The Instigator
DeFool
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Khaos_Mage
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Under Obama, a $4000 tax on the middle class

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,550 times Debate No: 26620
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

DeFool

Con

A recent Television advertisement, by Gov. Mitt Romney, claims that "Under President Obama: $4,000 tax hike on middle class families."

I maintain that this is not a true statement of fact, and wish to debate the subject.

I will adopt the position of "Con," since I want to challenge the premise. I ask that Pro defend Governor Mitt Romney's assertion that President Obama has or will definitely raise taxes on the middle class by $4000.

I am willing to be fairly relaxed concerning any rules for this debate, and am willing to honor any agreements made in the comments section. My only real request of my partner is that we set aside the final round for summaries of our best arguments - as a convenience to readers who may wish to vote on our performances. I feel that such summaries allow readers to more easily digest our arguments quickly, and allows them to understand our emphasis.

Pro may begin arguments at once, in R1, if they so choose; this is a short debate at only three rounds. I don't expect to need more than two rounds for my presentation.

I present this debate in order that I may discuss, in the company of intelligent persons, a statement that I feel was an intentional attempt to deceive the (already gullible) American electorate.

Khaos_Mage

Pro


Thank you for this debate and good luck.


I write this on October 30, 2012. As of today, to the best of my knowledge, under the Obama administration, the so-called “Bush tax cuts”, which have been in effect for ten years, are set expire January 1st, 2013 and will not be renewed by this administration. Therefore, any related tax increase is, for lack of a better term, Obama’s fault.


This is for two reasons:



  1. Obama has extended the Bush tax cuts for two additional years, when he could have let them expire.

  2. Obama was willing to extend these cuts for the middle class, but not for the wealthy. He either refused to extend the cuts (or make them permanent) because it included the wealthy. He either could have swallowed the bitter pill to extend them and be bi-partisan, or used his leadership/debate skills to convince Republican leaders (or used community organization skills to have constituents do it) to let the wealthy tax cuts lapse. Either way, he failed, and the resulting tax hike is fittingly under his term.


So, since these tax measures occurred under Obama’s presidency, it is fair to attribute any increase in taxes (regardless of when they will be realized) to him, and any calculations using the expiring Bush tax cuts are fair and accurate.


Furthermore, Obama’s key piece of legislation was the “Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare), which did indeed raise taxes in their own right. Using these new taxes in calculations is fair game, as well.



Calculations

Given a married family of four (two dependent children, both minors) is an acceptable definition of the word “family”. The median household income for this criterion is $62,273, which will is an acceptable definition of the enigmatic term “middle class”.


http://www.census.gov...




Ergo, these are the following tax increases that are imposed on the middle class family earning $62,273:


$870 Bottom bracket (10% à 15%)


$1000 child tax credit ($1000 à $500)


$560.457 Obamacare additional Medicare tax of 0.9%


$2085 Individual mandate


$4515.457 Total new taxes under Obama



The Bush tax cuts created a new bottom bracket of 10%. With its expiration, this bracket (and the income it taxes) will revert back to 15%; the upper limits were unaffected. So, this tax increase is the difference a married filing jointly couple would pay on the first $17,400 of taxable income between the two brackets, a total of $870. Note: this $870 is the same on any married couple whose taxable income is $17,400 or more, regardless of income level.


http://taxes.about.com...



The Bush tax cuts also increased the child tax credit from $500 to its current $1,000 over time; it was phased into this amount, but there is no phase back. So, if you have two kids, you lose $1,000 in tax credits. Since tax credits are matched dollar for dollar (as opposed to deductions), this $1,000 loss of credit is a tax increase of $1,000 because they will have to pay $1,000 more than they otherwise would have. Note: a tax credit does not affect your tax liability (which is based on taxable income), but it does reduce the amount owed.


http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...



