increase, but this one addresses the problem of insuring children without imposing taxes on work and investmentment. That's the reality, though your tobacco sponsors don't like it.
Mad Max|2.5.09 @ 12:51PM|#
It seems clear that President Obama left himself a big loophole
with those three little words, "under my plan." Literally, that
means, "the plan I'm proposing now, during the campaign." If he
comes up with a *new* plan while in office, then that isn't the
same plan he was referring to in his campaign speeches.
Likewise, when President Clinton's lawyer, during the Pres's
deposition, said "there is no sex," then that was fully accurate.
He wasn't having sex during the deposition, was he?
Furthermore, the reference to "any of your taxes" meant "net tax
burden." Some of your FICA taxes will be refunded, but of course if
you're a smoker you will have to give some of that refund back to
help pay for childrens' medical care. Nowhere did Obama say that he
would cheat *children* out of the medical care they need. Can you
look into the eyes of these children and say that you're taking
away their health care because of some literalistic interpretation
of some promise the President may or may not have made before he
assumed the high responsibilities of his office?
This stuff is easy.
|2.5.09 @ 12:51PM|#
sage,
I find both the extension of SCHIP and a tax cut for lower income
people very, very easy to defend. I'm not sure why you felt the
need to link to that.
robc | February 5, 2009, 12:40pm | #
Mission Accomplished!
House.
Not senate (yet).
Not house and senate again.
Not signed yet.
Your definition of accomplished is different from mine.
See the comment immediately following yours.
He refused to acknowledge that we are consistent too. I
acknowledge that many of you are consistent. If the charge of
hypocrisy doesn't apply to you, if you never made the argument
"Obama wants to give a tax rebate to people who don't pay
taxes, then it doesn't apply to you. There are many, many
people it does apply to.
IF it passes. Oh, I'd say the tax-cut portions of the bill
are certain to pass. Regardless of what the final stimulus bill
looks like, it's a certainty that that will be in there.
|2.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year
will see any form of tax increase.
What do the first three words of this sentence mean?
Ah, joe, ever ready to do the Parsin' President's dirty work.
Shame on the marks for not spotting the loophole! Right, joe?
Or this a substantive discussion about his tax policies being
consistent with his stated position of lowering the tax burden on
lower-income people?
That's not what he said, joe. He said any form of tax increase, and
then listed them item by item. He didn't say "on net" or "in
total." He said none of your taxes will go up, not that some will
go up and some will be cut.
|2.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Okay, joe, you need to be careful with your language. Just
because you get it right doesnt mean that other liberals
done.
Point taken. There are liberals who make that claim. I was
rebutting Shannon's assertion that "this" - meaning, my argument -
is an example of such.
And thank you for certifying my bona fides on this.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:54PM|#
There are many, many people it does apply
to.
They arent in this thread arguing with you. Wait until someone
makes that argument before you whip that out.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:55PM|#
That's not what he said, joe. He said any form of tax
increase, and then listed them item by item. He didn't say "on net"
or "in total." He said none of your taxes will go up, not that some
will go up and some will be cut.
Nice catch.
|2.5.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Mad Max | February 5, 2009, 12:51pm | #
It seems clear that President Obama left himself a big loophole
with those three little words, "under my plan." Literally, that
means, "the plan I'm proposing now, during the campaign." If he
comes up with a *new* plan while in office, then that isn't the
same plan he was referring to in his campaign speeches.
Which is why it's pointless to parse the quote provided above in
order to shout "He broke a promise!" instead of looking at the
actual substance of his tax policies; a clever politician can
always out-parse an audience, and be right on the semantic
point.
Kolohe|2.5.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Dollars to donuts the projections for funding SCHIP are
assuming Americans continue smoking at the same rate even though it
becomes more expensive.
The projections are for an additional $8 billion in revenue. The
excise tax currently draws about 6 billion. 61/39 * 6 = 9.3. So
part of the projection does include about a 15% drop in
smoking.
Mad Max|2.5.09 @ 12:56PM|#
In sum: Whom do you support - children in need of health care, or some filthy, phlegm-couthing nicotine addict whining about some alleged "broken campaign promise" because the ungrateful wretch has to pay back part of his tax refund? He could have kept the *entire* refund if he had obeyed the laws of God and abstained from his disgusting and unhealthy vice. Smoking, I mean.
robc|2.5.09 @ 12:56PM|#
I was rebutting Shannon's assertion that "this" - meaning,
my argument - is an example of such.
