PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!


    ap_logo_106.png
    By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer 17 mins ago
    WASHINGTON – One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
    The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
    This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.
    To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.
    "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "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."
    He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
    Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.
    The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. That represents a step toward achieving another promise, to make sure all kids are covered.
    Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both — a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich.
    His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax.
    The White House contends Obama's campaign pledge left room for measures such as the one financing children's health insurance.
    "The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured."
    In some instances during the campaign, Obama was plainly talking about income, payroll and investment taxes, even if he did not say so.
    Other times, his point appeared to be that heavier taxation of any sort on average Americans is the wrong prescription in tough times.
    "Listen now," he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, "I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
    An unequivocal "any tax" pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum.
    "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."

    The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
    "I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.
    Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."
    Government and private research has found that smoking rates are higher among people of low income.
    A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers.
    Federal or state governments often turn for extra tax dollars to the one in five Americans who smoke, and many states already hit tobacco users this year. So did the tobacco companies, which raised the price on many brands by more than 70 cents a pack.
    The latest increase in the federal tax is by far the largest since its introduction in 1951, when it was 8 cents a pack. It's gone up six times since, each time by no more than a dime, until now.
    Apart from the tax haul, public health advocates argue that squeezing smokers will help some to quit and persuade young people not to start. But it was a debate the country didn't have in a presidential campaign that swore off higher taxation.


    Anyone else feel like we are being inundated with so many things that its hard to stay focused on any one thing? Build an outrage for one thing and before it can gain momentum the next shoe drops.:xmad:
     

    6birds

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 15, 2008
    2,291
    36
    Fishers
    You don't have to pay it, you choose to pay this one. And it's only a shock if you believed him in the first place!
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    You don't have to pay it, you choose to pay this one. And it's only a shock if you believed him in the first place!

    I disagree. No one chooses to pay a tax. In voluntary transaction between two private individuals, one would pay the other and both would walk away happier for the transaction. When the government says, "Whenever this type of transaction occurs, you must pay us X amount," it is NOT voluntary. Especially when, as is the case with tobacco and gas taxes, the government makes more on the transaction than the seller.

    By your logic, you choose to pay income tax if you work. "But I HAVE to work," you say? Okay, if you work and keep your income below a certain amount, you don't have to pay income taxes, so therefore you are choosing to pay.
     

    6birds

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 15, 2008
    2,291
    36
    Fishers
    Well, I've heard they're not getting enough donations, so yes, taxes are needed to run government programs, and yes, this happens to be one I do not pay, and no, I don't feel bad for he ones that choose to pay this one. And seeing how I didn't believe anything the man said before the election, I was not surprised or shocked.
     

    El Cazador

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 17, 2009
    1,100
    36
    NW Hendricks CO
    An AP writer critical of The Anointed One, the Great and Powerful Most Merciful Dear Leader? Wow.

    Another laid off, very recently unemployed writer.
     

    BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!
    Well, I've heard they're not getting enough donations, so yes, taxes are needed to run government programs, and yes, this happens to be one I do not pay, and no, I don't feel bad for he ones that choose to pay this one. And seeing how I didn't believe anything the man said before the election, I was not surprised or shocked.

    You should be pissed at any and all TAXES. So you think it's ok to tax cigarettes? Many people don't smoke, so not everyone is affected. What is also true is the Government counts on people like you to not worry about the tax, because it only affects others and after all smoking is bad for your health.
    So after smokes they then do ammo and again not all people are gun owners so the Govenrment counts on those who don't shoot to sit idly by and let US take the hit. I mean after all how much ammo do you need anyway?
    Your attitude is what lets Government get by with this kind of crap. I also don't like the fact the tax is touted as a behaviour modifier. Get the Government out of our lives and allow us to have the liberty and freedom to do as we wish.
    I am not now nor have I ever been a smoker, but this pisses me off and I would think it should **** off any and all taxpayers. It saddens me to know there are so many who just don't give a damn.:twocents:
     

    techres

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    27   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    6,479
    38
    1
    AP article critical = Good news.

    Taxes raised on "leper class" = Bad news.

    First may lead to change, second may lead to a widened "leper class". It was wrong today for the smokers, will be wrong tomorrow on ammo, and will be wrong next week on gasoline.
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,418
    149
    You should see the tax increase on roll your own tobacco makes the $.61 increase on a pack of cigarettes look minor. It went from about 1.10 a lb to just under 25.
     

    kludge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,360
    48
    Just think of it as smokers paying in advance for their own health care when they're on Medicare.

    I'm all for it.
     

    kludge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,360
    48
    If I have a pair of pants with two pockets, why does it matter which pocket I take the money out of?

    Smoking and obesity probably account for over HALF of the money spent for Medicare/disability.

    They should put a tax on Big Macs and fries too.
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    If I have a pair of pants with two pockets, why does it matter which pocket I take the money out of?

    Smoking and obesity probably account for over HALF of the money spent for Medicare/disability.

    They should put a tax on Big Macs and fries too.

    And guns and ammunition.
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    Already there. Pays for DNR stuff nationwide. I'm happy to pay it.

    Maybe we should have all our taxes reflect which behaviors we condone, and which we don't.

    Don't you see how that's an infringement of freedom? Taxes are force, pure and simple. The government shouldn't use force to discourage legal behaviors it does not like. There should be a high test for using force. The government certainly puts a high test on us for using it, shouldn't they have to pass a big hurdle to use it?

    Now, tell me that you want smokers to be ineligable for Medicaid or Medicare, and we might be in agreement.
     

    citizenvain

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 1, 2009
    154
    16
    Indianapolis
    If I have a pair of pants with two pockets, why does it matter which pocket I take the money out of?

    They should put a tax on Big Macs and fries too.

    While I agree with you (in what I believe was your sarcasm?) that they should go ahead and put a tax on fast food because I can tell you right now this makes no sense. Why would you put a system in place , this healthcare for kids, etc. and plan to pay for it by taxing the hell out of tabacco... What happens when less and less people buy cigs because they can't afford it? The program will still be there, it will still need money, they will find something else to tax...maybe those Big Macs and fries?

    And for the record I do not smoke. I just see it as odd to depend on a (bad) habit to fund any government program then tax it to the pint where you actually potentially eliminate those you need. If they really wanted to do this right, wouldn't they lower the tax so that everyone would light up and more?
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    You should be pissed at any and all TAXES. So you think it's ok to tax cigarettes? Many people don't smoke, so not everyone is affected. What is also true is the Government counts on people like you to not worry about the tax, because it only affects others and after all smoking is bad for your health.
    So after smokes they then do ammo and again not all people are gun owners so the Govenrment counts on those who don't shoot to sit idly by and let US take the hit. I mean after all how much ammo do you need anyway?
    Your attitude is what lets Government get by with this kind of crap. I also don't like the fact the tax is touted as a behaviour modifier. Get the Government out of our lives and allow us to have the liberty and freedom to do as we wish.
    I am not now nor have I ever been a smoker, but this pisses me off and I would think it should **** off any and all taxpayers. It saddens me to know there are so many who just don't give a damn.:twocents:

    "When they came for the...."
    A principle of much wider application than the original.
     
    Top Bottom