Starting January 1, 2013, the Obamacare additional payroll tax will take effect. Payroll taxes are currently 2.9% Medicare and 12.4% FICA (both taxes split between employee and employer, and FICA is currently 2% less for employees as a holiday for this and last year due to the stimulus). However, Obamacare adds a 0.9% payroll tax on only the employee. This is not shared by employer, and there is an upper limit, like FICA, but higher (the regular Medicare tax has no limit). So, Obama raised taxes on all working people by 0.9%, which translates to the middle class family as $560.457.


http://www.irs.gov...



Lastly, there is the individual mandate, which will fully take into effect in 2016, but enacted under this president. It will cost any adult who is not insured AT LEAST $695, possibly more. In our hypothetical, there are two adults and two children (whose penalty is reduced 50%), so this is a tax of AT LEAST $695 x 3 = $2,085.


http://abcnews.go.com...



Conclusion

These taxes combined are more than $4,000, all under Obama. There are additional tax effects, like the tax on medical supplies, marriage penalty resurgence, payroll tax holiday expiration, and various deductions (like mortgage insurance and the increased floor for medical expenses); however, these four big tax effects are easiest to visualize, are most likely to occur, and simple to prove without complex tax discussion/situations.


Romney stating that “under Obama, middle class families’ tax burden raised $4,000” is a fair and accurate figure.


Vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 1
DeFool

Con

Many thanks to my partner for the recent presentation.

  • We cannot reliably calculate future hypothetical scenarios
  • The argument that Obama has raised taxes on the middle class by $4000 has been dropped
  • President Obama’s stated policy does not allow for significant tax hikes on the middle class
  • President Obama did not author the Bush Tax Cuts, and cannot be held responsible for the inclusion of an expiration date
  • Congressional Republicans will need to write the $4000 tax increase into law – not President Obama

A recent television ad by the Romney campaign is airing in several key battleground states. The advertisement shows clips of the Governor speaking at the Denver debate, arguing against raising taxes on “anyone” during the recession. As Governor Romney is speaking, the words, “Under President Obama: $4,000 tax hike on middle class families” appear on-screen.

Most middle class families are aware by now of how much they have paid in taxes “under Obama.” Since there has been no such $4000 increase, this statement has begun to generate quite a bit of buzz, with many asking for the statement to be clarified. In response, the Romney campaign issued a statement that explains that the $4000 per family figure came originally from a study conducted by the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. The study attempted to lay out possible scenarios by which payments on the Bush-era national debt might be spread across various income groups, with the $4000 figure pertaining to those families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. (Calculated with interest over a decade long payment period.) The problem with the claim, according to fact checkers that have studied the subject, is that the debt payments represent a “cost that must be paid” – and not a tax hike. [1]

My partner takes a different tack, which deviates sharply from the Romney campaign. He attempts to demonstrate that middle class families actually will pay around $4000 more in taxes each year as a result of President Obama’s stated policies. His argument, however, includes serious logical problems. I will explain:

Logical Problems:

The centerpiece of my partner’s argument, as I understand it, is:

President Obama must allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the middle class. Therefore, the resulting increase in tax payments will belong to President Obama.

However, there is no reason why an Obama supporter necessarily must agree that this president absolutely will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the middle class. It is the current policy of this administration that the tax cuts will be extended for the middle class. If speculation as to what might happen in some future hypothetical is allowed, then I can just as easily say that “president Obama will give every middle class family a pony.”

In order to offer a compelling reason for certain belief that future middle class tax hikes will occur, we need something more definitive. Considering that future legislation can replace current law, intellectual integrity requires us to obtain better information upon which to base our predictions of the future. Important to this logic is that the legislature will be required by law to author any such tax increases – and this will mean Republican Party support for any such tax hike – an unlikely scenario.