I was fine with that, then you went on and said "the only ones".
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. If we are going to make pedantic
arguments....
|2.5.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Shame on the marks for not spotting the loophole! Right,
joe?
No, quite the opposite, good for them, and for Obama, for looking
at the meaningful point, instead of being tied up in pointless word
games.
Barack Obama is cutting taxes for lower income people. Their tax
burden will be lower.
The weaseling some are engaging in here in order to score partisan
points is a good demonstration of who does, and who does not,
actually care about reducing their tax burden.
He said any form of tax increase, and then listed them item by
item. He didn't say "on net" or "in total." He said none of your
taxes will go up, not that some will go up and some will be
cut. He also said, "Under my plan," if you feel the need to
parse it that far.
Like I said, microscopic parsing, substantive meaning, I'm
comfortable with either argument.
|2.5.09 @ 1:00PM|#
They arent in this thread arguing with you. Wait until
someone makes that argument before you whip that out.
Just a little preventive medicine. A stitch in time saves 9.
|2.5.09 @ 1:02PM|#
It's a "good catch" to notice part of the sentence, but a dirty
liberal trick to notice a different part.
Uh huh.
Shannon Love|2.5.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Joe
Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go systems; there's
no asset.
Every financial instrument is pay-as-you-go by your definition.
When you put money in a bank, that money is immediately loaned to
someone else, You asset is merely the banks obligation to pay you
back the money, plus interest, at some point in the future.
Likewise, debts owed to a company e.g. mortgage payments, are
considered part of it's assets for accounting and tax purposes. The
governments obligation to pay people back, as individuals, based on
their the level of their contribution, makes payroll taxes an form
of asset.
At the very least it makes them profoundly different from any other
form of taxation because in no other form of taxation is the
benefit you receive form the state linked to the amount you
contribute. A billionaire drives down the same roads as a poor
person.
SS most resembles an non-transferrable annuity. You make payments
into an annuity and in return in the future receive a specific
level of return every year. Annuities are considered assets.
Grist|2.5.09 @ 1:07PM|#
"Look, I just want to know what we're arguing about here."
Why must you argue? Why not just discuss? You know, compare and
contrast? That is what sane people do.
What is wrong with you that drives you to argue? Why the need to
dominate? Were you molested as a child? Are you seeking any help to
overcome your psychological disorder?
robc|2.5.09 @ 1:08PM|#
joe,
Substantive meaning doesnt imply in net to me. Substantive meaning
implies none will increase. If he hadnt gone to the trouble of
listing them all, I would agree with you. But he did.
Yeah, it was a good catch to catch the part you did, but you
already had kudos for it, so you didnt need them. :)
However, I think the "my plan" part is much more parsing than the
list of all the taxes that wont be raised.
And dont call us partisan - us libertarians are bipartisan when it
comes to slamming presidents. Bipartisan not being the same as
nonpartisan, if you parse carefully.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Apparently, this language in joe-land:
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.
Means:
Barack Obama is cutting taxes for lower income people. Their
tax burden will be lower..
So, "any form of tax increase" = "lower tax burden overall".
OK, joe, continue to spin.
robc|2.5.09 @ 1:23PM|#
So part of the projection does include about a 15% drop in
smoking.
Just realized this - if true - would result in states losing 15% of
there cig tax money.
Grist|2.5.09 @ 1:24PM|#
"A billionaire drives down the same roads as a poor
person."
That's just so full of holes.
matt2|2.5.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Why are you asserting that we should interpret "under my plan"
in an extremely narrow way, while considering the phrase "any form
of tax increase" in the broadest possible context?
Because it's convenient?
zoltan|2.5.09 @ 2:01PM|#
I mean, he should have said "I'm going to raise taxes on something, which will have an effect on poor people, but no worries, I'll give you a sweet tax credit."
Egosumabbas|2.5.09 @ 2:44PM|#
"As I've pointed out before, the argument that smoking imposes a
burden on taxpayers does not fly; if anything, smoking saves
taxpayers money because it shortens smokers' lives, leading to less
health care in old age and fewer demands on Social Security. And
the paternalistic argument-that cigarette taxes help smokers by
encouraging them to quit-is hard to reconcile with the claim that
people do not really choose to smoke, since nicotine addiction
overrides their free will. People who decide to stop smoking when
the cost of the habit goes up plainly are in control of their
behavior, which undermines the case for government
intervention."
