Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Affordable Care Act NEW TAXES

pundit
pundit
Jan 29, 2014
11:14pm
Block User


Politics Of Hate And Envy
pjstroh
pjstroh
Jan 29, 2014
11:22pm
Block User
Some people think its noteworthy when statisitics come from credible reporting agencies as oppossed to bloggers, propoganda machines, and special interest groups. But its a free country, Alan. You can embrace or object to any source of info you want.

Oh, and just and FYI...I started my taxes last night. I didn't see any $6000 tax pop up on my HR Block screen. Maybe I better switch to Microsoft TaxCut.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Jan 29, 2014
11:38pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Some people think its noteworthy when statisitics come from credible reporting agencies...You can embrace or object to any source of info you want.


I'm pointing out that one of sources specifically identifies 20 tax increases, sorts them by CBO scoring and references the exact place in the ACA they can be found. The response to that was not to refute the information, but to attack the person. That's an Ad hominem fallacy....for those keeping score at home. Don't you think it would be far more productive to just refute the information if it is false? So where do you stand? Were there 20 tax increases totaling over 500 Billion in 10 years or not? Or are you more interested in smearing someone or associating alleged facts with people you don't like then finding the truth?
pjstroh
pjstroh
Jan 29, 2014
11:41pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
You can embrace or object to any source of info you want.


I'm pointing out that one of sources specifically identifies 20 tax increases, sorts them by CBO scoring and references the exact place in the ACA they can be found. The response to that was not to refute the information, but to attack the person. That's an Ad hominem fallacy....for those keeping score at home. Don't you think it would be far more productive to just refute the information if it is false?


So you believe people have an obligation to prove a negative? I always thought it was the other way around.

My answer to your question is no. Just like when the same sources told us the president was born in Kenya. I didnt feel obligated to refute that claim either. I just pointed and laughed.

alanleroy
alanleroy
Jan 29, 2014
11:57pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
You can embrace or object to any source of info you want.


I'm pointing out that one of sources specifically identifies 20 tax increases, sorts them by CBO scoring and references the exact place in the ACA they can be found. The response to that was not to refute the information, but to attack the person. That's an Ad hominem fallacy....for those keeping score at home. Don't you think it would be far more productive to just refute the information if it is false?


So you believe people have an obligation to prove a negative? I always thought it was the other way around.


One of sources specifically identifies 20 tax increases, sorts them by CBO scoring and references the exact place in the ACA they can be found.

PJ's (and Forkush's) response is to dismiss it based solely on who published the information. The underlying source is the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Record. Sometimes I'm amazed at how politics makes good people so weak. I would have expected your argument to be something like "hell yes there are more taxes to pay for Obamacare...Medical Care for the poor should be paid for by the more fortunate." Rather than "I deny anything published by 'those people'".
forkushV
forkushV
Jan 30, 2014
12:23am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
One of sources specifically identifies 20 tax increases, sorts them by CBO scoring and references the exact place in the ACA they can be found...
And if it were in the National Enquirer I would dismiss it too. It's an issue of journalistic credibility. It would take real dishonesty or total stupidity to call that an "ad hominem." (alanleroy: Now THAT was an ad hominem - just for illustrative purposes only!)

If there's similar in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or Forbes - news sections, not editorials - I'll take it seriously. But I'm not interested in the opinions of Jack Abramoff co-conspirators.



pjstroh
pjstroh
Jan 30, 2014
12:28am
Block User
The original poster wrote this without any sources to back it up:
"It is estimated that Obama Care will cost the average taxpayer an additional $6000 in taxes."

The original poster later cites some right wing sources that show how the law increases taxes primarily for the corporations who benefit most from the law (Insurance companies, device manufacturers, drug companies)...what those links do not show in any way, shape or form is how the average taxpayer in America will pay an additional $6000 in taxes.

Now, Alan, dont you feel embarrassed for standing up for a bogus, partisan assertion while demanding opponents refute the bogus, partisan sources that were used to back it up?

Roulette Man
Roulette Man
Jan 30, 2014
12:33am
Block User
Most of the extender bills were not extended by Congress. In addition the 7.5% haircut on medical expenses has been increased to 10% and disallowance of a portion of one's itemized deductions and exemptions has been reinstituted. In addition there is now a Medicare surtax on income and investment income if they reach a certain threshold.

While not much has been made of this by the press, the poor to middle class will be paying more. I don't know about the $6,000 amount though.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Jan 30, 2014
12:53am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
The original poster wrote this without any sources to back it up:
"It is estimated that Obama Care will cost the average taxpayer an additional $6000 in taxes."

The original poster later cites some right wing sources that show how the law increases taxes primarily for the corporations who benefit most from the law (Insurance companies, device manufacturers, drug companies)...what those links do not show in any way, shape or form is how the average taxpayer in America will pay an additional $6000 in taxes.

Now, Alan, dont you feel embarrassed for standing up for a bogus, partisan assertion while demanding opponents refute the bogus, partisan sources that were used to back it up?


I was only addressing Claim #2 that was dismissed by Forkush not based upon facts, but based upon some strange connection to Jack Abramoff. So now I'm confused. Is PJ claiming there were or were not 20 new taxes totaling over 500 Billion in 10 years?
forkushV
forkushV
Jan 30, 2014
12:54am
Block User
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now