The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Chris_ on April 14, 2014, 08:04:36 PM
-
Obama Has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.
Americans For Tax Reform (http://www.atr.org/obama-has-proposed-442-tax-hikes-taking-office)
List, FY 2010-2015 (http://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/Obama%20Proposed%20442%20Tax%20Hikes%20Full%20List.pdf)
-
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 per 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." --Barry Lyingsackoshit Obama, Dover, NH, October 2008
-
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 per 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." --Barry Lyingsackoshitmuslimcommunistnonamericandogeatingasshole Obama, Dover, NH, October 2008
Use his full name.....people won't recognize him by just his initials.
-
(http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/30123)
-
Americans For Tax Reform (http://www.atr.org/obama-has-proposed-442-tax-hikes-taking-office)
List, FY 2010-2015 (http://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/Obama%20Proposed%20442%20Tax%20Hikes%20Full%20List.pdf)
Can anyone explain how:
"Repeal the telephone excise tax"
Counts as a tax increase?
-
Can anyone explain how:
"Repeal the telephone excise tax"
Counts as a tax increase?
Now you can brag about how your messiah lowered taxes.
Next stop...reducing the debt.
Get an early start on that.
-
Now you can brag about how your messiah lowered taxes.
Next stop...reducing the debt.
Get an early start on that.
Nah, I'm happy with just pointing out the obvious BS in the link.
-
And I wasn't just picking out some oddball mistake.
"-Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit"
Yeah expanding a tax credit people can claim counts as a tax hike?? This is obviously full of BS.
There are several of these in this list. I'm sure the author assumed no one would actually look at it.
-
And I wasn't just picking out some oddball mistake.
"-Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit"
Yeah expanding a tax credit people can claim counts as a tax hike?? This is obviously full of BS.
There are several of these in this list. I'm sure the author assumed no one would actually look at it.
I see...2 out of 442 is "full of BS". At least according to a lib.
-
I see...2 out of 442 is "full of BS". At least according to a lib.
"Require E-Filing by Certain Large Organizations"
Huge tax hike on the middle class by Obuzzo Insane Muslama1111!!!
-
Can anyone explain how:
"Repeal the telephone excise tax"
Counts as a tax increase?
First of all, I'd argue that very few of us reading this list understand even half of the ramifications that the document cites -- yourself included, willcross.
And I'd go so far as to say that Barry doesn't understand it either. But, like all presidents who went before him, he's accountable for the actions of his administration.
So while I can't (and won't) explain how repeal of an excise tax in any form counts as a tax increase at all, neither can anybody but a tax expert. The preparer of the document -- a Mr. John Kartch -- doesn't explain every line item.
Since you evidently are so interested in what he's written, why don't you email him and ask him the question you posed here? In other words, go to the horse's mouth. I'm reasonably sure he'll give you a detailed, coherent answer to your question.
jkartch@atr.org
Oh, and let us all know what he says, mmmkay?
-
First of all, I'd argue that very few of us reading this list understand even half of the ramifications that the document cites -- yourself included, willcross.
And I'd go so far as to say that Barry doesn't understand it either. But, like all presidents who went before him, he's accountable for the actions of his administration.
So while I can't (and won't) explain how repeal of an excise tax in any form counts as a tax increase at all, neither can anybody but a tax expert. The preparer of the document -- a Mr. John Kartch -- doesn't explain every line item.
Since you evidently are so interested in what he's written, why don't you email him and ask him the question you posed here? In other words, go to the horse's mouth. I'm reasonably sure he'll give you a detailed, coherent answer to your question.
jkartch@atr.org
Oh, and let us all know what he says, mmmkay?
Great idea!
"Hello,
I'm sure you are a busy man, but I had a question about the document you prepared that refers to 442 proposed tax hikes by President Obama.
Could you elaborate on how the following three items could be considered tax hikes as opposed to being tax neutral, or even a tax deduction?
1. Repeal telephone excise tax.
2. Require some large corporations to e-file.
3. Expand child and dependent care tax credit.
Myself and some dear friends of mine eagerly await your reply."
I vow to post the unedited response, regardless of if it's in my favor or not.
-
Great idea!
"Hello,
I'm sure you are a busy man, but I had a question about the document you prepared that refers to 442 proposed tax hikes by President Obama.
Could you elaborate on how the following three items could be considered tax hikes as opposed to being tax neutral, or even a tax deduction?
1. Repeal telephone excise tax.
2. Require some large corporations to e-file.
3. Expand child and dependent care tax credit.
Myself and some dear friends of mine eagerly await your reply."
I vow to post the unedited response, regardless of if it's in my favor or not.