Another problem with this argument is that there is no logical way that President Obama can be blamed for a “tax increase” if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire – even if a tax increase occurs. I justify this amazing statement thusly:

      • President Obama did not author, or sign into law, or support the Bush tax cuts. It was the former Congress and President Bush that created and passed the Bush tax cuts, and it was they who wrote into the legislation the clause that requires them to expire. Therefore, if the tax cuts do expire, it will have been the ‘fault’ of the Congress and President Bush… the parties who legislated this expiration. Therefore, any resulting ‘tax increases’ would have been authored by this previous Congress and President Bush, not Obama – who simply allows these existing laws to stand.
      • As my partner points out, The Bush Tax Cuts were extended with Obama’s consent. Therefore Obama “matched” the value of these cuts. If the value of these cuts is removed, by allowing them to expire, then tax rates will “zero out,” returning rates to the original value. In order to represent a tax “increase” tax rates will need to be higher – as calculated before the enaction of the Bush Tax Cuts in the first place.
      • The argument that President Obama absolutely must allow these cuts to expire for the middle class is never made. I argue that such evidence is a necessary component of any argument that they will. This requires that the “calculations” section in the previous presentation be disregarded as unlikely to occur without the help of the congress. As this congress is controlled by Republicans who seem passionately opposed to President Obama, I argue that no such tax increase is likely…even if President Obama desperately wanted to enact them.

ObamaCare Taxes

Claim: Starting January 1, 2013, the Obamacare additional payroll tax will take effect.

Rebuttal: No it won’t.

This tax is not any part of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), but an “Additional Medicare Tax.” And it will not apply to members of the middle class – only to those making more than $200,000 a year are eligible. [2]

Claim: The Individual Mandate Provision of ObamaCare will cost each taxpayer at least $695.

Rebuttal: The Individual Mandate, because it is not revenue that is collected by the Congress for public use, is not a tax. The Individual Mandate is a mandated purchase of a product – and the money that goes towards that purchase is paid over to an insurer, not the federal government. The penalty for refusing to obtain health insurance coverage is allowed under Congress’ Constitutional power to regulate all taxation, and is a penalty. This penalty itself is not a “tax,” even though it is made possible by the Congressional authority to levy taxes – and it does not apply to anyone who is covered by an insurer.

Furthermore, the cost of the mandated purchase of health insurance is offset by tax cuts. [3] An estimated 19 million Americans will receive tax credits under ObamaCare that average around $5,400. This compares to the average tax penalty, which is likely to impact only 6 million taxpayers, and even then only those who refuse to purchase their own health coverage. The average penalty will amount to about $600. Obamacare gives an average tax deduction of $5,400, and may impose a penalty averaging around $600.

I am out of room. In the next round, I will demonstrate how President Obama has actually cut middle class taxes in his first term more than President Bush did in his.

For now, my argument as of this round is:
It is impossible to reasonably expect Congress to allow any $4000 tax hike on middle class families over Obama's next term. Therefore, this scenario is unlikely to occur. Additionally, tax cuts for the middle class found in the ObamaCare legislation more than overwhelm any penalties for refusing to purchase private health care insurance.

In order to demonstrate that President Obama is likely to raise taxes by $4000 in his next term, my partner will have to show why the Republican Congress should be expected to write any such legislation, or to allow it to pass.

[1] Politifact – Pants On Fire Ruling: http://www.politifact.com...

[2] The Additional Medicare Tax on Income above $200,000 http://www.irs.gov...

[3] Article explaining how ObamaCare tax cuts will offset the costs of obtaining insurancehttp://thinkprogress.org...

Khaos_Mage

Pro

  • We cannot reliably calculate future hypothetical scenarios

We can calculate certain scenarios, and my four (revised to three) are perfectly reliable

  • The argument that Obama has raised taxes on the middle class by $4000 has been dropped

I have not dropped it as I have shown taxes have been raised, to take effect in later periods. The fact that the taxes have not hit yet are irrelevant, as he allowed them to be raised.

  • President Obama’s stated policy does not allow for significant tax hikes on the middle class

False. I have shown nearly $4000 in tax increase on only three tax issues.

  • President Obama did not author the Bush Tax Cuts, and cannot be held responsible for the inclusion of an expiration date

When he extended these, he could have instead made them permanent; he let them expire

  • Congressional Republicans will need to write the $4000 tax increase into law – not President Obama

This makes no sense. No one needs to “will” and it doesn’t need to be Republicans, as the bill could be amended in the Senate. This increase will happen unless action is taken.