Okay... this last paragraph is pure rubbish. (1) In general, people
who smoke may not live as long, but suffer from more illnesses than
non-smokers. For instance, lung cancer, bronchitis, more colds,
emphysema, asthma, etc. Also, shortness of breath means less
exercise, so lower quality of life as the person ages. Now this
does not mean I want the state to ban smoking, WHICH LEADS TO MY
SECOND POINT. (2) The activity of smoking is ENITRELY DUE TO FREE
WILL. You either decide to light a cigarette or you don't. The Evil
Nicotine Heebee Jeebee doesn't will your hand to strike a match or
engage a lighter and move the other hand to your face, then cause
you to inhale at precisely the right time to keep the cancer stick
lit.
|2.5.09 @ 2:46PM|#
"How does any self-identified progressive justify this sort of
income redistribution?"
I actually agree with you here. I suspect it's because cigarette
taxes are one of the most politically palatable taxes that exist. I
would love for a president to have the stones to call for a
progressive tax. If I recall Obama's initial plan was to raise
taxes on the rich, but he had to talk about it in squishy language
meant not to tip off FOX news.
You see, for some twisted reason, in this country regressive taxes
are easier to defend. Could have something to do with the
right-wing propaganda machine that defines any tax increase, but
especially those on the income of rich people, as class
warfare.
|2.5.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Which is why it's pointless to parse the quote provided
above in order to shout "He broke a promise!" instead of looking at
the actual substance of his tax policies; a clever politician can
always out-parse an audience, and be right on the semantic
point.
Isn't this pretty much the equivalent of saying that all of Obama's
promises during the campaign expired on Election Day?
Isn't this also pretty much admitting that Obama is, indeed, the
Parsin' President, and that his high-flown rhetoric was nothing
more than cynical calculation intended to help him seize
power?
As I've pointed out before, the argument that smoking imposes a
burden on taxpayers does not fly; if anything, smoking saves
taxpayers money because it shortens smokers' lives, leading to less
health care in old age and fewer demands on Social
Security.
Actually, I think this has been shown with actual data, although I
am (a) too lazy to dig it up and (b) seem to recall the study
indicated that the current level of taxation more than covered the
health care costs of smokers.
|2.5.09 @ 2:55PM|#
The governments obligation to pay people back, as
individuals, based on their the level of their contribution, makes
payroll taxes an form of asset.
Except, of course, the government has no enforceable obligation to
pay people any Social Security at all.
And the common definition of an asset includes some form of
transerability, some smidgeon of property right in the asset, which
is completely lacking in your Social Security "account."
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Everyone except the occassional idiot has always called FICA
a tax.
O RLY? One has to wonder why the government "sells" the FICA
program the way it does, then.
Really? A benefits statement? A Social Security Number?
You need to understand that more than the "occasional idiot" is
fooled by the slick salesmanship of the Federal Government on this
issue. As a matter of fact, it was joe who destroyed that
distinction for me, and a lot of people still
struggle with it, precisely because the government WANTS people to
struggle with it.
Remember the Social Security Trust Fund? What the fuck was that all
about, if not trying to preserve the illusion the Government has
sold people on?
|2.5.09 @ 3:11PM|#
The Angry Optimist | February 5, 2009, 1:16pm | #
Apparently, this language in joe-land:
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.
Means:
Barack Obama is cutting taxes for lower income people. Their tax
burden will be lower..
So, "any form of tax increase" = "lower tax burden overall".
OK, joe, continue to spin.
I'll say it again: this thread is making it very obvious who is
serious about seeing low-income people get tax relief, and who is
serious about being able to yell "gotcha!" at a Democrat.
|2.5.09 @ 3:12PM|#
matt2 | February 5, 2009, 1:55pm | #
Why are you asserting that we should interpret "under my plan" in
an extremely narrow way...
I'm not. I'm simply stating that it has some meaning.
|2.5.09 @ 3:17PM|#
"How does any self-identified progressive justify this sort
of income redistribution?" By noting that his tax polices are
hugely progressive overall.
