Obamacare the bigest tax increase in history

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/09/y ... biggest-ta


"No sooner had Chief Justice Roberts issued his ruling that ObamaCare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance ObamaCare was a tax than the law’s defenders in the press were racing to rebut the idea that the law, overall, is the largest tax increase in American history.

“No, ObamaCare Isn’t the Biggest Tax Increase in History,” was the headline over Kevin Drum’s piece in Mother Jones, published July 1.

“No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’ (in one chart)” was the headline over a July 2 postby the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, which hyperlinked back to Kevin Drum.

Bloomberg Businessweek’s Elizabeth Dwoskin weighed in on July 3. Her article was headlined, “Why ObamaCare’s Tax Increase Isn’t the Biggest Ever,” and it linked back to Ezra Klein.

On July 5, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn, a college pal of mine, joined the fray with an article whose web headline is “The Affordable Care Act Is Not The Biggest Tax Hike.” He linked back to both Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum.

Critics would call this herd journalism, or pack journalism, or groupthink. Defenders would say it is just giving credit where credit is due, and that it happens routinely among right-leaning journalists as well as among left-leaning ones. The important thing for a reader to remember, though, is just because a headline or an idea is repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true.

In this case, the left-wing claim that ObamaCare “Isn’t the Biggest Tax Increase in History” is based on"..................................

Luckily it only affects those earning over 250K.

Still confusing the ACA with a 3.9% increase on the amount of income earned over $250,000?

You guys really need to keep your talking points straight. They are separate issues.

Here is a little math experiment...Let's say the expiration of the tax-cut for the top 2% goes through. If you make $300,000 the next year, how much extra would you pay in taxes?

And, No, ACA is NOT the biggest tax increase in history. But you keep drinking that Kool-Aid...

Democracy4Sale wrote: Still confusing the ACA with a 3.9% increase on the amount of income earned over $250,000?

You guys really need to keep your talking points straight. They are separate issues.

Here is a little math experiment...Let's say the expiration of the tax-cut for the top 2% goes through. If you make $300,000 the next year, how much extra would you pay in taxes?

And, No, ACA is NOT the biggest tax increase in history. But you keep drinking that Kool-Aid...

LJ thinks the Supreme Court ruling was correct, all except the part where they say the mandate is ONLY constitutional if it is a tax. Who knew?

Democracy4Sale wrote: And, No, ACA is NOT the biggest tax increase in history. But you keep drinking that Kool-Aid...

Using the same standard by which the "progressives" use to claim that "record profits" are being made by certain companies (raw dollars), ACA is indeed the largest tax increase in history. If the left suddenly wishes to move the goal posts and use adjusted dollars to move the ACA down to 4th all time high tax increase or percentage of GDP to move it even lower, then they are going to have to give up some of their favorite talking points along with that - most notably the 1982 tax hike signed by Reagan. FactCheck.org, in their analysis of the claim ( http://factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-ta ... n-history/ ) notes:

And Reagan’s 1982 tax increase followed an even more massive tax cut the previous year, which had overshot the mark. Taken together, Reagan’s 1981 tax cut and 1982 tax increase still netted out to a very substantial reduction in taxes.

It is fun though to see the left scramble to defend the ACA from the tactics they themselves use so recklessly on a continual basis and using the very same means of defending the ACA that they refuse to acknowledge when used to refute their own claims to do it.

"The old saying is that “figures will not lie,” but a new saying is “liars will figure.” It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish." - Carrol D Wright, 1889

Democracy4Sale wrote: Still confusing the ACA with a 3.9% increase on the amount of income earned over $250,000?

You guys really need to keep your talking points straight. They are separate issues.

Here is a little math experiment...Let's say the expiration of the tax-cut for the top 2% goes through. If you make $300,000 the next year, how much extra would you pay in taxes?

And, No, ACA is NOT the biggest tax increase in history. But you keep drinking that Kool-Aid...

No, you are confused. This topic is about the ACA and no one mentioned the Clinton 3.9% income tax increase which Bush lowered.

The ACA does increase taxes for those making over $250K. Among them are a 3.8% tax increase on investment income and a .9% Medicare payroll tax increase.

And PS is correct. In raw dollars, the ACA is the biggest tax increase since 1968. Not that raw dollars is a fair comparision IMO, but as he mentioned it's been done here by the left before. Regardless if it's the largest or not, it's still a big tax increase.

Alas lj lives in the past. it was Bush's fault, of course.

Actually the tax increase is really too small. Only $70 Billion to cover a program that will cost over $100 billion a year and grow faster than inflation?

Please show us evidence of how much this "tax increase" actually is so that the truthiness of your allegation can be determined.

Whats with all you lefties, demanding links all the time? Google it yourself and educate yourself for once. Plenty of data has already been provided, just read it sometime.

Like I already said before, the tax increase is too SMALL and not broad based to pay for this new entitlement. At least the Euro countries tax everyone for their big social programs.