Logical Problems:

The centerpiece of my partner’s argument, as I understand it, is:

President Obama must allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the middle class. Therefore, the resulting increase in tax payments will belong to President Obama.

Not “must”, but has.

However, there is no reason why an Obama supporter necessarily must agree that this president absolutely will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the middle class. It is the current policy of this administration that the tax cuts will be extended for the middle class.

There is no speculation; this administration ends without the extension they desire. The tax raises have been signed into law (Obamacare) or are set to expire (Bush tax cuts). The claim in question is not” will these tax hikes be allowed to stand”, it is whether or not they are currently true. If Obama, in his second term, were to extend the Bush tax cuts, his first term still failed to extend them into 2013. At the time the debated statement was made, it was accurate.

In order to offer a compelling reason for certain belief that future middle class tax hikes will occur, we need something more definitive. Considering that future legislation can replace current law…

The comment stated what was current, not what will happen (though that is also a common political tactic). As of the air date, Obama passed Obamacare, along with its taxes, and is letting the Bush tax cuts to expire. Whether future action is taken does not invalidate the claim that Obama has let this happen at the air date of the message. Nothing needs to be authored, these hikes are coming unless action is taken.

Another problem with this argument is that there is no logical way that President Obama can be blamed for a “tax increase” if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire – even if a tax increase occurs. I justify this amazing statement thusly:

      • President Obama did not author, or sign into law, or support the Bush tax cuts..

The democrat Congress and the president signed an extension. They agreed upon the two year extension, and not three, which would have nullified these tax hikes occurring due to Obama’s first term.

      • [The tax cuts’ expiration simply revert the tax code to a former state]

And any tax cut/hike is more than it was in 1912, which was zero. It is still a valid use of the term “raise” or “cut” to compare it to the last change. This is a common political tactic in rhetoric used by both sides.

      • [Point 3]

The tax cuts will expire under Obama’s first/ only term, save for a special session. The fact that Republicans are set against Obama is irrelevant as Obama in 2009-10 had both houses controlled by Democrats, which he used to ram through Obamacare. He could have used this to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but he didn’t. This is his fault, not Bush’s. Besides, the Republicans were willing to extend these cuts, but Obama refused to sign because it included the rich. He alone is to blame for the Bush tax cuts not being extended or made permanent. (You can blame Bush, too, but Obama is still to blame).

ObamaCare Taxes

Claim: Starting January 1, 2013, the Obamacare additional payroll tax will take effect.

Rebuttal: No it won’t.

I drop this point, I read the information wrong, and I apologize. However, this brings the total tax increase to $3,955 with numerous other tax issues, so my claim still stands while only focusing on these three aspects.

Claim: The Individual Mandate Provision of ObamaCare will cost each taxpayer at least $695.

Rebuttal: The Individual Mandate, because it is not revenue that is collected by the Congress for public use, is not a tax...

The money is paid to the IRS as a tax, on our tax return, and was ruled a tax by the Supreme Court. Just because they call it a penalty does not make it not a tax; the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate constitutional ONLY because it was deemed a tax. Only those not covered pay the tax, but that forces people to have insurance or pay the tax, which makes the insurance the tax. Pay premiums or $2,085, it’s your call.

Furthermore, the cost of the mandated purchase of health insurance is offset by tax cuts…

This may be true, but this is where it becomes difficult to ascertain a general number as my opponent has claimed, unlike with the three metrics I labeled in detail, that can be easily computed. My opponent has not stated what these tax cuts are, or how one qualifies for them. Regardless, even if it were true that Obama raised taxes here, but provided relief over there for a zero sum effect, he still raised taxes; it is misleading, but still factually true.

I am out of room. In the next round, I will demonstrate how President Obama has actually cut middle class taxes in his first term more than President Bush did in his.

I don’t see how that is relevant; we are debating tax increases, not net tax effects, nor who benefited the middle class more.

For now, my argument as of this round is:
It is impossible to reasonably expect Congress to allow any $4000 tax hike on middle class families over Obama's next term. Therefore, this scenario is unlikely to occur.