Isn't this pretty much the equivalent of saying that all of
Obama's promises during the campaign expired on Election
Day?
Only if you are utterly unconcerned with the actual policies and
effect of his policies, in favor of playing word games.
It's funny how little it seems to matter to allegedly tax-averse
people when Barack Obama proposed lower taxes.
Except, of course, the government has no enforceable obligation
to pay people any Social Security at all.
And the common definition of an asset includes some form of
transerability, some smidgeon of property right in the asset, which
is completely lacking in your Social Security "account."
Exactly. You can't sell your Social Security vesting. Shannon Love
might as well claim that General Dynamics owns its projected
contracting fees twenty years from now.
Paul|2.5.09 @ 3:28PM|#
It's aight, we only smoke weed.
Hang on, there's some banging at the door and my dog is
barking...
|2.5.09 @ 3:29PM|#
I'll say it again: this thread is making it very obvious who
is serious about seeing low-income people get tax relief, and who
is serious about being able to yell "gotcha!" at a
Democrat.
Just not smokers. right?
The promise, not that I believed it, was no increases taxes to any
family making less than 250K.
Do you believe a childless married couple pulling down 200K+ is not
going to see a net tax increase from this administration?
SIV|2.5.09 @ 3:32PM|#
With no dependents and not wearing the bullseye for those targeted tax cuts the under 250k earners get......$500 in tax "relief" under Obama's "plan".Better not smoke more than 2 packs a day or you're making the President a liar.
|2.5.09 @ 3:41PM|#
Just not smokers. right?
Low-income smokers still get a net tax cut.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Oh, right - because
you don't want to.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 3:45PM|#
I'll say it again: this thread is making it very obvious who
is serious about seeing low income people get tax
relief
What color is the sky in the world where 250K is "low income",
joe?
Anyway, your point would be better served if you just said that
cigarette taxes are facially income-neutral, if not income-neutral
in fact.
Regardless of all that, I don't have any interest in yelling
"gotcha!" at anybody. I have an interest in the fact that you're
spinning, hard, and that the President is not being straightforward
in this.
The Angry Optimist|2.5.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Please, joe, just admit that these two statements:
"any form of tax increase"
And:
"lower tax burden overall".
Are not the same thing. Any form means just that: any!
form!.
You want to cut to the "essence" of the thing, stop bullshitting
first.
|2.5.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Low-income smokers still get a net tax cut.
Mom and Dad each smoke a pack and a half a day.
365 x 2 x 1.5 x $0.61 = $667.95 a year.
That's the minimum other fed taxes have to decrease for them to not
have a net increase.
It's pretty much gotta come from increased EITC or a reduction in
FICA.
____________________________________
Antbody know when my nicotine tax increases? ~0.25 a day/$91 a
year.
robc|2.5.09 @ 4:05PM|#
I'll say it again: this thread is making it very obvious who
is serious about seeing low-income people get tax relief, and who
is serious about being able to yell "gotcha!" at a
Democrat.
Once again, why cant it be both?
Im all in favor of a tax relief bill for low income people that is
completely separate from any other stuff - like stimulus.
Well, it could be inside a $900B spending cut bill, I would be okay
with that. Might be only way to justify the tax cuts anyway.
I also like mocking democrats.
robc|2.5.09 @ 4:06PM|#
joe,
It's funny how little it seems to matter to allegedly
tax-averse people when Barack Obama proposed lower
taxes.
His tax lower bit is inside a gigantic future tax increase plan.
That is what the stimulus package is, a delayed tax increase.
JB|2.5.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Obama is a lying liar who lies.
He can take his socialism, his cult of personality, and his zealot
followers and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:33PM|#
joe,
It's funny how little it seems to matter to allegedly
tax-averse people when Barack Obama proposed lower
taxes.
Obama has proposed making the U.S. tax system more byzantine. That
doesn't change anything fundamental about the system and keeps it
frozen, light-years behind more advanced tax systems.
In other words, lowering taxes for one segment of the population in
area of life, raising it in three other areas, lowering it two
other areas, etc. is simply not something I can go with. So whether
Obama lowers one tax is beside the point.
REAL TAX reform would simplify our tax system; make it far more
transparent; increase the incentives to work and make a profit; and
would make it much less of the Tullock lottery than it is today.
