So it's a tax.

Boner doesn't have a cob up his ass,he is just taking his toys and going home.won't play anymore.LOL Originally Posted by ekim008

What sort of "toys" is he taking home?

heres the "biggest tax grab ".. Bush 41 accross the board increases make this look like a christmas bonus ..


the actual excise tax, or fine, or penalty (which was the topic of the thread) is explained in full ..

maybe 2dogs owns a tanning salon ?

I already contradicted it. The graph only shows the # of taxpayers. There is no reference to actual taxes that will be collected. It reveals nothing, aside from your ineptitude or dishonesty. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Still looking for something to prove how this is the single biggest tax grab in history, i presume.

I won't make you waste any more of your time.

As if proving it from the standpoint of the number of affected individuals wasn't good enough, I'll also prove it from a revenue standpoint.

Happy now?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ase-us-histor/

the chart is a projection .. mandatory purchase wont take place until 2014 so there isnt any way to determine exact expendatures for few more years .. Originally Posted by CJ7

CJ7, the quote of mine you referenced here was my response to someone saying that Doove's position on the # of judges declaring the mandate a tax was somehow nuanced but he clearly stated in his 1st post in the thread that only one of 9 ruled it that way. That was clearly untrue but it was my fault in not making that understood.

As for the graph he presented, it offers nothing more than some numbers of payroll taxpayers who might or might not be affected by the tax increases the bill will bring. And there are many more taxes besides the mandate for insurance that will effect people in all the groups presented in said graph. The # of people affected by these taxes is only 1 factor in the equation of "tax grab". Another factor of that equation is the actual $ amount each person will pay. By your own admission in the post I just quoted, the amount of tax each might be required to pay is undetermined at this point. That's why I assert that the graph, in and of itself, is useless and misleading. One can't determine from the graph if this is or is not the biggest tax grab in history, and I have not made a claim on that either way to this point. The upshot is that it's about dollars. Your subsequent post about the Bush entitlements shows that you are in agreement with that idea, as there is no mention in it concerning the number of taxpayers ensnared by the increases. It is the increase in dollars collected that makes it a tax grab or not.
To wit, if you tax 10 million people a penny apiece that's not much of a tax grab. If you tax 10 million people $2000 dollars apiece that's a pretty big one. To tax all the people evenly is what keeps those taxes from being too regressive or progressive or in other words, fair.
As I stated before, the graph is meaningless towards answering the question of the largest tax grab in history and I believe it was proffered with full knowledge of that fact in an attempt to mislead.

inasmuch as the law hasnt gone into effect regarding the purchase mandate, and wont until 2014 noboby knows what the numbers are or will be, hence "the largest tax grab" is nothing more than an opinion, and in 2dogs case, totally biased.

IMO, graphs unless based on emerical data/stats are more or less like polls.

We have to wait until it is in force to know how bad it is.

inasmuch as the law hasnt gone into effect regarding the purchase mandate, and wont until 2014 noboby knows what the numbers are or will be, hence "the largest tax grab" is nothing more than an opinion, and in 2dogs case, totally biased.

IMO, graphs unless based on emerical data/stats are more or less like polls. Originally Posted by CJ7

So we're in agreement then. The graph is crap.
As for the biggest tax grab in history I'd think that the introduction of social security payroll taxes would have been the biggest, but I've never been interested in that, per se. It really is just too deep into the weeds for my taste. I think it's inconsequential.

So we're in agreement then. The graph is crap. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

+1

As I stated before, the graph is meaningless towards answering the question of the largest tax grab in history and I believe it was proffered with full knowledge of that fact in an attempt to mislead. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

You make fair points, but i think anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge regarding what they personally pay in payroll taxes vs what people are likely to pay via the mandate or due to any other aspect of the bill, they can look at the graph and figure out how the numbers are gonna line up.

Either way, at least i offered a graph. With numbers. 2Dogs offered nothing but his own suggestion. So as far as attempting to mislead....

I'd think that the introduction of social security payroll taxes would have been the biggest, . Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Then Reagan put in a huge tax increase in 1983

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...29-503544.html

It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."

When did this become about Reagan? WTF, stay on topic, will you? You have this need to change the subject in almost every thread. I'm thinking you're a narcissistic as President Obama.

No one even mentioned Reagan.

No one even mentioned Reagan. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not directly...but they did mention raising the SS tax, which Reagan in fact did do.

When did this become about Reagan? WTF, stay on topic, will you? You have this need to change the subject in almost every thread. I'm thinking you're a narcissistic as President Obama.

No one even mentioned Reagan. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

didnt have to ... when someone typed EVER it became wide open

You make fair points, but i think anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge regarding what they personally pay in payroll taxes vs what people are likely to pay via the mandate or due to any other aspect of the bill, they can look at the graph and figure out how the numbers are gonna line up.

Either way, at least i offered a graph. With numbers. 2Dogs offered nothing but his own suggestion. So as far as attempting to mislead.... Originally Posted by Doove

Doove, I appreciate you candor. Yeah, I did make some good points, huh? I apologize for calling you a clown though. It did nothing to advance the debate and was wrong of me. My only defense is that I'd just been over the same kind of issue in the thread about coporate profit. A completely misleading graph and article to "prove" the premise. Noteworthy that the article and graph in question came from a guy who writes for Maddowblog. Also, the thread died shortly after I pointed out the falacy with no response from the op.
You're also correct that 2Dogs offered nothing more than an opinion with nothing to back it up and you did at least put out some effort, however misguided. I'll also say that the very issue of "biggest tax grab" as often interpreted, is irrelevant to most discussions of policy for the following. If the Washington administration levied a tax of $1000 dollars on every citizen of the country and the Obama admin. levied a $10 tax, who had the bigger tax grab? It's a complicated issue.
However, I was hoping for some input related to the original question, which I asked seriously and without agenda. Are the exemptions to the "tax" (Don't you start!) constitutionaly acceptable. They "feel" unfair to me.

didnt have to ... when someone typed EVER it became wide open Originally Posted by CJ7

That is a little too detailed for his feeble mind to comprehend!