This is irrelevant, as the taxes have been raised, thus the statement is true. If you call me fat today, because I weigh 290 pounds, then I lose 100, it does not make you a liar for having called me fat when you did.

Additionally, tax cuts for the middle class found in the ObamaCare legislation more than overwhelm any penalties for refusing to purchase private health care insurance.

The topic is whether the taxes were raised, not any net effect that may or may not apply to the “average” family.

In order to demonstrate that President Obama is likely to raise taxes by $4000 in his next term, my partner will have to show why the Republican Congress should be expected to write any such legislation, or to allow it to pass.

I need to do no such thing as the topic is what has been done, not what can/will be done later.

My opponent seems to conveniently forget that these tax increases are law, and no action needs to occur for them to happen. In fact, action needs to be taken to prevent them.

My opponent is trying to change the debate by saying that “because the tax hike is likely not to materialize, it is not a truthful statement”. This is not the issue. The issue is whether or not “Obama raised taxes on middle class families $4,000”. If and when these materialized raises occur is irrelevant.

Let’s say Clinton signed a bill that raised taxes effective in 2001. Is this raise due to Bush or Clinton? Obviously, since Clinton allowed it to happen, he takes the blame. So does Obama. I have shown $4,000. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
DeFool

Con

We are now in the “Summaries section” of our discussion. I have agreed to present here only what I feel to be my better arguments, as a convenience to our readers. I will forgo rebuttals, since these final arguments largely answer them. Before I begin, I want to honestly thank my partner for having participated in this contest with me. I also want to express gratitude for the readers who have followed the debate to this point.

A $4000 tax hike on the middle class really is an incredible claim

The claim that middle class taxes would increase by $4000 requires that we also believe that they will increase by 6.67% - again, this is an increase over and above any existing tax rates. To reach such a staggering jump in rates over just the next four years is something that simply cannot be denied with the usual “he said- she said” partisan back and forth. Practically speaking, for almost every American to so suddenly lose 6.6% of their total income would absolutely require at least some news media coverage.

And no one believes it, except Fox NEWS

It has occurred to me that one method for establishing that President Obama is not planning any such rate hike, therefore, is to survey the reactions of reputable news outlets. This is a simple task. The media outlets that are “most trusted names” in news and such have all taken a look at this, since the very famous debate mention.

Politifact: “Pants on Fire” rating. (That means it’s not true) http://www.politifact.com...

FactCheck.org “Mitt Romney’s $4000 Tale:” (Mitt Romney falsely claims…”) http://factcheck.org...

Salon.com: (Nonsense) http://www.salon.com...

Boston Globe: (Romney’s hometown newspaper) “Playing Loose”: http://www.bostonglobe.com...

Romney doesn’t buy it either, not really. And Obama won’t say that he really is planning on it.

Another way that I can establish that current law does not allow for rates to climb by $4000 is to survey the two campaigns. I was surprised to learn, while studying this, that the Romney campaign also does not think that Obama will raise taxes by $4000 on middle class families. The $4000 figure was got by way of a study that attempted to show how the national deficit would be paid out on a family-by-family basis. It wasn’t an estimate of how the president intends to raise taxes, only a criticism of the national debt. Governor Romney himself claims that president Obama will raise taxes over his next term, but not by $4000. It is also important to note that Romney has said that he does not believe that President Obama raised taxes in his first term.

"I admit this, he has one thing he did not do in his first four years — he’s said he’s going to do in the next four years, which is to raise taxes," said Governor Romney. [2] But Romney says lots of things.

The IRS also disagrees that there will be any $4000 tax hike

But the best way to evaluate current law – outside of the political water cooler gossip, is to look at the actual real laws. These can be found on the IRS website, which hosts a “tax calculator.” I invite everyone to have a look at it; it’s fairly fast to use, and very authoritative. It can be found here: http://www.irs.gov...