Until some politico does that it is all just so much noise.
|2.5.09 @ 4:46PM|#
What color is the sky in the world where 250K is "low
income", joe?
I wouldn't know. What color is the sky in a world where only people
making $250k are getting tax cuts under Obama's plan?
Please, joe, just admit that these two statements:
"any form of tax increase"
And:
"lower tax burden overall".
Why would I do that? That has nothing to do with the argument I've
been making.
My argument about the semantic quibbling you're doing is about the
phrase "under my plan." The point about the tax burden goes to the
substantive issue of his efforts to cut taxes for low income
people.
|2.5.09 @ 4:48PM|#
robc,
Once again, why cant it be both? Because none of the
people shouting Gotcha are willing to acknowledge the slightest
degree the existence of the refundable tax credit.
Seward|2.5.09 @ 4:57PM|#
joe,
Neither you nor I know whether there will be a lower overall tax
burden under an Obama administration; indeed, and I hate to harp on
this but I will, given the nature of the tax system in the U.S. it
is very difficult to tell what the overall tax burden of your
"average" American is.
BTW, via the last count I saw in the media I believe Obama had
proposed four or five tax increases and two or three tax decreases.
This looks at first glance like fine tuning and it is rather
pointless.
|2.5.09 @ 5:58PM|#
I'll say it again: this thread is making it very obvious who
is serious about seeing low-income people get tax relief, and who
is serious about being able to yell "gotcha!" at a
Democrat.
I, for one, am still engaged in what I expect will be a very
rewarding four year hobby of pointing out the Parsin' President's
broken promises, evasions, and occasional outright lies.
I am agnostic on tax relief for lower-income folks. If it comes in
the form of byzantine social engineering incentives, or income
redistribution schemes, I am agin' it. If it comes as part of a tax
package that simplifies our tax system and gives relief overall,
I'm for it. If it comes as a mixed bag (overall reform that
includes income redistribution), well, I dunno.
MJ|2.6.09 @ 6:58AM|#
"...the stimulus bill includes the refundable tax credit he was
talking about throughout the campaign, which makes his tax policy a
large tax cut for low income people,..."-joe
No it does not. A tax cut involves lowering the rates of taxation,
the savings to the taxpayer is proportional to the amount they
would have paid. The tax credit is merely a kickback for paying
something in, but the amount of the credit is independent of the
taxes paid. In terms of stimulating the economy, tax credits are
the weakest form of tax relief as they do nothing to affect the
long term financial planning of taxpaying citizens and businesses.
Tax cuts are stimulative, tax credits are an irresponsible
giveaway.
Conflating tax credit with tax cut is an Orwellian bastardization
of the language.
MJ|2.6.09 @ 7:16AM|#
"A whole lotta libertarians, or at least people who claimed on
these threads to be libertarians, made that argument out his
socialist plan to take money from Joe the Plumber and give it to -
not the quotation marks - "people who don't pay taxes."-joe
The was not that those people do not pay taxes but that they do not
pay net federal taxes. That the system of credits and deductions
already in place produce a significant number of people who already
get back every cent they pay to the feds in taxes.
Also joe, it was not as if Obama signed the SCHIP with great
relectance and reservations. He supported it fully and practically
fell over himself getting his signature on this crapsack
legislation. To excuse his breaking a promise on taxation by saying
the SCHIP is not part of his plan, you are suggesting an almost
sociopathic ability to compartmentalize his actions on Obama's
part. Just admitting Obama fibbed would paint a more attreactive
picture of his character.
|2.7.09 @ 4:49AM|#
What a great country America is where people can steal from the
productive and call it patriotic and give to the undeserving and
call it justice!
Why in America the Dear Leader wants to cut the 50% the government
allows to keep to meet the progressive agendas of the politburos in
Moscow and Beijing.
In four years the Dow should be at about 2,000 if Obamie follows
the Carter model. It was a wonderful thing to see the Dow drop from
1,100 to 300 under Carter. I figure with the Dear Leader's brains
and vast experience in the private sector he should do at least as
well.
I all ready made a piule on shorting financials and real estate
stocks. Now I figure I make a fortune on inflation. And I have
Obama and his lemmings to thank. Four years of this and I'll be
able to purchase another property in Costa Rica and Thailand.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245