I'm no tax expert, but I'd say that expanding child and dependent care tax credit is, in effect, a tax increase on those that pay taxes to begin with. I once worked with a single mother with 2-3 kids and she bragged one day about how she actually made money off the government. The company would deduct her federal and state taxes (Illinois in this case) and she'd not only get back every penny that was deducted but more on top of that.
That's bullshit, no matter how you slice it. If you're a citizen in this country and you're working, you need to have some skin in the game. If not, you're a albatross hanging around the neck of the person who is paying taxes because what you're not paying in taxes, somebody else is.
-
^Eupher, you're making too much sense. And you're harshing his mellow.
edit:modify
-
I'm no tax expert, but I'd say that expanding child and dependent care tax credit is, in effect, a tax increase on those that pay taxes to begin with. I once worked with a single mother with 2-3 kids and she bragged one day about how she actually made money off the government. The company would deduct her federal and state taxes (Illinois in this case) and she'd not only get back every penny that was deducted but more on top of that.
That's bullshit, no matter how you slice it. If you're a citizen in this country and you're working, you need to have some skin in the game. If not, you're a albatross hanging around the neck of the person who is paying taxes because what you're not paying in taxes, somebody else is.
So by that definition, any lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase. Even if we lower taxes on every American by 10%, that will add to the deficit, that must be paid by future American taxpayers. By this definition, every temporary tax break, tax credit, deduction, or lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase on other tax payers or future tax payers.
Logically speaking, this is true. I wouldn't say it's the definition of "tax hike" that most people would use however, or a useful measure of campaign promises?
-
So by that definition, any lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase. Even if we lower taxes on every American by 10%, that will add to the deficit, that must be paid by future American taxpayers. By this definition, every temporary tax break, tax credit, deduction, or lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase on other tax payers or future tax payers.
Logically speaking, this is true. I wouldn't say it's the definition of "tax hike" that most people would use however, or a useful measure of campaign promises?
Do you recall back in February, when you called yourself a libertarian (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,94115.msg1195736.html#msg1195736)?
You're full of shit.
-
Do you recall back in February, when you called yourself a libertarian (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,94115.msg1195736.html#msg1195736)?
You're full of shit.
Forced to use insults in the face of logic?
-
Forced to use insults in the face of logic?
A libertarian would instantly recognize the fatal error in your feeble attempt at "argument".
You are definitely full of shit, you ****ing poser.
-
A libertarian would instantly recognize the fatal error in your feeble attempt at "argument".
You are definitely full of shit, you ****ing poser.
Repealing taxes, increasing tax credits, and lowering taxes, are tax hikes. Do you agree or disagree?
-
Do you recall back in February, when you called yourself a libertarian (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,94115.msg1195736.html#msg1195736)?
You're full of shit.
Yes, I remember that thread very well after you reminded me. It was all there on interwebmachine black and white. willcross claimed to be a libertarian. So far all I can see from him is solid liberalism and schilling for his messiah owebuma.
-
Repealing taxes, increasing tax credits, and lowering taxes, are tax hikes. Do you agree or disagree?
Where do you come from,
Where did you go?
Where do you come from,
Cotton eyed Joe ?
-
Yes, I remember that thread very well after you reminded me. It was all there on interwebmachine black and white. willcross claimed to be a libertarian. So far all I can see from him is solid liberalism and schilling for his messiah owebuma.
Schilling? Because I noted that repealing a telephone tax is the complete opposite of a tax hike. That requiring certain large corporations e-file is in now way shape or form a tax hike? Whenever child like mistakes have been pointed out in this obvious propaganda, there is nothing left but personal attacks.
-
So by that definition, any lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase. Even if we lower taxes on every American by 10%, that will add to the deficit, that must be paid by future American taxpayers. By this definition, every temporary tax break, tax credit, deduction, or lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase on other tax payers or future tax payers.
Logically speaking, this is true. I wouldn't say it's the definition of "tax hike" that most people would use however, or a useful measure of campaign promises?
Obfuscation at its worst, willcross. C'mon, for such a smart guy you can do better than that. Right?
You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the balls. But, I'm in a good mood today, so I'll play your obfuscation game.
When an entitlement - and that's what the dependent care tax credit is, just in case you missed that little gem -- is increased, that increases the tax load on those that actually pay taxes.
You utterly failed to see my anecdotal evidence. When a single mother, who is logically going to be the recipient of most child care dependent tax credits, doesn't pay taxes to begin with and then receives even more from the federal government, somebody's got to pay the bill. It isn't going to be the single mother, because she hasn't paid taxes from the get-go. It's going to be the rich and the middle class, who pay virtually all the taxes to begin with.