This calculator works for the upcoming, post-Bush tax cuts year, meaning after January 1st, 2013. It will only take a moment, and anyone who looks at it will see that there is no $4000 tax hike coming. Since we are all aware of whether or not we have paid $4000 in extra taxes already, this calculator will help us to find out if we will begin to do so after the end of the Bush tax cuts next year. For those worried, I’ve good news: the sky is not falling. We will not lose 6% of our income after January 1, 2013. Rather than prove this with some liberal, pro-Obama blogs (to counter some conservative, anti-Obama blogs) I have decided to just use the IRS – look at it, use it, be reassured.

There may be some question remaining as to whether or not purchasing health insurance is identical to paying taxes. Now that we’ve a hard look at the cold institutional IRS website, we see that tale for what it is, as well. Our health insurance premiums will not be paid to the IRS. Health insurance is not a tax, regardless of what the greyfaced old men at the Supreme Court may pout. The health insurance that we purchase is ours – it does not belong to our Congress. The individual mandate will not be collected by the IRS, it will not be spent out by Congress, and reductions in our health care needs will not be considered “tax cuts.” The penalty will not be levied against the broad middle class, further. This penalty will reprove those scofflaws who wish to flaunt our system, and have us pay for their irresponsibility with our hard work.

At any rate, this penalty will only average about $600. The tax cuts awarded by the Affordable Care Act will average $5000. [1]

Seeds and stems

We are pretty much done here; our taxes will not increase by $4000, so speaketh the IRS. Health Insurance is not a form of taxation. The penalty for ignoring the law is a small fine, and ObamaCare provides bountiful tax cuts – tax cuts with which almost the entirety of our nation can afford health care for our middle class families. Also the poor families. (If a reader punches their figures into the IRS tax calculator, and then realizes that they do not earn the ‘middle class’ income… I encourage them to simply make something up.)

My final argument then, is:

Health Insurance is not a tax – it is a way to pay for health care costs which might otherwise be unaffordable. The penalty for not following the new rules are mild, just an average of $600 – but the tax cuts in ObamaCare are massive.

But, most importantly, taxes are not going up anywhere near $4000 – according to the IRS.

I ask our readers, as they evaluate our performances here, to please remember that I have not used any "pro-Obama" liberal blogs to support my case here. I used the IRS, who is bound by law to be as accurate as possible. (The average Bush tax cut for a middle class family was only around $1600 - not $4000.) This source simply cannot be refuted; these calculations are based on current law - not hypothetical. The figures are also for after January 1, 2013, after the Bush cuts are set to expire. That is, "unless congress acts, and makes the middle class cuts permanent" as the President is fond of saying over and over.

[1] http://thinkprogress.org...

[2] http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com...

Khaos_Mage

Pro

Thank you for this debate, it was entertaining and enlightening.

My opponent has been arguing a straw man for most of this debate. In his opening arguments, he addresses a rationale for the figure that is not mine, and in his closing arguments, he cites references that do not refute my claims. Even his IRS website calculator does not deal with these tax increases, as it isn't in the calendar year.

My claim is that Obama's failure to extend/make permanent the Bush tax cuts will raise taxes on the established middle class family by $1870, and Obamacare raises taxes by $2085, for a total of $3955. These tax increases, if they come to fruition, are indisputable. If they are prevented (like in this lame duck session), at the time the statement was made, it was still true.

My opponent likes to say that the Bush tax cuts' expiration aren't Obama's fault, but they are. Obama extended them for two years and wants to make them permanent for some. Therefore, the expiration date was his design, thus the tax hike will due to him, and yes, Bush is to blame as well.

Furthermore, the quote in question says the hike occurred under Obama, not that Obama legislated them. This is misleading, but factually true.

My opponent likes to think that since these increases occur later and/or are unlikely to occur, it is not fair to count them. Tell me, if Obama were to raise the retirement age to 80 effective in 2030, is that Obama's doing, or whoever is president then? It would be Obama's. However, if in 2030, the president decided to have it become effective in 2032, it is now both president's deal.

The tax increase from the Bush tax cuts are Obama's fault, in part, and are scheduled to occur on January 1.

