Under Obama, a $4000 tax on the middle class

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.