Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > "Spending reductions in the tax code" = "tax increases" in LeftSpeak

"Spending reductions in the tax code" = "tax increases" in LeftSpeak
Thread Tools
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 12:19 PM
 
Yesterday's speech was a new high (or low) in the use of doublespeak. Just when you thought that President Pookie's speechwriters had outdone themselves on the Libya thing, they give us

"spending reductions in the tax code"

as a substitute for

"tax increases"

I guess this is all part of the class warfare (other thread, I know), but how fricking transparent can it get?

Deductions are spending decisions? Up is down?

The presumption, it seems, is that all of our income belongs to the government, first, and they decide to give some BACK to us in the form of deductions. Like the mortgage interest deduction, student loan interest deduction, etc.

Isnt' that nice of them?

More of the idiocy that is Washington.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 12:22 PM
 
tl;dr version:
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Politics happened last night. I don't agree with it. Also, liberals suck.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 12:27 PM
 
Hahaha, "spending reductions in the tax code"....that's hilarious, I don't even really know what it means
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 12:34 PM
 
I agree that was a stupid phrase (I believe it was trying to refer to the idea that Obama wants to remove many tax deductible expenses from the tax code). But can you honestly look at the prepared text of his remarks and suggest that he was trying to mislead? He's pretty explicit about his philosophy with respect to taxes:

- Not renewing the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
- Limiting many itemized deductions
- Reforming the individual and corporate tax codes so there are fewer loopholes to exploit

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
The presumption, it seems, is that all some of our income belongs to the government, first, and they decide to give some BACK to us in the form of deductions. Like the mortgage interest deduction, student loan interest deduction, etc.
Strictly speaking (with the one modification above), yes, that's exactly how it works. You owe some percentage of your income to the government by law, which is modified by deductions that are deemed to have some public value.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 01:08 PM
 
The tax code allows for tax credits to go to people who have little to no federal tax liability. That literally costs the government money. Would curtailing that be a "spending reduction in the tax code"?

OAW
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2011, 02:09 PM
 
Tax credits are defined in the tax code.
Tax credits are certainly spending when they're refundable and debatable when non-refundable.
     
finboy  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2011, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Hahaha, "spending reductions in the tax code"....that's hilarious, I don't even really know what it means
That's the point.

It means "votes."

I wonder if killing the EITC (as OAW mentions) would be counted as a "spending reduction in the tax code." Let's do that one!

The trouble with the premise, SpaceMonkey, is that we must assume that our wages are the government's first, and they're really nice to let us have some back.

As Buddy Bizarre would say: "WRONG!"
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2011, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
The trouble with the premise, SpaceMonkey, is that we must assume that our wages are the government's first, and they're really nice to let us have some back.

As Buddy Bizarre would say: "WRONG!"
I don't think anyone disagrees that your wages are yours first. I think you are taking an ideological stance in the face of something that is not ideological at all. Practically speaking, you can plan on the government taking a specified percentage of your wages. I have not heard of a proposal that would enable people to negotiate their individual income tax rates directly with the government, for example, which would really be the extreme of assuming that your wages are yours first. The government is "really nice" to adjust that based on personal expenses that policy has deemed to be in the public interest. It's really not that complicated unless you are hell-bent on simply attacking the messenger on ideological grounds.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
finboy  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2011, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I don't think anyone disagrees that your wages are yours first. I think you are taking an ideological stance in the face of something that is not ideological at all. Practically speaking, you can plan on the government taking a specified percentage of your wages.
Why can I plan on that? Doesn't that violate the equal protection clause? If I make more money that someone else, my "specified percentage" ends up being more dollars. Seems to me like a civil rights issue more than anything else.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2011, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Why can I plan on that?
Because marginal tax rates and the rest of the tax code are public knowledge.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2011, 12:29 PM
 
There is precisely one valid reason to give out refundable tax credits: to give poor people an incentive to file taxes, so that if they ever get a good job and have decent money coming in they won't "forget" to pay taxes later.

There is another reason, of course: buying votes. All tax credits are vote-buying in one form or another.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2011, 08:07 PM
 
Is welfare spending?

If we change the tax code to eliminate corporate welfare, isn't that a reduction in spending?

Seems like reducing corporate subsides/welfare in the tax code is a spending reduction to me.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2011, 09:35 AM
 
We can defund the Czars......... Except that 0bama says the House can't. LOL! Maybe a signing note will clear things up.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2011, 01:56 PM
 
I didn't realize that the phrase "spending reductions in the tax code" was directly from Obama's speech until this weekend. But when you're talking about eliminating tax credits, how else would you put it? Why can't we consider tax credits (especially the refundable ones) as government spending, written directly into the tax code? In that case, efforts to reduce tax credits do precisely that : reduce the amount of spending in the tax code.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2011, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
I didn't realize that the phrase "spending reductions in the tax code" was directly from Obama's speech until this weekend. But when you're talking about eliminating tax credits, how else would you put it?
"Eliminating tax credits" ?
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2011, 02:09 PM
 
But when you say it that way, it sounds like a tax increase instead of a spending cut.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2011, 02:12 PM
 
That depends on what you think a credit is. To me it sounds like a bonus granted.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2011, 02:17 PM
 
Heh... Sometimes the way language is spun to create/preserve/push for an upper hand politically is chuckle-worthy.
     
finboy  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2011, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That depends on what you think a credit is. To me it sounds like a bonus granted.
Deductions and credits aren't the same thing. Credits offset taxes directly, and deductions reduce the amount of income that you have to pay taxes on.

Things such as the "earned income tax credit" are certainly "bonuses" to income. I bet Pres. Pookie isn't talking about eliminating those, or fixing the problem that 1/2 of the households pay no tax at all (most of those aren't the RICH households, by the way).
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,