The other tax increase is the mandate, and my opponent is correct in saying health insurance is not a tax and it doesn't go to the government, but that isn't the tax I am referring to. The tax increase is the individual mandate penalty, which has been ruled a tax by the Supreme Court.

By not having insurance, I will be taxed, thus this is a tax increase. If I don't want/need insurance, I will be taxed. The tax occurs because I, as a family, must have insurance or pay over $2,000 in taxes. The tax I calculated is the penalty, not any premiums that would be paid to avoid the tax. However, if taxes are raised, and I can avoid them, taxes were still raised.

There are tax cuts, but my opponent does not state them, so I cannot comment on their likelihood of affecting an average family. Regardless, if I raise taxes and increase credits/deductions so there is zero net effect, I still raised taxes, and if you don't qualify for those credits/deductions, your taxes definitely increased.

I have met my burden of proof, I have shown that the tax increases should be attributed to Obama (in addition to Bush), and my opponent has done little to challenge my claim, except by discrediting the claim as interpreted by others, but not my me. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I doubt seriously that you are an "idiot."

I have always placed "middle class" as earning around $35,000/year, doubling for couples, so our figures are close. I am fairly certain that a family will graduate from the middle income classification at around $250,000/ year, and fail to reach it if a family earns much under $30,000.

This is tragic. A family of four is considered to be "in poverty" if they earn less than I believe, $23,050 a year. The poverty level is a bare few paychecks higher than what passes for the population center of the middle class. I interpret these figures to mean that the middle class is almost extinct, having been swallowed up by multi generational poverty.

But I digress. We will debate the truthfulness of this ad over the next few days, and I look forward to it.
Posted by Khaos_Mage 4 years ago
Khaos_Mage
I am an idiot, I totally didn't see that the ad itself (and you stated) said middle class FAMILIES. I thought it only said the middle class.

We will be using my figures as, when I hear politicans use the word "family", this is what I think of, and often what they use to calculate things, in my experience.

So, Family equals married (which isn't too relevant for my argument) with two kids making the median married household income of $62,273.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
Thanks much.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Good luck. Of the "debate and argument" sites that I have found, this one is very decent. If I were to offer advice, I would suggest carefully reading and studying the debates of Stephen Hawkins (http://www.debate.org...) to learn more about the best ways to use the debate format here. Mr. Hawkins is a favorite of mine. The other debater that I would eagerly direct you to is Danielle, whose stunning intellect and mastery of this art is awe-inspiring. (http://www.debate.org...)
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
I may try a debate on it later. I'm new to DDO, trying to get my feet wet. (and so many topics to debate). At my age believe me, you know about this subject.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Ax, this is a line of logic that could be developed into something very interesting. Can you demonstrate that what you say is true somehow?
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
to be realistic, the definition of "tax" should include inflation since federal reserve money printing is effectively a hidden tax. Apply that tax to savings and earnings and you probably get $4 grand easy regardless of whether real taxes have changed.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I wonder why marital status would matter. Would taxes increase by $4000 only for those families who are married, never divorced, and earn $62,000 annually?
Posted by Khaos_Mage 4 years ago
Khaos_Mage
I will accept if we stipulate "middle class" to mean a nuclear family: 2 married adults with two children making the median wage of $62,273, the median for FAMILY incomes, not all households (which is $50,054).

Otherwise, give me a working definition for middle class.
http://www.census.gov...
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I also am on iPhone, and have embarrassed myself already with at least two unforgivable grammatical mistakes. So I understand the need to postpone detailed discussion; sadly a bit late.

All I want to examine here is a simple statement of fact: has President Obama, (or is President Obama likely to) raise taxes on middle income families by $4000?

My reasoning is simple; this debate will be contested at point-blank range. Either taxes have increased by $4000, or they have not. I maintain that they have not.

As for defending Governor Romney - I suppose that if he has made this statement as part of an attempt to deceive voters, then he cannot be defended logically. Therefore, I should admit to inadvertently poisoning the well somewhat. Rather than defending his conduct, perhaps simply defending his statement would suffice.
No votes have been placed for this debate.