So a child care dependent tax credit helps nobody but that person who doesn't pay taxes to begin with.
Are you starting to get the drift here? Or are you as monumentally stupid as some of my long-time colleagues on this forum think?
-
Repealing taxes, increasing tax credits, and lowering taxes, are tax hikes. Do you agree or disagree?
Trying to draw attention away from your duplicity, are you?
If you are a libertarian, you should have no trouble identifying the flaw in your statement:
By this definition, every temporary tax break, tax credit, deduction, or lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase on other tax payers or future tax payers.
Logically speaking, this is true. I wouldn't say it's the definition of "tax hike" that most people would use however, or a useful measure of campaign promises?
-
Eupher's last question was a zinger. The rest of his post was incisive to say the least.
-
Obfuscation at its worst, willcross. C'mon, for such a smart guy you can do better than that. Right?
You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the balls. But, I'm in a good mood today, so I'll play your obfuscation game.
When an entitlement - and that's what the dependent care tax credit is, just in case you missed that little gem -- is increased, that increases the tax load on those that actually pay taxes.
You utterly failed to see my anecdotal evidence. When a single mother, who is logically going to be the recipient of most child care dependent tax credits, doesn't pay taxes to begin with and then receives even more from the federal government, somebody's got to pay the bill. It isn't going to be the single mother, because she hasn't paid taxes from the get-go. It's going to be the rich and the middle class, who pay virtually all the taxes to begin with.
So a child care dependent tax credit helps nobody but that person who doesn't pay taxes to begin with.
Are you starting to get the drift here? Or are you as monumentally stupid as some of my long-time colleagues on this forum think?
So how does this differ from any tax reduction? Wouldn't the same logic apply if Obama lowered taxes in anyway whatsoever? Wouldn't that increase the tax load on some other segment of the population or future segment?
-
So how does this differ from any tax reduction? Wouldn't the same logic apply if Obama lowered taxes in anyway whatsoever? Wouldn't that increase the tax load on some other segment of the population or future segment?
:lmao:
Yes. It's confirmed. You really are a ****ing idiot.
-
:lmao:
Yes. It's confirmed. You really are a ****ing idiot.
Yeah I didn't think you would be able to explain the difference lol
-
So how does this differ from any tax reduction? Wouldn't the same logic apply if Obama lowered taxes in anyway whatsoever? Wouldn't that increase the tax load on some other segment of the population or future segment?
Two little words, cupcake.
A libertarian knows these two little words like the back of my hand.
A collectivist, redistributionist, leftist piece of shit will never guess them - not in a million years.
Two little words- what are they?
-
Yeah I didn't think you would be able to explain the difference lol
Of course I can explain the difference, shitbird --
It's called (and I'll type slow so you can understand) OBFUSCATION.
Look the word up and learn something today -- if you dare. :-)
-
Just as a reminder.
Re: US ranks behind Rwanda, Belarus, Azerbaijan in ease of creating new business
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2014, 12:16:41 am »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: obumazombie on February 23, 2014, 11:16:30 pm
That might be your name, but, who are you ?
Also I'm a hardcore libertarian.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,94115.msg1195670/highlight,willcross+libertarian.html#msg1195670
-
Are you starting to get the drift here? Or are you as monumentally stupid as some of my long-time colleagues on this forum think?
Monumentally stupid. Let me repeat that, "monumentally stupid."
Libertarians and Conservatives understand economics, liberals have no freakin clue.
And Wee Wiley, bitch slap given for being monumentally stupid.
-
Looks like the poser ran away with his weasel tail between his legs.
He probably spent all day asking his leftard friends what those two words could possibly be- and came up empty.
-
So by that definition, any lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase. Even if we lower taxes on every American by 10%, that will add to the deficit, that must be paid by future American taxpayers. By this definition, every temporary tax break, tax credit, deduction, or lowering of taxes is actually a tax increase on other tax payers or future tax payers.
Logically speaking, this is true. I wouldn't say it's the definition of "tax hike" that most people would use however, or a useful measure of campaign promises?
Shifting the burden from people who don't pay in the first place onto people who are paying a larger and larger portion of the tax burden IS, in fact, a tax INCREASE.
By eliminating an excise tax, for example, and rolling it into another tax, that in fact could (and usually does) result in a tax INCREASE.
-
Repealing taxes, increasing tax credits, and lowering taxes, are tax hikes. Do you agree or disagree?
As soon as you can tell us 1--what exactly a tax credit IS, 2--who pays for them, then you may continue in the discussion.